I was the one who started the discussion on IFR+Corpse Lake. I gave two examples to try and explain what I thought was the ruling (which KTOM agrees with). Other than the, "influence paid for cost is not a triggered efffect" example, I also gave the example of using Seasick to cancel a triggered effect. When you cancel a triggered effect with Seasick, the cost is not refunded because the cost is not the triggered effect.

You want FFG to reverse the ruling that a Cost is not a Triggered Effect? I just don't think this will happen. The best you can hope for is an Errata on IFR, which wouldn't happen until the next FAQ update. So, send FFG e-mails if you want them to errata the card, but I wouldn't be to hopeful. Until they do, it works exactly how KTOM explained it a couple posts ago.

Miklos said:

It's as official as you're going to get on this (or any other) discussion board.

Has someone employed in the LCG division of FFG come out and specifically said "when you discard cards for Iron Fleet Raiders, you are paying a cost, so you cannot trigger 'after an effect discards a card...' Responses"? No. They haven't. But they have come out and said that Hellholt Engineer's play restrictions are met when a player pays a cost by kneeling a location, but not when the effect that the cost pays for kneels a location - and that is the Corpse Lake situation, just coming from the opposite direction.

A more direct comparison is the Lannister attachment Flogged and Chained, which says "Response: After a character is knelt by a triggered effect, kneel attached character." If you play ALPHD by kneeling one of your characters (cost) to kill one of the winner's participating character, you do not get to also get to kneel the character Flogged and Chained is on. Again, this is because the character you knelt to play the event was not knelt by the triggered (event) effect, even though it was knelt as a requirement of initiating the effect.

So what I have laid out for you is the result of reasoning through the official position on the difference between a player doing X to pay a cost and an effect resulting in the same X. Take it as you will.

1. LotR Cersei has an attachment that provides +2 to her STR on. I play Forever Burning on her. Her STR in now 4. I discard her attachment in the same phase. Her STR in now 2, right? Does this happen because Forever Burning is a terminal effect, so at all times, I check her current STR and then I subtract 1?

2. I 've read somewhere that duplicates are not considered to be unique cards even if they are attached to unique characters locations or attachments. Can I use Wintertime Marauders' ability to discard a duplicate on a unique card in play? Can duplicates be straightly interacted with? Mind you, I 'm not referring to the response they provide. I know it can be interacted with, i.e. with He Calls... I 'm referring to duplicate interaction. I know there is the new Ser Axell Florent who does that, but he makes a specific mention to duplicates on his card text. What about the Marauders etc.?

Serazu said:

I'm not entirely following why you would think the "-1 STR until the end of the phase" effect from Forever Burning would end just because Cersei loses a "+2 STR" attachment? The only way that a character loses the -1 STR modifier from Forever Burning is to either leave play or for the phase to end.

Serazu said:

If I save Tarle the Thrice-Drowned from being killed, and my opponent plays He Calls it Thinking to cancel my save effect, can I play Tarle's response again and save him from being killed?

Also (if I can't), can I use response from The Iron Cliffs to save Tarle after his own ability got canceled (with He Calls it Thinking)?

Thanx

Zmajoubica said:

1) No, because of the "one response per trigger" rule.

2) Yes, because those are different responses.

1. I use Rhaenys's Hill and, among the opponent's characters stolen for the phase is Doubting Septa. I lose a MIL challenge and pick the Septa to satisfy claim. What happens? When its passive ability kicks in, I 'm in control of her, but, on the other hand, when it leaves play it should return to my opponent's possession. Will its ability stay dormant?

2. Rhaenys's Hill again. What happens if, among the opponent's characters stolen are two same copies of a unique one? The one will attach itself as a duplicate to the other I guess. What will happen at the end of the phase? Since, at the end of the phase, there is no window neither for actions, nor responses, the duplicate cannot be activated and the character will return to my opponent's dead pile whereas its duplicate to his discard pile, I guess. Correct?

Serazu said:

If the Doubting Septa is killed while under someone else's control, it goes to the bottom of its owner's deck, but it's controller draws the card.

Serazu said:

Thanks. By the way, Aegon's and Visenya's Hill make both instances more possible than you think.

Oh, I know how "possible" they are with the Hills. Still not particularly common.

1. First Snow of Winter and Horseback Archers:
The aforementioned plot is revealed. During the Challenges phase, Player A attacks with a 2-gold cost character. Player B defends with a character of the same cost. They both get bounced back and, since there are no characters participating, the challenge is automatically terminated with no winner and player A never has the opportunity to put the HA into play. Had player B defended with a higher cost character though, then the challenge would continue after the bouncing of all lower cost characters and player A would have the opportunity to use his HA. Correct?

2. Jhogo and A Lannister Pays His Debts:
The opportunity for the first Response to an action is given to the player to the left of the one who initiated the action and goes clockwise from there. Does the same happen to Responses to Framework actions, i.e. winning of challenges? If, in the above example, player A won a MIL challenge with Jhogo attacking, would player B respond first with A Lannister… to kill Jhogo and then Player A would use moribund Jhogo’s Response as with the usual Responses sequence (in which case, the attacker is considered the "initiator") or things differ (and, possibly, the first player will determine who gets the first Response and going clockwise from there)?

Serazu said:

While technically correct from a participating character point of view, your timing is way off.

First Snow bounces all cost-2 and lower characters back to hand "When the first challenge is initiated". That means it happens (passively) after the challenge/attackers are declared - long before you ever get to declaring defenders. This challenge ended almost as soon as it was declared.

So all this "participating character" stuff happens before players can take actions after the challenge is initiated, and even longer before defenders can be declared. Unless a character with at least 3-cost is declared in the first challenge of the round, the first challenge will end pretty much immediately upon being declared.

Serazu said:

The First Player never gets to decide anything about Responses. The First Player can never tell any other player when or how to trigger anything.

From the FAQ:

"In a Framework Action Window, the 'First Player' always has the first opportunity to respond. Response opportunity then passes clockwise around the table. Note that challenge resolution is a framework action window, so the 'First Player' has response priority regardless of his status as attacker or defender."

So in a framework action like resolving challenges, the First Player gets first response (whether he is attacker, defender, or not participating in the challenge at all), and you go clockwise from there.

ktom said:

This is good to know. I believe it was at the Iowa Tournament on Oct. 1 last year, Nate had ruled that two copies of a unique prevented _either_ from entering play rather than one as a dupe. And Lukas, Nick & he were all playing Greyjoy/Treaty-Targaryen decks to Iron Lore extra uses out of Rhaenys' Hill, along with Aegon's, so I know it came up. I prefer you're answer, but I we should make sure that the ruling is shared.

~Hey, it's another good question for the FAQ!

Maester_LUke said:

(3.37) Unique Cards Entering Play from the Dead Pile
When putting a unique card into play from your dead pile, that copy of the card does not prevent itself from entering play. Multiple copies of a unique card will prevent one another from entering play from your dead pile, unless those copies would all enter play simultaneously.

So it's already there, and the Rhaenys' Hill answer above is not my answer - it's the FAQ answer. I'd venture to say it is from after your Iowa event.

The rules state "Each player has the option of bringing one card out of his or her Shadows area each phase". Is it absolute -just one card per phase- or do the rules bend in the case of cards that may enter play mid-phase such as Ser Mandon Moore and Sorrowful Man? I 've always played it as one card per phase, so, if a card came out of the Shadows area at the beginning of the phase as normal, then the above two cards could not enter play during the same phase by the same player. Was I correct here?

Serazu said:

The rules describe how to use the basic "bring out of Shadows" mechanic at the beginning of the phase. Using a card effect to bring a card out of Shadows is a completely different thing. One does not limit the other.

Applying the limits on the standard rules for the Shadow mechanic to card effects that bring cards out of Shadows would be like applying the standard rules for "1 challenge of each type" in the Challenge phase to card effects that allow you to declare additional challenges.

It would also be like applying the "you can only play 1 'limited' card per round" to card effects that allow you to put cards into play (separate from the "play" mechanic). Limits on a mechanic cannot be applied generally to the results of that mechanic.

Opponent steals my Arianne. May I use my Chaston Gray to bounce one of my nobles to return her to my hand? I suppose no, since the "opponent's character" probably refers to characters my opponent owns and controls and he just controls Arianne. Correct?

Serazu said:

"Opponent's character," "your character," "his/her character," "player's character," etc. always refers to characters controlled by that player. Only "control" matters. That is the default in this game. If an effect wants to limit by ownership, it will say so (on the effect or in the rules - the way that it does for playing dupes).

So yes, if Player A takes control of Player B's Arienne, Player B can use GG to return Arienne to (his own) hand.

ktom said:

You 're my hero.

1. I use Val's ability and I draw a Dissension. The only eligible target is one of my refugees. Do I have to discard him? The "up to" leads me to believe that I can choose 0 refugees as targets of Dissension and help my refugee survive the ordeal, but am I correct or not?

2. Does the answer change if, in the above case, the only eligible target for Dissension was an ally of mine? The "up to" is missing, but perhaps the "choose" helps me pick an imaginative "0 refugees" and help my ally survive.

3. What happens if I reveal City of Sin and it's only me who has characters in play? Does the "up to" apply and I may just pick 0 characters?

Nevermind, I found the answers in the first two questions. It appears that in case nr. 1 the refugee survives, where in case nr. 2 the ally hits the discard pile. If there was a refugee around however, he could have saved the ally.

What about the third question though? Does the case nr. 1 instance applies here and I may get away without kneeling any of my characters?

Another question: If I utilize Harrenhal's ability and none of the top three cards are to my liking, may I just search my entire deck for Riders of the Red Fork to fetch or do they have to be among the top three?

City of Sin falls into the same wording as your Refugee/Dissension scenario, so I'm pretty sure you could choose zero characters to kneel.

I know they consider searching your deck and searching the top of your deck to be 2 different types of search effects, however Rider do say they can be found by "any search effect" so I would, tenatively, say yes that you should be able to search them out. But I'd wait until someone more credible agrees or says differently.

I'm pretty sure the second answer is incorrect. If I'm not mistaken, they can be found by any search effect, so you can only pull them if they are in the portion of the deck that the search effect allows you to search. The last time I saw this question, it had to do with the plot card that allows you to search the top 5 cards of your deck and pull any House Tully cards, and I believe this was the verdict.

"any search effect" still tell you where you are allowed to search. The "effect" defines criteria for the search and the limitation to where you can search. Riders of the Red Fork only ignores the criteria of the search.

Said even more mathematically, if Riders happens to be in the defined search set, you can pull it out, not matter what you were originally instructed to find. But you cannot go outside of the defined search set to find it.