Misinformation: "Misinformation
[Lannister Event]
House Lannister only.
Response: If an opponent would win an challenge against you, cancel the determination of challenge winner. You automatically win the challenge. "

1. Can I use this card as an attacker? (What does 'against' mean?)

2. If I use this as the defender with no defending characters, can I trigger Tower of Joy (Response: After you win a challenge with fewer participating characters than your opponent, kneel The Tower of Joy to choose and kill a character controlled by the losing opponent.)?

Took three tries to actually post this. Stupid forum.

jmccarthy said:

OOh. I think so. Thats not a bad idea.

Also, I have a question. You can misinformation a misinformation, right?

jmccarthy said:

1. The against here is meant to be taken in the context of "win against you", not "challenge against you", so as long as your opponent is winning the intrigue challenge (either as an attacker or a defender), you can play Misinformation.

2. Yes.

Fieras said:

Yes, and you can both take turns doing so until you run out of Misinformations in hand.

jmccarthy said:

jmccarthy said:

Fieras said:

ktom said:

Are you sure about it? The text of the misinformation says :

Response: If an opponent would win a challenge against you, cancel the determination of challenge winner. You automatically win the challenge.

So if someone plays this event, there is no more "determination of challenge winner" so you cannot cancel it again with another misinformation(it is cancelled with the first one), and you didn't meet the requirements of that second misinformation(and your opponent already "win" not "would win").

Is there any other timing or misunderstunding of the text i am missing?

Thanks ^^

KyK said:

Lannister has Misinformation, Targaryen has True Power, Stark has Feigned Retreat, Martell has Burning on the Sands, Baratheon has Compelled by the King, and Greyjoy has Ahead of the Tide

there is a certain balance in this game i don't normally appreciate

jack merridew said:

So pretty clearly True Power and Feigned Retreat can be used on themselves as well. I am guessing that Ahead of the Tide and Compelled by the KIng can't be though because they reference a particular counting event rather than just the "determination of the winner." Is that right?

schrecklich said:

No, that is incorrect.

After your opponent plays AotT, he is winning initiative, so the "After an opponent wins initiative" window for saves/cancels opens for you (and the other losing players in melee), so you now have the opportunity to play AotT.

Likewise for CbtK during dominance.

Determination of challenge winner, determination of initiative winner and determination of dominance winner are each a particular counting event.

Actually, I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

For Feigned Retreat, True Power, and Misinformation, what is being canceled is the "determination of challenge winner." In those situations, copy #1 has become the "determination of challenge winner," so there is no problem. Copy #2 jumps in, resolves successfully on all fronts, and becomes the final determination of challenge winner (assuming no copy #3). Essentially, these situations are clear and easy because "determination of challenge winner" is generic enough to clearly apply to any means of determining the winner of the challenge.

However, with Compelled by the King and Ahead of the Tide, what is being canceled is the dominance and initiative counts, respectively. This is a little different from the "determination of..." wording because it really only applies to the specific method of determining the winner of dominance/initiative by the usual "count" method, not by the "substitution" method of the card effect. However, the1andonlime is completely correct that the play restrictions of "if an opponent would win dominance/initiative..." are met, making it legal to play the card. What seems to happen, though, is that the "cancel the count" part on copy #2 fizzles because there is no count to cancel. But the "you win" part resolves, no problem because there is no "then" requiring the cancel to be successful before the "you win" part is successful. That means the cancel of the copy #1 is unsuccessful and its "you win" effect is still out there - but so is the "you win" effect of copy #2. With two valid and mutually exclusive "you win" effects out there, the First Player decides who wins (which is still the First Player from the previous round in the case of Ahead of the Tide). Weird, huh?

Burning in the Sands, luckily, doesn't get anywhere near this issue because copy #1 doesn't create the all-important "in an opponent would win..." condition that copy #2 would need to meet its play restrictions.

ktom said:

Semantically I don't think First Player can make that decision. First of all, if we are going rule it as strict as it sounds, if you are supposed to "Automatically win dominance", the First Player can't tell you that you don't win if it's "automatic". There is nothing automatic about that. If anything, the last claim of dominance won if applied or ALL players who played this card should claim a power. Otherwise there is a canceling of the effect of a card that says it's automatic which goes against the text on the card. So for this one, I think it should either be the last player who played the card wins dominance or everyone who played the card wins dominance.

Ahead of the Tide should also be the last player to play the card wins initiative. The final text being "you win initiative instead" part is key. "If an opponent would win initiative" still applies to the next sentence. The initiative count part is irrelevant because the card is telling you that you win initiative instead of the current opponent is winning initiative.

I know that what I am saying below was mentioned above, but I must elaborate because I agree with it more.

It's either that or no two players can play those events back to back because "would" is no longer applicable which is the trigger of the effect. Automatically winning dominance is not a "would" anymore, it's automatic and that player won. Unless it is canceled of course.

Same applies to the initiative text. It says "You win initiative instead." which implies you won it and not that you "would" win it.

I don't think Paper Shield works the same way. It specifically can cancel another Paper Shield because it fits the Response's criteria, that being it is simply canceling out another Event(The first Paper Shield).

Now I know some or many of you won't agree with what I am saying, but if we are going to be semantically and logically strict, then this is they way I am reading this and playing those types of events back to back just doesn't fit the criteria of the condition of those events. "You automatically win" and "you win" are absolute once the first play of that event card is resolved.

Bomb said:

The "everyone wins" dominance idea is not supported in the rules. If "everyone wins," then they have really tied (you can't have two winners). And ties in dominance are neither wins, nor see any power awarded.

Bomb said:

Bomb said:

I did take the initiate-interrupt-resolve stage into consideration. The only interruption I can see is some means of canceling the effect. If it is not canceled, the resolution of the card says "You win X". If you cannot cancel this effect, then I interpret it to it jumping to the point of rewarding for dominance. The count for dominance is canceled by this card which means the counting for dominance framework action is no longer in existence. The card skips that part of the framework action altogether.

The Dominance rules in the coreset rulebook:

At the beginning of the dominance phase, all
players count the total combined STR of all of
their standing characters, and add 1 to this total
for each gold token in their gold pool. The player
with the highest value wins dominance and immediately
claims 1 power for his or her House.
Power is awarded for dominance before any
player has an opportunity to take actions(such as
playing an event card that stands a knelt character
or steals gold from another player’s gold pool).

Now, if the count is canceled, I don't see how it doesn't go right to rewarding dominance. The way I see the card working(and the others) is it replaces the entire framework action and resolution with "You win X".

Interesting interpretation.

The only problem I have with it is that by jumping ahead to the resolution and replacing it all together with "you win," you prematurely close the save/cancel step, which is not supposed to close until every player has had a chance to play or pass on save/cancel opportunities. To do something that radical with the basic framework of the game, I think it would need to be much more specifically stated on the card. No other cancel effect ends the save/cancel step, even though there may be nothing left to save or cancel in a practical sense.

Well, that and the fact that if the "entire framework action" is replaced "altogether" with "you win," you have replaced the actual award of power (since the card doesn't say you get power when you win) along with the count since they are part of the same "reward dominance" framework action.

Anyway, looking at The Iron Throne, which also lets you win dominance "automatically," doesn't that demonstrate that the framework structure is not changed by things that happen "automatically"? You just replace the "automatic" result with whatever the result normally would be when you get to that point in the timing structure? So if the framework structure is not changed as a matter of fact by an "automatic" effect, and no other cancel closes the save/cancel step when resolved, doesn't it follow that Compelled would not jump you ahead in the timing structure and replace the resolution of the framework event "altogether" with its own card effect resolution?

ktom said:

So you say it's legal to play cancel response even if there is nothing to cancel?

And what happened with this interpretation?

Rogue30 said:

Note that in that interpretation, I wasn't saying there was nothing to cancel. I was saying that the appropriate conditions for the play restriction were not met in time for the cancel to be triggered effectively.

It had been pointed out to me since then (and clarified to some extent by the FAQ) that "would X" essentially comes down to "if this effect resolves as expected, the result will be X." So when I based that earlier interpretation on the fact that the first Feigned Retreat would not create the correct play restriction for second because it hadn't resolved completely yet, I was wrong. I was mistaken about the scope of the word "would." I have been corrected as to my understanding of "would win;" it is a softer restriction than I thought.

So for Feigned Retreat, which cancels the determination of winner, there is something for copy #2 to cancel. Copy #1. Compelled and Ahead are unusual in that their play restrictions can be met ("would win dominance/initiative") by something other than what they specifically cancel (the count). I could be readily convinced that copy #2 could not be played on copy #1, despite the "would win" play restriction being met, because copy #2 is not being played on the effect it says it cancels.

Ok, I'm too stupid for this game, so I may be wrong, but here are my doubts:

1) "the determination of challenge winner" - how can we be sure that this does not mean framework event only? It's possible that designers wanted all 6 cards to work similar.

2) ktom said:

In my opinion meeting "if" restriction is not enough, you must be able to cancel the "target". If the initiative count is already canceled, then you cannot play second copy Ahead of the Tide.

3) After successful cancel, we cannot go to step 3 and resolve effect, because this effect was canceled. So I believe we go to step 4 after successful cancel. I don't buy argument, that after cancel we resolve something in step 3 (automatic win in this example). We resolve this in step 2, just like any other effect in this game. Once initiated (and not canceled), an effect must resolve completely, so autowin happens in step 2.

I would like to see it in FAQ (and generally what happens after successful cancel).

Rogue30 said:

Why wouldn't the same thing happen "generally" when an effect is canceled? You don't skip Step 3; the resolution is just considered to be unsuccessful? The "effect" part of the ability or effect just doesn't take place (as indicated in the cancel example in the Core Set Rules)?

ktom said:

Seems to me that "does not take place" (because it was interrupted and prevented from happening) and "does take place unsuccessfuly" are two different things. We have no example about canceling framework event.

Besides, what I meant about skipping, that even if step 3 exists, nothing happen there, so we can safely skip to step 4.

Has anyone considered forwarding this discussion to Nate & Damon for a more concrete answer. Either in interpretation, or intent, or in need for a FAQ'ing/errata?

I'm sorry for my late response since Friday. I left work and had no computer access until today. I tried to use my smart phone but it wasn't allowing me to type in text on this forum. I will be brief because I am waking up still and have some things to do.

I was under the impression that determining the winner and rewarding for dominance were 2 separate framework events. Once you "cancel the count" and/or "automatically determine winner" from those types of cards, you'd move directly into rewarding for dominance as that occurs after the winner is determined.

All the other similar cards that act on different framework events I would believe behave the same. You automatically win the challenge and move on to claim. You automatically win initiative and move on to deciding the first player.

I understand that the step by step diagram was created to determine game flow, but I don't see how these cards were created with so many questions without the intent being what Rogue30 and I are seeing. I mean without near-perfect knowledge of the game flow and step by step workings, common sense can't possibly be used in many aspects of the game.