Good morning!

Let's say I am attacking in an intrigue challenge with Pyat Pree alone. I win the challenge. The replacement claim effect of Pyat Pree is: "If you win a challenge in which Pyat Pree attacked alone, instead of the normal claim effects, choose and kill 1 character controlled by the losing opponent."

The opponent plays Red Vengeance which says: " Response: After you lose a challenge as the defender, kneel 2 influence to cancel the claim effect of that challenge. Then, choose an opponent to satisfy the claim of that challenge as if he or she had lost the challenge as the defender."

So my question is, does claim replacement become "the claim of that challenge" for the purposes of The Red Vengeance?

The question was brought up because of this new spoiled plot called "Twist of Fate" which is essentially a claim replacement effect and would apply similarly as Pyat Pree with The Red Vengeance.

This may or may not have been brought up a long time ago, but I'm interested in how this would work out with Red Vengeance and claim replacement effects like the above.

Thanks!

My guess would be that since RV cancels the claim, that it (the claim) would be cancelled before the replacement of pyatt or twist would happen, and the attacker would have to satisfy the claim of the challenge type as declared originally.

This seems like a fun interaction, so I'll give it a try.

So in the Pyat Pree situation, you get this bizarre interaction. Pyat Pree is going to go off before you have any opportunity to play Red Vengeance. This means that claim is now "... choose and kill 1 character controlled by the losing opponent." In your first opportunity to respond, you then cancel the claim. Now because Pyat Pree's passive has already gone off (and is not a lasting effect as you are past the determination of Pyat Pree winning a challenge attacking alone), you cancelled the Pyat Pree claim. Now you re-create a claim effect on your opponent, but I think the key is that it is NOT a "normal claim effect". And thus Pyat Pree can not replace it. Therefore they eat normal claim. (The other possibility is that because the claim specifies losing opponent that Red Vengeance does nothing and you still get creamed, but that doesn't mesh with the "normal claim effect" wording to me.)

Just a guess on my part.

Now this comes full cirlce to the "normal claim effect" stipulation on the plot card. Red Vengeance (I would imagine) is not considered a "normal claim effect".

That plot will be very interesting, LoL.

Edit:

Actually, after reading my own summation I think the answer is pretty easy. Red Vengeance cancels claim. Then it forces an opponent to satisfy claim, but does not actually create a claim effect. So no claim effect, no opportunity to replace it. A military challenge's claim to be satisfied is characters, an intrigue's is cards, a power's is power.

mdc273 said:

Pyat Pree's effect is not passive. It is a conditional replacement effect. Once the challenge is won with him attacking alone, the condition for that replacement effect is set - and true. So the "normal claim" effect for "that" challenge is for the attacker to choose and kill one of the defender's characters. Here's the flow:

Step I.1: Initiate determination of challenge winner (count/compare STR)
Step I.2: Save/Cancel determination of challenge winner
Step I.3: Resolve determination (Challenge officially won/lost)

Step II.1: Initiate challenge result (ie, "claim")
Step II.2: Save/Cancel challenge result
Step II.3: Resolve challenge result

Step III.1-III.3: Unopposed

Step IV.1-IV.3: Renown

Step 4: Passives (to I.1 - IV.3)

Step 5: Responses (to everything above)

Step 6: End

If Pyat Pree were a passive effect, he wouldn't kick in until Step 4. But "claim" is settled in Steps II.1-II.3. This is a pretty good indication that his replacement effect is a constant, provided that the condition is met. (Look at it this way: at what point would you cancel the application of his effect to change the claim without canceling either the determination of who wins the challenge or the resolution of claim itself? Nowhere, right? So it's constant, once the condition is met.) Well, the condition is met in Step I.3. Therefore, the proper procedure for resolving the claim of this challenge, as of Step I.3, follows the text on Pyat's card. Therefore, when you play Red Vengeance in Step II.2, the claim for "that" challenge - which is what resolves according to the text on Red Vengeance - has been set to the text on Pyat's card. When the original defender uses Red Vengeance to choose a new player to satisfy claim, the attacker will get to choose and kill a character controlled by that player chosen - as if he had attacked and won using Pyat against that player as the defender.

In short: Red Vengeance specifies that the claim of "that challenge" is resolved. The claim of "that challenge" includes any modification to how claim is resolved applied to that point.

Here's an example, say that Stark attacks Martell. Before challenge resolution, Stark plays "Winter is Coming," increasing the claim value by 1. During resolution, Martell plays Red Vengeance. By the reasoning that "claim is canceled and then forced on a new player without actually creating a claim effect," the claim value increase from Winter is Coming should not be applied to the Red Vengeance "non-claim" created by Red Vengeance. But I think most people would be pretty hard-pressed to say it doesn't. So a true claim effect - including any modifications to it - does seem to be resolving when Red Vengeance is involved.

Twist of Fate will add a couple of wrinkles. First, Pyat's replacement effect and the plot's replacement effect are trying to change the same thing (the "normal" claim effect for that challenge). The competing replacement effects would conflict, and the First Player would decide the order (with the second one applied being the one with practical resolution) - the same way that the First Player decides when a card is killed, discarded, and/or returned to hand at the same time. (And yes, the fact that the First Player determines the order of conflicting replacement effects has been ruled upon by FFG in the past.)

Second, if the Martell player is the one with Twist of Fate, when they play Red Vengeance, only the original claim corresponding to that challenge (as currently modified) can be resolved on the new "defender" because the effect of the plot is no longer applicable. It only works when "you" are the defender - and Red Vengeance specifically says to treat the resolution of the "redirected" claim (although only the redirected claim) as if the other person is the defender. The plot therefore doesn't apply. If I win a power challenge against a Martell player with Twist of Fate and they Red Vengeance it to someone else, I can only resolve power claim against the someone else, even if I would have chosen military or intrigue against the player with Twist of Fate.

Finally, the converse of the second point is true, too. If the "new defender" chosen when Red Vengeance is used has Twist of Fate revealed, the plot kicks in to modify the claim effect that is resolving and I can choose any challenge resolution I want. So, if I win a power challenge against a Martell player and they Red Vengeance it to someone with Twist of Fate, I can choose to resolve as a military or intrigue challenge against that "new defender."

/golfclap.

dh098017 said:

Thank you for the reply and the clearly explained answer ktom! I understand and agree with you.

ktom said:

no no you misunderstand. meant nothing but respect. after reading the explanation i wanted you to take a bow so i could praise you in a manner befitting your station ser.

Ah. Sorry. In my experience, the term "golfclap" tends to be a polite, but sarcastic, form of support.

I don't understand why a player with Pyat must choose an own character to kill when Pyat specified "controlled by the losing opponent". The effect of Red Vengeance is treat the attacker like loser of challenge, but not as if he was his own opponent. In that case the Pyat effect can only apply on opponent's characters.

Kaworu said:

So… since the Core rule book defines all challenge results in terms of "the defending opponent ," then by this logic, Red Vengeance is, in fact, completely worthless against the attacker of any challenge and everyone has been playing it wrong since it first came out?

The "as if he or she had lost the challenge" language on Red Vengeance replaces the entire identity of the "defending opponent" (in regular challenges) or the "losing opponent" (for Pyat Pree) responsible for the claim effect. Red Vengeance effectively changes the text/interpretation of Pyat Pree into "…choose and kill 1 character controlled by the the chosen player ," just like Red Vengeance effectively changes the text/interpretation of the Core rule book for regular challenges into "The chosen player must…".