Okay I can't seem to find my insert from my Spoils pack.

Question about prized. How exactly does it get claimed, I know if a character goes to dead or discard it triggers, but is it "leaves play" cause if so then would that include returning to shadows.

Also like The Hound that returns to the deck instead of discard or dead.. does that bypass prized?

1. It is when "killed or discarded from play" for characters, locations and attachments. It is when played for events and when put in the used pile for plots.

So there's no prize claim if a prize character leaves play, but is not killed or discarded - e.g. with Called To Court / Coldhands etc?

Correct.

If it helps, look at it this way: Prized is activated by the same things that would activate Stalwart. If a Stalwart card in the same situation would not go to the top of the deck, the Prized character will not give opponents power.

About prized, i read that prized keyword said that when a owner of a prized card go to discard or dead pile your oponent gets the prize power, if i use quiburn and take a oponent´s prized character from his dead pile and use that character to pay Militar claim, I get the power of that prized character? i understand he is the owner and i his oponent.

No.

Prized, like all other text that doesn't specifically say otherwise, is read from the point of view of the controller. So when a Prized card is killed or discarded, the opponents of the card's controller get the power. This means that if another player takes control of a Prized card, the card's owner will claim power for Prized if the card is killed or discarded while under the other player's control.

At the end of the action window in which it was killed or discarded, the Prized card then goes to its owner's dead or discard pile accordingly - just like non-Prized cards do.

Okay Ktom you've given a pretty good explanation but based on your response I would assume that the hound in question would NOT trigger prized.

The Hound I'm talking about is the one in Where Loyalty Lies, and the wording is

"If The Hound would be killed, instead shuffle him back into your deck"

My understanding is that "instead" of the hound being killed, he is shuffled back into the deck,

therefore he isn't killed or discarded. Or am I just still wishful thinking? lol

My understanding is that "instead" of the hound being killed, he is shuffled back into the deck,

therefore he isn't killed or discarded. Or am I just still wishful thinking? lol

Well, think of it this way: You lose a military challenge and you choose The Hound to die for military claim. He is shuffled back into your deck. According to your reasoning here, since he is shuffled back into your deck and "therefore isn't killed," doesn't that mean you haven't killed anyone for claim yet and so still need to?

The Hound's "instead shuffle him back into your deck" text is a replacement effect. He is still considered "killed" - and passives and responses are triggered for him being killed - but you "replace" putting him in the dead pile (as a result of being killed) with shuffling him into your deck (still as a result of being killed). Since he is still considered "killed," Prized will initiate.

Thanks, That does make it a lot clearer..

Although to be honest reading the wording of it all I would (before this thread) believe that in that example, you could name the hound for military claim and choose to kill him. but because "instead of killing shuffle into your deck", I would contest that he was selected for military claim and was set to die so that would go off fine, but because "instead of killing" I would debate on whether someone would be able to use Harrenhal (for example) because no one actually died.

Similiar reasoning to the concept of saving. You can choose a character for military claim and then save him. So chosen for death but instead of being killed the character may remain on the table. That's kind've how I thought this mechanic on the hound would've worked.

I guess I'm still hung up on how they choose the wording, "instead of being killed" would imply that the the killing doesn't take place, similiar to if he was being saved, just instead of being kept in play put into the deck lol.

"Save" is preventing the kill effect from killing the character. The kill effect was not successful due to the save.

"instead of being killed" still considers the kill effect to be successful, and therefore still applies as the character being killed for the purposes of triggering responses and passive effects. It should not be treated as a cancel or a save because those prevent the effects from being successful.

Effects that trigger off of a character being killed really mean "was the kill effect successful?". This is why a replacement effect for these really only changes the moribund destination of the card and does not change what actually was done to the card.

I guess I'm still hung up on how they choose the wording, "instead of being killed" would imply that the the killing doesn't take place, similiar to if he was being saved, just instead of being kept in play put into the deck lol.

The card doesn't actually say "instead of being killed." The text is, "If The Hound would be killed, instead shuffle him back into your deck."

While I see where you're equating that with "instead of being killed" from a sentence structure point of view, within the context of the game's timing structure (i.e., you cannot "retroactively" change an effect that initiated as a "kill" into one that initiate as a "shuffle into deck"), the proper interpretation is "instead of putting him in the dead pile , shuffle him back into your deck."

If the card actually said, "If The Hound would be killed, shuffle him back into your deck instead of killing him ," then yeah, the effect would change from a "kill" effect into a "shuffle" effect.

Awesome,

Thanks a lot for the input guys