Bomb said:

Something about the ruling doesn't sit right with me. If my opponent has both a standing and a kneeling int char, I don't think he should be allowed to choose an option that doesn't fully satisfy the wording of the effect when he has one that does fully and completely satisfy it readily available.

dcdennis said:

On some levels, I agree with you, but on others, I think "you have to choose an option that fully satisfies the wording and leads to a successful resolution whenever possible" is too broad. What constitutes a successful resolution? How far ahead do I have to look? Since the person who played the card first kneels his character first, does the next player have to choose a character with higher STR as part of a successful resolution? By the same token, can I kneel Timett to save Tyrion from Valar, making him CBK since that cuts off the successful resolution of the Valar (at least as far as Timett is concerned)? Or what about something like Red Wedding. Say that you reveal it and have the only Lady on the board. I have 2 Lords, one is CBK, the other is not. Obviously, my best choice is my CBK-Lord and your Lady, but in order to let you have a full choice of "choose and kill one of those characters," do I have to choose the non-CBK character so that you have a real choice on which on to kill? Or what when you initiate something fully expecting it to resolve successfully, only to have it not resolve successfully (like saves or cancels)? Does that retroactively invalidate paying the costs?

And all of that is above and beyond effectively repealing the allowance for kneeling cards that are already knelt or standing cards that are already standing.

Such a blanket ruling might make some things "sit right," but it would also re-ropen a bunch of questions that have already answered. It's not that FFG can't do it, but there would be a lot of fall-out if the rules were changed such that initiation was dependent on presumptive resolution.