Bomb said:

Paddosan said:

+1 I don't see how you can logically reach conclussion that when you have 0 resource X if cards force you to pay or do something else you can still choose to pay.

michaelius said:

I know it is confusing, but The Sorrowful Man only forces the opponent to make a choice. After the choice is made, they must resolve the effect of that choice to the best of their ability. The choice they make doesn't always resolve successfully.

Honestly, I think that these types of effects should force a choice that can resolve successfully unless none of options can do so. I feel like the timing of these effects is the target of desire and playing them as effectively as possible.

ktom said:

Did you consider the possibility that Sorrowful man option to pay one gold is a cost, not an effect, and therefore it would not be possible to atempt paying it if one do not have 1 gold. btw if it is not a cost, can I pay using my opponent's gold?

Bolzano said:

Bolzano said:

I'm not sure why people are so convinced that if you are told "choose A or B; perform that choice" you are locked into making a choice that is possible, particularly if you are making the choice before the feasibility of either option is checked. If I take you to the front of a maze and say "there are blue doors and red doors in the maze; choose red or blue - you can only go through doors of the color you choose," there is no guarantee that the color you choose will get you through the maze. Or, perhaps easier to see, if I take you to Monty Hall and he says "Let's Make a Deal" - you can have what's behind door #1 or what's behind door #2, there is no guarantee that there is anything behind either door. The choice you make can leave you with nothing. People are free to make"bad" choices that are not successful. Simply having a choice does not ensure success. That's because as presented (and as cards that say "choose A or B; perform that choice" are presented), the focus is on the option, not the outcome.

It's different than if I take you into a room and say "you can go through the red door, or you can go through the blue door, but you HAVE to leave the room right now," and you look around see that the blue door is locked, yeah, you are forced to choose the red door. That's because as presented (and as cards that says "do A or do B," for example, CS-Davos who says "Response: Save Ser Davos Seaworth from being killed, then pay 1 gold or return him to his owner's hand."), the focus is on the outcome, not the option.

It's like I said before - looking at the name of the card and the themes of the source material, people are going to want this card to be about killing the character in question such that, more often than not, the character ends up dead. Unfortunately, that's not the way the effect has been worded. By focusing the effect on the option (by using the word "choose"), they made it possible to make an unsuccessful option. They should have worded it like CS-Davos if they wanted it to be focused on outcome.

I can't figure out why you would say something like "before the feasibility of either option is checked".

Why wouldn't you check the feasibility of the options before making the choices? If you're playing the game you have the physical gold tokens on your table, like the character itself. Unless you play without paying attention to the game, you don't even have to check to know what options are possible.

Besides, even in your examples you know the options are possible. You just don't know what will be behind the doors in the Monty Hall example, but that's not the choice, is it? You're not choosing between getting a rich prize or nothing. The choice is between opening the door number 1 or the door number 2. Both are possible choices.
Same goes for the maze. The choice is not "exit from the maze or get stuck within it". It's just between going through a red door or a blue door. And you can pick either, both are feasible options.

People are convinced that you are locked into making a choice that is possible, because that's what you normally do.

Picking an impossible option doesn't make much sense. At least it doesn't in the real world.

If we have to play the game like it has rules that go against even logic and common sense, well I think we're just doing it wrong here.

The card may have been written not in a perfectly, utterly precise manner... but still all it does is present you with a choice.
Choosing an impossible option is an "interpretation" of the card's text. To me that interpretation is against common sense, logic and ultimately wrong.

Bomb said:

Well yes and logic dictates that you choose only from options which can be fullfilled by you. Otherwise you could just write "take 1 gold from opponent if able" because noone will choose to kill his character given no consequence choice he has.

Paddosan said:

So, if you are given the choice between driving your car off a cliff or jumping out of a plane with no parachute tomorrow, since none of us has access to a plane, you'll choose the drive?

ktom said:

Kind of an unrealistic question, but just for the sake of arguing, if I must I suspect whoever is forcing me to chose how to suicide, would not accept kindly my "I'll jump out of the plane... cause, since I have no plane, I can't do it." answer.

All I have to say about this is, if the choice that is made must be possible to fulfill, then Shield Island Dromons must also have a choice made that is possible. It also had seemed unusual that you'd play Shield Islands Dromon for 1 gold and use it's ability. If the opponent has less than 2 power to discard, they can choose that option and have no penalty, basically wasting Shield Islands Dromon.

The way I see it, the Brothel Guard has text that would better suit an ability that must be fulfilled.

Response: After Brothel Guard stands, choose and kneel an opponent's character unless its controller kneels 1 influence or pays you 1 gold. If he or she does, instead claim 1 power for your House.

So, if Sorrowful Man said "Kill that character unless that opponent pays you 1 gold.", then it would fulfill all conditions that seem to be fueling this controversy. With this text, having 0 gold means the character dies. The other side of the coin is that if the character can't be killed for some reason, they still don't have to pay you that 1 gold, but I am thinking that Sorrowful Man won't want to be used for the choke aspect as much, but I could be wrong.

I do think it's weird, but if the ability was that easy to pull off, it'd be really strong! I'd be pretty frustrated to see that spending my last gold on my 4 or 5 gold unique character was so easily undone and thus putting that character in my dead pile!

I find that when something seems especially counter-intuitive in this game, ktom frequently can swoop in and explain how the seeming contradiction makes more sense in the broader context of the game. So, ktom, outside the context of Shield Island Dromon and Sorrrowful Men, how does this bizarre making-choices-you-can't-make thing work? If it weren't that way, are there parts of the game we take for granted that would break down?

Bomb said:

Additionally in your wording SM targets and kills character in current wording player targets character.

I am pretty sure that only wording is not 100 % sure but card was designed to kill if there is no gold left as it is according to common sense. How I can choose something which is not possible?

Your examples with doors are not according to this problem ktom. Because you see both doors and you can choose one. Imagine that blue doors is visible only if you have blue glasses. In this case if you have blue glasses you see both doors blue and red and you can choose, however if you have no blue glasses (no gold) you don't see blue doors so you have to follow red one. This is correct example in my eyes.

berto said:

The player does not target the character. For one thing, the character is not actually the thing "chosen." For another, the person who makes a choice is not targeting the chosen card - the effect that requires the choice is doing the targeting.

If you play an event that says "Choose and kneel a character," what is doing the targeting, the event, or you, the player? The event isn't making the decision, is it?

berto said:

But you have to look at what the card actually does because of its wording, not what a player thinks it was designed to do. What if your opponent disagrees with you? Who's right?

berto said:

Not at all. Say that we are at the beginning of a maze of rooms. We haven't even entered it yet. I tell you that you have to make a choice right now, before we even start, that when you're in the maze, you can only use red or blue doors, but you have to pick right now. You can't see any doors at this point. You don't know where the red ones are. You don't know where the blue ones are. You don't know which ones are unlocked. You don't know anything about the doors in the maze, other than that some are red, some are blue, and your choice right now determines your destiny in the maze.

The thing that people seem to be forgetting about this is that you follow things from the card's point of view, not the player's. That's why "you" and "your" always refers to the controller of the card when resolving card text. Or take a look at the whole "choose and kneel a character" question. You, the player, knows when a character is already knelt, but the card, since it is not specifically looking for standing characters, does not. So you are allowed to choose a character that is already kneeling, even though the choice you make as a player means that the effect will not be successful. The player's choice of character is not limited by the any game state or status unless the card specifically imposes such a limit. In the "choose and kneel a character" context, we know this for a fact, right?

So since the Sorrowful Man does not specify that a choice to pay gold is limited to when there is gold in the gold pool to pay, it is not. You, the player, knows when that choice will be unsuccessful, but since the card is not looking for it yet, the card does not. And we do these things from the card's point of view. Like the blue door/red door maze question, where you have to choose a color before you enter the maze, the card does not know anything about your ability to pay the gold until after the choice is made. What the players know in advance doesn't enter into it.

If Sorrowful Man naturally limits the choice of outcome, requiring you to choose a result that must be successful, then "choose and kneel a character" can only be applied to a standing character - contrary to FFG's rulings. And if that's the rule, where would that stop? For example, if you have no power on your House, so the power claim effect cannot be successful, am I forced to make the choice not to attack you?

FFG has created two different templates for effects that give a player a choice in how the effect resolves. There are those like Sorrowful Man and Shield Island Dromond that say "the player chooses to do one thing or another," effectively templated as "Choose A or B. Do what you choose." The player is given an explicit choice; emphasizing the act of making the choice, not the outcome. So the choice is made only within the parameters specified by the specific parameters stated on the card, not with any level of outside knowledge - universally known or not. The second template is seen on cards like CS-Davos or The White Book Agenda and say "that player does one thing or another," effectively templated as "Do A or Do B." Here, the player is given an implicit choice: placing the emphasis on the outcome, not the act of choosing. So the possible outcome is imposed based on the card's specific instructions. Because FFG sometimes uses the implicit choice and sometimes uses the explicit choice, you cannot treat the situations as interchangable.

Sorrowful Man follows the template for the explicit choice template, so you cannot treat it as the implicit one. Again, it is like the "choose and kneel a character" situation. You are explicitly told to choose a character (and not given an explicit limit), so you cannot place the implicit limit of "that is currently standing" on that choice. Similarly, you cannot put the implicit limit of "unless he has no gold in his gold pool" on the explicit choice of options specified by Sorrowful Man.

Again, I am not saying this is the intent of the card or what the designers had in mind. It wouldn't be the first time FFG released a card that seems like it should work one way, design and/or theme-wise, but works another. This is the way the text on the cards works. If you think Sorrowful Man should work differently, you need to ask FFG for an errata or different text, not try to reason a new interpretation for a settled template issue that gives the result that (and I'm the first to admit it) would be more thematic.

berto said:

Careful with the word "choose" here. You are not choosing a target of an effect, just choosing which of two effects to resolve. The character is not a target, they are just the only character affected by the one of the effects.

You might be right that this card was designed to do that, but in my opinion, and if that is the case, the ability is overpowered. There are tons of ways for a character to enter play outside of the Marshaling phase and all you would need is 2 influence available when they are in the Shadows.

Instead, Sorrowful man can be used to steal 1 gold, circumvent normal "bring out of Shadows" mechanics, and be a Deadly POW icon character. The only problem is that I can't imagine anyone choosing to kill anyone of any value when the trade off is just 1 gold(0 gold if you have no gold). You never know, they may kill their own character if they are absolutely certain you need that gold to hurt them even further. I think you might just have to pick some weaker targets with him when the opponent has gold. Refugees, Character that are Reducers or Income providers. That is your best chance to have them kill the character. In the end, you are 1 gold richer or they are 1 character poorer.

You also should use him if you Marshal last I think so you can spend it(or if you're marshaling first, and need the gold to spend on Shadows later...).

His value may really be against Shadow mechanics. Meaning, let's say you are against Stark and they have 1 gold left. Pull this guy out of the Shadows after their last character is Marshaled and they may be choosing between pulling Meera Reed out this round or keeping Eddard Stark alive.

It has its uses, but I don't think it's an utter failure if it won't kill the character so easily.

ktom said:

I agree with you. It seems to me that paying 1 gold here is an effect, not a condition/penalty/restriction, though.

If it was written draw 1 card instead of pay one gold, one would be able to choose the draw even if already draw cap. And it is similar for many effects (United cause, Threat from the East...).

A big part of my concern over this is about sportsmanship, because I really don't think any of us saw Sorrowful Man and interpreted it this way. Regardless of FFG's templating on effects like these -- and FFG has indeed been consistent on several cards like this before -- but outside the context of game, it is an extraordinarily counter-intuitive way to think of things. I'm sorry ktom, but I just don't think your maze analogy makes this any better. If anything, it seems to me more like "You must choose to either pay a $1000 fine or spend a month in jail;" you wouldn't be able to get out of jail just because you don't have the money.

So how does one go around playing this card? If I put him in my deck, would it be dishonest to not point out to my opponent that they can pay gold they don't have? I certainly wouldn't lie about it, but I would be absolutely shocked if anyone read that card and assumed that paying 0 gold effectively prevented killing the character. A card that is most effective when your opponent fails to fully grasp its arcane logic seems quite problematic. And what if I come up against this card -- one of my friends plays a Shadow Burn deck pretty exclusively, I wouldn't be surprised to see such shenanigans. How do I say to him, here, I pay you 0 gold, without looking like a jackass.

If FFG wants to say this is how Sorrowful Man and Shield Island Dromon and whatever cards present this kind of explicit choices work, then I really think they need to be quite open about it. I sent them a question about this when ktom explained how SID worked, and I sent them almost the exact same question recently about SM, and have never heard back on either. An official word from FFG would be nice, but most of all I think this is an issue that absolutely needs to be addressed in the FAQ section of the FAQ.

alpha5099 said:

Happy birthday, ktom.

There is discussion on agotcards as well. All were surprised when I pointed to your interpretation ktom and most of the people don't agree.

I have big respect for you as rule master as many other players but we reached currently very funny situation where there is ktom rule not official one which people can follow or not. Let assume that we will have this problem on tournament and one player will not agree to your interpretation as it is not official. Should we then roll a die or rely on judge opinion?

The prolem is that this changes card rating from very good to crappy one. Now how to build deck having this card in pool ? It would be really very important for all of us to get this officially to finally know if wecan play or burn this card finally.

Wasn't the Shield Islands Dromon (whose text is worded like Sorrowful Man's) ruled by FFG itself (said ruling being consistent with CCG cards) to work like Ktom explains here? Ktom isn't making a ruling here, he's working from precedent.

Ser Dontos Hollard is too expensive for his ability. Is there something that needs to be cleared up about him too? Cards come out that cost too much all the time, so why can't this be another instance of such a card? Also, this in combination with the new Illyrio might make it more useful than it's direct ability seems to indicate.

Khudzlin said:

People accepted this interpretation of "Choose A or B. Do that (if able)." vs. "Do A or B" when it came up for Shield Islands Dromon readily enough. Not everyone liked it, but they accepted it. I'm convinced that the problem people are having with the interpretation here is because of the name. If this card were exactly the same, but named "Qartheen Diplomat" instead of "Sorrowful Man," would people be generally less adamant that the card must be about killing stuff as often and as mercilessly as possible?

So, I think people are being blinded by the Nedly desire for a "Sorrowful Man" card to be an efficient killer, instead of looking at the card as written. People are confusing what they want the card to do (and what they assume it was intended to do based on the name) with what the card actually says. I mean, if Ser Gregor Clegane was printed with a STR of 0, would we argue how the "0" on the card really means "5," or would we play it as "0" until errata was issued? Because that's what people are doing here: trying to make "0" mean "5" instead of accepting that what was printed might not be what was intended - and waiting for FFG to fix it.

As for the "true intent," consider this: to my recollection, we have only, ever, in this game - from CCG days to today - had 2 other cards that could effectively get rid of a character immediately as it enters play. Both were events, and neither put a character into play in exchange. So there is virtually no precedent for a potentially repeatable character ability so powerful it effectively "cancels" the last character an opponent plays in Marshaling. There is a really good argument that without the "loophole," Sorrowful Man would be too powerful (it's a two character swing, accompanied by a major resource screw, without the "loophole" interpretation). People would be calling for its limitation/banning very shortly after they actually played with it (especially against it).

Whatever the card's intent, what the card says is that the player can choose to pay 1 gold, even if he doesn't have it to spend.

berto said:

Of course you should rely on judge opinion... that's what judges are for.

Also, and this is something people seem to forget, FFG gives their Tournament Organizers full authority to interpret rules and make rulings, EVEN if those rulings disagree with the rules or FAQ if "in their opinion, a mistake has been made."

Yep. The TO's interpretation is the rule at whatever event you go to. The TO doesn't have to agree with me. The TO doesn't even have to agree with FFG. At his own tourney, the TO has the final say on everything. (And, btw, I am the very first to say "ktom says..." is a pretty weak argument for how to play a card.)

Granted, it's usually best to follow the FFG interpretation - if there is one - because if there was no "normal" or "baseline," the game gets too confusing when people play with new people. It's good to make sure we are all playing the same game. But at a tournament, the judge's opinion trumps everything .