Hi people,

I have a question about the new Lannister Iron Throne which cancels character abilities. I know that when an ability is triggered from out of play (hand, discard, shadows...) it is no longer considered an ability but a generic triggered effect. However, can it cancel things like the 'then' part of Meera Reed or the new Sorrowful man?

Thanks in advance.

No it can't. The only opportunity to cancel an effect is when it is first triggered. There is no window for you to cancel something once it has already started resolving.

Staton said:

Wait a moment...

Wouldn't that mean that immunity to character abilities doesn't protect from Sorrowful Man's ability then?

Since it's initially considered a generic triggered effect AND it has already started resolving...

hmmmmm.... no because its still a character ability I would think. Or rather a character effect. That interaction is actually a bit weird. I'll wait for Ktom to explain immunity and Sorrowful Man. My gut feeling is that immunity would protect the character. I'm not sure though.

I don't remember the card. What's the text?

Type: Character House: Targaryen

My guess is immunity will save the character as per the Meera Reed / The red viper ruling. When the then clause starts its resolution the Sorrowful man is entirely in play so it is considered to be a character ability (now I'm not sure about if the character could die because it's your opponent the one who choses him to be killed not the Sorrowful man, I just keep messing all the rules of all the card games I've ever played).

My initial question was whether the Iron Throne (Lions of the rock) could cancel the Sorrowful man ability and if so, what would happen (cancel everything and sorrowful stays in shadows but influence is spent? I guess no because its not a character ability then; cancel the 'then' part of his text? Maybe, but how can you cancel a sub-effect from an effect?). Please, ktom, enlighten us!

Thank you!

By the way, I'm sorry for the no-cardtext thing. When I posted my question agotcards was down and I only own the Spanish version of the cards and did not want to post an inaccurate translation of the cards.

Here are the cards:

tarkin84 said:

tarkin84 said:

Note that immunity to character abilities makes the Sorrowful Man's "then" effect all but useless. You can trigger the Response to bring it out of Shadows when an immune character enters play (immunity doesn't create "invisible play restrictions"), and the controller of the character will have to choose between giving you gold or killing the character. However, note that the opponent does not actually choose the character to die. In fact, no card is chosen for the effect, so no card is the target of the effect. That means the character's controller is not violating any rules of immunity by choosing to let the character die for the effect - only to have the immune character ignore the resolution of the "then kill" effect.

tarkin84 said:

My initial question was whether the Iron Throne (Lions of the rock) could cancel the Sorrowful man ability and if so, what would happen (cancel everything and sorrowful stays in shadows but influence is spent? I guess no because its not a character ability then; cancel the 'then' part of his text? Maybe, but how can you cancel a sub-effect from an effect?). Please, ktom, enlighten us!

The seemingly counterintuitive bit that the "character ability" cancel doesn't work, but the "character ability" immunity does is all about the timing of those things. The cancel must be triggered before the character is fully in play, but the immunity to the "then" part of the effect doesn't factor in until the character is fully in play.

Is this similar to how the Shield Islands Dromon works?

Meaning, as a victim of Sorrowful Man, I can choose to pay 1 gold when I have 0 gold to spend? I was just reading the Shield hield Islands Dromon's ruling, and it seems as if you can choose to always pay 1 gold, with or without the ability to do so if that ruling is any precedent for this one.

Bomb said:

Yes. Sorrowful Man is just like Shield Islands Dromon. You are compelled to make the choice, not to execute it successfully. I can choose to pay you gold I don't have instead of killing the character.

If Sorrowful Man were worded as "Then, that character's controller must either pay you 1 gold or kill that character" or "Then, that character's controller must choose to either pay you 1 gold (if able) or kill that character", there would be no "empty purse" option to keep the character safe.

Sorrowful Man is ultimately not going to kill a lot of characters because of this. It's best use is going to be in Marshaling to effectively increase the cost of a character by 1 gold. If it's meant to be a more consistent killer - effectively punishing people for having no gold - it'll need errata to one of the phrases mentioned above.

Thank you for your response. That is what I had anticipated. I think there has been a little bit too much over excitement over Sorrowful Man based on the strength of its ability, and this may damper it a little bit. I think he's still quite useful though.

Thematically, people are going to want him to be about directed kill, but as written, he's not. His ability fits better into a choke/resource control theme than a "kill all characters" theme.

However, I personally would never underestimate "Deadly" on a character without a military icon. People don't look for Deadly in power challenges. You will almost certainly catch people napping. (Unless you routinely say "Power challenge for 2, deadly.")

Thank you for the answers!

ktom said:

As a point of courtesy in my meta, we do tend to announce "Deadly" when it's part of a challenge.

Hmm, maybe that should be discouraged... put the onus on the defender to inquire about the presence of Deadly.

KristoffStark said:

Many people do call attention to an attacker's Deadly when they declare, the same way that they often total up the attacking STR when they declare. "I do an intrigue challenge for 6, Deadly" is, by no means, an uncommon way of declaring an attack. There's certainly nothing wrong with it, and is indeed a nice courtesy, especially in casual or instructive play.

But you can see where it can go too far, too. I have actually had people ask me how much I am attacking for, including any modifiers that are possible, but have not been triggered yet. (eg, "How much would your attack be if you use all your locations?") At this point, it's kind of hard to fault someone if they decide to say "I'm not going to do your math for you." It can be a tough call for sportsmanship, but at some point, people should take responsibility for playing their own game.

So I'm not sure I'd discourage calling attention to Deadly, Renown, or Stealth on attacker - or that the claim value is 2+ while they are deciding to defend - as a courtesy, but I would say it's not strictly the attacker's responsibility to make sure the defender is paying attention. But there is a fine line between allowing people to make their own mistakes, and manipulating them into those mistakes, that I think people should show some intelligence and compassion about.

The only reason I would ever ask for total STR amount is to save time. I find it difficult to imagine this game where the opponent will not tell you the amount of STR they are currently attacking with when they are asked. Sometimes there are so many outside influences modifying strength, that even the attacker can't keep track of it all.

By no means are they obligated to tell you that they can boost STR with cards that are in play or if any actions you make will add to said strength(I.E, Melee keyword, etc.).

It's interesting to learn the habits of players in other metas. Ours is a relatively small city in the middle of Canada. The shop I work at is the only one (so far as I know) in town that sells AGoT, and none of us have every played against anyone from outside the city (except for one guy who game down from another town once or twice).

It's interesting to note that the format of "I attack with a Power challenge (kneel, kneel) for 3 STR, and Dealy" is the standard elsewhere as well.

That being said, being asked what you total STR COULD be is a little rude in my book. Sure, I've often asked something like "So that's X total STR, but that thing (pointing to card) can give you a +4, right?" but indeed there must be limits.

ktom said:

Honestly, this is the sort of stuff that makes the game worse.
Since when, whenever you have to make a choice, you can choose something you can not do?

It's like, you have to pay a fine or go to jail. Well, you say, I'll pay the fine, knowing you can't. And you don't go to jail either.

Does that make sense to any of you? Cause, to me, it doesn't.

If you must make a choice, you just can't pick the option you can't fulfill... it simply doesn't make any sense.

Why would they make a card that says "pay 1 gold or kill" if even by not paying you don't actually have to kill? Again, doesn't make any sense.

To me this is just stretching the text / the rules... when it's obvious how something should work, there shouldn't really be any need for a FAQ or a correction to just state the obvious...

Maybe they should just have written "Then, that character's controller must either pay you 1 gold or kill that character." leaving out the "choose to"... but still...

If the SM stays as he's now, without errata, then he doesn't merit a place in a Shadows / Burn deck where room is already tight. The way he's worded now does not empower Targ that much. Perhaps, if he had an ability to jump mid-challenges, much like SMM (if memory serves), and utilize his keyword, then, yes, he'd be a nice killer. But since there are already other characters that do just that (the aforementioned concerning jump + potential kill and the Silent Assassin concerning Deadly jump), it would be much better (and easier) to just ommit "choose to" in the (potential) errata.

Serazu said:

Completely agree.

Unless they add a clarification to the FAQ that this is a intended design decision (and I'm uncertain why they'd create ambiguities intentionally) then I'm completely in favor of the above.

Another question about the iron throne.

Does this target the character?? I always forget if the ability is part of the character or is treated like power tokens. Also saves by dupes don't target characters right??.

The context i'm thinking is using the Eddard that cancels to cancel the iron throne cancel or dupe saves.

KL Ned could cancel the iron throne assuming his conditions are met (ie, its chooses a noble character), he cant cancel dupe saves as far as my understanding goes because the dupe does not choose a target, it just gives a save, not sure how he would interact with an attachment save like nymeria. (i get a little fuzzy on some of the 'choose' issues, although i would assume he couldnt as it just saves attached character, it dosent actively choose them)

Eddard Stark cannot cancel the Iron Throne. The Iron Throne does not choose a character and then cancel the ability they just triggered. It simply cancels it and then kneels the character if it can.

Remember, the word "choose" must be in the text of the triggered effect and it must be a part of the initiation of the effect in order for Eddard Stark to cancel it.