Ok, can Eddard Stark counter the saving of a noble character via a duplicate?

I am confused about this because Eddard can counter only a triggered responses that chooses a target... And if I remember well, the response of a duplicate doesn't target his "original".

Same question about Flogged and Chained (but I think this is an old question, pardon me if someone already asked). There isn't the word "choose" in the text, so it seems that FaC doesn't have a target.

Thank you in advance.

thorin_81 said:

thorin_81 said:

thorin_81 said:

Ok, exactly as I thought. Thank you so much.

ktom said:

ktom, could you please suggest where it is said in the rules? As I remember this targeting rule is applicable to events. Why do we have to apply it to attachments?

Flintacs said:

I think technically it might not be stated explicitly in the FAQ that this is true for all abilities. However, when discussing events and character abilities, it uses the sentence "The word choose is always used to denote a target." That's a general statement that does not specify that it only applies to events or character abilities. To be honest, I am not really sure why the FAQ has a section specifically on "Character abilities." I think that section should probably be called "triggered abilities" since what it says should be equally valid for abilities on attachments and locations.

schrecklich said:

According to the rules "choose" targeting is stated for characters and events separately. Not for attachments. And I haven't seen any attachment with the words "choose attached character" but always just "attached character". Maybe it's because there is no need to write "choose attached character". Attached character is always the only one for his attachment.

Flintacs said:

But there's attachments with abilities which ask you to "choose" a character, i.e. an opponent's character or a participating character.

Saturnine said:

Yes but it's only when you can choose another character. When attached character is the only possible target the "choose" is never used.

Ah, I see what you are asking. No, if an attachment does not use the word "choose," then it is not targeting the character it is attached to. My only point was that the wording in the FAQ for events and character abilities should also apply to attachment (and location abilities) like Ice ("Challenges: While attached character is participating in a challenge, kneel and discard Ice from play (cannot be saved) to choose and kill another participating character.") or Broken Spear ("Any Phase: Kneel The Broken Spear to choose attached character. Until the end of the phase, that character either gains or loses a M icon."). With Broken Spear's wording you see that if the designers want to they can make an attachment ability target the thing it is attached by using the word "choose" (but they normally don't).

Good call regarding Broken Spear.

Flintacs said:

Flintacs said:

Semantically, that is because there is no actual choice to make. The attachment doesn't allow you any choices to make as it only applies to the attached character. The timing of choosing a target was selecting the character who would receive the attachment during the marshaling phase(or whenever the attachment was played). After that there is no longer a target to choose as the attached character is affected directly when the ability is triggered.

It really is quite different from only having one choice when you are asked to "choose" a character to be affected because it's possible to have nothing to choose to enforce an ability or an event. However, attachments are not possible to have in play without a character to attach to, so you will never have no choices when the attachment ability on a character affects the attached character only.

Choose means you can select from a group of 0 to X characters that fit the criteria. If the attachment says it affects the attached character directly it is from a group of 1 to 1 characters which means there is no choice since it's impossible to have the attachment without the character.

One could argue that "All characters with a Power icon get +1 strength until the end of the phase" could be targeting all Power icon characters, so I'm not sure if that is defined as "targets" in this game or not. Contextually, just because something fits criteria for an affect, doesn't mean they were targeted by a player.

Targets are directed or aimed at, so if an ability does not provide choices, then I don't see how the affected characters can be considered targets. A card may target things directly, but player choices are players choosing targets.

So perhaps the correct definition of "target" in this game is "targets chosen by a player" instead of "targets chosen by a card".

Did it really take me that long to write the above post? 2 replies before I finished, ****.

Bomb said:

This definition is given in the FAQ for events and character abilities. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why a basic definition like that would apply to events and character abilities, but not to attachment, location, or other card abilities. We apply the information about cost, play restrictions and effects found in those entries for events and character abilities to locations and attachment abilities, don't we? Why wouldn't the information apply for targeting, too?

Ultimately, it is unusual for an attachment to "choose" its attached character. (It does happen though - The Broken Spear being the only one I know of in the LCG card pool.) As such, they do not specifically target the attached character.

ktom said:

Challenges: If it is Summer, kneel 2 influence to choose all participating, non-Dragon characters. Until the end of the phase, each of those characters gets -2 STR and is killed if its STR is 0

and Westeros Bleeds:

Dominance: Kneel 4 influence to discard all characters from play.

If Eddard was the only character vulnerable in those cases, he could only use his ability to cancel the first, as it does actually target him, while the latter does not. Now if Westeros Bleeds was written: Kneel 4 influence to choose and discard all characters from play, and he was the only one in play, he could cancel. Likewise, if Eddard had the Crown of Winter attached to him and he and another noble were the only non-Dragon characters were in a challenge where the Field of Fire was played by the opponent, he would also be able to cancel, as the Immunity prevents him being chosen, and you again have a single noble chosen for the effect.

ktom said:

Challenges: If it is Summer, kneel 2 influence to choose all participating, non-Dragon characters. Until the end of the phase, each of those characters gets -2 STR and is killed if its STR is 0

and Westeros Bleeds:

Dominance: Kneel 4 influence to discard all characters from play.

If Eddard was the only character vulnerable in those cases, he could only use his ability to cancel the first, as it does actually target him, while the latter does not. Now if Westeros Bleeds was written: Kneel 4 influence to choose and discard all characters from play, and he was the only one in play, he could cancel. Likewise, if Eddard had the Crown of Winter attached to him and he and another noble were the only non-Dragon characters were in a challenge where the Field of Fire was played by the opponent, he would also be able to cancel, as the Immunity prevents him being chosen, and you again have a single noble chosen for the effect.

ktom, you are saying why not to apply rules for events to attachments. Another one might say why should we do this?

Now we don't have a rule. "Why not to apply" is not a rule but an opinion.

ktom said:

Another point of view: attachments don't have the word "choose" because they always affect (and choose) the attached character (if no other targets are specified).

I think the game developers should clarify the rules regarding attachments and locations. Now everyone can have his/her own point of view about this.

Flintacs said:

I suppose so, but it doesn't seem particularly necessary. As mentioned above, we extend all the information about cost, effect, and play restrictions from the event/character abilities to locations and attachments without batting an eye. Why not target requirements (ie, that the word "choose" - and only the word "choose" - indicates a target), too?

For example, those rule entries for events and character abilities both specify that if you cannot pay the cost of the event effect/character ability, you cannot trigger the effect. But there is no rule saying the same for attachments or locations. Does that mean we should give weight to the idea that "you must pay the cost in order to use an attachment or location ability" is only an opinion, and that you could therefore trigger an attachment or location ability without paying the cost? Or that there is a valid opinion that we should treat costs on attachments/locations any differently than on events and character abilities?

You could add the clarity to the rules, but is it really necessary? Essentially, the only reason not to treat effects on attachments and locations with the same guidelines provided for the effects on events and characters is that "the rules don't say I have to."

Seems to me that if you go to driver's education and learn to drive in a Toyota hatchback, you don't need to go back and take the class again when asked to drive a Ford sedan.

ktom, I think generally you are right. Thank you a lot for the explanation!

Just want to explain why I vote for rules clarification.

Your example about paying cost for effects describes not the same situation. If you take 10 players who are not experts in agot rules and ask them: can you play an effect that reads "Pay X gold to do Y" if you don't pay the gold? 9 of 10 will say "No, you can't".

If you take the same players and ask them: does the attachment with the text "give attached character X icon" target the attached character? 9 of 10 will say "Yes, of course".

The "choose" targeting rule in the above situation goes against natural thinking. It's better to have such rules stated clearly.

Flintacs said:

9 out of 10 statistics are completely made up.

Flintacs said:

I sincerely hope it'd be more than 9 out of 10.

Flintacs said:

You can't leave out the rules as stated, then say the rules are not clear.