How to deal with this situation?

Beginning of the challenge, I used two player actions trig twice Bronn's (L44) ability and paid 4 gold to select two characters. And then when i lost a military challege that claim value is 2, and my selected two characters would be killed. Can i stand Bronn once to instead them be killed? Or I must separately stand bronn twice to instead these characters be killed one by one. If i can not kneel Bronn after the first standing, i can not protect the second character.

which one is correct? thanks

Hmmm, this question made my head hurt for a moment. Bronn's ability sets up a replacement effect (killing the character is replaced with standing Bronn). In the FAQ replacement effects are defined to be passive effects. Also in the FAQ it states that whenever two or more passive effects initiate at the same time the first player chooses the order in which they are resolved. So when both characters are chosen for claim, the game will try to kill them both at the same time and Bronn's replacement effect will initiate for both at the same time. The first player would choose which of those two effects to resolve first. The resolution of that effect will stand Bronn and thus the second effect will not stop the second character from being killed (unless you have some kind of effect like Response: After a character stands, kneel that character to kneel Bronn again in between the two replacement effect resolutions).

schrecklich said:

There is no true conflict of passive effects here. If the replacement effect were a passive effect, it would have to wait until Step 4 - after claim was resolved and the characters killed in Step 3! Replacement effects are constant effects; "always on" and affecting the way other things resolve. They are more like "if it is Winter, characters get -1STR."

The conflicting passive effect also doesn't really apply here because it is not the replacement effect that is technically standing Bronn - it is the killing effect that does that. Only one effect is resolving - claim - on multiple characters. Since there aren't two, separate conflicting effects resolving here, there is technically nothing for the First Player to decide.

But ultimately, Bronn cannot stand twice, so the single kill effect looks more like "stand Bronn instead of killing A and kill B," which is more like a single effect that says "choose 2 characters; do A to one and B to the other." So think of those effects (eg, "choose 2 characters; stand 1 and kneel the other" or "choose 3 characters; one gets -1STR, one gets -2STR and the third gets -3STR"). Who chooses which character gets what in those? The controller of the effect, right? So in this case, I would argue that the controller of the replacement effect(s), not the First Player, gets to decide which character is replaced and which ends up dead.

schrecklich said:

Actually, there is no "unless" in this situation. A Response couldn't kneel Bronn between the claim effect killing the two characters because it "kills" both at the same time - long before a Response could be triggered. Even a passive effect (like "after Bronn stands, kneel Bronn") wouldn't kick in during the resolution of the single killing effect.

Hmm, the timing concerns worried me so I decided to check with Nate. Here is what he said:

"By using Bronn's ability twice, you are creating 2 lasting effects that will resolve passively whenever either of the target characters is killed.

If both are killed simultaneously, you have 2 passive effects that attempt to resolve simultaneously. In such situations, the first player determines the order of resolution.

So the first player will decide which effect resolves first, and Bronn will stand instead of killing that character.

For the second character, since Bronn can no longer stand to replace the kill effect, the character will die."

This question about Bronn's ability being in effect twice simultaneously and your point about there being no time to stand Bronn gets at something about the game's timing system that confuses me a little bit. The FAQ lays out a general structure of framework and player action windows with a general procedure for dealing with saves, cancels, passives and other responses, but it seems like some times responses/passives can initiate outside of this timing system. This Bronn situation seems like one example for passives. Another example for triggered responses: Ahead of the Tide has to be triggered in response to the initiative count, but usually responses to plots being revealed can not be triggered until after all "when revealed" plot effects and other passives have been made (at which point, it's way too late to win initiative). Following that example, it seems like if you had a response to Bronn standing you could trigger it between the resolution of the two passives after Bronn stood for the first passive, though I agree that the way the rules lay out the timing system you should wait until the challenge resolution framework action window gets to the appropriate time for responses.

schrecklich said:

Definitely the easy answer, and one that would be correct without question if it were two replacement effects trying to work on the same effect, but that's not technically the case here. It is two separate replacement effects trying to work on different targets of the same effect. But there is no point arguing the mechanics of it. If Nate rules that the First Player decides, that's the way it is.

schrecklich said:

I know it seems that way, but that is not what is happening. The replacement effects work as constant, "always on" effects - which are always outside of the timing system - rather than as passive effects. In fact, most passives that seem to happen outside of the timing system are actually constant effects with conditions.

That's why I am unhappy with Nate's explanation above of the mechanics in this particular example. By saying Bronn's lasting effect "resolves passively," instead of being a constant effect, he implies a point of initiation that would allow the replacement effect to be canceled. That point of initiation does not exist. You cannot cancel the application of a replacement effect.

schrecklich said:

Actually, Ahead of the Tide fits into the timing structure just fine. I think you may be missing two important details of the situation:

1. Framework events cycle through Steps 1-3 separately before moving on to common Steps 4-6 for all framework events.

2. Ahead of the Tide is a cancel effect. It cancels the initiative count and determines the winner of initiative as part of its own resolution.

The plot phase action window, with Ahead of the Tide, looks like this:

Step 1.1 - Initiate "Choose and reveal plots"
Step 2.1 - Save/Cancel opportunity to Choosing/Revealing plots
Step 3.1 - Resolve "Choose and reveal plots" (the new plots become the players' revealed plot cards, constant effect plots are active)

Step 1.2 - Initiate "Initiative is counted"
Step 2.2 - Save/Cancel opportunity to counting initiative: This is where Ahead of the Tide is played. It specifically cancels the initiative count, so this is actually the only place in the timing structure it can be played.
Step 3.2 - Resolve "Initiative is counted" (winner of initiative is officially determined; although with Ahead of the Tide, this winner was set in Step 2.2 with the resolution of the cancel event).

Step 1.3 - Initiate "High Initiative Player (or, more to the point, the winner of the initiative count determined in Step 3.2) appoints First Player"
Step 2.3 - Save/Cancel opportunity to appointing of First Player
Step 3.3 - Resolve "High Initiative Player appoints First Player" (Designated individual officiall becomes First Player)

Step 1.4 - Initiate "'When Revealed' Plot Text resolved in order determined by the First Player"
Step 2.4 - Save/Cancel opportunity to "When Revealed" text
Step 3.4 - Resolve "When Revealed" Text
NOTE: This particular set of Steps 1-3 is further clarified in a separate FAQ entry to take place in Step 4 of the action window as passive effects activated by revealing plots (Steps 1.1-3.1) that MUST be resolved before any other passive effects activated by anything in Steps 1.1 - 3.3). So all Steps 1.4-3.4 are technically the first steps 4.I-4.III in Step 4 of this framework window.

Step 4 - Passive effects: deal with all passive effects (in separate sub-steps 4.I - 4.III) activated by things that happened in Steps 1.1 - 3.4

Step 5 - Response effects: players trigger any appropriate Response to things that happened in Steps 1-4.

Step 6 - End (moribund cards removed from table)

That's the long version. The short version is that if Ahead of the Tide were a normal Response or passive, you'd be right in that the obvious intention does not fit into the timing structure. However, because it is specifically written as a cancel effect, which does allow you to interrupt other things, it fits just fine.

Thanks for the clarification regarding Ahead of the Tide. I hadn't appreciated the separate save/cancel opportunities for each event within a framework action window.

Regarding the replacement effect ruling, I would actually prefer the ruling you gave as it seems more intuitive to me. I come to AGoT with the rules of M:tG strongly ingrained into me and so the two parts of the rules I have most trouble with in AGoT are immunity (because it is different from protection in M:tG) and timing (because M:tG uses the stack). Because of my uncertainty, I tried to check my answer in the FAQ before my first post and that was how I came up with that ruling (which Nate mirrored).

The main problem as I see it is that the FAQ defines replacement effects as passive effects. It is debatable whether this should be the case. Replacement effects do take effect at specific times (whenever another effect that it is replacing should occur) like passive effects, but unlike passive effects replacement effects don't really do anything themselves - they just change how some other effect is carried out. If you do accept the ruling that replacement effects are passive effects, I think you are then led to using the ruling that the First Player decides on the order of resolving simultaneously passive effects. (To compare to M:tG...in that game, passives are called triggers and are always signaled by one of the words: "when," "whenever," or "at." They are thought of totally distinctly from replacement effects. I don't see what advantage the AGoT FAQ is gaining by grouping replacement effects with passive effects.)

schrecklich said:

I'll have to talk to Nate about that. As mentioned above, they act more like conditional constant effects than passive effects. They don't initiate "whenever another effect that it is replacing should occur" so much as the are always making the specified effect resolve in a different way.

A good rule of thumb is that passive effects usually happen at times like "after..." or "at the beginning...," constant effects with some sort of condition happen "when..." or "while..." something else is true.

And could actually accept the ruling even if they don't accept that replacement effects are passive effects. You really just have to accept that "The First Player decides the order in which conflicting passive effects resolve" translates, in practical terms, to "The First Player decides the order of all timing conflicts."

For example, say that I'm playing a Treaty with the Isles deck and use Bronn on Aeron Damphair ("If Aeron Damphair would be killed, instead search your deck for a non-unique Holy character with cost 3 or lower, put it into play, shuffle your deck, and put Aeron Damphair on the bottom of your deck"). Bronn is kneeling and Aeron is killed. There are two separate effects trying to replace the same kill. They both must be applied (just for the same character in this case; makes everything much clearer), and the order matters (because #1 replaces the original kill, then #2 replaces #1). It makes sense that the First Player would choose that order. In fact, I can see the ruling as it stands for the original example in that Bronn can only stand for 1 character, so the First Player decides which one he stands for (with the other being killed); I just saw the "1 effect resolving on 2 different characters in different ways" being more akin to the "multiple choice" effects than to a timing conflict.