I don't think it has changed anything, but wanted to double check.

From FAQ 3.6:

Consider Penny, who has the text:

Challenges: Kneel Penny to choose a character without attachments. The controller of that character chooses to either kneel that character or choose and discard 1 card from his or her hand.

Can the opponent still choose to discard a card from their hand, even if they have no hand in order to keep their character standing?

I still think it is yes, because the effect of the card is actually just to choose a character without attachments, which was successful. The additional effect allows the opponent to pick one of the options but isn't worded in a way to ensure that choice is successful.

Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that, but in the end yes, the controller of the chosen card can still choose an option that leads to an unsuccessful resolution.

Short version : I have to do everything I can (choose targets and/or resolution options) to make my own triggered effects successful, but I don't have to do anything (choose targets and/or resolution options) to make anyone else's triggered effects successful.

The update to 3.6 says that the person triggering the effect must choose targets in such a way that the resolution will be successful. So, for example, if I play Game of Cyvasse, I must be able to choose and successfully kneel a character with an intrigue icon that I control (or else I can't play it). But my opponents can choose characters with intrigue icons that are already kneeling if they want. FAQ entry 3.6 doesn't place any requirements on players who are not triggering an effect.

So FAQ 3.6 works with Penny only by placing limits on Penny's controller. THAT player must choose a character for which there could be some successful resolution. That is, Penny's controller can't choose a character that is already kneeling whose controller had no cards in hand (and why would you?) because then you'd know that nothing was going to happen. But if Penny's controller chooses a standing character controlled by a player with no cards, or a kneeling character controlled by a player with a fistful of cards, that player is under no obligation to make another player's triggered effect resolve successfully and can choose the resolution option that would be unsuccessful.

Thanks ktom. That's what I thought was the outcome, but just wanted to double check.

Shield Islands Dromon, The Kindly Man, we never knew ye.

I assume you mean "Sorrowful Man"?

Check the errata on those. They don't work the way Penny does.

Would the controller of Penny be able to select a character controlled by a player who has Laughing Storm in play and standing

I could possibly control both Penny and LS and for some bizarre reason what to force myself to kneel a character!

Would the controller of Penny be able to select a character controlled by a player who has Laughing Storm in play and standing

So FAQ 3.6 works with Penny only by placing limits on Penny's controller. THAT player must choose a character for which there could be some successful resolution.

TLS blocks the "discard" option, but not the "kneel" option. So Penny's controller could choose a standing character controlled by someone with TLS.

I assume you mean "Sorrowful Man"?

Check the errata on those. They don't work the way Penny does.

Yes, correct, Sorrowful Man.

The errata on those specifically is what makes me shake my head. Per your answer above, you're under no obligation to grant a successful effect to your opponent, but those two cards got errata specifically to say, you must choose an option available to you. The mind boggles.

(Granted they suck without errata, so that's all well and good, I'm just nonplussed that some cases fall one way, some another.)

I assume you mean "Sorrowful Man"?

Check the errata on those. They don't work the way Penny does.

Yes, correct, Sorrowful Man.

The errata on those specifically is what makes me shake my head. Per your answer above, you're under no obligation to grant a successful effect to your opponent, but those two cards got errata specifically to say, you must choose an option available to you. The mind boggles.

(Granted they suck without errata, so that's all well and good, I'm just nonplussed that some cases fall one way, some another.)

If Penny forced the opponent to choose something that must be successful, then she'd be even more amazing than she already is at 1 cost.

The errata was clearly surgical with designer's intent behind them. Penny appears to have been intentionally left off of this errata and likely for the reason I just mentioned.

It probably doesn't help that many of us were playing the game when these errata's were made, so it's incredibly easy to remember that they left Penny alone(as she was a topic of discussion at the time the errata was made to the other two cards).