Hey guys, I just lost a Military challenge as the defender and must choose a character to satisfy the claim value. I choose The Bastard's Elite so it is Moribund now. Then it changes control and allows me to play Terror in the Dungeons, so I kneel 1 influence and kill The Bastard's Elite (which cannot be chosen to leave play again) and another eligible character. Is that legal? Or is that "another" telling me that I must successfully kill a House Bolton character in order to kill the second one?

Thanks!

The Bastard's Elite: After a player wins a Military challenge against you, that player takes control of The Bastard's Elite.

Terror in the Dungeons: Response: After a player takes control of a House Bolton character, kneel 1 influence to kill that character and another character of equal or lower printed cost controlled by the same player.

In my opinion this should work.

Let's pretend Stoic Resolve is in play and Bastard's Elite is knelt and you lose a MIL challenge.

By the above logic, you could use this event to "kill" Bastard's Elite and another character of equal to or lower printed cost with Terror in the Dungeon's, but Bastard's Elite won't be killed. I don't think you can do that because you are not killing Bastard's Elite with the event.

I don't think you can use the event in the same manner as the scenario described by the OP since you cannot kill an already moribund character.

Bomb said:

Terror in the Dungeons is not choosing the two characters that are killed. So it is a general, un-targeted kill (of two characters). If we take what you just described for Terror in the Dungeons for this scenario and apply it generally, it says that if one of the characters a general effect would kill cannot die, none of the characters a general kill effect should die, either. By that logic, if I reveal Valar and you reveal Power of Blood, my Valar shouldn't be kill anyone on the table - instead of just leaving the CBK-Nobles. So the logic that Terror can't kill the Elite (again), so it shouldn't be able to kill anything falls a little flat - simply because the two characters that are killed are not chosen targets. On the face of it, this move should work.

However, there is another line of reasoning. It is possible to say that since the effect says "kill that character and another one" that the effect kills 2 or 0 characters. Personally, I don't see how that can be true (since all other effects in situations like that do as much as they can - "draw 2" resolves as "draw 1" when you have already drawn 2 cards for the round), but it may be.

I'd say that by the rules we have, this little maneuver works, but with an asterisk. It may be worth sending in to FFG to see if the use of the word "another" locks this event into killing both characters, or none at all. (Even though such a ruling would seem inconsistent with others.)

That's exactly what I was thinking, ktom. Thanks guys. Your help is really appreciated.

I believe the Bastard's Elite does not change control until after claim. You have claimed it, the passive effect can not happen until claim has resolved. Claim resolves. The Bastard's Elite is dead. No control change occurs. You can not play Terror in the Dungeons.

mdc273 said:

That would be true if the Bastard's Elite was placed on the dead pile before control change occurs. Instead, control change happens to a moribund character.

One thing you can't do is play a response to a character you control being killed or leaving play. By the time the Responses step comes up, it's no longer a character you control, however the opponent that took control of Bastard's Elite can very well play such responses since the play restrictions are met for them.

Bomb said:

No, the character never changes control per the Framework Action rules. In this case the Framework Action is "2. Challenge result is implemented." The Framework Action Steps are: "1. Framework event initiates || claim, when Elite goes Moribund ||. 2. Save/Cancel responses to framework event. 3. Framework event resolves || Elite hits dead pile ||. 4. Passive abilities (now triggered) are resolved || Elite is dead before its effect can trigger ||."

My comments are in || comment ||. The parenthetical on 4 is actually from the rules.

Your timing is off. The elite doesn't hit the dead pile until step six when all moribund characters finally leave play.

mdc273 said:

The second comment I highlighted should read "Elite changes control passively while in the 'moribund:dead pile' state; of course, it's still going to go to the dead pile at the end of the framework window, but the control change does happen."

mdc273 said:

The character does not get placed in the dead pile during a Framework Event Step breakdown. They get placed in the dead pile at the very end of the Framework action during Step 6 following the Responses of the Framework Action window.

Each Framework Event Step in a Framework Action goes through steps 1 through 3 before even entering Step 4 for Passives.

So for challenge resolution:

FW Event Step 1 is determine the winner of the challenge.

Go through FW Action Steps 1 through 3. Then go to FW Event Step 2.

FW Event Step 2 is challenge result is implemented. (Basically do claim)

Go through FW Action Steps 1 through 3 again. Then go to FW Event Step 3.

FW Event Step 3 is reward for unopposed.

Go through FW Action Steps 1 through 3 again. Then go to FW Event Step 4

FW Event Step 4 is renown is rewarded.(Even moribund characters that may have been killed that happened to have also participated on the winning side claim power for renown)

Go through FW Action Steps 1 through 3 again. Now we advance to FW Action Step 4 since there are no more FW Events.

FW Action Step 4 is Passive abilities now trigger and must resolve. Move on the Step 5 for Responses to this overall Framework Action window.
(This is where control change occurs for Bastard's Elite)

FW Action Step 5 is Responses, where anything that happened during this entire Framework Action window can be responded to. Move on to FW Action Step 6 which is End of Action.

FW Action Step 6 is End of Action(Framework Action) and this is where Moribund cards from the entirety of this Framework Action leave play.

Touche... See what happens when you fail quote... Either way I agree with Bomb's original assessment.

"Although considered in play, a Moribund card cannot be removed from play (or targeted to be removed from play) again by any effect or any attempt to pay a cost for the remainder of the action window."

And as to KTom and Valar/Power of Blood. I think the situations are different. It would seem redundant to say "Kill all killable characters in play." (though clearly how fizzling works needs to be clarified in some way). Whereas Terror specifically stipulates "...kill that character and another character...". The effect would not work if it said "...kill that killable character and another killable charater..." as I feel the "and" creates a similar stipulation to "then".

mdc273 said:

Based on the rules we have, you cannot equate "and" and "then." Otherwise, the FAQ would have an entry for "The words 'then' & 'and'" instead of an entry just for "The word 'then'." Plus, what about something like Fury of the Lion? It says "discard all attachment and power on that character." By the "'and' creates a similar stipulation to 'then'" reasoning, are you saying that if the character doesn't have any attachments, you don't discard the power, and vice versa?

While it may be redundant to say "kill all killable characters," we are told that "cannot be killed" characters shrug off the untargeted kill at the point of resolution - not initiation (which is where you have the "cannot be removed from play again" Elite shrugging it off in your analysis of this situation). To really make your "he can't be killed again" argument work here, you have to come up with a way for the initiation of the event to be illegal - recognizing that since the characters that are killed are not chosen (i.e. "targeted") to die, none of its play restrictions are violated.

I'm not saying your instinctual feel that it doesn't work is wrong. I'm just saying it isn't supported by the rules and rulings we have. There certainly could be another ruling, but we don't have it yet.

ktom said:

I think there is a big difference between this effect and Terror in the Dungeons here because the additional character to be killed has a dependency on the particular properties of the character that has been taken control of. Plus, the term all is inclusive of 0.

Is Lion's Cunning any different?

Challenges: Pay X gold from your gold pool to give X participating characters +X STR until the end of the challenge.

If there is only X - 2 available characters, then why can't you pay X gold for X strength? We settled that debate before, but we still established that even without targeting, the dependent condition created by part of the effect was still required to be met. There is no targeting involved just like Terror in the Dungeon's, but the condition is what, to kill a character with the printed cost of the House Bolton character that was taken control of? Or is the condition to kill a character with the printed cost of the House Bolton character that was taken control of and was subsequently killed?

Sorry for being the devil's advocate, but sort of feel like Lion's Cunning is very similar considering there are no "targets".

Bomb said:

The idea of "kill a character with the printed cost of the House Bolton character that was taken control of and subsequently killed" falls apart for one very simple reason. The two characters are killed simultaneously. So the other character is identified, based on the Bolton character's cost, before the Bolton character dies. So you are saying the kill effect goes to kill both at the same time, but when it figures out it can't kill the Bolton character, it stops resolving all together? What have you got from the rules, rulings, or FAQ to support the idea that if something is supposed to resolve on multiple cards at the same time, it stops on all if it will fail on just one? I don't see anything on the card or in the rules that says one of the kills is dependent on the other. In fact, we have an FAQ entry that says the ONLY time one part of a multiple effect is dependent on another part of a multiple effect is when the word "then" is used. Since the play restrictions aren't violated, the death of the other character should not depend on the death of the Bolton, and vice versa.

Effectively, the card has two effects; "kill the Bolton that just switched" and "kill a character based on the cost of the Bolton that just switched." Without the word "then," you cannot read any dependence between the two kills without a specific ruling that "and another" also denotes a dependency.

Again, I'm not saying that the phrase "and another" does not create a dependency. I'm only saying that, based on the rules, rulings, and FAQ that we currently have, there is no basis, explicit or implied, for assuming that dependency, particularly in the face of an FAQ entry identifying the word "then" as the only word creating a dependency between multiple effects on the same card.

Ok, I have to ask. What is the point of Moribund? I thought the point was so that dying characters could use their abilties, but now it creates this dying character can be used for weirdness situation. How is Moribund better than simply saying a dying character can use it's response abilities?

Moribund goes deeper than "characters can use their Responses 'on the way out.'" Moribund says that characters are still part of the entire game state "on the way out."

Easiest example: A Lannister Pays His Debts. After you lose a challenge, you kneel a Lannister character to choose and kill a character. Because of the moribund rules, you can kneel the character you just killed for claim to pay for this event. But the event is not that character's Response, is it?

Essentially, by saying moribund characters are sill part of the entire game state "on the way out," you save yourself a lot of (over-)analysis for what the moribund character can do. They can do anything the non-moribund character can do, except die - because they're in the process of doing that already. FFG chose to put moribund at one end of the "what can the character do?" spectrum instead of somewhere in the middle. It's confusing enough without having to figure out "is that its response or something else's?"

ktom said:

Thank very much for explaining all of this. I completely agree!

I look back at a lot of cards that give a "choose one" choice and decided that it wouldn't make as much sense if it made you select a choice just because the other couldn't be made.

So, in the example given by the original poster, if he also happened to have a Dreadfort in play, he could trigger that ability and draw a card for a Bolton character changing ownership, even though that character is moribund? My meta and I had never considered that... we always just scooped them off the table and it'd the dead pile without considering them changing allegiance before dying.

MrGloverGlover said:

Sorry, forgot which way around they Dreadfort worked for a second there, but if you MIL attack an opponent to reclaim a previously lost Bastard's Elite, you can draw from the Dreadfort whilst the B.E. is moribund? Supposing that your opponent picked it for claim, of course.

Yep. You can do that. Even when the Bastard's Elite is chosen for claim on the lost military challenges, it still successfully changes control. It is moribund while it does and thus goes right back to the owner's dead pile at the end of the framework action window, but it still changes control - and Responses can be played to that control change.