I'm looking for clarification since I've seen this done both ways. (In the same game even!) When a card says "do X, if able. Then, Y" Does all of the criteria for X have to be met for Y to occur? Or can only parts of X occur and then you forge ahead to Y?

From the FAQ

(4.9) The word "then"
If a card has multiple effects, all effects on the card are resolved, if possible, independently of whether any other effects of the card are successful, with the following important exception:

If a card uses the word "then," then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to be resolved.

Take for example the card You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf (CORE L167):

" Any phase: Choose and kneel a non- {character, Then, that character claims 1 power."

In this example, because of the use of the word "then," claiming power on the character is dependent upon that character first kneeling. In other words, the ard cannot be played on an already-kneeling character to claim power for that character. By contrast, the card Cersei Lannister (CORE L39) does not use the word "then," and its effects are not dependent on one another:

So for Game of Cyvasse both players must be able to kneel a character with an intrigue icon for the winner to return a player to the hand effect.

The way I read that is. Only players who were able to kneel a card would 'then' be compared to see who gets to choose a card. The then part of it applies to only the players that were able to meet the condition.

Stalkingwolf is correct in regards to "Game of Cyvasse". Whoever met the restriction (kneeling the character with the highest strength with an intrigue icon) gets to choose a character to return to hand. So if one player knelt a character with an intrigue icon but the other player didn't have any characters with an intrigue icon to kneel, the player who knelt the intrigue character wins by default and chooses who to return to hand.

A Game of Cyvasse is a bit of a special case (it's the only card in LCG with an "if able" followed by a "Then"), so I don't want to generalize too much. Because of the "must" combined with the "if able," the first part of A Game of Cyvasse will always resolve successfully: if you have any standing characters with an intrigue icon, you must kneel one unless it can not be knelt for some reason; if you do not, then you do not have to. In either case, you are carrying out the the instruction "Each player must choose and kneel a character with an I icon he or she controls, if able." The part of the card after "Then" will always be resolved unless no player had a character with an intrigue icon (because in that case there is "player who knelt the character with the highest STR"). It is not the case that the effect resolves for some players and not for others. It just resolves, but it specifies a player who knelt a character so of course players who did not kneel characters will not be that player.

To reiterate: a character is always returned to hand as long as at least one character with an intrigue icon was knelt.

schrecklich said:

There is also The Red Wedding.

Rogue30 said:

Well, if your card search site didn't default to hiding plots, I wouldn't have missed that one : )

Also IIRC based on arguments about an older card from Martel:

Then implies "if able.". An example is Risen from the Sea, you can save a greyjoy character with the "no attachments" clause. Basically the first part of the event is checked, cancels/saves happen, then it is resolved. If it resolves successfully the "then" part happens immediately after. Then responses kick in.

(granted I alwsys felt they should put the "Then" effects of an event in the framework. )

Then how does Red Wedding figure in then? If Cyvasse doesn't require each player to actually kneel a card then does REd Wedding require a lord and lady to be chosen before you kill?

goshdarnstud said:

Yes, but not because of the "if able" part. It's the "then" part that makes it necessary to have both characters chosen.

Cyvasse says "Then, the player who knelt the character with the highest STR may choose and return a character to its owner's hand." You can resolve this, even if not all players knelt a character. If only one character was knelt, "the character with the highest STR" still means something and a play restriction and the rest of the effect can initiate.

But Red Wedding says "Then, you must choose and kill 1 of those characters. The other claims 2 power." Because it refers to "1 of" and "other," you need to have two characters. Specifically, unless both a Lord and a Lady is chosen, the "then choose" part doesn't have all the required characters to target and resolve. Therefore, it doesn't resolve.

ktom said:

Just a quick question related to the Red Wedding:

What if both characters cannot be killed (ex. The Power of Blood)? Does one of them still claims 2 power?

And what if your opponent could have choosen a Lord or Lady that actually could be killed (i.e. without a Noble crest)? Would he be forced to choose this Lord/Lady in order to be able to meet the second part of the effect?

Jeko

Jekothalep said:

If one of the characters is not killed (or saved from being killed), the "other" cannot claim 2 power. "Cannot be killed" would prevent you from choosing either the Lord or the Lady from being chosen to be killed, so the entire effect - including claiming 2 power, fizzles out.

Jekothalep said:

If only one of the Lord or Lady character cannot be killed, the person revealing Red Wedding is forced to choose the other one (the one that can be killed) to die.

Jekothalep said:

The opponent choosing the two characters is not required to choose one that can be killed. If the opponent does not choose a character that can be killed, the rest of the effect fizzles as ktom described above.

ktom said:

Wait a minute. Why? One is chosen to be killed. The other claims 2 power. It doesn't matter if the character was saved.

Rogue30 said:

And it is what ktom has said.

Rogue30 said:

And when you choose one character to be killed, it is either going to be killed or saved from being killed. There is no other possible outcome at that point.

ktom said:

Obviously. I have read your words as "(or) if one of the characters is saved from being killed, the other cannot claim 2 power". My mistake.

Sorry, I am not sure if I followed the last exchange. Are you saying that if you choose one of the characters to be killed and then it is saved, that the other character does not claim two power? (And if so, why? The effects don't seem linked to me. They just both seem to be dependent on the previous choice of a lord and a lady character).

schrecklich said:

No. That is not what I said. I said there have to be two characters. One ends up being either killed or saved, the other claims 2 power.

ktom said:

OK that just DOESN'T make sense. Your logic is inconsistent. (Now if there has actually been a ruling then I'll chalk it up to bad card wording and move on)

I actually agree with Cyvasse's logic but can not see how it doesn't apply to Red Wedding

Cyvasse: Assume a two player game. First part of Cyvasse says each play (in this case A and B) must do something, if able. But under our current logic A and B does not have to occur, only if able. Fine, we then move to the "then", and resolve Y.

Red Wedding: A and B must occur , if able. "Then, you must choose and kill 1 of those characters" Ok great, notice the PERIOD at the end of that sentence resolve that. The ONLY thing that is required as the Then is killing 1 character. If it read" Then, you must choose and kill 1 of those characters COMMA the other claims one power. Then ok, both are required. But that is not how the card is written, the "then" requirement is ONLY for killing the character, it has nothing to do with the power claim.

These cards are the same and require the same logic either X requires both A and B to happen to trigger Y or A nd B have to occur if able then we move to Y. Simple as that.

goshdarnstud said:

"Then, you must choose and kill 1 of those characters." All before the period, right? The requirement is to kill 1 out of 2 characters. If you do not have 2 characters, you can't kill 1 of "those."

Now, I see where it is possible to read that as "...kill 1 of those chosen characters, no matter how many were actually chosen," but "...kill 1 of those 2 characters" is also a valid interpretation. As to which of the two is appropriate for the resolution of the plot, you have to take the entire context into consideration and NOT stop at the period, assuming an isolated resolution that is not at least informed by the rest of the ability. That is why the "...kill 1 of those 2 characters" is the correct interpretation.

The logic works the same as Game of Cyvasse. Cyvasse leaves the question of "character with the highest STR" open in terms of how many characters that is compared to. Red Wedding does not.

I think the main difference is that The Red Wedding says "Choose a lord AND a lady character, if able."

You can't choose only a lord, or only a lady. The AND in that formulation restricts you to both, if you're able, or none, if you can't.

I think you would have the same restriction in Cyvasse IF the event read more like "player A and player B choose and kneel an intrigue character, if able" or "all player choose and kneel an intrigue character ...". But Cyvasse says that each player chooses and kneels an intrigue character if able. There's nothing stoping me from kneeling one if you don't have anything to kneel, ie. there is nothing preventing the second part of the event from occuring if only one player kneels a character.

That's the way I see it anyway .

Then why put "in able" in Red Wedding at all. Because according to the prevailing interpretation "in able" means nothing. It's chose a lord and a lady. If you don't card ends. So there is no. At least to me, if able means what it means. If you can do something do it. Just like we interpret Cyvasse.

Zsa you stated that

"But Cyvasse says that each player chooses and kneels an intrigue character if able. "

But doesn't it actually say that each player MUST choose, putting a requirement on it. But following my logic it is soften by "if able" Just like Red Wedding.

goshdarnstud said:

In that situation, the "if able" lets you abort if the Lord AND Lady are not there to be chosen. Since the rules state that all targets must be available in order to play/initiate an effect, it would be easy for people to think they could not reveal the plot unless both a Lord and a Lady were available. If the card simply said "when revealed, the player to your left chooses a Lord and a Lady," I guarantee you that the boards would be awash with the question "what if this is my 7th plot and there isn't both a Lord and a Lady on the table?" In that case, the "if able" becomes a preemptive clarifier that the plot can be revealed even if targets for its passive effect are not available.

Send the question into Nate if the seeming inconsistency between this and Cyvasse vexes you so much.