HI

If PLAYER 1 initiates a MIL challange with 1 character who is immune to opponents triggered effects and player 2 forgetting he is immune decides to use event card " Lethal Counter Attack" and kneels 2 of his charaters.

Question is;

What happens next, does PLAYER 2 get to reverse his action and re-stand his kneeling characters and take Lethal Counter Attack back into his hand as the only target for the effect is immune to opponents triggered effects. Or;

As its a triggered effect and the characters have been knelt the event card played ect, it gets to trigger unsucessfully on PLAYER 1. Thus discarding event card and subsequently kneeling 2 Stark characters.

Im thinking the latter is correct as its a triggered effect PLAYER 2 chose to use.

Predominantly, this is a sportsmanship question. Whatever the players agree to do is the right thing to do. There is no "rule" that one can point to for what to do when a player makes a mistake.

As for the game mechanics, it largely comes down to whether you can initiate the effect or not. The game allows for effects to be initiated without resolving completely - or at all. But it does not allow for effects to initiate illegally. In the example you give, Lethal Counterattack can initiate completely and the event be played before the restrictions of "immune to triggered effects" has any impact on the situation. (Remember, the only restriction immunity puts on the initiation of an effect is that you cannot choose the immune card as a target; Lethal Counterattack does not "choose" anything and therefore has no target.) The immunity only comes in when the effect resolves - or fails to resolve on the immune character in this case. So, from a game mechanics point of view, the event can be played successfully - even though nothing happens in the end.

However, change your scenario. Now, instead of playing Lethal Counterattack, you answer that military challenge by defending with a character that has Ice attached. You then kneel and discard the attachment to choose and kill the attacking character. In this case, however, since Ice chooses a target as part of initiating and there are no targets it can choose, the attachment effect never technically initiates at all - meaning that the attachment was never technically knelt or discarded, either, even though that was its controller's intent.

Those are the technicalities of game mechanics, but neither of those prevent someone in the Lethal Counterattack situation from saying "no harm, no foul; you can back it up a bit," or someone in the Ice situation from being a complete tool and saying "tough luck, loser; be smarter." There isn't a codified, chess-like "you took your hand off the piece" rule for take-backs in this game.Generally, most players will let you take back an action within the action window itself, but the further you get from the situation, the less practical it is to undo a mistake.

Let me put this another way. Your opponent plays Lethal Counterattack on your "immune to triggered effects" attacking character. You BOTH forget the immunity and you put the card in the dead pile. How far can the game go before you can no longer say "oh wait! he's immune and shouldn't be dead!" (Most players I know will say that so long as no other action has been taken since the character was killed, they'll allow the game to "rewind" to before Lethal Counterattack was played.)

ktom said:

Perfect. So if I trigger an effect that does not choose an immune target then the trigger can sucessfully resove unsucessfully with immunity canceling the effect. And if I choose to trigger an effect that does choose immune target then the play has to be stopped as there is no valid target.

What do you think of the last part ktom " play effect has to be stopped " as a House Rule ?

Thanks

End Hill said:

End Hill said:

Yes got it. Bad wording from me.It does not cancel the effect it just means that target cant be chosen as recipetant of Lethal counter attack when it resolves but obviously if there was more than 1 target and other target is not immune then that target can be killed. So it makes sense to think if there is only 1 character that is immune to opponents TRs then the TR effect is not cancelled just target cannot be chosen to be killed at the end.

Right ? Hopefully..

Again on the second one I understand I think. As there is no target to choose with ice then there is no effect to intiate. Its kind of what I meant but I used the term stop play and reverse action as thats what wed have to do if we didnt immediately realise.

Right ? Fingers crossed..

Thanks by the way.

Just reading page 12, Target

You've got the concepts down. In the end, that's more important than trying to find the exact perfect wording.

End Hill said:

To help generalize this whole thing, you really need to look at immunity. Immunity does two entirely separate things:

1. Immune cards cannot be targeted by whatever they are immune to. (Remember, "target" means the card that is chosen when an effect specifically says to "choose" something.)
2. Immune cards ignore all direct effects of whatever they are immune to. (Which means that even when the effect resolves, you don't apply that effect to the immune card.)

Your Lethal Counterattack example is all about #2 above. There is no target, but the immune card ignores it anyway. The "take back" issue here - from a sportsmanship point of view - is that the effect initiated completely. The Ice example is all about #1 above. Since Ice "chooses" a card, it has a target. And an immune card cannot be chosen. The "take back" issue here is that when effects have targets, they do not initiate at all without choosing the target.

Nice one ktom.