Ok, I know there have been some questions about this card, but I want to capture a couple of the scenario questions here.

Here is the text on the card:

When revealed, you choose one: 1 - Each player draws 3 cards and then discards 3 random cards from hand. 2- Each player discards 3 random cards from hand and then draws 3 cards.

Question --- does each player need to satisfy the first part of the text before the "then" portion kicks in for both players? Basically, what I'm saying is this....is the "then" portion of the text an individual based "then" or a corporate based "then"?

For instance, I reveal Threat from the East. Lets say my opponent only has 2 cards in hand. I choose option (2) on the plot (Discard then draw). Since my opponent cannot discard 3 cards (he can only discard 2), does it prevent both of us from drawing 3, or just him?

Another example...player A draws a card with King's Landing during the plot phase, but before plots have been revealed. Player B reveals Threat and chooses option (1). Since player B cannot technically draw three (he can only draw 2 due to the draw cap), does it prevent both players from discarding 3, or just player B?

These same scenarios could be presented with The Laughing Storm in play and standing.

Each player resolves the plot's effect individually and how it resolves for one player has no bearing on how it resolves for an another. Despite the presence of "then" it's all part of one effect -- "[Effect 1 of 1] Each player does X and then Y." So it resolves in this fashion:

Player 1 does X and then Y, Player 2 does X and then Y, etc.

For one player to affect everyone it would have to read, "[Effect 1 of 2] Each player does X. [Effect 2 of 2] Then, each player does Y." More specifically, "Each player draws 3 cards. Then, each player discards 3 cards." Here the "then" would be looking to make sure each and every player did indeed draw 3 cards. So it would resolve in this fashion:

Player 1 does X, Player 2 does X, etc. Then (if all Players did X), Player 1 does Y, Player 2 does Y, etc.

It comes down to whether or not the "then" effect is a distinct and separate effect or part of one. In nearly all cases it's distinct, but here it's not.

In your examples, the opponent with 2 cards will discard both cards, but not be able to draw 3. You would discard 3 cards, and then draw 3. Player A would draw 3, and then discard 3. Player B would draw 2, but not discard 3.

Eagerly waiting for ktom to explain why I'm wrong.

Actually I think the word 'then' is not the key here, but the word each. If it said 'All players' then I would say that it is dependent on all the players together meeting the first condition. When it is says each it is look at them as individuals.

I could totally be wrong here tough.

I do not think it is necessary because the sentence structure is different from most "do X. Then, Y" cards in the game. but I could be going to into it

Penfold said:

The success or failure of the "pre-then" part of this effect is looked at individually for each player. It is possible for 1 player to successfully draw/discard 3 while another does not.

So...does this mean that Part A (of whichever of the two choices is selected) happens no matter what (even if discard is chosen first and a player has TWO cards) but Part B ONLY HAPPENS if Part A is satisfied as a "three"?

and.....a similar question about Venomous Blade. After Venomous Blade comes out of Shadows, attach it to a character you control. Then, choose and kill an opponent's character with printed STR 2 or less. If all of the characters in play are STR 3 or more, can VB still attach or is the "THEN" part not matter since it is in a separate sentence?

mathlete said:

Correct.

mathlete said:

I'm not sure why you ask. You can kill character if attaching part was successful, not the other way round.

This is all standard "if/then" AGoT stuff.

When you have something that says "do X, then do Y," you are not allowed to do Y unless you successfully completed X. "Successful," in this case, means full execution of all terms of X.

So in the Threat from the East bit, the "X" will always involve 3 cards. If someone only has 2 cards to discard (or draw), then they have not fully executed X (although they have to do as much as they can - and lose/draw the 2 cards), so will not be able to "then" do Y.

On VB, the ability to do or not do Y has no bearing on whether or not you can do X. So the fact that there are no printed 2STR characters in play does not prevent you from bring the attachment out of Shadows and putting it on a Martell character you control (who knows, maybe you want to "shut off" a Flame-Kissed on a 3-STR character before your opponent can strike the last 1STR).

So remember, in "do X, then do Y," you can always attempt to do X, regardless of whether Y is possible or not. But if X is not fully executed, successfully, you cannot attempt to do Y.

Just to get this straight - if I am playing Threat from the East and I have 2 cards in hand or I have The Laughing Storm in play I should choose draw 3 then discard 3.

In the first case (started with 2 cards in hand before playing Threat from the East) I will have 2 cards in hand after discarding, but if I went the other way (discard then draw) I would have zero cards in hand because I couldn't discard the full 3 to satisfy the if-then clause? Is that right? I totally played that wrong the other night if that's the case.

In the second scenario it's the same case - I can't discard with TLS in play and standing, so I should draw first, and then not discard.

Likewise, if I'm sitting across the table from someone with TLS or two cards in hand I should choose to discard then draw because they will be unable to draw in either case.

ktom said:

The question is also discussed on the French forum and there are different opinions.

The rules says:

"If a card uses the word "then," then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to be
resolved."

The preceding effect, here, is : "Each player draw/discards three cards"

Now there are three options :

#1 The "pre-then" effect is a single effect so both players must resolve it sucessfully so that both of them must proceed with "post-then" effect.

#2 The "pre-then" part of this effect is a single effect looked individually for each player.

The rules says the preceding effect must have been resolved sucessfully, meaning the whole effect, the word "individually" is not mentioned, or maybe you meant the "pre-then" part is two effect.

#3 The "pre-then" effect is two effects for which failure/success are looked individually for each player. This however would not be consistent with other cards wording such as Game of Cyvasse. More specifically, it would mean:

"Each player do X, then each player do Y"

becomes

"Player A do X, then player A do Y" AND "Player B do X, then player B do Y".

Apply this to Game of Cyvasse.

"Player A must choose and kneel a char with an INT icon he controls, then the player who knelt the character with the highest STR may choose and return a character to it's owner's hand"

AND

"Player B must choose and kneel a char with an INT icon he controls, then the player who knelt the character with the highest STR may choose and return a character to it's owner's hand"

That would mean two characters may be returned to their owner's hand because the effect applies for each player individually. So this explanation is not consistent which leaves #1.

perpetual noob said:

That's all correct.

Bolzano said:

No.

Game of Cyvasse has the all important "if able" that Threat from the East does not. That changes the context and the correct interpretation of the effect. You cannot ignore the "if able" here. It turns Game of Cyvasse into a comparison, but it's absence from Threat from the East leaves that as applying independently.

That would be like ignoring the "up to" when choosing 3 characters for Wildfire and saying nothing dies if one player only has 2 characters in the board.

So "Threat from the East" follows #3, but "Game of Cyvasse" follows #1 - with the "if able" caveat making it successful even if a player has no character to kneel.

Actually I think the comparison works, I was aware of the "If able" word.

However the only role of the "if able" is to make the "Then..." effect works whatever the players did.

There is no reason it should change the way the effect is "interpretated in the context" as two separate effects or one single effect. I'm not sure what you mean by wording depending on the context. In both cases it is written as only one effect not two effects. The "if able" juste make the conditions easy to fullfill.

It does not make two separate effects becoming one.

The FAQ says "Separate effects will always be separated in a different paragraph." Here there is no different paragraph so it is a single effect.

So saying pre-then effect of Game of Cyvasse is two separate effect (which is wrong because of there is only one paragraph) would indeed lead to return to hand two characters by applying twice the "Then..." effect. For this card it's obvious it does not work this way, but I think it's pretty much the same wording for the plot "Threat from the East"

Bolzano said:

Separate effects only need to be in separate sentences, not separate paragraphs. Otherwise cards that said things like "Kneel that character. That character does not stand during the standing phase this round." without a line break would not be considered separate, multiple effects either, and would thus be dependent on each other because there would be a single, all-or-none effect to resolve, not multiple effects in which you would resolve what you could. This "separate sentences, not separate paragraph" thing is old stuff.

If you are convinced that between the "if able" wording and the difference between plot and event triggers, the success of the "pre-then" part of Threat from the East should be interpreted from the point of view of all players rather than each one separately, send the question to FFG. Pretty much everyone else accepts it otherwise and reads the distinction from the context. I can't explain it any differently than I already have.

I have asked confirmation to FFG, and they answered : If one player cannot fulfill the pre-then effect, neither player fulfills the post-then effect.

Just curious - is that exactly what they said, or did they give more explanation?

Here is complete and exact quotation :

"Both players must fulfill the pre-then effect for the "then" effect to occur.

If one player cannot fulfill the pre-then effect, neither player fulfills the post-then effect."

And associated question:

"A question on the plot "Threat from the East" has been raised again on our French boards.

Text:
"When revealed, you choose one: 1- Each player draws 3 cards and then discard 3 random cards from hand. 2- Each player discards 3 random cards from hand and then draws 3 cards. "

Are 1- and 2- both single effects for both players or does each create one effect per player? What I mean is, if one of the players cannot draw 3 cards and the other can, does it prevent both from discarding or just one?

I was thinking the wording is similar to Game of Cyvasse so it should be a single effect : Both players successfully draw/discard => both discard / draw."

This makes a setup with TLS followed by TftE not nearly as awesome as it was yesterday.

Because it is utterly contrary to the way they have been ruling on it up until now.

That's bizarre. Want to make sure I understand this ruling wholly:

So if I play Threat and choose the Discard-then-Draw route, and one of us cannot discard, neither of us draws? And if I choose the Draw-then-Discard route, and one of us cannot discard, neither of us discards? And what if one of us can't draw the full three cards (deck's out, hit the draw cap before)? Still no discard?

Yes alpha5099.

To ktom : Was there a different official ruling before?

Mathias Fricot said:

Why? Getting the combo in setup is not affected by this ruling in any way, is it? Or am I being thick?

It works like this: I get TLS in setup. I reveal TftE as my first plot. I use the draw-then-discard option. We both draw three. The pre-then part is fulfilled by both. Then, my opponent discards. I want to discard too - but whoopsie, I can't, sorry.

How is this affected by that new ruling?

Think of the other option.

If I were to choose discard then draw, he would discard and I wouldn't, neither of us getting to draw up. So its a turn 1 4-6-1 plot that says "your opponent randomly discards 3 cards from his or her hand."

That is stupid.

I wish I had stopped reading this thread after page 1. I am now questioning so many other rulings that I have been convinced of in the past.

Mathias Fricot said:

I'm sorry. I don't get what you're saying. Under the "old" ruling, why would I choose the discard-then-draw option if I have TLS standing?

I have TLS standing. I flip TftE. I choose Discard then Draw.

Under the "old" ruling: He discards three, then draws three. I discard nothing and draw nothing.

Under this "new" ruling: He discards three, I discard nothing. Nobody draws.

So, if I choose Discard then Draw, the combo gets *better* with the new ruling. Yet above you said that with the "new" ruling the combo gets *less* awesome.

I swear I'm not being obtuse on purpose. I just don't get it.