Ned reads: "Response: Cancel a triggered effect that chooses a NOBLE character as the only target. Then,draw a card. (Limit once per phase.)"

Asshai Initiate reads: "Any Phase: Discard the top 2 cards of your deck to choose 1 character in any dead pile. Move that character to its owner's discard pile. (Limit once per round.)"

If I use Asshai Initiate to target my NOBLE in my dead pile, can my opponent use Ned to cancel the triggered effect?

jmccarthy said:

I would say no, because Ned's ability doesn't explicitly state that it can be used on cards in the dead pile.

I would say not, with my incredibly hazy understanding of the intricate rules, but cards that are discarded/dead/in your deck are out of play and thus cant be interacted with unless something specifies that you can. That said my track record with some rules (most) is less than perfect.

Ratatoskr said:

The thing is, Eddard's ability doesn't interact with the card in the out-of-play area, it interacts with the effect that targets one. So I think it might actually work.

Wouldn't the fact that the effect needs a noble character to be targeted (which a card in the discard/dead pile can't be, it just a character card?) stop his cancel?

Underworld40k said:

Look at the effect of Asshai Initiate; it chooses a card in a discard pile. So the card chosen is the target of the effect. At least that's one possible ruling. The whole situation seems to go against what we've been working so hard to teach ourselves (that card effects only target cards in play, unless otherwise specified), but Asshai Initiate's ability specifically targets a card in an out-of-play area, so I can see Eddard's ability being able to cancel it.

Saturnine is correct. You are trying to cancel the ability of the card that is in play. It chooses a target, and that target can have a Noble crest. It really doesn't matter where the target is for Eddard because he is only interacting with the card triggering the effect, not the target card.

It should also be noted that we cancel things that are not technically in play all the time. To Be a Kraken can cancel CS-Khal Drogo's "put into play" ability, even though it is not in play when that ability is triggered.

Well.

That makes ned even better than i thought he was!

Pity i cant get my hands on him.

Good job he is being reprinted with 3 copies!

OK,while i think that it would work the same way i just want to confirm something.

Winterfell Reserves

Incorrect. Ned CANNOT cancel the Response of Winterfell Reserves, even if the discarded card turns out to be a Noble.

The reason for this is that Ned's text specifically says "...Cancel a triggered effect that chooses a NOBLE character as the only target ...." By specifying a "target," the Noble card chosen must qualify as a target. By the game's definitions, a card only qualifies as a target if the effect that is resolving specifically uses the word "choose" to indicate which card is object of the effect's resolution. Without the word "choose," there is no actual "target" of the effect. Without an actual target, Ned's ability does not apply.

Gotcha, there are times (lots of) that i feel FFG should be shipping the FAQ AND a terms dictionary with the core set.

ktom said:

My understanding, for context, is that you normally can't trigger a single card's response ability twice unless there are two separate triggers. In this case, you won a challenge, so that's only one trigger. On the other hand, you can trigger two different cards once each, and since nobody's keeping track of how many Drogos I have in my hand (there's a more technical justification, but this one is easy/concise), I can repeatedly trigger the same Drogo's ability no matter how many times he gets canceled. Is that right? Or have I missed the boat somewhere?

Twn2dn said:

Are you guys sure about this ruling? Eddard specifies a Noble "character." I thought the game distinguished between characters and character cards (and similarly for attachments and locations). I thought that a character was a card in play that was currently identified as a character with all the properties (like the ability to participate in a challenge) that this entails (usually this is an actual character card but could also be e.g. a Reinforcements card; other examples involve things like bannermen turning into attachments). I thought that a character card was something with the character card frame that is not necessarily in play.

schrecklich said:

This was an argument that people tried to put forward for why Narrow Escape didn't work on things like Reinforcement cards, but it was ultimately incorrect. After all, think of all those cards that say to search your deck for a "Dragon character" and the like. Under the argument that "character card" is what it was supposed to say when referring to an out-of-play card, those search effects will never find anything.

Game text tends to say "character" and "character card" interchangeably when referring to cards of the character "type" that are not in play.

Thanks, ktom. I was probably remembering a combination of that argument and the way things work in M:tG.

ktom said:

Just to prevent any misunderstanding arising form this statement: Narrow Escape indeed does not bring back Reinforcements that were killed or discarded that phase. It's the cited argument for why it doesn't that's wrong; the fact remains that Events-turned-characters do not come back with NE.

Makes sense as Edd is targeting the triggered effect as opposed to the Noble card, so it does not matter where the Noble card as there is no interaction with Edd and Noble.

Hope thats right.

I used (card db) to bring up both cards for situation and then tried to interperet my understanding of result without looking at other interpretaions, forces you to work things out.

Any chance someone could throw up more situations like this ,as beginners could then have a crack at understanding the result using card db to bring up cards and follow situation in post.

Cheers

M

Sorry to revive an old thread but just want to confirm that the new Theon, who i will no doubt be seeing a lot of, CAN NOT be cancelled by KL Ned as the response on theon reads:

Response: After a unique character is discarded from the top of an opponent's deck, put Theon Greyjoy into play from your dead pile.'

As it is refers to itself and has no 'choose' wording Ned's cancel cant interact with it?

The thread makes note of this, but thats with winterfell reserves response inadvertently interacting with a noble, not a noble interacting with itself although the logic and wording leads me to the same conclusion, Ned cant cancel it.

No "choose," no target. No target, no Ned.

Thought as much. Always thanks for the quick answer

Still reviving this topic :S

If Ned can cancel an effect that targets characters in the dead pile would he able to do so if the target card is in hand, assuming of course that the effect chooses a target.

Aegons hill is the card that is raisin my question:

Challenges: Kneel Aegon's Hill to look at an opponent's hand. You may choose one character card in that hand and place it in its owner's dead pile.

If Ned is in play by the previous posts i cant see any reason that his response could not be triggered, aside from the character being in hand and thus an out of play area.

Based on the above arguments about the dead or discard pile, this should be something that he can cancel.

Yeah, but you've got a bit of paradox going, too.

He can cancel the effect once you choose the card, but when he does, he should cancel the entire effect - meaning you should never have gotten to see the opponent's hand in the first place. But at that point, he can't make you "unsee" your opponent's hand. There is something of an implicit "then" in the choosing of the card - which would make Eddard unusable as a cancel at that point. Not that anything "implicit" should be used to make a ruling here. Far from it. I'm just pointing out the weirdness of it.

So the ruling on the table is that it is possible. No question. The practical matters make it a little weird ruling, though.

Think we might have to house rule it by democracy, thanks for the clarification as always ktom