Just a few questions guys. They came up in our games/discussions today. I think a couple of these have been answered but I can't seem to find the threads.

1. Cards like Tarle, Davos and Viserys that say " Response Save X from being killed/discarded etc, Then do Y" Does this mean that their responses can be chosen to save themselves or would I have had to 'Save' them in some way, Iron Mines, Lightbringer etc?
2. If I win a Power challenge with strength 4 or more and I use Fury of the stag, then my Martel opponent plays Viper's Rage, What happens? A) Do I steal character and loose Icons on stolen char aswell as any other char that I had in control or B) lose icons on my chars but not stolen char?
3. If Darkstar is in play and then his dupe is discarded from deck or hand does that then get attached to Darkstar in play? (I think not)
4. Similarly if I play a Lord/Lady dupe can I play Royal Entourage in response? (again I personally think not)
5. In a melee, the roles that give challenge bonus' do you declare who is getting that benefit when the attacker/defender is declared or is it just there as an extra?

Cheers

6. Bay of Ice. If I control X copies do players get to draw X from it?

Thanks again

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

With luck, that hypothetical wording helps show the difference.

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

That's awesome cheers.

Back to 'FuryViper' if Martel lost the challenge and then played viper's rage, is it too late to kick off the Stag plot? Or would it be because the plot is passive after claim, it has to happen so the window for responses is after claim/passives etc?

ktom said:

As the one leading the discussion against this with Matt I have to say that I'm still not convinced on this question. I appreciate your comment Ktom, about the fact that there is no "after" in the wording. However, your opening sentence also says ""to save them" and I still don't see where there is anything that actually saves these characters. I would argue that the use of the word "save" means "save this character" and then do XYZ otherwise there is no cost for these actions whereas the norm for the game mechanic is "pay a cost then do something" (i.e. kneel 1 influence then stand a character). In the example characters listed there is no cost and that, to me, seems unreasonable and outside the standard operating mechanism of the game.

cheers

Guy

guyhancock said:

Philosophical first:

The text on Viserys reads: " Response: Save Viserys Targaryen from being killed or discarded from play, then return him to his owner's hand." There are two parts to that effect: 1) Save Viserys from being killed or discarded; and 2) then return him to his owner's hand. I'm not sure what I can say that convince you that #1 is the thing "that actually saves [the] character." Isn't that what it says to do? If the card simply stopped after #1 (as it could do), are you saying it could never be used?

It's true that there is no formal "cost" to this, but if you use the "free" ability, he's going to end up back in your hand - where it is going to cost you 1 gold to play him again before you can use his "free" ability a second time. There is a broader cost to his effect; returning him to your hand is essentially a penalty for using the save.

Rules next:

There is no cost to this effect. The usual "do X to do Y" wording of effects is not there. That seems to be your whole objection to the idea that " Response: save this character..." cannot actually save the character - despite the fact that this is exactly what the card says to do. "If there is no cost, there can be no effect." Do I have that right? And yet, the FAQ specifically says:

Cost
The cost of a character ability is the resources
you must pay in order to trigger the effect.
Viserion’s ability has a cost of "pay 4 gold."
Other costs might include kneeling a character
or discarding cards. An easy way to identify
the cost is the formula "Do X to do Y" in
which the first part, do X, is the cost. Note
that some older character abilities are not templated
this way.
If you cannot pay the cost of a character ability,
you may not trigger its effect. Not all character
abilities have a cost.

(Emphasis added.) So the rules contradict your argument that a character ability must have a cost. Some of them may just say "Do Y." It is not unreasonable or outside of the operating mechanism of the game when you are actually told that not all character abilities will have a cost, right?

All of that adds up to these sorts of abilities actually saving the character because a) there is nothing in the game rules that says an ability must have cost - in fact the rules specifically contradict that assumption - and; b) taking a broader view of cost, these abilities are not "free" when you consider that the effect removes them from play - a considerable penalty to the use of their effects.

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

Ktom, I fully appreciate that there isn't always a cost. However, the cards in question are making "save" into something other than the standard verb.

With the Viserys example you use we have two possible definitions:

Yours : Viserys saves himself and then return him to your hand;

Mine : Save (using a response of some sort) Viserys and then return him to your hand.

I would postulate that if your definition is the correct one the card would simply read: "If Viserys were to be killed or discarded, return him to your hand", which I believe is used for several other cards whether this is to your hand or deck. The same can be used for the example of Tarle; why not just say "If Tarle were to be killed, instead he gains one power". And for Davos "If Davos were to be killed, pay 1 gold or return him to his owner's hand".

In all these cases, if the save is automatic, without cost and self-referential it is un-necessary to us the word "save". In light of that, my contention is that the word "save" is used as a direct verb and requires you to use some mechanism to perform the save.

All in all I think this comes down to how do we read the phrase " Save Viserys Targaryen from being killed or discarded from play". To me that is clearly saying that I need to save him; everyone else appears to think this means he saves himself.

If your definition is correct, does that mean that "They shall not cross" can come into play when someone tries to discard a location? Surely, you have to save that location first.

cheers

Guy

It's not if he is correct, he is correct with how Viserys works.

OK. Let's talk a little bit about what a save effect is.

Every passive and triggered effect in this game works in an "initiate-resolve" fashion. In between "initiate" and "resolve" is an opportunity to interrupt that "chain" such that the initiation does not lead to the resolution. Only two types of effects can actually interrupt the initiation and resolution of effects in this fashion: cards that specifically use the words "cancel" and "save." So an effect that saves a card is one that is triggered after an effect that kills, discards or otherwise removes a character from play is initiated.

So, a triggered effect that saves a character is always going to be a "Response" effect that uses the word "save." More to the point, in order for a Response effect to interrupt the "initiate-resolve" chain of another effect, it must use either the word "save" or "cancel" according to the rules.

guyhancock said:

There is a huge difference in the wording you are suggesting and what happens with the cards as they are currently worded. What you suggest doesn't actually "save" the character. Sure, it prevents the character from going to the dead or discard pile, but without the word "save," the character is not considered to have actually been saved. More to the point, the "initiate-resolve" chain of the killing effect has not been interrupted and prevented, so the effect doesn't even function as a save effect as defined by the timing rules. What you have suggested here is, in game terms, a "replacement effect." These effects change the way another effect resolves - but that effect still resolves. In your example for Viserys, the killing effect still resolves and kills him, but instead of sending him to your dead pile, it sends him to your hand - via the effects of his text.

There is also another caveat: these are not Response effects that are triggered by the character's controller after the kill effect activates. They are constant abilities that are "always on." That creates other differences. For one, I do not get to choose whether or not to trigger the effect as I would with the Response. Because the "If he were to be killed..." effect is always on, I cannot choose to let him die. You may ask "why would you ever want to let him die?" to which I would answer - suppose I have taken control of Viserys from you during the game. I lose a military challenge and choose him to die for claim. I'd rather that he died completely instead of being returned to your hand - because he always returns to his owner's hand. When he is a Response, I can make that choice by not triggering the Response. By your wording, it happens when he would be killed regardless. Also, with your wording, when Wildfire Assault is played, I could leave Viserys out in the cold (ie, not make him one of my 3 "don't kill" choices) and then, when Wildfire resolves and kills the characters not chosen, Viserys would return to my hand. The "If her were to be killed..." doesn't say anything about saving, so the "cannot be saved" text on Wildfire is not violated.

So while your "If Viserys were to be killed or discarded, return him to your hand" text has the same eventual outcome as my earlier explanation of how the card works, there are distinct functional differences in how the effect is activated and played. It comes down to the difference between the triggered effect and the constant "always on" nature of your suggested text.

guyhancock said:

The fact that it is a Response means that the save is not automatic. You have to choose to trigger the Response. Additionally, you can be prevented from triggering the Response, too (PoS-Brienne of Tarth, for example). But the save is a part of the activated Response. The word "save" is necessary because it carries connotations for the game - including the game definition that "save/cancel" Responses can interrupt the resolution of other effects and the identification of the Response as a "save" effect that would be blocked by "cannot be saved" limitations. So the use of the word "save" has a distinct meaning. Also, I think you are going pretty far astray of the "simplest possible reading" here. The word "save" after the Response is declarative. "Save this character now."

guyhancock said:

What I think you are missing here is that the " Response " trigger before the "Save Viserys Targaryen from being killed or discarded from play" turns the meaning of the whole thing into "activate this Response effect to save Viserys Targaryen from being killed or discarded from play." The creation of that element of choice through the Response trigger actually changes the context and meaning of the sentence.

But let's say that I'm wrong and that some other effect is needed to save Viserys from being killed or discard before his own effect to return him to hand can be activated by his controller. How would you word Viserys' ability so that it both saved him and returned him to hand in a way that his ability would only activate when his controller wanted it to - and not automatically whenever he was killed or discarded, whether his controller wanted it to or not? Remember that his ability should not have a cost and that the game defines a "save" effect as using both the " Response " trigger word and the word "save" somewhere in the effect.

guyhancock said:

That's the whole point. "They Shall Not Cross" does two different things. First, it is the effect that saves the location, then the event becomes the +2 attachment. But again, let's assume that "They Shall Not Cross" can only be used to add the +2 attachment to a Stark character after some other effect saves a location from being discarded. Which Stark or neutral effect are you going to use to make that happen? There actually is no LCG card that says "Do X to save a location from being discarded." So "They Shall Not Cross" is a card with no practical use?

The context of the game, the timing rules and the way triggered effects work mean that Response effects like Viserys' actually save him from being killed or discarded before returning him to hand. His effect does not depend on another card working first. But if you don't believe me, feel free to send the question directly to FFG for clarification.

A quick couple of points ...

I only left the word "Response:" off my definitions to save writing; in all cases it should be read as being there and makes no difference to my intent. I agree with the opportunity for the save mechanic to be interrupted but again, the definitions were merely to show intent and effect without full reference to other mechanics.

As for your question "How would you word Viserys' ability so that it both saved him and returned him to hand in a way that his ability would only activate when his controller wanted it to - and not automatically whenever he was killed or discarded, whether his controller wanted it to or not? Remember that his ability should not have a cost and that the game defines a "save" effect as using both the "Response" trigger word and the word "save" somewhere in the effect."

I would use the following: Response: Save Viserys Targaryen from being killed or discarded from play, then return him to his owner's hand.

And that is where our disagreement lies, we read this text in the very different ways.

I'm guessing that there is little point in saying more as I feel that we have different opinions/definitions on this matter and that it would be hard to change them. I will continue to let my opponents play these cards with the majority definition (i.e. it is an automatic save). I took your suggestion and have sent a question to FFG to get a definitive answer to this one.

cheers and have fun gaming

Guy

guyhancock said:

The "if it were to be..." wording is not enough in this game to allow for the interruption by a triggered effect. All effects that do use the "were to be" or "would be" wording are either not triggered (ie, "always on" constant effects) or also include the words "save" or "cancel"; hence, I assumed you were suggesting something that was not preceded by the " Response " trigger.

Viserys has been in print since at least 2004, so I am quite confident in my answer and interpretation of his effect. But as you say, you have sent it in for an official answer. The difference of opinion is perhaps best settled through such an appeal to actual authority.

lol arguing with Ktom, lmao.

Well done Ktom, your definitions never cease to amaze me. We would be a lot poorer of a community without you.

ktom said:

Just to chime in - I'm also quite confident of ktom's answer and interpretation of not only this card, but pretty much any card in the game. The man is an encyclopedia of GoT knowledge. Sorta like the unofficial wikipedia of the rules.

Toqtamish said:

Question everything... at every turn.

ktom said:

IF I ever think you are, will do so. Pretty big IF though, you should seriously be taken on officially considering all that you do in this forum.

MikeEverest said:

Why??