The text of the Wildling Wisewoman is:

Response: Kneel Wildling Wisewoman to cancel 1 card effect that would allow an opponent to draw 1 or more cards.

She can cancel the effects of cards as Bay of Ice or Samwell Tarly. But in the case of cards as Eddard Stark ( Response: Cancel a triggered effect that chooses a Noble character as the only target. Then, draw a card. (Limit once per phase.) ), what cancel the wildling?, the draw card effect only, or the cancel of eddard wich make him draw a card? I suppose the same question goes to similar cards as Longship Iron Victory, she cancels the draw effect or the original effect wich makes a player draw a card?...

Well when an effect is canceled, the whole thing is canceled. You can't just cancel part of an effect. So when wildling wisewoman cancels Eddard, she cancels the whole effect. So Eddard never cancels the origional effect. Now she would not be able to cancel something like LIV, because when someone triggers the LIV effect, you don't know if it will draw someone a card or not. What is actually happening here is that LIV is giving a character +2STR and creating a lasting effect that lets you draw a card if you win the current challenge. So now if your opponent wins the challenge is going to draw a card it is coming from the lasting effect rather than from a card so it can't be canceled by the wisewoman.

Actually, this could get complicated, so hold on.

Staton is correct in that if you have an effect like Eddard that says "then, draw a card," Wildling Wisewoman cannot cancel the effect. She cannot cancel just the draw because there is no place to initiate a cancel for just part of an effect. She cannot cancel the main effect - which, if successful, allows the "then, draw a card" part of the effect - because until it is successful, the effect does not allow a player to draw a card. So by the time the effect meets the Wisewoman's play restrictions, it is too late to cancel. The ruling has been made before that conditional parts of a 2-part effect do not satisfy the "would do X" part of play restrictions on cancel and save interrupt effects.

So the Wisewoman cannot cancel two-part effects where the draw is in the second, conditional part of the effect - like Eddard, Parting Blow or Drinking the Sea.

The LIV question is actually far stickier. The lasting effect for drawing a card is not the same as the "then, draw..." conditional effect of those things mentioned above. Most lasting effects cannot be canceled once the original effect creating it is resolved because there is no point of initiation to interrupt with a cancel. For example, you can't cancel a "gains +2 STR until the end of the phase" three action windows later because the point of initiation for the lasting effect is long past. However, LIV's draw effect does have a delayed point of initiation (when the player wins the challenge). So there is a place in the timing structure to cancel it.

But LIV's "draw a card" effect is nearly impossible to cancel because cancels usually hit triggered effects, event cards or character abilities. The "lasting effect with a delayed initiation" is none of those. So there aren't any cancels that can hit it. Or are there? Wildling Wisewoman specifically says that she cancels card effects that would let a player draw a card. Is the "lasting effect with a delayed initiation" a card effect?

One of the best ways to look at it would be to decide whether or not Cat O' the Canals would be immune to it. Say there was a character that said "Challenges: Remove this character from the current challenge. If you win the challenge, discard all other participating characters from play." Would Cat survive that if she was one of the other characters in the challenge? Conventional wisdom to this point has been that yes, she would. Even though the effect is a lasting effect (with delayed initiation) when it resolves, it did enter the game because of a card, not the rules. As such, it is ultimately a card effect, which Cat is immune to.

If that logic does indeed hold true, then the lasting effect with delayed initiation that allows a character to draw a card on LIV (or Insidious Ways for that matter) would count as card effects and the Wisewoman could cancel it after the player wins the challenge by virtue of the second point of initiation.

Wild stuff, huh?

See this just seems wrong to me. The second part that is, about the LIV. The best reasoning that I can think of though is that if you play intrigue story event, and then your opponent jumps in fair weather knight, he can't do anything, because his immune to events doesn't stop the lasting effect. Now if you can say the lasting effect is really a card effect, then shouldn't you have to answer the question of what kind of card did it come from? I mean if the game state remembers that the lasting effect came from a card, it just seems like it should remember WHAT kind of card. and if that is true then fair weather knight should've been able to get around the story event after the fact. Now I'm sure I'm missing something, so hopefully you can tell me what it is ktom.

Staton said:

Why? The game is essentially blind unless it specifically asks about something. "Choose a participating character" doesn't have to answer the question of whether that character is attacking or defending, Stark or Lannister, 2STR or 3STR, etc., unless is specifically asks to do so. When you look at a lasting effect, you can answer the question "is this effect applicable because of a card or because of a rule" without having to ever address the question "what kind of card did it come from?"

The old Fair-Weather Knight example is also somewhat inapplicable here because it was immune to the event if it was in play when the event was played. You can only be immune to an effect at the point that the effect is applied (unless it is a constant effect, which is continuously applied). Your better example would be Moment of Glory. The delayed kill effect could be applied to event-immune characters because it was not an event that was not an event that was resolving at the particular time. But a card effect that was resolving - because the only other option is a framework event, which the delayed kill certainly is not.

So finally:

ktom said:

Is this right?

KyK said:

As a general rule, if you doubt ktom, your only viable course of action is to ask Nate directly.

That Wildling Wisewoman cannot cancel something like Eddard with a "then, draw..." conditional part to the effect is true.

That Wildling Wisewoman can cancel the delayed initiation draw effect of something like LIV or Insidious Ways is speculative. There is a case for it because of how Cat O' the Canals immunity is handled and the fact that the Wisewoman cancels "card" effects. That's the part you should probably send to Nate.

ktom said:

alright, thanks for that ktom. I think that's what I was missing in my reasoning. although I prefer for her to not be able to cancel something like that. seems to be be more complicated than necessary.

Isn't this also similar to the abilities of Spearmaiden and ITELP Aero Hotah? Spearmaiden could cancel just about anything that affected her, while I often used Aero to cancel Winter Storm, which would discard him from play. Or is this just something similar, but not close enough to count?

JerusalemJones said:

It is actually not as similar to those abilities as you would think, primarily because discarding the character is usually the main effect of something as it is triggered, rather than a "then, do X..." kind of thing.

The situation that is most analogous (and I'm sorry, I don't have the cards in front of me to go into the details) is YMHC and VED(?)-Catelyn.