1. There's two parts to this. The first is that if at any point there are no characters remaining in a challenge, it 'fizzles' and fails to resolve - leaving no winner or loser. The second is that in order to lose a challenge, the defender must have counted more strength than the attacker (normally), so a 0 vs 0 is not a 'loss', nor a 'win', even if there are characters participating.

2. Doran and Red Vengeance don't interact in any way, since they're only triggerable in opposing conditions (a player losing as the attacker or losing as the defender). If there were some situation in which they could both be triggered, Red vengeance would overwrite all other claim effects because it cancels the existing claim.

a) The attacker discards card equal to the claim on his own plot. Since he's still the winner (he's only satisfying claim as if he were the loser), Any locations/attachments discarded in this way can be put into play under the winner (the attacker's) control.
b) The attacker discards cards equal to the claim of the defender's plot card. Any locations/attachments discarded in this way can be put into play under the winner (the defender's) control.

3. The response window is small; you have to be in step V of whatever event triggered it. There are detailed timing charts in the FAQ, but suffice it to say that once you've 'resovled' something entirely (A player action or framework action and all the resulting passives/responses), the action window closes and the opportunity to trigger responses to anything that happened within it is over.

4. Since it doesn't say "Printed STR", it factors in any modifiers - both positive or negative.

5. The timing doesn't allow you to use it in a reactionary fashion, because it's an "Any Phase" ability (therefore a player action). The only way to protect a character from an event just triggered before it resolves is to use a save/cancel ability in Step II (again, see timing charts in the FAQ).There's a second sort of hidden question here, but make sure you read up on the "Scope of Immunity" in the FAQ - becoming immune to the effects of a lasting event after it has been applies to you does not 'cure' you of the event's effects.

6. All influence cost has to be payed in the same step ("pay costs"). There's no opportunity for player actions when paying costs, and all influence has to be knelt at the same time.

Thx for the answers so far!

1. There's two parts to this. The first is that if at any point there are no characters remaining in a challenge, it 'fizzles' and fails to resolve - leaving no winner or loser. The second is that in order to lose a challenge, the defender must have counted more strength than the attacker (normally), so a 0 vs 0 is not a 'loss', nor a 'win', even if there are characters participating.

That's too bad but i guess it would annoy the **** out of anyone participating against Martell. However is a challenge that "fizzeles" considered to be completed successfully or can i initiate another challenge of the same kind?

2. Doran and Red Vengeance don't interact in any way, since they're only triggerable in opposing conditions (a player losing as the attacker or losing as the defender). If there were some situation in which they could both be triggered, Red vengeance would overwrite all other claim effects because it cancels the existing claim.

a) The attacker discards card equal to the claim on his own plot. Since he's still the winner (he's only satisfying claim as if he were the loser), Any locations/attachments discarded in this way can be put into play under the winner (the attacker's) control.
b) The attacker discards cards equal to the claim of the defender's plot card. Any locations/attachments discarded in this way can be put into play under the winner (the defender's) control.

This is what i thought you might expect from it to happen but on CARD DB they argued that the plot effect would only trigger from a discard due a framework action. Since RV cancels the claim, thus the action as well, and Doran's ability being a passive one it sounds reasonable to me.

My reasoning for why RV functions the same is that since it cancels the claim and doesn't use instead, the resulting card discard (for an intrigue challenge) is a card effect and not a claim effect. Think of it as RV copies what ever effect claim would have been and lets you choose a player to fulfil it.

Another way to look at it is that B&E only affects cards discarded by the framework action of Intrigue challenges. RV cancels this framework action and then (by card effect) mirrors this claim but lets you choose who must satisfy it.

I'm not sure if Doran's ability alters the framework action so that the loser fulfills claim regardless of being the defender or not, or if it just counts as a passive. But if I had to guess, I'd go with passive and say that B&E wouldn't come into play.

And I have another question regarding Save/Cancel actions. I read some other threads here about that topic but they couldn't enlighten me. Can you try to save a character more then once? For example i have a character with a dupe and Lightbringer on him. Now i try to discard the dupe for military claim and it gets canceled by He Calls It Thinking. Could i now use Lightbringer to save the character? Would it make a difference if i try to use Lightbringer first and then the dupe?

1) No. You can only initiate one challenge of each type per turn, unless an effect specifically lets you initiate more than one.

2) It doesn't matter. You cannot play RV if the attacker loses, even if another effect forces the attacker to fulfill claim. So that card is out of the question. Doran just hits the losing attacker with claim, it doesn't make them the defender.

Now, if B&E is a revealed plot, and Doran is on the board, anyone who winds up having to fufill/satisfy the claim of an Intrigue challenge will be possibly putting cards into play under the control of the winner. If the defender loses and plays RV, then anything the attacker discards that B&E would apply to will be put into play under his own control, because he still won the challenge.

If the attacker loses and Doran hits him with claim, then the winning defender will reap the benefits of anything discarded that's applicable.

3) You have as many chances to save as you have different means to save. Each dupe creates a separate Response ability, so say you have a major Unique with double dupes and Lightbringer. Let's call him...Shtannish. Your opponent has Harrenhal and lots of weenies.

• Shtannish dies. Save with a dupe.
  • Opponent kills a weenie with Harrenhal to cancel it.
• Save with the other dupe.
  • Opponent kills a weenie with Harrenhal to cancel it.
• Save with Lightbringer.
  • Opponent kills a weenie with Harrenhal to cancel it.

Shtannish dies, but then you get 2 Prized power for Harrenhal and your opponent killed three of his warm bodies to make that happen.

That's too bad but i guess it would annoy the **** out of anyone participating against Martell. However is a challenge that "fizzeles" considered to be completed successfully or can i initiate another challenge of the same kind?

The challenge is considered to have been initiated successfully - and the rules say that you can only initiate one of each type per phase. So it never matters how the challenge ends when figuring out the limit, only that it was declared.

This is what i thought you might expect from it to happen but on CARD DB they argued that the plot effect would only trigger from a discard due a framework action. Since RV cancels the claim, thus the action as well, and Doran's ability being a passive one it sounds reasonable to me.

This is a very advanced piece of timing and not well understood in general, or obvious from the cards themselves.

The answer you got from cardgamedb.com is correct -- Breaking and Entering only works on cards that are discarded specifically for intrigue claim (ie, the resolution of the "challenge result is implemented" framework event in an intrigue challenge). So the question, as you already said, comes down to whether RV or Doran are actually the resolution of claim effects, or some other card effect. The wording of them makes it seem like they are claim effects because of the references to the other player fulfilling or satisfying the claim effect. However, you really need to look at the timing of them to be sure:

a) When RV is triggered and an opponent is chosen to "satisfy the claim" of that challenge, this is the event's effect resolving and making them discard cards, not the framework event for "challenge result is implemented." Heck, the first thing RV does is CANCEL the resolution of the claim effect, so that can't be what is resolving. So, Breaking and Entering will not work when Red Vengeance has been played .

b) Doran is trickier. On the one hand, his effect could be read as a continuous effect that modifies the way the framework claim effect is normally resolved. On the other hand, it could be read as a passive effect that initiates separately from the claim effect itself (after the rest of the resolution of the challenge). It's the "IF a player loses as the attacker..." rather than the clearer passive phrasing of "AFTER a player loses as the attacker..." that causes this confusion. However, the best interpretation of Doran is as a separate passive effect rather than a modification of the way the claim effect framework event resolves. If Doran's effect were a continuous, though conditional, modifier of claim, it would be a replacement effect. Replacement effects are always characterized by the word "instead," which Doran is lacking. (Compare his wording to that of Pyat Pree or the Prized Tyrion Lannister.) So, Breaking and Entering will not work when Doran Martell makes the losing attacker discard for an Intrigue challenge because he is a separate, independent passive effect, not a claim effect.

And I have another question regarding Save/Cancel actions. I read some other threads here about that topic but they couldn't enlighten me. Can you try to save a character more then once? For example i have a character with a dupe and Lightbringer on him. Now i try to discard the dupe for military claim and it gets canceled by He Calls It Thinking. Could i now use Lightbringer to save the character? Would it make a difference if i try to use Lightbringer first and then the dupe?

This topic gets confused quite often. I'll try to be clearer than the other threads:

You can only successfully save a character once for a particular effect. In your example, say that you discard the dupe and successfully save the character (it isn't canceled). You could NOT now use Lightbringer on the same character because the character is no longer in danger of being killed, which means the play restrictions for the "save attached character from being killed" effect are no longer being met. Some people confuse this "only one successful save" rule, thinking it means "only one attempted save."

You can also only use an individual response effect one time when its play restrictions are met (you'll usually hear this referred to as the "one response per trigger" rule). It's what stops something like Prized Robert Baratheon ("Response: After you win a challenge in which a prized character participated, Robert Baratheon claims 1 power.") from being triggered 15 times and winning the game after a single challenge. What this means is that you can use as many different saves as you need on a single character (until it is successfully saved), but if a save card is canceled, you cannot use that same card a second time (although you could use a card with the same title on the character since they would be considered different save effects). Some people confuse this "one attempt per Response effect" rule, thinking it means "one attempt to save a character" as well.

Edit:
Well, when my answer and Ktom's contradict each other, go with Ktom. That said, I'd like to justify my answer and have Ktom clear it up for me as well. Following the Pyatt Pree/Blackwood Elite rulings, we're quite confident that, as the rulebook states, the only way to know what "Int Claim" means is "The claim during an intrigue challenge". It appears that you're extending that to be "the (Framework) claim during an intrigue challenge" in order to include Pyatt, but exclude the timing of RV or Doran. I can understand that if we're saying that "a card effect which forces you to satisfy claim is not the same as game effect which forces you to satisfy claim"... but I'm not sure I like that at all. Is there a specific reason why we wouldn't treat all claim effects during an Int challenge as "Intrigue claim" for the purpose of other card effects?

Cards to keep in mind: Double Bluff/Twist of Fate (shouldn't interact with B&E at all?)

Note: I'm also unconvinced on the timing of Doran, for the If/After reason you state. Surely the lack of "instead" can be explained by the fact that it's not replacing something specific (what is it instead of? the answer to that is the negation "Instead of the losing attacker not satisfying claim", which doesn't have specfici timeing either!).

Beaten to the punch:
For your last question (re Saves) - you can attempt to save a character multiple times, although you can only succeed once. Since you probably don't want to "Spend" the dupe unless you need to, it would make more sense to use the otherwise re-usable lightbringer first.

The catch is that you can't use the *same* effect to save a character twice (under the 1 response per card per trigger "rule"). That means that if your only save is an Iron Cliffs and you try to save Asha, it gets cancelled, you cannot use the second gold on Iron Cliffs to save Asha 'again'.

Note that each dupe is a separate card, so you can use multiple dupes (sequentially) to attempt to save a character from the same effect.

Wtfpwned by Ktom yet again.

As the bumper sticker says, oh god, not another learning experience...

Edit:

Well, when my answer and Ktom's contradict each other, go with Ktom. That said, I'd like to justify my answer and have Ktom clear it up for me as well. Following the Pyatt Pree/Blackwood Elite rulings, we're quite confident that, as the rulebook states, the only way to know what "Int Claim" means is "The claim during an intrigue challenge". It appears that you're extending that to be "the (Framework) claim during an intrigue challenge" in order to include Pyatt, but exclude the timing of RV or Doran. I can understand that if we're saying that "a card effect which forces you to satisfy claim is not the same as game effect which forces you to satisfy claim"... but I'm not sure I like that at all. Is there a specific reason why we wouldn't treat all claim effects during an Int challenge as "Intrigue claim" for the purpose of other card effects?

I don't deny that it is confusing. And I don't deny that the wording of "satisfying" or "fulfilling" claim invites a different interpretation. I don't fault anyone who looks at it the way Istaril originally described it, and wouldn't be totally surprised if FFG ruled on the issue in a way that agrees with him.

All I'm saying is that with what we have now, the timing needs to be considered. And that the same words can have different interactions depending on the timing involved. It's like Hidden Chambers working for "bringing a card out of Shadows" by the Shadows mechanic, but not for "bringing a card out of Shadows" with a triggered effect.

Note: I'm also unconvinced on the timing of Doran, for the If/After reason you state. Surely the lack of "instead" can be explained by the fact that it's not replacing something specific (what is it instead of? the answer to that is the negation "Instead of the losing attacker not satisfying claim", which doesn't have specfici timeing either!).

You'd be replacing the "normal claim effect" of having the losing defender fulfill it with having the losing attacker fulfill it. Having a losing attacker fulfill claim is not the "normal" claim effect, so you are creating a replacement effect of what is "normal."

Thx at all for the insights. Hope that will reduce the discussions in our group, atleast for a while.