a situation came up in a joust game yesterday:

-- both players were playing the kings of winter agenda

-- the first player had three cards in hand at the end of the draw phase; the opponent had four

so the rules question is: the first player determines the order in which passives resolve. in this situation, can the first player choose the "end of the draw phase" passive effect on opponent's kings of winter agenda to "resolve" first (even if the condition isn't met), and then allow his own agenda to go off (thus allowing him to keep all three cards in hand, while the opponent will have to discard one at random)? or does the opponent's agenda not resolve unless the condition is met in the first place, so that the second player's agenda would go off first and both players would end up having to discard one card from hand due to the opponent's agenda?

I think they resolve simultaneously. So at the end of the draw phase, the player with more cards in hand discards one, and that is that. If both players have the same amount of cards in hand, each player discards one before moving to the end phase. At least that's my interpretation.

finitesquarewell said:

The way I see it: The first player only chooses while there is a conflict. In your situation there is no conflict. Player with 4 cards have to discard, because of passive effect (second agenda doesn't meet the requirements, so it doesn't trigger). After discarding, the requirements for second agenda are met, so second player also discards a card - it's still "at the end of the phase".

If both players have 3 cards, the first player chooses, but it doesn't change anything - both players discard a card.

Saturnine said:

Effects don't resolve at the same time, but they can trigger at the same time.

Rogue30 said:

There is only one "end of the draw phase." So imagine that when the draw phase ends, a snap-shot of the game is taken. Both players use this snap-shot for the KoW Agendas. The opponent has more cards in his hand than the first player in that snap-shot (aka, the end of the draw phase); therefore, the first player's Agenda goes off, while the opponent's does nothing.

The opponent's Agenda doesn't and can't "wait" for the first player's Agenda to go off and then say, "Ah ha! You have as many cards as I do now. I get to discard a card from your hand!" What the game state looks like after the snap-shot is taken has no bearing on effects that trigger off of the snap-shot. If it did, what would stop the first player's Agenda from saying the same exact thing right afterwards? Then the opponent's agenda could go ahead and say it again, so on and so forth until no one player has any cards left in hand.

In short, only the first player's Agenda initiates in the scenario you described. If each player had the same number of cards in hand, both Agendas would initiate, and the first player would determine the order to resolve them.

Rogue30 said:

There is a conflict. Both effects need to look at the number of cards in hand in order to know how to resolve, but both effects also have the potential to change the number of cards in hand, so which one goes first could have an impact on how the second one resolves. That is a conflict. There is only no conflict when the resolutions of the two effects have no impact on the conditions of each other.

So, since there is a conflict, the First Player decides the order in which the two effects resolve. They must both be checked one time (and only one time), though. In the case where the players have equal cards in hand, it really doesn't matter - both players will lose 1 card regardless of the order. But when one of the players has exactly one more card in hand than the other, the First Payer can choose the order of resolution so as to benefit him the most (which, btw, is always to have his opponent's checked first; if his opponent has the 1 more card, he will not lose cards and his opponent will, but if his opponent has 1 less card, having his opponent's go first will ensure that they both lose 1 card - since he was going to lose 1 anyway).

The important thing to recognize here is that these passive effects do, indeed, conflict, so the First Player gets to choose the order in which they are resolved, that the First Player does not have to choose an order in such a way that the maximum number of cards will be discarded, and that each only initiates once (even if it fails to resolve because the "opponents with as many cards or more" condition is not met).

ktom said:

No, because only one of them is triggered. Do you have any other example when you include/anticipate something which does not trigger?

ktom said:

I thought they check at the same time, and then resolve separately? One agenda would say "discard" and one would say "do nothing," and the first player would choose the order that they resolve the discard and the do nothing.

Mathias Fricot said:

The first player wouldn't choose the order then because there wouldn't be a conflict anymore.

Rogue30 said:

"If it is Winter, any opponent with as many cards in hand as you, or more, must randomly discard a card from his or her hand at the end of the draw phase."

So, if it is WInter and it is the end of the draw phase, this effect happens. It requires every player, other than the controller, to compare the number of cards they have in their hand to the controller's hand, and discard if the result is "same or more." The "same or more" condition is not a condition on initiation, it is a condition on the manner of resolution for each player. The "trigger" initiates the comparison with the discard being a conditional resolution. The effect initiates at the end of the draw phase whether you want it to or not. The resolution can "fizzle" if the controller has the most cards in hand, but that doesn't mean there was no initiation.

Think of a passive effect that says "at the end of the challenge phase, discard all characters with printed STR of 2 from play." If there are no characters with a printed STR of 2 in play, the passive effect is still considered to have initiated; it's the resolution that is unsuccessful. That's what is going on here.

So, since each effect must initiate, and each needs the result of the other in order to know how to resolve, there is a conflict, and the First Player chooses the order.

Mathias Fricot said:

ktom said:

That makes sense. After I made my post I was actually beginning to be a bit uncertain about what I said. I think what threw me off was the wording of the effect. Normally effects will start off by saying, "At the end of X phase..." By placing it at the end it made it seem like the effect initiates based on whether or not an opponent has a certain number of cards relative to you, not a certain point in the game (at the end of the draw phase).

Would an extra "if" (let's say before, "any opponent") have any bearing on whether or not the effect initiates? Basically, does an ability like that of Knight of Flowers still initiate even if he isn't standing? KoW's effects seem to only initiate if it is Winter (or Summer). It's the same for KoF then, no?

FATMOUSE said:

I was thrown off by the wording as well, although in a different way. To me it was worded more like a constant effect that causes players to do a particular thing at a particular point in time if particular conditions are met, which in hindsight is a silly notion.

FATMOUSE said:

Because it is a passive effect, it happens "at the beginning of the dominance phase" whether the KoF is standing or not. It's something of a difference between passives/constants and triggered effects.

Think of it this way. Say I had an event card that said "Dominance: Choose a character. If that character is standing, it claims 1 power." Could I play that event - ie, initiate it - on a character that is kneeling? Sure. There is nothing in the "if that character is standing" condition that prevents me from initiating the effect and playing the event, even though it has no hope of resolving successfully. However, if it were phrased as a play restriction (eg, "choose a standing character"), it would (prevent me from initiating).

I'm sure you could take something like the KoF and word it so that the conditions of the conditional resolution of the effect because play restrictions for initiation if you really wanted to.

ktom said:

In that case, I agree obviously. It seemed to me as a requirement, but now if I think about melee (which I never play) it can't be.

Just for explanation what I was thinking - imagine an attachment:

"Treat attached character as though its text box were blank.

At the end of the phase move this attachment to other character unless any opponent has cards in hand."

While this attachment is on Guard at Riverrun, Stark player with empty hand still would get his card if he didn't lose. Obviously no conflict here. And obviously once per trigger rule prevents effects from triggering again and again.

ktom said:

If the "if" doesn't make a difference in KoF's ability, then technically both effects of KoW initiate at the end of the dominance phase - no matter the season, right?

FATMOUSE said:

For example, if the effect says "Only use this effect if it is Winter," you're looking at a play restriction, not a conditional effect. So the word "if" is not a hard-and-fast indicator of a conditional effect over a play restriction.

ktom said:

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.

This came up at Days in one of my games and the ruling by Nate was that the First Player chooses the order they resolve.

Which is exactly the ruling in this thread, too. There's just a lot more detail about why it is a passive effect and why the conditions are on resolution, not initiation.