Two questions that stem from one:

1) I would think that his response could be canceled by something like He Calls It Thinking, but not something that targets character abilities (ala Meera Reed), is this correct?

2) If he were able to be canceled by something like HCIT(assuming it is possible), would it then fall into the same category as jumping Khal Drogo and Catelyn where you could trigger it again because it is coming from an out of play area(provided you have enough influence to pay for it again)?

Thanks for the help.

Mark

1. Yeah character ability cancel won't cancel him. However, you can cancel it with stuff that cancels triggered effects. Note that He Calls it Thinking doesn't get the job done because it can only cancel stuff without an influence cost.

2. If you were to cancel it, it would go back into shadows where you could then kneel 2 influence again to trigger him.

Ah, I always forget about the influence restriction on HCIT. I guess the heart of the quest was if a response cancel, and not a triggered effect cancel, could hit the ability.

Yeah, anything that cancels a response or a triggered effect can cancel it. You just can't cancel it with things that cancel character abilities, because abilites are on cards in play. Effects are on cards out of play.

Nit-picking some terminology here:

Staton said:

This "effects = out-of-play; abilities = in-play" definition is a little misleading. To be more precise, "triggered effect = card text the player chooses to use; triggered abilities = triggered effects on cards in play." The precision is actually kind of important because without it, you gloss over the fact that all triggered abilities are also triggered effects - very important for "immune to triggered effects" or "cancel an effect just triggered."

Staton said:

Technicaly, it would never come out of Shadows in the first place, not "go back into" Shadows. This could be an important distinction if someone has an "after a card comes out of Shadows" Response - which could be used if it came out and was returned to Shadows as opposed to never leaving Shadows in the first place.

Touche there. Thanks for clearing that wording up.

If i don't have gold can i choose to satisfy him with paying one gold even though i don't have one?

As worded, yes.

Whether or not that "loophole" in how most people think the card should work survives the next round of errata is anyone's guess.

Yes you can. You have to choose an option, but when you choose, it doesn't look at if you can satisfy the choice. So you choose and then worry about satisfying it. If you choose to pay one gold and then you don't have any gold, you're fine. You just don't pay anything.

Tragic.... So pyromancer's apprentice is a card without meaning... We need that errata fast...

GioKarab said:

No, Sorrowful Man & Apprentice are worded differently- the key word on Sorrowful Man is 'choose'- so you just have to make a choice even if you can't fulfill it. Since Pyromancer's Apprentice doesn't say "choose" they must actually have the gold.

Staton said:

I thought you were only allowed to trigger an individual Response 1 time per trigger. Does this not hold if the Response is cancelled?

This topic has been discussed about cards such as Khal Drogo and Catelyn that can jump in the challenge phase.

The rule of 1 Response per trigger is true in general except when effects are triggered from your hand - and it may be quite safe to assume for the Shadow area it is quite the same.

To expand on that a little, "one Response per trigger" only applies to the same Response effect on the same card.

When a card is not in play, there is no interaction with the "in-play" game (unless specified), which means there is no "memory" of any in-play conditions, limitations, etc. that were placed on that specific card. This is why "until the end of the phase" effects end for that card if it leaves play before the end of the phase. Essentially, each card that is not in play is considered a different card from when it was in-play. So, since the card is considered a different card when it is out-of-play, even if it is the same physical piece of cardboard, you are not breaking the "one Response per trigger" rule by triggering the Response on a Sorrowful Man that never made it into play a second time.

If you cancel sorrowful man doesn't it still come into play? Coming into play was part of the cost and the effect is after the word "then". Isn't this the case? I thought that's how it worked for Meera as well her cost is the gold and coming into play. The blanking of text box is the "effect". Some clarification on this would be nice.

Erwo the Elder said:

Incorrect on both counts. Coming into play is an effect of these cards, not a cost.

Remember, that when the card says "do X to do Y," X is the cost and Y is the effect. The text on Sorrowful Man is:

"Response: After an opponent's character enters play, kneel 2 influence to bring Sorrowful Man out of Shadows and into play. Then,…."

So X (the cost) is kneeling 2 influence and Y (the effect) is bringing Sorrowful Man out of Shadows and into play. Canceling that would leave the influence knelt, but the card in Shadows. The text on Meera is a little different. It is:

"Any Phase: Bring Meera Reed out of Shadows and into play by paying the rest of her gold cost. Then…"

In this case, FFG has done something kind of inconsistent, effectively modeling the effect as "Do Y by doin g X." It's the same thing as "do X to do Y," the fact that it specifies paying the gold indicates that the cost is the second part, and it makes absolutely no sense that the cost would be bringing her out of Shadows and the effect would be to "pay" 1 gold. So despite the backwards phrasing, the cost is paying her remaining gold cost and the effect is bringing her out of Shadows. Canceling that would leave the gold paid, but the card in Shadows.

In order for coming into play to be the cost and to work as you were mistakenly thinking, these effects would need to say "Bring (card) out of Shadows to do (something)…" or "(Do something) by bringing (card) out of Shadows."

You may be getting confused by the "then" parts of the effects. The "then" parts are, indeed, effects, but that does not mean everything before the "then" is a cost. In fact, some of the stuff before the "then" must be an effect because the whole point of "then" effects is that the effects before the "then" must be successful before the effects after the "then" can initiate.

Thanks for the clarification.

ktom said:

Since we're back on this topic, I'd like to submit a related question: If Corpse Lake earns power, then leaves play, then returns to play during the same round, does the power already earned still counted toward the limit of 3x per round?

The straightforward logic of the rule that it "forgets" anything that happened to it before it left play, the answer would seem to be no. OTOH, "Limit 3 times per round." looks like a continuing effect that shouldn't care if the source is still around.

Take a look at the card Asshai Initiate. It reads:

"Any Phase: Discard the top 2 cards of your deck to choose 1 character in any dead pile. Move that character to its owner's discard pile. (Limit once per round.) "

Now, this is a non-unique character. If you had two of them in play, could you use the abilities on both once per round, or could you only trigger the "once per round" ability one time in total between your two separate, individual cards?

By your "OTOH, 'Limit 3 times per round.' looks like a continuing effect that shouldn't care if the source is still around" reasoning, you should only be able to trigger 1 Asshai Initiate per round, no matter how many you have in play. It really should be clear that this is not the case. Limits only apply the the separate, individual card that they are on unless a rule ("once per game") or the text itself ("Limit 1 Limited Response per round") says so. So if Corpse Lake leaves play, then returns to play, it is treated as a totally separate, individual card, even if it happens to be the exact same piece of cardboard, and the limit "resets."

What it comes down to is that all limits are play restrictions, not effects, lasting or otherwise. So the nature of limits means that it really doesn't, and never will, "look like a continuing effect."

ktom said:

Thanks for the very clear answer.

I kinda thought it reset but I couldn't decide. This came up in play not too long ago and we played it that way but I promised to ask on the forums to be sure.