The plot "The Red wedding" has this card text :

"When revealed, the opponent to your left chooses 1 Lord and 1 Lady character, if able. Then, you must choose and kill 1 of those characters. The other claims 2 power."

We have an effect that looks like : "Choose X, if able. Then do Y"

The same is true for A Game of Cyvasse.

"Challenges: Each player must choose and kneel a character with an Intrigue icon he or she controls, if able. Then, the player who knelt the character with the highest STR may choose and return a character to its owner's hand."

However in our meta we play those effects differently. In the case of Game of Cyvasse if one player don't have character with INT icon we still aplly "Then Y".

However for The Red wedding we dont apply the "Then Y" part if the player cannot choose both a Lord and a Lady.

Personnaly I think the "if able" word means you will apply the "Then Y" part of the effect. Because the phrase "Do X, if able" is always true no matter if you actually did X or not, you "did it if able" successfully.

Bolzano said:

You are correct. The "if able" part of choosing a Lord and a Lady means that the phrase is technically successful and you move on to the "then" part of the effect regardless. However, that does not mean the "then" part of the effect will resolve successfully. Suppose, for example, that Game of Cyvasse said "Then, the player that knelt the character with the highest STR chooses and returns a non-Limited location to its owner's hand." What happens if there isn't a non-Limited location in play? Nothing, right? The "then" part of the effect would be unsuccessful even though it did apply because its own target restrictions could not be met.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. Because the "then" part of Red Wedding says you must "choose and kill one of THOSE characters" and then goes on to describe a resolution/consequence for the "OTHER," the wording of the "then" part of the effect requires that there be 2 characters in order for it to resolve. Without 2 characters to resolve the "one-and-the-other" nature of the effect, the targeting requirements of the "then" part of the effect cannot be satisfied. As such, it cannot resolve successfully.

Now, I realize there is a possibility of interpreting "choose and kill one of THOSE characters" to mean "choose and kill one of the characters chosen in the first part of the effect" (instead of "choose and kill one of two characters"). With this interpretation, if there was only one character chosen in the first "if able" part of the effect, that one character would have to be chosen to die. I would agree with this interpretation if it weren't for the rest of the effect. By saying "the OTHER claims 2 power," it creates a requirement that there be an "other" in the choice of which character to kill. And yes, two independent parts of an effect can influence each other despite being independent.

Wildfire Assault is a great example of both points. It's text "When revealed, each player chooses up to 3 of his or her characters. All characters not chosen are killed (cannot be saved)." not only serves to demonstrate how an independent effect (kill all characters not chosen) is influenced - even defined - by an separate independent effect (everyone chooses up to 3 characters), it also serves as the counter example. If Red Wedding looked more like Wildfire and said "Then choose and kill one of the chosen characters. The character not chosen claims 2 power." - thereby removing the word "other" and its influence creating an "either/or" choice - I'd say that when the "then" part of Red Wedding is applied in the absence of both a Lord and a Lady, it would actually be able to resolve.

So, it isn't that the "then" part is not applied, it is that in the absence of both a Lord and a Lady to choose between, it cannot resolve successfully because its own target restrictions create an expectation of there being 2 characters to choose between.

BTW: This all assumes that the "if able" part of the effect is successful.

Game of Cyvasse says that each player chooses a single character with the particular specifications "if able." There, the "if able" pretty clearly means that if one or more players cannot make a choice, it is OK to move on.

However, Red Wedding can be interpreted in one of 2 ways. The way that parallels Game of Cyvasse is the interpretation of "The player on the left chooses 1 Lord character AND ALSO 1 Lady character, if able." In that interpretation, it is OK to move on if only 1 of the 2 specified targets is available. A choice of only 1 of those characters - or neither of them - would still be considered successful

The second way, though, is an interpertation of "The player on the left chooses BOTH 1 Lord AND 1 Lady character, if able." In that interpretation, the choice of fewer that two characters ("both") would be considered unsuccessful and the "if able" would really serve more as clarification text that it is OK for the player to reveal the plot in the absence of the 2 characters.

The second interpretation is cleaner for the entire effect of the card, but as shown above, it ultimately doesn't matter which interpretation you take because the "then" part of the plot cannot resolve unless there are 2 characters chosen in the first part of the effect.

Thanks ktom for taking time to answer it.

1) One thing I did not get : I don't see why the whole effect would be unsuccessfull if just one part is unsuccessfull. "choose and kill one of those characters" could resolve successfully altough "The other claims 2 power" would resolve unsuccessfully if only one character has been chosen.

EDIT : as I read more carefully I got your point. The words "the other" (claims two power) implies the "one of those" is NOT just "one of the chosen character(s)" but "one of the TWO chosen characters", making the first part of the effect unsuccessfull. It makes sense to me, thanks a lot ktom.

2) I can see we agree on this :

ktom said:

The "Karhold Master at Arms" is a good example :
[stark Character]
House Karstark.Response: After Karhold Master at Arms comes into play, search your deck for a Weapon attachment and attach it to Karhold Master at Arms, if able. Then shuffle your deck.

I will shuffle my deck wathever happens. The same way the "Then ..." part of Red Wedding will apply no matter what even if there is no Lady and no Lord (and maybe it will be useless since nobody will be killed). Therefore I didn't really understood your two interpretations in your 2nd post.

Also please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think play restrictions are not checked when you reveal plots because its not taking a player action. That's why we can reveal any plot even if it does not have legal target (such as City of Soldiers can be revealed even if there is no character in play).

Bolzano said:

I tell you that you can choose 1 door, we'll lock it and exit through the "other" one. Can you make a choice if there is only 1 door in front of us?

Bolzano said:

The second post had nothing to do with resolving the "then" part of Red Wedding. It had to do with determining of the "if able" part was truly successful. You can read it as saying "choose UP TO 1 Lord and 1 Lady" (which will be successful if fewer than 2 characters are chosen) or you can read it as "choose BOTH 1 Lord AND 1 Lady" (which will be unsuccessful unless exactly 2 characters are chosen).

Bolzano said:

Bolzano said:

You are also falling prey to a very common misunderstanding. Revealing a plot and initiating its text are completely different things. The plot text has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you can choose and reveal the plot. The framework step that reveals the plot is not the same as the one that initiates the plot text. So you can reveal a plot - like City of Soldiers - when there are no target characters for the plot text because revealing the plot is different from intiating the text. As the FAQ says, the "when revealed" text of City of Soldiers is activated as a passive effect after the plot is revealed. When you go to activate the plot's passive effect, it can initiate without result if the required targets are not in place - the same as any passive effect that cannot be applied to a legal character.

You can take the explanation that the "if able" refers to a choice of "BOTH" in order to be succesful, or you can take the explanation that the "then" part resolves without effect if there are not 2 individual characters to choose between in that part of effect. Either way, Red Wedding requires both a Lord and a Lady before anything dies and/or collects power.

Send it to Nate. The above explanations are about as complete as we're likely to develop on the boards (because it is the result of going through this discussion before).

No need to send it to Nate, your explanation is clear enough and I now understand how this card works And also I didn't know about the separate effects and the plot timing.

Thanks again ktom

I had the same issue with the two cards. (I still sort of have a theoretical problem with the card wording but I've learned to move on and accept what I cannot change ) But I did email Nate, hence the acceptance. But here's Nate's reply

Hello,

The important thing to remember with Red Wedding is that the "Then" effect requires 2 targets in order to resolve. There are two phrases that make this so: "those characters" (plur al) and "the other" (not the same one).

In short, Red Wedding has an effect that cannot resolve if 2 characters are not chosen.

Nate

Probably a stupid question... what if there are only two ladies or two lords in play and not a lord and a lady character. Is it possible to use the when revealed effect anyways by choosing two lords instead?

no, it needs a lord and a lady