So here's the question I would ask you: We agree that with Distraction, there has to be a target available for successful resolution and it must be chosen. So, if I have no characters with an INT icon and you have both standing and kneeling characters with an INT icon, do you have to choose a standing one for successful resolution - like in the Distraction scenario? That is, can the fact that I played the event force you to choose the standing character because of the need for successful resolution where possible? And if that's the case, since I choose my target first, if I choose a target that cannot kneel successfully, are you required to if you have one?

I think we're at the same point, but coming up with different solutions.

My interpretation is that the person triggering the event is required to choose targets in support of a successful resolution (applying the same reasoning for Cyvasse that I would for Distraction) in order to trigger the effect in the first place. I say the FAQ entry requires the person triggering the effect to both have a path to successful resolution and to take it. If the path requires someone else to do something, they don't really have a path because you cannot force another player to take a particular option when they are given a choice.

Your interpretation is that the person triggering the event is not required to choose targets in support of successful resolution provided that there is some possibility that a target could be chosen by someone in support of successful resolution. So long as they have a path to successful resolution, they aren't required to take it. To me, that says I can either choose a kneeling character for Distraction, so long as there is a standing one, or that in some situations, other players are required to support my interests instead of their own.

Hope that helps clarify what I think some of the issues are for your email to FFG.

Your interpretation is that the person triggering the event is not required to choose targets in support of successful resolution provided that there is some possibility that a target could be chosen by someone in support of successful resolution. So long as they have a path to successful resolution, they aren't required to take it. To me, that says I can either choose a kneeling character for Distraction, so long as there is a standing one, or that in some situations, other players are required to support my interests instead of their own.

Hope that helps clarify what I think some of the issues are for your email to FFG.

Note: I understand that the new FAQ entry is about at least part of the effect resolving successfully. Just want to make that clear based on some of my comments below.

We've gone back and forth a bit already, but I just want to make it clear that I do not agree with your interpretation of Distraction based on my interpretation of the FAQ entry. There is only one player choosing a target and that is the player of that event. There is nothing else influencing the possibility of the effect successfully resolving like there is with Game of Cyvasse with the other opponent's that are choosing targets. In my opinion, the FAQ entry is not adding a new targeting play restriction. It's asking you to see if, based on the chosen targets or game state, there is the possibility of the effect successfully resolving(at least partially).

This is not the same thing as having eligible targets. An eligible target is a character with an INT icon. Once we have eligible targets, you check to see if the effect has a chance to resolve successfully. The problem at this point is that you have no way to know that an opponent is going to choose a character that the effect can be successfully applied to in step f . Therefore, there is still the possibility for the effect to successfully resolve.

Since it's impossible to trigger the effect after the opponent chooses their targets, they become that unknown variable that allows the effect the possibility of successfully resolving. In Distraction, there is nothing like that because the target you choose must then be checked for the possibility of successfully resolving the effect. In this case it is the ability to kneel. In Janos Slynt's case, there isn't a target, so you are checking for a different effect being possible to resolve.

So, in summary, the new play restriction isn't necessarily an added eligible target play restriction. It's a blanket "is it possible that the effect can at least partially resolve successfully". This is why I think that you aren't forced to choose anything more than an INT character to trigger this effect as long as the opponent has a character that is available to being chosen and knelt for this effect, you are not bound to force the effect resolve successfully. "if able" doesn't mean you must force the event to successfully resolve by your own choices just in case the opponent does not.

Hopefully I will hear back from FFG on this because it would help set a precedent on effects like these, considering this is one of our more complicated events. I will post the question and answer once I receive them as I didn't grab a copy of my wall of text that I sent to them.

To be honest, I didn't read all of these walls of text but I did skim through and it seems what started this longer debate with Cyvasse has a slightly wrong context. Playing Cyvasse is the only cost of the event. After the card is played, all players choose a character they control with an INT icon. Kneel that character. Then their STR's are checked to see who won the game.

So eligible targets isn't really part of playing the card. Your opponent doesn't need to have any INT icons at all to play the event. The event is played, characters with INT icons are chosen if able. Since this isn't part of the initiation it is part of the effect, which can be successful provided at least 1 character on the board has an INT icon.

The chosen characters are knelt. The successfully knelt characters check their STR to see who wins the last effect of the event.

To me, the only thing the new FAQ entry did was say you have to have an INT icon available on the board before you can play the event.

All it takes is SlothGodFather to come in here to chime in. I think I actually agree with you. The event effect itself is having each player attempt to kneel an INT character. The only play restriction really is that it has to be the Challenges phase. Otherwise, would one be unable to trigger Westeros Bleeds if no characters could be discarded?

Finally I wrote a short and simple post.

The same could be asked about Lethal Counter attack. What if Power of Blood is revealed and your opponent only attacks with a noble character. Lets also say that Valar Doharis is revealed, so we have a reason for wanting to kneel characters anyways.

If I can't kill any of the attackers, can I still use Lethal Counter Attack?

Before this FAQ entry people were legitimately trying to break things. Always trying to find some way to go beyond the intention of what a card effect is for. Standing Osha as a cost for an effect that can't resolve, etc. While the rules are screwball sometimes, I really hate the hand holding that FFG has to do to try to get us to "play by the rules". and by that I guess I mean to obvious intent of the cards.

But, as a community, I guess most do want the rules all ironed out in the most explicit fashion possible. The trouble there is when they try to fix the issue of players actively trying to break things, they unintentionally break things themselves.

So now we know we can't trigger an effect that doesn't at least have some partial resolution - so only stand Osha when she is in a challenge. But because that somehow wasn't clear enough to begin with, they had to make this rule. We simply traded one problem for another.

Otherwise, would one be unable to trigger Westeros Bleeds if no characters could be discarded?

Yes. If there are no characters in play that can be discarded, you cannot play Westeros Bleeds just to get the card out of your hand or to kneel 4 influence. There is no possibility that anything will happen when the event resolves, so you cannot trigger it - according to the FAQ 5.0.

The same could be asked about Lethal Counter attack. What if Power of Blood is revealed and your opponent only attacks with a noble character.

Again, no. According to FAQ 5.0, there is no possibility that anything will happen when the event resolves, so you cannot trigger it.

Lets also say that Valar Doharis is revealed, so we have a reason for wanting to kneel characters anyways.

You have a reason to want the characters knelt for cost, but having a reason to want them knelt is not the same as there being a possibility of successful resolution. I certainly have a reason for wanting Janos to be standing - but I still can't trigger him if I'm at draw cap and there is thus no possibility for me to draw a card, right?

While the rules are screwball sometimes, I really hate the hand holding that FFG has to do to try to get us to "play by the rules". and by that I guess I mean to obvious intent of the cards.

Amen.

So now we know we can't trigger an effect that doesn't at least have some partial resolution - so only stand Osha when she is in a challenge. But because that somehow wasn't clear enough to begin with, they had to make this rule. We simply traded one problem for another.

The problem here is more one of targeting that whether or not the new rule is clear enough. And it all builds on the fact that people try to find loopholes. The thing is, this is a pretty big loophole.

The Distraction example is the clearest way I know how to say it. If all the characters with MIL icons are the board are kneeling, there is no possibility of a successful resolution and I can't trigger it. Period. But if there is just one standing MIL icon I can trigger it - and choose a MIL icon that is already kneeling to get the same result that, anticipating it, didn't allow me to play the event.

When dealing with immunity and "cannot be...", the fact that an effect can't affect the card also means it is not a legal target for that effect. I don't see why that couldn't carry through with the FAQ 5.0 entry - although it doesn't say that, so I probably shouldn't assume it.

So (in other words) I can't play Westeros Bleeds if all characters in play are immune to events?

I've always actually been somewhat bothered by the distinction there (does it matter whether WB said "Discard Each" or "Discard All", specifically if you have an immune to events character in play?).

So (in other words) I can't play Westeros Bleeds if all characters in play are immune to events?

All characters are immune to events? Then no. But if even one is not, you're fine.

I've always actually been somewhat bothered by the distinction there (does it matter whether WB said "Discard Each" or "Discard All", specifically if you have an immune to events character in play?).

Does it bother you on Valar, too?

Since the effect doesn't target anything, there is no practical distinction between "discard each" and "discard all" because the "resolve as much as you can" rule kicks in and lets you discard fewer that "all." It's no different than being allowed to trigger a "draw 2" effect for 1 card when you have already drawn 2 of your 3 cards.

FFG still has not gotten back to me about my Game of Cyvasse/"if able" rules clarity request that I submitted. Maybe someone else would like to try?

I don't really like it either Alex. Unfortunately, a blanket ruling had to be made just to keep stupid interactions from being possible. Not sure how much this rule will be enforced when a player makes the attempt under the assumption the triggered effect will actually do something only to find out that the remaining characters that were out couldn't be discarded due to immunity or something. This means that player can't mess up in that situation and waste an effect or card in doing so.

Honestly I think this is just a matter of poor sentence structure in light of a new ruling. Cyvasse is probably meant to be read like this now:

"Each player must choose a character they control with an Intrigue icon if able. Kneel those characters. Then..."

The 'if able' is probably in the wrong spot.

Subsequently, picking characters would be a part of the initiation of the effect (not the effect itself). If the initiation results in no effect happening, the initiation is rescinded. This meshes with the Distraction initiation as well. You have an invalid initiation that results in the initiation being rescinded.

I think this is actually a new question. If I initiate an effect with a dependency on another player for a possibility of successful resolution, what happens when the initiation results in no viable successful resolution?

Edit: If I were a TO and a Martell player attempted to play the card and no viable targets were selected I'd tell them to put the card back in their hand. That's the letter of the law at the moment. The initiation resulted in no possibility of the effect resolving and as such the card could not be played. It's a weird outlier where you're giving information away, but it's technically right.

Edit: If I were a TO and a Martell player attempted to play the card and no viable targets were selected I'd tell them to put the card back in their hand. That's the letter of the law at the moment. The initiation resulted in no possibility of the effect resolving and as such the card could not be played. It's a weird outlier where you're giving information away, but it's technically right.

I don't think you can do that. The only way you can really do that is if there were NO viable targets available. You can't start to initiate an effect and then "undo" it just because the opponent did not choose a target.

In fact, this is a big part of my debate with ktom. An effect is allowed to not result in anything, but cannot initiate if you know for a fact that it will do nothing.

Also, FFG still hasn't gotten back to me on this subject.

Edit: If I were a TO and a Martell player attempted to play the card and no viable targets were selected I'd tell them to put the card back in their hand. That's the letter of the law at the moment. The initiation resulted in no possibility of the effect resolving and as such the card could not be played. It's a weird outlier where you're giving information away, but it's technically right.

I don't think you can do that. The only way you can really do that is if there were NO viable targets available. You can't start to initiate an effect and then "undo" it just because the opponent did not choose a target.

Yeah. You play the event only to find that you can't play the event? We usually see rulings to avoid that kind of paradox.

That said, a TO can rule any way he wants at his own tourney. You really shouldn't contradict the rules/cards completely, but in grey areas like this, the TO certainly has the prerogative.

In fact, this is a big part of my debate with ktom. An effect is allowed to not result in anything, but cannot initiate if you know for a fact that it will do nothing.

Also, FFG still hasn't gotten back to me on this subject.

Well, a passive or continuous "effect" may still be allowed to result in nothing during resolution, but it is entirely consistent with the "Janos ruling" that a triggered effect is not. If so, the ruling would also impact target eligibility in a way that ensures some successful resolution. I'd say that's the gist of the debate.

My guess is that FFG hasn't gotten back to you because they are truly analyzing it, trying to make sure they only have to answer once, rather than throwing out a ruling that they later have to recant. (~Cause that certainly hasn't happened. Recently.)

Haha. I actually meant Triggered Effect.

Edit: If I were a TO and a Martell player attempted to play the card and no viable targets were selected I'd tell them to put the card back in their hand. That's the letter of the law at the moment. The initiation resulted in no possibility of the effect resolving and as such the card could not be played. It's a weird outlier where you're giving information away, but it's technically right.

I don't think you can do that. The only way you can really do that is if there were NO viable targets available. You can't start to initiate an effect and then "undo" it just because the opponent did not choose a target.

In fact, this is a big part of my debate with ktom. An effect is allowed to not result in anything, but cannot initiate if you know for a fact that it will do nothing.

Also, FFG still hasn't gotten back to me on this subject.

Oh I agree it's a terrible way to handle it, but it illustrates the point that there is no way to handle it. As Ktom said, they probably actually are assessing it. This example is going to be the precedent of a whole lot of possibilities going forward. They have to get that answer right.

I could say take it back. Another TO might say discard it. But the real problem is at the point of initiation. The TO can only handle the issue once he's called over, but the problem comes BEFORE calling the TO over. Therefore the ruling must be clear to players. The clarity to the TO is irrelevant (for the most part).

Let's take this example:

Player 1 accuses player 2 of trying to play Game of Cyvasse illegally to de-activate Tywin.

*Edit: Player 1 has a standing Tywin and a knelt Tyrion. Player 2 has no characters with an intrigue icon*

What do you do as TO?

I can only think of two solutions. Either the TO agrees and forces the player to put it back in their hand or they don't. There-in is the crux of the actual issue (assuming the 'if able' is a part of the initiation). I was just trying to narrow it down as I felt that it hadn't been discussed.

I don't have a problem with a TO ruling something was played illegally and telling them to return the card to their hand. That is fine. The problem I had with your previous scenario is that you were suggesting to return the card to the players hand based on a decision the opponent makes. That is something you cannot do unless the card was illegally played in the first place.

The play has to be illegal before you play the card. It cannot be illegal just because the opponent chooses an option that makes the card resolve unsuccessfully.

Errr, but per Ktom isn't the play illegal before you play the card? My scenario is dependent on the opponent choosing an option that makes the card fail to resolve, which is what Ktom was indicating as making the play illegal as far as I could tell.

Which is why I interpreted the rule as compelling the person triggering the event to choose a target (the first target chosen for Cyvasse, I might add) that would allow for successful resolution - i.e., something that will successfully kneel. Otherwise, you end up with this kind of paradox.

There is no paradox if the rule does not compel target choice, which is how Bomb interprets it, but you do end up with the logically unsatisfying result that the effect resolves in such a way that should have made it illegal to trigger.

And my interpretation is based on the term "possibility" in the FAQ entry. In this case it is possible for the effect to still resolve successfully because the opponent can still choose a target that can kneel. If you do not know it will resolve unsuccessfully, then it could still be triggered. I just don't agree that the triggerer of the effect must ensure it resolves successfully if there is a possibility it will still resolve successfully regardless of the target chosen(because the opponent could choose a target that can kneel and you can't guarantee that).

I am also not entirely convinced this particular effect is choosing targets during initiation(like Sloth suggested). The entire effect may be the target selection because it involves both players choosing targets. I'll let ktom rip that idea apart though.

Hopefully FFG gets back to me eventually though.

I talked to Nate last night and he confirmed what ktom said. In order to initiate Game of Cyvasse, you must kneel a character you control with an INT icon.

I don't have any documentation but this was all verbal during the DC draft event weekend.

Hope this confirms it for everyone!

So it sounds like the "possibility of successful resolution" rule should be understood as imposing target restrictions where necessary. Good to know.

Couple of queries:

Can I still kneel a location to reduce the cost of something, even if I do not have suitable cards in my hand to marshal - does the restriction only apply when dealing with known cards

Is there a conflict between having to be able to resolve something and instances where the action is automatically cancelled - e.g. River Blockade cancels the first triggered location effect so technically, if I try to trigger a location effect am I trying to trigger something that I know is impossible to resolve?

A) The "successful or not" question is a play restriction. Play restrictions are always based on known information only. Any way, by kneeling the location, you successfully reduce the cost of the next card. Whether or not you successfully play that card (with a reduced cost) is a question that you deal with when you play that card - not when you resolve the reducer. This rule doesn't let you look "downstream" to the potential success of things that haven't even been initiated yet.

B) Cancels are not considered when determining the potential success of an effect. It says that right in the rule. Otherwise, the Blockade would essentially mean "no triggered location effects each round," right?

Still having problems with the correct implementation of the new 3.6 occasionally. Can you play The Only Game That Matters even if all currently participating characters have Intrigue icons?

Yes. You can.

Think of this example: Say I have an event that says "Challenges: Choose a participating character to gain stealth until the end of the challenge." After defenders are declared, I play this event and choose a defender to gain stealth. Can I do that under 3.6? Sure - because the character successfully gains stealth, which is all the event does. Now, it's clearly too late for that character to get any practical benefit from gaining stealth, but that "downstream" lack of practical effect for that character gaining stealth doesn't change the success or failure of the event granting the character stealth. The later, ineffective impact of the event doesn't mean that the event itself resolved unsuccessfully.

The Only Game That Matters works in a similar way to that example. It's successful resolution means that a condition is placed on the characters participating in that challenge regarding their contribution to challenge STR during resolution. That condition is successfully created when the event resolves, no matter what characters are currently participating. The fact it might later prove to have no practical impact on the challenge does not mean the event resolved unsuccessfully.

tl:dr - The Only Game That Matters successfully "loads the gun" whether anyone is eventually shot or not.

Thanks! Pretty much what I figured, but I felt I could do with an explanation from you.