Hi everybody,

i just saw the new spoiler for Calm over Westeros: Venegeance for Elia. That card reads

Martell loyal, Event, 2 Gold

Interrupt: When claim is applied for a challenge in which you are the defending player, choose an opponent. That player must satisfy the normal claim effect instead of you as if he or she were the defending player.

Now i am wondering how this interacts with claim replacement, e.g. Seastone Chair or Mirri Maz Duur.

Short version: Is Vengeance for Elia Claim replacement or not?

Long version:

Situation 1: The attacking (and winning player) is first player.

So the attacking player triggers let's say Seastone Chair and the defending player wants to play Vengeance for Elia.

What happens?

a) The defending player can't play Vengeance for Elia since the "normal claim effect" was replaced. Therefore it has no target or wouldn't change the game state.

b) The defending player is allowed to play VfE. The attacking player has to satisfy the normal claim effect. The defending player has to satisfy no claim.

c) The defending player is allowed to play VfE.No player has to satisfy claim.

d) The defending player is allowed to play VfE. Both players have to satisfy claim.

My comment: If VfE counts as Replacement Effect for the claim I guess the case is settled and b) is correct with page 18 of the Rules Reference. But in my opinion it VfE does not replace the claim but targets another player.

Situation 2: The defending (and losing player) is first player.

So the defending player triggers VfE and the attacking player wants to trigger let's again say Seaston Chair.

What happens?

a) The attacking player can't trigger SC since he is the target of the claim.

b) The attacking player can trigger SC. The defending player has to satisfy claim. The attacking player has to satisfy no claim.

c) The attacking player can trigger SC. No player has to satisfy claim.

d) The attacking player can trigger SC. Both players have to satisfy claim.

My comment: Same as for Situation 1.

The more I think about it the more i find myself confused. I would be happy if someone could help me with this!

Short version: Yes, Vengeance for Elia is claim replacement, because it uses the word "instead".

Long version. Option b is correct for both, but I'll add that

1) If Seastone Chair is triggered after Vengeance for Elia, the claim effect applied is that of Seastone Chair (with the losing player as the defending player).

2) In both scenarios, the first player is allowed to pass on interrupting claim. If the opponent uses an interrupt, the first player can then use their own. If the opponent also passes, interrupts for claim are over and normal claim is applied (so a visible claim replacement can act as a deterrent another claim replace, visible or suspected).

Thanks for your answer and for pointing out 2)!

For reference:

Replacement Effects (RRG, p. 18):

If multiple replacement effects are initiated against the same triggering condition, the most recent replacement effect is the one that is used for the resolution of the triggering condition.

I hate to add additional clarity, but this means that any previously used replacement effects are effectively ignored since the last successfully resolved replacement effect is the only one that is used.

Is a Trial by Combat also a claim replacement?

So when I play Trail by Combat (after I win a INT challenge), but then my opponent plays Vengeance for Elia, do I must satisfy the INT claim effects?

(I assume yes, because replacement done by Trial by Combat is ignored)

Yes, Trial by Combat uses "instead", so it's a replacement effect. In your scenario, you must randomly discard a number of cards (the normal intrigue claim effect) equal to your own claim (assuming you were the target of VfE - obviously the case in joust), considering yourself as the defending player.