If I play Citadel Custom that reads:

"Challenges: Kneel a Maester character to choose a player. That player may initiate an additional challenge this phase."

and the kneeling maetser has a copper link attached can I give an X (any) trait to the Citadel Custom? If I can, will it be possible to play a response like "after you play an event with the trait X do Y"?

And in a related note... are events considered "in play"? I would guess they are but only for the duration of their effects and when passives and responses are resolved they get discarded, right?

Events enter a moribund state after they are played from your hand before going to the discard pile at the end of the action window. So they are technically "in play" and could be hit with Copper Link - if the attached Maester is knelt in that short window the event card is moribund.

Although, keep in mind that Copper Link's effect will wear off as soon as the event leaves play. So it's not like you'll have an extra "Small Council" event in your discard pile for the length of the phase.

ktom said:

Does it mean that I can't activate PotS Joffrey's ability in that case?

Flintacs said:

So we are talking about turning an event into a Small Council by a "Response:" trait manipulation to use it to trigger Joffrey (PotSun)? That doesn't quite make sense. You didn't play a Small Council event, you played an event then turned it into a Small Council. From what I understand about Responses, you can only trigger them when it is eligible. Your not triggering Joff's response every time an event is played and having it resolve unsuccessfully because the event wasn't a Small Council, if it wasn't a small council then you can't trigger the response. Know what I mean?

Rather than going through it all again, I'll refer you to this thread.

Mind = Blown. Also, minor revelation.

It is mentioned in that thread, so I will just ask it here. When you discard a card from your hand as a cost for Maester of the Sun, doesn't it actually have to be discarded from your hand successfully to save the character, since it is part of the cost? Now, I am all fine with someone discarding a Darkstar to put him in play through Maester of the Sun, the same way I am fine with someone kneeling a fiefdoms to reduce the cost of a character that isn't actually coming , but I would say that discarding Darkstar for the MotS will not allow the Maester of the Sun to resolve its effect. A card was never discarded from your hand. I'll expand, MotS and Darkstar read:

Response: If it is Summer, kneel Maester of the Sun and discard a card from your hand to save a HM character from being killed or discarded from play.

If Darkstar would be discarded from your hand or deck, put him into play instead. Be awesome.

The replacement effect of Darkstar prevents him from being discarded from your hand. Instead of that, he gets put into play.

So really, he isn't discarded from your hand - he is put into play - and the cost of Maester of the Sun (discarding a card from your hand) is not met. So you don't save that other character. This is different from shadows Arya who replaces the destination of the killed character (to shadows instead of the dead pile) but the character is still killed. If Darkstar was something like "after Darkstar is put into your discard pile from your hand or deck, put him into play" or even "after Darkstar is discarded from your hand or deck, put him into play" then sure, he will get discarded and then put into play. I think in this case that discarding never happens, he just goes into play, and so MotS isn't met.

Maybe a few of us have been using him wrong. I certainly have.

Like the whole kneeling a knelt location unsuccessfully, since it is already knelt. discarding a card that gets the discarding replaced makes the discard unsuccessful.

Matthias, I agree with you based on the wording of the cards and basic English grammar. However, the way you have been playing the effect (with the Maester both saving a character and putting Darkstar into play) is the officially endorsed ruling. It is similar to Stay of Execution which says:

If a King or Queen character would be killed, instead return it to its owner's hand.

but really means

After a King or Queen is killed, return it to its owner's hand instead of putting it into its owner's dead pile.

The word "instead" used in this way calls for this alternate interpretation as ktom explains here.

So really instead of

If Darkstar would be discarded from your hand or deck, put him into play instead.

you should read Darkstar as saying

If Darkstar is discarded from your hand or deck, put him into play instead of your discard pile.

schrecklich said:

If you read the first post in that thread, it would group Darkstar into the group with Bronn. He isn't discarded, he is put into play. He isn't discarded, you didn't successfully pay the cost for MotS, you don't save a character. I don't know where this official ruling your talking about is, because I don't see it in the FAQ. Just because we are all using it the same way, doesn't mean we are all using it correctly.

Mathias Fricot said:

Wording on Bronn: "Pay 2 gold to choose a character. Until the end of the phase, if that character would be killed and Bronn is kneeling, stand Bronn instead of killing that character." - so "if X would happen, do Y instead of doing X."

Wording on Darkstar: "If Darkstar would be discarded from your hand or deck, put him into play instead." - so "if X would happen, do Y instead."

Darkstar would have to say "If Darkstar would be discarded from your hand or deck, put him into play instead of discarding him." in order to be in the group with Bronn.

The thing that is different from the "usual" or "common" situation described in the post is that there is no change in moribund states. But remember that when you are discarding a card from your hand or deck, there is no moribund state in the first place! Cards only go through moribund if they start in play and end out-of-play. So just because the post talks about "typical" situations, don't assume that it covers all situations.

In the case of the Darkstar, while he does not end up in your discard pile - the way a card discarded from your hand usually would - he does end up leaving your hand. And the effect that made him leave your hand was a discard effect, not a "put into play from your hand" effect. So you Respond to that (or in the MotS situation, pay the cost with the "discard from hand").

Mathias Fricot said:

There is a logic behind it, even if the end result seems...off....

How did he leave the players hand? Well, he was going to be discarded (From hand or deck), but was put into play instead. You can't have Darkstar be discarded and put into play simultaneously. Discarded THEN put into play, sure, that would mean his destination is replaced and the discard is successful. However, it doesn't say his destination is replaced it says being discarded from hand or deck is replaced. Having him put into play INSTEAD of being discarded means that the discard did not happen, otherwise the replacement effect was not successful (he would be discarded). He cannot be both discarded and put into play at the same time without equating being discarded and put into play. They are not the same thing.

Its a simple "if" statement here guys. "If X would happen, do Y instead." well, that means you don't do X, you do Y. Whether it is "...do Y instead" or "...do Y instead of X" doesn't make a difference functionally; either way X is not happening. X is what you are replacing with something else.

Where is fatmouse when we need him.

Think of Storm Dancer

Response: After you win a challenge as the defender, kneel Storm Dancer to draw a card. (If it is Winter and you have at least 1 card in Shadows, draw 3 cards instead.)

Would this mean that, meeting seasonal/shadow conditions, you draw one card successfully (like Darkstar is discarded successfully) and then draw three cards as a replacement effect (the same way your putting Darkstar into play as a replacement effect)? Doesn't make much senses to I. But then again, it doesn't say "draw 3 cards instead of drawing a card" does it. Ya, seems ridiculous to me too. But if the part being replaced is successful with Darkstar, why not with Storm Dancer?

Mathias Fricot said:

Send the Darkstar question in to FFG. I have no doubt what they will tell you.

Mathias Fricot said:

You're taking it out of context.

Storm Dancer isn't a replacement effect. It is an alternate effect. Under condition A at initiation, you get effect #1; under condition B at initiation, you get effect #2.

But replacement effects like those on Darkstar take place based on the conditions at the effect's resolution.

So for Storm Dancer, you are figuring out which effect initiates, but for Darkstar, you are figuring out which effect resolves. Big difference.

Mathias Fricot said:

This is why I linked to that other thread. Basically, Saturnine, Bomb, Rogue30, and I all agree with you about how "if" statements work.

schrecklich said:

ktom said:

Hahaha =) I see the difference, but, wel, I wouldn't call it big.