For Red Wedding, the reason the "other" character can not claim power is because the second "choose" can not resolve. This is due to the fact that the game disallows choosing a "can not be killed" target to be killed. You are presented with a situation where both targets are disallowed by the game, therefore disallowing the action of choosing. With no choice, there is no "other" character.

Also, the reason the player to the left gets to make a choice is because they are not making a choice for which the resolution is a kill effect. They are making a choice for which the resolution is for another player to make another, different choice.

For House Umber Berserkers, the situation is similar. You are required to choose a character for which the resolution of the effect is that the character is killed. The choosing and the killing are resolved as one effect with the choosing being the initiation of the effect. This means that the effect is not satisfied if you attempt to choose a character that can not be killed as the game does disallows that choice. If the choice is disallowed, the effect is not satisfied and you "must" satisfy the effect which forces you to choose a target that is not Beric.

With regards to "Choose a character. Then, kill that character." The issue is with the initiation. Choosing a character is an initiation effect. It is not a resolution effect. Therefore if you were to take the "Then" as a true "then" effect it could never resolve. There is no action that resolves successfully for the "Then, kill that character" to succeed. So for this card to work the text must be interpreted as "Choose and kill a character" or some variation of it,

mdc273 said:

None of this is being disputed.

mdc273 said:

I have no idea what this means. What is a "true" then effect? You seem to be inventing distinctions where none exist.

Take the Red Wedding. It only asks the player to your left to make a choice. Is that only an initiation effect then, not a resolution effect? According to you, The Red Wedding can't work because there is no action to resolve successfully for the "then, …" effect to succeed.

It seems to me that, if there are no characters on the field, one cannot choose a character as the target of an effect, thus an effect that says "Choose a character. Then, kill that character" can't be triggered. If so, then it follows that there is an action that must resolve successfully for the "Then, kill that character": the choosing of a character. I see no reason to think that choosing a character isn't itself its own effect, one which could be cancelled by Kerwin, Eddard Stark et al.

Correct. The Red Wedding can't resove if it is not interpreted as "When revealed, the opponent to your left chooses 1 Lord and 1 Lady character, if able and you must choose and kill 1 of those characters. The other claims 2 power." under what I said.

As for the choosing being an effect, I'll refer to A Lannister Pays His Debts and the FAQ:

A Lannister Pays His Debts: "Response: After you lose a challenge, kneel one of your HL characters to choose and kill a participating character controlled by the winning opponent."

FAQ: "The effect of an event is what the event card does when played. A Lannister Pays His Debts has an effect of killing the targeted character."

Note that this passage from the FAQ does not indicate the choosing as part of the effect.

Step 1 of the action window is the initiation of the action:

"f) Marshal the card, or trigger the effect.

Choose targets (if applicable) and proceed to step two."

Note that choose targets is distinct from triggering the effect and in fact is on its own line.

I did incorrectly consider the first choosing on The Red Wedding, it is not an effect that resolves and allows you to then choose. All of that choosing is part of the initiation.

In further support of my point that a choice is itself an effect, I give you Maiden of Poisons.

"Response: After you lose a challenge as the defender, choose a challenge icon. Then each opponent chooses 1 standing character he or she controls with that icon, if able. All chosen characters lose that icon until the end of the phase."

Notice that the only thing the player triggering the effect is asked to do is to choose a challenge icon. If he successfully does this, then the "then" effect goes ahead. Ergo, choice is its own effect, and must successfully resolve for any resulting "Then," effects to also resolve.

mdc273 said:

I don't see how you can infer from a lack of indication that therefore choice isn't part of the effect. It would have to explicitly state that.

mdc273 said:

This seems extremely suspect. They're on a different line; so what? Where does it say that "if one part of the timing structure is on a different line than another part, they must be considered distinct"? I'd venture to say that this only confirms my point: choosing targets is part and parcel of triggering an effect, in step f. What is more, the FAQ requests that you check for applicable targets in step a of the triggering of an effect. The actual choosing happens in step f - the same time that the effect is actually triggered. Thus, the act of choosing is part of the effect. If all a card asked you to do was to choose a target - as ineffectual and lame as that would be - you could still do it and other players could cancel it.

Circadia said:

At the time, it was correct. TThe way that "then" effects work was clarified just a few months ago. It really came with the Meera Reed ruling that the "then" part of her effect initiated as a character ability, even though the overall effect was triggered as a card effect. This clarified the fact that a "then" effect had its own separate, distinct initiation within the resolution of the overall effect - a fact that was subsequently cemented by the FAQ entry describing the separate, special opportunity to save (but not cancel) from the "then" part of the effect, independent of the "main" save/cancel opportunity. In short, those rulings drew a sharp line between the primary initiation and the "then" initiation that wasn't there at the time this thread was originally created.

Your premise that "choosing is an effect in and of itself" is still a little off because the rules clearly define choosing as part of the initiation. So, before the rulings, when the line between the pre- and post-then initiations was soft, the common interpretation was that if "choose" was the only thing before the "then," the overall effect that you were choosing for showed up after the "then." But if there was a distinct effect before the then, that was what you were choosing for. So, there was a difference in the way that "Choose a character. Then kneel that character." and "Choose a character to claim 1 power. Then kneel that character." would be interpreted. In the first, you are choosing the character to be knelt. In the second, you are choosing the character to claim power - and it is subsequently knelt.

But with the (relatively) new rulings, the sharp line is drawn at the "then" regardless of how distinct the effects are before and after the then. So you would not be choosing the character to be knelt in either of the above examples.

(This is one of the problems with resurrecting threads that are more than a few months old - things might honestly have changed.)

Circadia said:

That's important to remember, even within Maiden of Poisons. Let's say that you have a location that says "characters you control cannot lose the power icon." Maiden of Poisons is the only character you have in play, and you lose a challenge as the defender. When you initiate the "choose a challenge icon" part of the effect, you can choose any icon because - as part of that initiation - you are not choosing any character to lose an icon. So you choose "power," knowing that when you get to the "then, choose a standing character to lose that icon," you will have no legal targets. That's fine, not because choosing the icon is a separate effect, but because there is a separate initiation for the part of the effect that actually removes the icon. The same wouldn't be true if Maiden of Poisons said "Choose a standing character and a challenge icon. The chosen character loses the chosen icon." If that were were the effect, and you had a "characters you control cannot lose a power icon" in play, you would not be able to choose "power" as the icon because the effect, as initiated, would try to remove the power icon.

It's largely semantics, but "choice is itself an effect" could ultimately lead you to incorrect conclusions in effects that do not have the word "then." That's because it is more about separate, distinct initiations than it is about the choice itself being an effect. I

Even though it's an old thread, the Red Wedding is older still. And I still think the fact that choosing targets is an effect (at the same time as being part of the initiation) which must resolve successfully is made clear by The Red Wedding, and this is always how I've determined it even before the Meera Reed "then" ruling was introduced. In TRW, the choice is clearly delineated to a Lord and Lady and thus the resolution of the effect depends on this restricted choice being made correctly. But then any choice of character is inherently restricted to the cards in play, so if there were no characters in play any effect which asked you to choose a character couldn't be completed, and any subsequent then effects couldn't trigger either.

As mdc273 so helpfully pointed out, the actual choosing of targets is done in step f of the initiation of an effect, which happens to be the same step in which the effect is triggered. Is there any reason to think that, while determining legal targets is obviously part of the initiation, the choosing of them is not also part of the effect, and that a choice of targets couldn't itself be the sum total of an effect?

While I agree that the important aspect is understanding how "then," effects work, I don't think defining choice as an effect really confuses anything because we've always had cards which allow the cancelling of an effect depending on the choice of target, just as we've always had cards which can cancel specific effects like Drinking the Sea. Intuitively, I think players have always understood that choice is part of the effect, and while effects in which the sum total of the effect is the choice are rare (The Red Wedding and Maiden of Poisons are the only two I could find), this is still sufficient evidence, for me, that the choosing of a target or targets can be an effect in and of itself.

Hi! I have a question about Power of Blood

You say a Noble Lord or Lady can not be killed by the Red wedding, if Power of Blood is in Play. What about Valar Morghulis? Can Noble Chars can be killed there?

In the official rules clarification under point 2.2 Plot effect Resolution stands:

Continous or canstant plot effects take effect immediately and simultaneously, as soon as the plot cards are revealed.

So I understand this like: All passive Plot cards (so all no when revealed plot cards) trigger their effect immediatley after revealed.

But the last sentence of 2.2 says: All "when revealed" plot effects must resolve before any other passive effects initiated by the revealing of a plot card(s) are resolved.

So I understand this like: First all when reveald plot cards trigger, in my example Valar Morghulis, than all passive plot cards eg the power of blood. Which would mean that noble chars would be killed in either in valar as well as in the red wedding.

What do i get wrong here?

Circadia said:

illrage said:

It's like a location that says "characters you control get +1 STR." There is no initiation of a constant effect like that, so it applies as soon as the location is in play. Same thing for continuous plots. There is no initiation of the constant effect; it just applies as soon as that plot is your active plot.

"When revealed" plots are the passive plots. They have a separate initiation from the plot becoming the active plot. Since that separate initiation must happen after the plots become the active plots. they don't actually happen until all other plots - like Power of Blood - are already active.

Effectively, your mistake is that you are calling both "when revealed" plots and plots without "when revealed" passive and trying to make their activation equivalent. But plots without "when revealed" are continuous, not passive, so their effects are already active by the time you go to resolve any "when revealed" text.

ktom said:

Because HUB's ability isn't only a choose, it's a choose and kill. So you are limited by a) a character that can be chosen, and b) one that can be killed. Beric meets the criterion for the former but not the latter. My argument is specifically that choice CAN be the sum total of an effect, as it is in the pre-then effect of TRW and Maiden of Poisons. In HUB it is explicitly not the sum total of an effect.

You can see the confusion that not defining choice as an effect has had, mdc273 up there was attempting to argue that The Red Wedding doesn't even work as written because choice isn't an effect so there is nothing happening to trigger the "then" effect of the plot.

ktom said:

Ok lets see if I got that right. So constant plot effects are active right after revealing.

The last sentence say: All "when revealed" plot effects must resolve before any other passive effects initiated by the revealing of a plot card are resolved.

So lets say I have a plot card: When revealed, kneel all characters.

Another one has a plot card: All characters who are kneeling claim 1 power

The 2nd plot card is constant or continouous plot effect. But lets say we already have a few chars kneeling at the beginning of the plot phase. They dont claim power before all other characters are kneeling, because the when revealed effect has to be resolved first. Then the passive effect of the 2nd plot card triggers. I know, its not a good example, but I cant imagine of a better one right now.

So did I get it right or has anyone a better explaination?

illrage said:

Your explanation is correct, but there's no way that your 2nd plot card would be worded that way - it's a passive effect. It has a distinct point of initiation, so it can't be a constant effect.

Circadia said:

"When House Umber Berserkers comes into play, each player must choose a character he or she controls. Kill each chosen character."

That is, it does not say "choose and kill." It says "Choose. Kill."

So since the choice and the kill are in different sentences, how do I know that this one has a sum total effect of killing a targeted character, instead of the choice being the sum total of the effect of the first sentence and the kill being the sum total of the second sentence? After all, that's what would happen if the card said "Choose. Then kill." right?

It may be sematic, but it's important. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the "sum total" of the Berserker's effect is to kill the targeted characters. We're ultimately saying the same thing, but while I'm not disagreeing with you that "choice CAN be the sum total of an effect," I am asking you how to spot the difference between when it is and when it isn't. If all I have to go on is your statement that "choice CAN be the sum total of an effect," I don't see the difference between "Choose. Kill." and "Choose. Then, kill."

But when you add in what I am saying about a distinct initiation, the difference is clear. The word "then" represents the initiation of a separate, distinct effect, so the part before the "then" is the sum total of the previous effect, with the part after the "then" representing a new sum-total effect. Without the word "then," the sum total effect has to include everything under the same initiation.

So that's how I tell the difference between when choice is the sum total and when it is not. How are you doing it?

illrage said:

How about this; I'll give you a scenario and you tell me how it works out:

In a two player game - One player reveals a plot that says "Standing characters get +1 STR". The other player reveals a plot that says "When revealed, kill all characters with STR 2 or lower (cannot be saved)." >> What happens to the 2STR characters who are standing when both plots are revealed?

Bonus points: In a three player game, One player reveals a plot that says "Standing characters get +1 STR." Player #2 reveals a plot that says "When revealed, kill all character with STR 2 or lower (cannot be saved)." Player #3 reveals a plot that says "When revealed, choose and kneel a character." Each player has just one character in play. Each of the three characters have STR 2. All three characters are standing when plots are revealed. >> Player #1 wins initiative and assigns Player #3 to be First Player. What happens?

ktom said:

The same way. I already agreed with you that the important part is the "then", and that the two effects should be considered as distinct entities with the initiation of the latter relying on the completion of the former. My only point of contention is that I think it has always been the case that the choosing of targets is itself part of an effect resolving (and in the unique case of The Red Wedding, the choice of targets was the only thing that resolved in the first part of the plot effect).

Consider the following, entirely pointless, scenario. Beric has a Lordship attachment. Shireen Baratheon has used her ability twice in the plot phase via Inn of the Kneeling Man, once on herself and once on Beric. Shireen has also gained a noble crest. One player reveals The Red Wedding, the other Power of Blood. Neither Beric not Shireen can claim power or be killed, yet both could still be chosen by the first part of The Red Wedding. I think that is the case now and always was. Based on your idea of the "direct purpose" of a card, the direct purpose of The Red Wedding is to kill one character and have the other claim two power. Prior to the Meera Reed "then" clarification, would you have claimed that the player to the left of the Red Wedding revealer would not have to go through the motions of choosing Beric and Shireen, because the play restrictions in effect prevent the direct purpose of The Red Wedding from being fulfilled? I think that the choice of the two characters would still have to be made, and then the effect fizzles due to the restrictions, and I think that's always how I would have interpreted it.

Circadia said:

But before the Meera ruling, whether a card that said "Choose and kill a character.", "Choose a character. Kill that character.", or "Choose a character. Then, kill that character." with no other intervening choice, limitation, etc., then the purpose of the choice would be to kill the chosen character - and "cannot be killed" would affect the choice.

The Meera ruling drew a sharp line at the word "then," so where "Choose a character. Then, kill that character." used to be the same as "Choose and kill a character." or "Choose a character. Kill that character.", it is no longer.

This changes how I see The Red Wedding playing out as I misinterpreted "Then". I'm thinking it's more like this:

Effect 1:

"The opponent to your left chooses 1 Lord and 1 Lady character, if able."

1) Initiation - Choose a Lord and Lady 2) Cancel - No action 3) Resolution - Both chosen characters become targets for the resolution of all successor effects (this being implied).

Effect 2:

"…you must choose and kill 1 of those characters. The other claims 2 power"

Resolving as 1) Initiation - Choose character as target of kill effect 2) Cancel - No action 3) Resolution - Kill the chosen character. The other claims 2 power"

With Power of Blood:

Resolving as 1) Initiation - Choose character as target of kill effect (No Legal Target) 2) Cancel - No Action 3) Resolution - Effect fizzles with no targets.

So in Effect 1, the choosing isn't the effect. The effect is the implication that these characters are all targets for successor effects.

I think this would mean that "Choose a character. Then, kill that character." would actually work, though (i. e. not kill the character). So I have a feeling this is wrong.

ktom said:

Wow thats very nice. Thank you. Ok lets see….

Scenario1: Standing Characters get +1Str is a constant effect. That would mean its active as soon as the Plot card is revealed. While resolving the "when revealed" effect, all standing characters already have +1 str. They won't be killed. Already kneeling characters with 2 Str will be killed.

Scenario2: ok thats tricky. Player 1 wins initiative and assigns player 3 to be the first player. The first player chose his title and decides which of the "when revealed" plot cards trigger first. So if Player 3 chose his Plot card is the first one, he can chose and kneel a character. That character will be killed, when the 2nd "when revealed" plot effect triggers.

If he decides that second players "when revealed" plot card is the first, noone will be killed. After that, he can chose and kneel a character due to his own plot card.

I dont see a passive effect in the when reveald plot cards. Its a good example but it doesnt really show me the meaning of the last sentence of the advanced rules 2.2

illrage said:

For example, the Lannister location Golden Tooth Mines says "Each time you reveal a plot card, draw a card." Let's say you have a plot card that says "When revealed, each player discards the top card of his or her deck." When that plot card is revealed, will the player draw, then discard - or discard, then draw? Normally, you'd expect the First Player to decide something like that, but the rule you quoted says that plot cards must go first (before locations, characters, etc.) - so that situation would always end up as "discard, then draw."

That answered all my questions. Thank you very much.