The Hound

Aeron Damphair

Suppose both characters are killed by some kill effect (i.e. Die by the Sword).

"If The Hound is killed, place him in your discard pile instead of your dead pile."

"If Aeron Damphair would be killed, instead search your deck for...and put Aeron Damphair on the bottom of your deck"

Does "would be" prevent Aeron from actually enter a moribund:killed state, or is he still considered killed in Step 3 and doesn't become moribund:bottom of deck until Step 4?

Also, if you're not the owner of Aeron or The Hound but control them, that doesn't affect their moribund replacement effects, right? That is, the terms "your" doesn't change the effect. So they could be read as:

"If The Hound is killed, place him in his owner's discard pile instead of his owner's dead pile.
At the beginning of the dominance phase, discard the top card from your deck or discard the Hound from play (cannot be saved)"

"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 his owner's deck.

FATMOUSE said:

No character ever enters the "moribund:killed" state. They enter a "moribund:dead pile" state when a kill effect resolves. The moribund state reflects the out-of-play destination of the card, not the kind of effect that removed it from play.

There is no functional difference in the choice of wording ("is" vs "would be") between The Hound and Aeron. Aeron's ability is considerably more complex and thus involves some different word choices, but for both characters, a kill effect resolves, the character is considered killed (despite going to the discard pile or bottom of the deck) and you would Respond to the character being killed.

Further, these are replacement effects, not passive effects. They change the way that something resolves. It all happens in Step 3. That is, when an effect that removes a card from play resolves, it does so in Step 3 (and the card becomes moribund in Step 3). These effects change what happens when the kill effect resolves - without actually changing its status as a kill effect. When a kill effect resolves on Aeron, the other character comes into play and he enters a "moribund:bottom of deck" state in Step 3. When a kill effect resolves on The Hound, he enters a "moribund:discard pile" state in Step 3. It's not like they become "moribund:dead pile," then have their moribund states changed, then leave play to different destinations. Think of it this way, normally a kill effect ushers people out the front door; Aeron and the Hound are still tossed out of the house by a kill effect, they just exit through the window - without ever looking at the door.

FATMOUSE said:

I'm fine with the kill vs. moribund clarification, and I'm (to a degree) fine with the functional distinction, or lack of distinction, between "is" and "would be".

I do have an objection to your clarification on replacement effects though. The FAQ tells us that replacement effects are passives:

(3.21) Replacement Effects
Replacement effects are passive effects that change a part of the framework of the game. Some of them apply to a card's destination as it reaches a moribund state. Others change the way in which game events (such as the effect of a challenge's claim, or the drawing of a card) are handled. Examples of replacement effects can be found on The Hound (CORE L42), and the "deathbound" keyword.

That said, it does tell us they "change a part of the framework of the game." Is that why you're saying it happens in Step 3 and not in Step 4? Otherwise, I'm having difficulty in accepting why the replacement effect, a passive, would happen one step earlier than every other passive does. The FAQ tells us a state of a Moribund card can be changed while it is still in play. An example of this is Retreat, which is triggered in Step 5. Point being, the state of a Moribund card can be changed outside of step 3 (and arguably must change outside of step 3). Although, now that I think about it, Retreat is a replacement effect, but it's not a passive. Is Retreat considered a replacement triggered effect, or am I missing something?

FATMOUSE said:

While the FAQ says that replacement effects are "passive," it is more appropriate to say that they are "constant" effects - always on and always changing the way that the card will behave within the framework of the game. It's really no different than a "gains +2 STR" or a "loses the power icon" effect is always on and changing the way that the character interacts with effects that look at STR or power icons. These effects are always on and changing the what the character interacts with kill effects.

If you need further proof that the replacement effect is more of a constant than a passive effect, where would you cancel it? You have to wait until after the opportunity to save or cancel against the actual kill effect has passed....

So "passive" is a poor choice of words in the FAQ considering that everything else about replacement effects, except for that word, interacts with the game as a constant effect.

FATMOUSE said:

Replacement effects change part of the framework of the game, effectively changing a definition or normal resolution of an effect. Retreat does none of these things. You may be looking at the part that says "Some of them apply to a card's destination as it reaches a moribund state." But that's not what Retreat does. Retreat waits until after a card is completely moribund (ie, has completely reached its moribund state) and then changes the current status of a card to "moribund:hand." It would be like saying an event that changes the current status of a card from "kneeling" to "standing" is a replacement effect.

Ok, that makes more sense, and I agree that section of the FAQ definitely needs further clarification/fixing, but what about Pyre of the False Gods; doesn't its ability have a point of initiation? "After you play an event card from your hand..." This seems to differ from the abilities of The Hound or Aeron Damphair, which are constantly checking "if" they have been killed. Does this mean that Pyre isn't a replacement effect and is akin to Retreat, but is a passive instead of a response? Now if Pyre read, "If an event you played from your hand is discarded..." then I would agree that it is a constant ability.

Also, events such as Red Vengeance cancel and change the framework of the game (right? or are they replacing something different -- "game events" -- as the FAQ suggests), so I don't see why replacement effects need to be constant effects.

FATMOUSE said:

Pyre is a replacement effect. The real difference you're looking for against something like Retreat is that Retreat says to put the card in your hand instead of placing it in your dead pile. Placing something in your dead pile is not the same as killing it. Do you "kill" Deathbound events?

FATMOUSE said:

If those events counted as replacement effects because they change the "framework" of the game, then "does not kneel to attack," "draw 1 less card during the draw phase," or "may initiate an additional challenge" types of effects would be replacement effects, too. Modifying the play restrictions, quantities or targets associated with a framework is not the same as changing what the framework actually does.

I've been meaning to comment further on this thread, but haven't really had the opportunity until now. Anyway, I'm fine with the explanation on how Red Vengeance and what not are not replacement effects. I suspected that was the case, but I brought up the point for clarity's sake.

As for Pyre, I gave it some more thought, and I now agree that it doesn't happen in Step 4. Events must be played in Step 1 (or 2 or 5 -- still Step 1 in the event's own action window), well, in order to play them! And the FAQ tells us that when events are played, they enter a Moribund state. For some reason I was thinking that they are only considered to be played if they resolve in Step 3, but that's clearly not the case; otherwise, you'd be able to "take back" an event whenever it's canceled. Of course to be successfully played you have to wait until Step 3, but that has no bearing on events entering a Moribund state in Step 1*. I think the Step 3 confusion entered the picture because we were originally discussing the nature of replacement effects for certain killed characters, which happens in Step 3.

OK -- we know that events enter Moribund when they are played in Step 1. We also know that Pyre's replacement effect happens in Step 1. Now, my question is, does Pyre replace the Moribund state of a played event that was discarded (since it was played), or does it replace the actual discarding of the played event altogether and instead "bottom decks" it; meaning the event never gets discarded?

If it's the former, then how could/should Pyre be phrased to accomplish the latter?

*For convenience, I'm going to ignore that events can also be played in Steps 2 and 5. Arguably, they are all played in Step 1 of their own action window anyway, right? Meaning, a new action window is opened whenever an event is played, even if it's a Response, correct?

FATMOUSE said:

Specifically, look at the old CCG event card "Holding Tactics." It has an ability whose effect is to discard itself from your hand - which becomes very important for its Response effect of shuffling itself and the next 2 cards in your discard pile into your deck. If it entered moribund as part of being played in Step 1, it would be moribund and on the table, making it impossible to use its Response. However, if it does not enter moribund as part of being played until after the resolution of the effect in Step 3, then it would be discarded directly to the discard pile (going from one out-of-play area to another without ever going through play, meaning never going through moribund) and the Response would work.

Long explanation, I know, but the end result is simply this: the event card entering moribund is the "last thing" that happens in Step 3, not part of paying the cost in Step 1. It doesn't really make any difference for the rest of your question, though.

FATMOUSE said:

It is important to remember that just because something becomes "moribund:discard" does not necessarily mean that it was "discarded."

Pyre does seem kind of confusing and could be worded better. It should more accurately talk about "placing the card in the discard pile" than "discarding" it. Anyway, when you play an event card, rather than having it enter a "moribund:discard" state in Step 3, it enters a "moribund:bottom of deck" state. The replacement effect is worded such that it is never considered to have been discarded in the first place, but as we just said with the Ruby of R'hllor example, an event played normally is not really considered "discarded" either.

The forums created a double-post. Ignore this one.

ktom said:

When you say "resolve" do you mean "executed"? Technically actions are executed in Step 3 and are resolved in Step 6.

Otherwise, are you saying the entry into moribund happens in Step 3 because the FAQ says, "Cards [which I'm guessing you would argue includes played events] that are killed, discarded, or returned to hand or deck (including their attachments) during the action window are considered Moribund for the remaining duration of the Action Window, and do not physically leave play until Step 6." if not (and even if so), I'm having difficulty accepting that it happens in Step 3, specifically because the FAQ also tells us:

Moribund State For Events
When an event card is played during steps 1, 2, or 5 of an action window, it enters a moribund state and is only actually moved to the discard or dead pile in step 6 of the action window in which it is played.

How I interpret that is: Events are played in Step 1 (or I). When events are played they enter a moribund state. Therefore, played events enter a moribund state in Step 1.

ktom said:

I would argue that when triggering Holding Tactics' Any Phase effect, you don't play the event from your hand (unlike 99% of other events); instead, you are simply triggering the effect on the card from out of play state. This can be done because the Any Phase ability refers to the card itself; thus making the effect active. Were someone to cancel HT, it would simply stay in your hand and could be triggered again when you have the next opportunity to make an action. Since HT is never played, it never enters a moribund state because cards only enter a moribund state when they leave play, not when they move from one out of play state to another (in this case from hand to discard pile).

In short, I'd say HT never enters a moribund state because it never enters play to begin with. It's an event card that does not follow the regular conventions of an event.

Also in general, I'd say playing an event is part of triggering the event's effect (which happens in Step 1), not part of paying the cost (which also happens in Step 1).

ktom said:

I completely agree and understand that playing an event card from your hand is not equivalent to discarding one from your hand. I thought by referring to played events such a distinction was implied, but given the rest of your answer and your elaboration on HT, I understand why you explicitly stated the distinction.

ktom said:

Played events must be considered "discarded" cards. It's true played events are not discarded from hand, but they are discarded from play. Were this not the case then Stalwart on a card like Secret Hideout would never "work." Why? Because the Rule Book tells us:

When a card with the “Stalwart” keyword is killed or discarded from play, it is placed on the top of its owner’s deck instead of being placed in the dead or discard pile.

Either events are discarded from play or Secret Hideout gaining Stalwart when it is Winter is completely pointless.

ktom said:

True, but in the case of played events, it seems that they are (under normal circumstances) discarded from play.

ktom said:

Before commenting on the wording of Pyre and the implications of it, I think we should first try resolving the issues/concerns I brought up.

FATMOUSE said:

How do you figure? More to the point, what is the practical difference between the "execution" in Step 3 and the "resolution" in Step 6 you are trying to get at? And, since we're trying to be so careful about language here, doesn't "Step 3" of the basic action window charts on p. 18 of the FAQ say "actions is resolved"?

Passives and Responses are "executed" in their Steps 4.III and Steps 5.III, but that's because they are not actions in their own rights. And even there, what is the difference between an action "resolving" and a passive/response "executing"?

The easiest way to answer the "Step 1 or Step 3" question is to look at the basic definition of events from pg. 5 of the rule book:

"Event cards are played from your hand for their
text effect. After an event card effect has been resolved,
it is immediately placed into your discard
pile."

So the basic definition and rules say right there that after the effect is resolved (Step 3), the card is placed in the discard pile. We know from the "Moribund State for Events" entry in the FAQ that "immediately placed in the discard pile" actually goes through a moribund state, but other than that, this is pretty clear that the "when an event card is played during steps 1, 2 or 5" text of that FAQ entry describes when the event is played, not when the event actually enters the moribund state. That comes from the basic rules - "after the effect is resolved". (Remember that a canceled event still resolves, it's effects are just unsuccessful.)

Note that when you take this basic rule and the FAQ entry together, we see that event cards become moribund as part of playing them because that's what the rules say happens - not because they enter play first. That does seem a little weird because moribund usually happens when a card starts in play and ends up out-of-play. However, an FAQ entry setting up an exception for an entire class of cards (events played from hand) makes a lot more sense than an exception making a single card act differently from the way every other card of the same type acts in the same situation. The basic rules not only say "immediately," they say "placed in the discard pile." If the events did enter play first, not only would it contradict the use of "placed in the discard pile" instead of "discarded," but there would be no need for the "Moribund State for Events" entry at all because every card that starts in play and then leaves play goes through a moribund state. We wouldn't need clarification that the event goes through a moribund state if it entered play upon being played from hand.

It is also important to recognize that if events are "discarded from play" after their effects resolve, then they must have "entered play" at some point, too. Would you feel comfortable saying that playing an event card creates both an "after a card enters play" and "after a card is discarded from play" Response opportunity? It seems very counterintuitive to the "immediately placed in the discard pile" language of the basic definition of events.

Another thing to recognize is that the FAQ entry for "event moribund" talks about the event being moved to the "discard or dead" pile, . So... if the event enters play upon being played and is then discarded from play when it enters the moribund state prescribed by that FAQ entry, how do you know whether the event is "discarded from play" or "killed" based on that entry? You don't. However, in trying to define that, the answer to the Pyre and Stalwart question falls into place, too. The basic rules say the event card is "placed in the discard pile," leaving the FAQ entry about the moribund state to default to "moribund:discard." The only way the played event would end up in the dead pile (as the entry implies) would be if a replacement effect - specifically, the "Deathbound" keyword - kicked in and changed the moribund state the event actually went into. When you read the definition of "Deathbound," that is actually what is outlined for Deathbound events (placing it in the dead pile). So applying replacement effects to the moribund state of events - without them ever entering play - is possible. Stalwart and Pyre, as replacement effects, would both be applied the same way Deathbound is.

First, I'd like to say the FAQ isn't perfect (see our earlier conversation about replacement effects being passive vs. constant), and I think its inconsistencies are contributing to our different interpretations. No matter what we ultimately agree/don't agree on, I'll be contacting Nate after we complete our discussion in this thread about the need to clarify and update the FAQ to be more consistent with itself. I hope we can at least agree on that

Before delving into your latest reply, I'd like to point out, as a side note, it seems a bit disingenuous, based on the current definition of a replacement effect, to consider The Hound's ability a replacement effect. Currently replacement effects are defined as, "passive effects that change a part of the framework of the game." This seems to imply replacement effects change only Framework actions, but it's possible for The Hound to be killed via a Player Action that has nothing to do with a Framework action.

ktom said:

The action chart does say that, but I would argue that the chart is inconsistent and incorrect because if you look at the breakdown of The Action Window and The Action Window in Detail, Step 3 is defined as "Action is executed" whereas Step 6 is defined as "Action is resolved (end of action)." This distinction is important because if we look at the Events rule that you cited from the rulebook:

• "Event cards are played from your hand for their text effect. After an event card effect has been resolved, it is immediately placed into your discard pile."

We can see that it is referring to Step 6 and not Step 3 (or 1 in this case of my argument, which I want to ignore for the moment).

ktom said:

If we interpret the Events rule my way (that it refers to Step 6), we see the rule is really describing how the event leaves moribund, not how it enters it. The FAQ entry, Moribund State for Events, clarifies for us when events enter moribund since the rule does not:

• "When an event card is played during steps 1, 2, or 5 of an action window, it enters a moribund state..."

The second part of that entry:

• "...and is only actually moved to the discard or dead pile in step 6 of the action window in which it is played."

Is actually making a reference to the Events rule:

• "After an event card effect has been resolved [in Step 6], it is immediately placed into your discard pile."

ktom said:

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with "enter play first", but I don't see Moribund State for Events creating an exception for event cards played from hand; at least not an exception for how moribund itself works. What I see the entry doing is creating an exception for events, in that they become moribund when they are played. This unlike every other card type -- if I play a character, it doesn't immediately become moribund. The same goes for locations and attachments. But if I play an event, it immediately becomes moribund because the entry tells us so. Since the Events rule doesn't tell us how (perhaps "when" is the better word) a played event enters moribund (it only tells us how it leaves it, and implies that the entry into moribund will be via discard), the FAQ entry tells us instead.

ktom said:

My interpretation doesn't have events being "discarded from play" after their effects resolve (Step 6). That's obviously nonsense. Events are discarded from play when they are played as Moribund State for Events implies. I say imply because it doesn't explicitly tells us they are discarded from play, only that they become moribund, but there are good reasons to believe that played events are indeed discarded from play (and not killed or something else):

1. To play an event, you must play the event; meaning a played event is considered to be in play and not an out of play state.
2. Cards like Pyre tell us played events are normally discarded ("...instead of discarding it"), and since played events are in play, they are discarded from play.
3. If played events are not "discarded from play" then Stalwart on Secret Hideout would never work. Stalwart only works on the card it is on when the card is "killed or discarded from play". That is straight from the rulebook.

And to further enforce the notion that the Events rule is referring to Step 6 and not an earlier step (i.e. Step 1 or 3 -- more on this very soon), and that events are indeed discarded from play, let's look at Section (4.5) Leaving Play of the FAQ:

• "A card is 'discarded from play' if it is removed from play by a discard effect. Unless affected by a replacement effect, cards that have been discarded from play are placed in the discard pile when they leave the moribund state."

The What is "Moribund"? section of the FAQ tells us:

• "When the card finally leaves the game in Step 6, it loses its abilities (as cards do when they actually leave play), and ceases to be Moribund."

Combing those two sections together, we see that only when a moribund card leaves the moribund state (or ceases to be moribund) is it actually placed in X (i.e. discard pile, dead pile, etc.), and this happens in Step 6.

All that said, I would be willing to accept that events are only considered to be played (and consequently become moribund) after the action has been executed (successfully or not) in Step 3 (and not Step 1 as I previously suggested) if and only if further clarification is made in the FAQ. Right now, Moribund State for Events tells us that events are played in Step 1:

• "When an event card is played during steps 1, 2, or 5 of an action window, it enters a moribund state..."

So you would still play an event card in Step 1, but it would only be considered played in Step 3. We know that we play events in Step 1 because What is a "Player Action"? tells us the second way one may take a player action is:

• "2) Play an event card from your hand (this is also called "triggering" an event ability)."

And when we look at Step 1 "Action is initiated" of The Action in Window in Detail, part f) says:

• "Marshal the card, or trigger the effect."

If that is clarified, then I see no other inconsistencies. Step 3 actually does make more sense because otherwise The Shadows of the Isles, The Shadow of the South, and The Shadow of the East would not be able to return to it's owner's hand during the proper Season if the event became moribund in Step 1. This is because the event's effect would try to be removing it from play a second time, which we know can't happen to a card already in moribund.

ktom said:

My guess as to why Moribund State for Events specifically refers to the discard and dead piles only and not other out of play states (i.e. Shadows, top/bottom of owner's deck, owner's hand, etc.) is because the rulebook only discusses events going to the discard pile (what normally happens) and the dead pile (Deathbound). That section could and should be updated to reflect other potential out of play states, or at least say that events can and may be directed by certain card effects to move to other out of play states, not just the dead or discard pile, in Step 6.

ktom said:

I said this above, but I'll repeat it again. The FAQ isn't making an exception to the rules of moribund when it comes to events. It is making an exception to the fact that playing an event makes it moribund, whereas as when you play any other card type it, the act of playing it does not make it moribund. The Events rule is what actually makes "moribund:discard" default, not the other way around.

If an event were to never enter play, then it could never become moribund because a card only becomes moribund when it goes from an in play state to an out of play state. If a card simply moves from one out of play state to another out of play state, it doesn't and didn't become moribund. Furthermore, if an event doesn't enter play, then it was never in play and could not be "discarded from play." This means Stalwart on an event (i.e. Secret Hideout) would not work (see above explanation). It also means that Pyre's ability would not go off because the card was never played since it didn't enter play.

FATMOUSE said:

A complete misinterpretation of the word "framework" there to limit it to "framework actions" only. For example, it is part of the basic framework of the game that when a card is "killed," it is put in the dead pile. Or that when a card attacks or defends, it is knelt. Or that when you "draw" cards, you take them from the top of your deck and put them into your hand. "Framework" is not just a direct framework action. It is any basic rule or definition of the game. The Hound is a replacement effect because it changes the framework of the game related to "when a card is killed, put it in your dead pile."

FATMOUSE said:

By this logic, all the rulings that we've had that say "you cannot trigger a second effect until the previous one is resolved" means you cannot trigger any effect until after Step 6. That means you can never trigger any Response, since Responses are effects. So Step 5 is meaningless because you cannot trigger Responses until after Step 6?

"Executed" and "Resolved" are synonyms, used interchangeably. Just like "lowered" and "reduced." Anything else is inconsistent in one way or another.

FATMOUSE said:

So... because every moribund card is "immediately placed" into whatever out-of-play area it is aimed for when it leaves play, the entire "is immediately placed into your discard pile" part of the definition of event cards is essentially, and completely, redundant?

FATMOUSE said:

This is a little inconsistent from what you were saying before, and with the idea that event cards are discarded "from play." We know that the moribund state that a card is in does not define how it left play. For example, when The Hound is in the "moribund:discard pile" state after he is killed, he is not considered to have been discarded from play. He was killed. So the only way to be discarded "from play" is to actually start "in play" and for some effect to say "discard this card."

But you just said - and as is clear from the rules - that when you play an event from your hand, it "enters play" moribund. Once that card is moribund, no other effect can make it leave play a second time. The rules effectively say "when a card is played from your hand, it enters a 'moribund:discard pile' state." You said that yourself. Everything else you have said, though, assumes that because it is in a "moribund:discard pile" state, it must have been discarded from play, a notion that does not follow logically and is effectively shown to not always be true from The Hound example.

FATMOUSE said:

Completely disagree. You are ignoring the difference in the basic nature of the event card compared to every other card type. Every other card type is played from your hand and put into play. That's how they work. They can only be played during Marshaling and the result of playing them is to put them into play.

Events, on the other hand, are "played from hand" at any (legal) time to initiate an effect - not with the purpose of putting them into play. Events are transient, temporary cards by nature. All other card types are permanent cards that, by nature, enter play.

FATMOUSE said:

When the moribund state was first introduced, players assumed that events did not ever go into moribund because they are transient, temporary cards that are never actually "in play." In an action window, they put events into their discard pile in the order they were played, then put all the cards that were discarded from play into the discard pile on top of them (in Step 6) because the moribund state "held them up." So what you are saying here was always the basic assumption that the rules for moribund events was intended to modify.

FATMOUSE said:

The rules for moribund events do not say that events "enter play," then become moribund. They say that event cards (effectively) enter play already moribund. So all these replacement effects are applied as the card is played. They never enter play as anything other than a moribund card. The ultimate effect being that they share priority for being moved to the discard pile with everything else that leaves play during the action window.

Events "enter play" already moribund when you play them from your hand. As such, they are never "in play" as anything other than a moribund card and thus they are not actionable as "discarded from play" or anything other than "played an event." Replacement effects can be applied to the "enter play moribund" process so that events can end up somewhere other than the (default) discard pile when they are played. That's what you get when you take everything together.

I find it interesting that you are more than ready to assume inconsistency in the language of the rules/FAQ (entirely possible - even true), but assume that the rules for Stalwart, Pyre, etc., are controlling text. It seems more likely to me that any explanation that holds the rules/FAQ as the controlling text and Pyre as the thing most in need of clarification is the better interpretation.

But nothing I say is going to convince you at this point. Write to Nate/Damon and see what they say.

What kind of effect is the Doran's Game event from the Gates of the Citadel spoiler? It effectively changes the destination of a moribund event (unless an event doesn't become moribund until step 3). And what kind of play state is that event in afterwards. I guess it is 'in play' as an attachment?

Saturnine said:

Events that become attachments are excellent examples of why event cards must not become moribund until after they are resolved in Step 3. If they enter the moribund state when they are played in Step 1, they would be "moribund:discard" when they are attached - and leave play in Step 6 because nothing about attaching them to a card in Step 3 (when they resolve) brings them out of moribund (which is impossible - once moribund, nothing can make a card "un-moribund").

Saturnine said:

Correct. Just like "He Calls it Thinking" or "You Writ Small." It never becomes moribund in the first place.