Beeing the local rules-interpreter for our weekly AGOT LCG sessions, I have found it increasingly difficult to communicate to others what I learn about the rules here on these forums. More importantly, I almost dread introducing the game to new players, since the rules of this game are in so many aspects so counter-intutive to me.

The latest instance of this is The Sorrowful Man, which I shall try and explain to my fellow gamers on sunday. But reading through the debate concerning TSM, I also stumbled on (to me) new rules regarding "choose and kneel", supposedly you can choose and kneel charachters already knelt?

Now, my point here is not to debate what the rules actually are here, but how to understand them. What are the core principles and sections of the FAQ from which you can deduce that you can "choose and kneel" a knelt charachter?

I mean, the core ruleset says that while resolving a military challenge, "The defending opponent must choose and kill" (p14) charachters according to the claim value. The same choice of language is used on p. 17 of the FAQ, "B) The second challenge resolution framework event initiates: challenge result is
implemented. The Lannister player chooses one of his characters to die for claim." Choose and kill, choose to die.

Now, what happens oif a charachter "cannot be killed"? Well, logically, a charachter which cannot be killed cannot be chosen "to die for claim" or "chosen and killed". So far so good.

Problems arise when we turn to "choose and kneel". Supposedly, you can "choose and kneel" an already knelt charachter, even though at that time the charachter cannot actually be knelt. This applies, if I understand this correctly, even to cards such as A Game of Cyvasse, which states that "Each player must choose and kneel a charachter."

So on the one hand, you cannot choose and kill a charachter which cannot be killed, but on the other hand you can choose and kneel a charachter which cannot be knelt? Can you choose and stand a standing charachter? I am aware of that certain cards says "choose and kneel a standing charachter", but the importance of this make little sense as compared to other choose-effects. The FAQ or rules doesn't state that you have to choose and kill a killable character or a non-dead charachter, do they?

What is the core principle here? "Choose" does never (when printed on a card, not in the rules/FAQ) require you to choose an exectuble action (action in the broad sense, not "player action")? As long as a choice is theoritically possible (Beric could be killed, just not as long as his text box is in effect; a standing charachter could be knelt, just not at the moment when it is kneeling; a player could pay 1 g, just not at the moment where he/she has no gold), it is a valid choice?

If a card said choose and kill, can I then choose and (attempt to) kill Beric Dondarion (and fail)? (Condemned by the Realm, for example)?

As said, I am not very concerned with whether the rules actually make sense or not or what is the most logical interpretation of TSM. What interest me is how to make sense of them to other. What are the core principles behind all this confusion, on which one can rest in the future so that not all rules are thrown up in limbo with every new chapter pack?

Well know I realise that my "can logically happen" rule-of-thumb does not work since then Beric could be chosen for claim effects. Did not find the "edit post" button though :/

loffenx said:

So yeah, you are right, there is nothing in the rules that says "you have to choose and kneel a 'kneelable' or non-kneeling character." But unlike your killing comparison, there is nothing in the rules that says "if a character is already kneeling, you cannot kneel it again." So the rule place a limitation on what is eligible to be killed, but does not place the same limitation on what can be knelt.

loffenx said:

Believe it or not, this is a good thing. You don't have to search for "unwritten limitations" on every target you choose because there are none. For example, if "choose and kneel a character" implicitly made a character that was already kneeling an ineligible choice, why wouldn't a STR 1 character be an ineligible target for a "choose a character; that character gets -2 STR" effect? It doesn't have 2 STR to lose. You could argue that both ways, couldn't you? Or what about compound effect? Would a character be an ineligible choice for an effect that said "choose a character; discard all attachments and power from that character" if it had only attachments or power, but not both?

loffenx said:

For example, the analysis is not "theoretically, Beric could be killed if it wasn't for his text;" it's "his text specifically makes him an ineligible target." The analysis is not "a standing character could be knelt, just not at the moment when it is kneeling;" it's "does the text of the standing effect specifically limit your choice of targets to kneeling characters?" It's not "a player could pay 1 gold, just not at this moment;" it's "does the effect limit you to choosing a player with gold in his gold pool?"

So you see, the core principle here is the same, whether you are talking about choosing a character to kneeling (or standing), choosing a character to kill, choosing a player to do something, or choosing the way an effect will resolve. When you are specifically given a choice, you do not look to the possible results to determine what is a legal choice; you only look at the specific limitations or restrictions placed on making the choice. (You can explain TSM in this context, too. The specific choice of "pay or kill" does not limit the "pay" option to players with gold, or the "kill" option to characters that can die, so unless there is another effect creating those limitations, you are not bound by them when making the choice for how to resolve that effect.)

Of course, practically speaking, people are going to look ahead to the possible results and take the legal choice that leads to the result that is most favorable to them. If TSM's controller, rather than the controller of the character entering play, was the one making the choice, the whole TSM issue would be moot because TSM's controller would never make the (legal) choice to have a "broke" player pay them gold. But just because something is the only logical choice (for that player in that situation), that does not make it the only legal choice. A legal choice can be illogical, or lead to the unsuccessful resolution that more or less wastes an effect.

loffenx said:

So you see, there is a single, core concept here that can be applied in all "specific choice" situations. Unless a choice is expressly prohibited, it is legal, whether it leads to a successful resolution or not. Hope that helps.

Excellent reply!

"Unless a choice is expressly prohibited, it is legal, whether it leads to a successful resolution or not."

This is exaclty what I was looking for. Just to make things clear, if there was not an explicit restriction on which charachters that could be chosen for claim effects etc. in the rules, Beric could have been chosen as a target for military claim effects?

Is the charachters chosen for kill effects the only instance where such an explicit exception from the "Unless a choice is expressly prohibited, it is legal, whether it leads to a successful resolution or not."-rule is states in the rules?

In other words, can I return to my play group and state that

"Unless a choice is expressly prohibited, it is legal, whether it leads to a successful resolution or not. An exception exists for when a player is instructed to choose and kill a charachter, in which he/she can only chose a killable charachter."

Excellent reply, ktom. Thanks a million!

So... I did't exactly follow that. Can I kneel an already knelt character? or can't I?

loffenx said:

You also cannot choose targets for effects of which they are immune to. For example , if an event effect said "choose and kneel a character", you cannot choose The Red Viper(Princes of the Sun) because he is immune to events.

DarkJodo -

If the effect said "Choose and kneel a standing character." you cannot choose one that is already knelt because the target restriction is that they are standing.

If the effect instead said "Choose and kneel a character." you can indeed choose one that is already knelt because the target restriction is only choosing a character. Nothing happens to the knelt character and the effect is not considered successful.

DarkJodo said:

If an effect tells you to "choose and kneel a character" (like Kingdom of Shadows), you can choose a character that is already kneeling.

If an effect tells you to "choose and kneel a character. Then, do X", you can still choose a character that is already kneeling, but then X won't happen, because for the part after "Then" to happen, the part before "Then" must resolve fully and completely, and for it to resolve completely, an character must go from a standing to a kneeling state.

If an effect tells you to "Kneel a character to do Y", you must kneel a standing character in order to initiate the effect, because in this case, kneeling a character is a cost, and if you can't or don't want to pay the cost, you can't initiate the effect.

loffenx said:

A little history: when the first characters with "cannot be killed" text showed up, there was nothing in the rules prohibiting you from choosing such characters as the target for kill effects, so "cannot be killed" characters were used to side-step military claim all the time. "I choose my CBK character for claim...and he doesn't die." It was so unbalanced, giving such an advantage to a single House (which had 3 CBK characters back when there were only 5 in the game; imagine needing a claim of 4 before the military challenge meant anything) that the express prohibition to targeting was added to the FAQ.

loffenx said:

Those are really the only explicit prohibitions in the rules I can think of. There are a lot of cards with such prohibitions, though. (eg: "this card cannot be chosen as the only target of an event card" or "this card cannot be chosen to satisfy military claim," or even "this card MUST be chosen to satisfy military claim, if able",)

loffenx said:

For example, if you have an effect that says "choose and stand a character," there is nothing in that expressly prohibiting you from choosing a character that is already standing for the effect and (unsuccessfully) standing it. However, if I have a card that, either because of its text or because of some other effect, is "this card cannot stand," I could not choose it as the target of the "choose and stand a character" effect - whether it is standing or kneeling - because of the "this card cannot stand" prohibition. This isn't an exception to the "unless a choice is expressly prohibited, it is legal, whether it leads to a successful resolution or not" rule of thumb - it's just that the express prohibition mentioned in the rule is coming from a source other than the "choose and stand a character" effect itself. That's what is going on with instructions for a player to kill a character. There are other sources (primarily, the rules for the word "cannot" and for cards that are already dead/moribund) imposing the express limitation, not the "choose and kill a character" effect itself.

DarkJodo said:

Unless there is a rule or a card effect that specifically says "you can't make that choice," you can make that choice - even if it means the effect fizzles out.

So "choose and kneel a character" doesn't say "you can't choose a character that is already knelt," so you can kneel a character that is already knelt.

Or, more to the point, you can try to kneel a character that is already knelt. The attempt is considered unsuccessful and anything that requires the kneeling to be successful (like paying a cost by kneeling the character, a "then" effect that relies on the kneeling effect, or an "after a character kneels" Response) will have nothing to work off of.

loffenx said:

Not quite. The second sentence does not constitute an exception to the first sentence, because choosing a "cannot be killed" character as the target for a kill effect is expressly prohibited.

However, you can return to your play group and state that

"Unless a choice is expressly prohibited, it is legal, whether it leads to a successful resolution or not. Choices that are expressly prohibited include choosing cards that cannot be killed/saved/discarded/etc. as targets of kill/save/discard/etc. effects, and choosing cards that are immune to certain types of effects (like events, triggered effects, character abilities etc.) as targets for those effects."

ktom said:

ktom, what I was wondering is, does this also pertain to effects that don't choose cards, but players as targets? For example, if there was an effect that said "choose a player. That player must discard a card from his hand", must I choose myself if my opponent happens to have a standing TLS out? Or if there was an Agenda that let's you do nifty stuff, but also has the provision "You cannot draw cards through card effects" - would that agenda prevent a player from being chosen as a target of Counting Favors?

Regarding "Unless a choice is expressly prohibited, it is legal, whether it leads to a successful resolution or not. Choices that are expressly prohibited include choosing cards that cannot be killed/saved/discarded/etc. as targets of kill/save/discard/etc. effects, and choosing cards that are immune to certain types of effects (like events, triggered effects, character abilities etc.) as targets for those effects."

Ar all such expressed prohibitions printed on cards? I.e., can I say "look at the effect. Does it expressly require a certain condition for the target? (As in "...a standing charachter"). If not, look at the possible target. Does it expressly state that it cannot be affected by the intended effect? (as in, Beric cannot be killed). If not, the card is a legal target of the effect."

To explain The Sorrowful Man, can i simpify it by saying that

"Whenever a card asks a player to choose between two or more courses of action, there is no requirement that the player must choose a course of action which can actually be carried out."

?

loffenx said:

I guess they are almost all printed on cards, but not necessarily on the card that is prohibited as a target itself. Think of "Power of Blood". You couldn't choose a noble-crested character as the target of a kill effect while PoB is revealed. The prohibition is printed on a card, but only on the plot, not on the prohibited cards themselves.

Off the top of my head I can think of one prohibition that isn't printed on a card, but in the rulebook: The effects of Ambush cannot be cancelled. But I don't think that's relevant here, because effects triggered from out of play can hardly be subject to a choice. "Choose a triggered effect. Cancel that effect"? Inconceivable.

loffenx said:

Sounds good to me. But ktom is the brains of this particular outfit.

Ratatoskr said:

> What you are essentially asking is: Does the game distinguish between, for example, "Challenges: Choose a character. Kill that character." and "Challenges: Choose and kill a character."?

See the potential difference? You could argue that in the first construction, the only limitation on your choice is "a character" without any consideration for what will happen to it, effectively making the choice about general characterization. This could be differentiated from the second construction you are choosing a character "specifically" to be killed. Under such an interpretation, you would be able to choose a CBK character for the first construction, but not (as we know) for the second - even though the two are identical in every other respect.

> So that's the question. What's the answer?

For the most part, the construction doesn't matter. The game treats "Choose A. Do X to A." the same as "Choose and do X to A." Which construction is used tends to depend more on how awkwardly the effect reads than on any attempt to create a different meaning. For example, even though "Choose a player. That player must discard the top card of his or her deck and a card from his or her hand at random." reads a lot better than "Choose and discard the top card of the deck and a random card from the hand of a player." But they mean, and are treated, the same in terms of target restrictions.

loffenx said:

loffenx said:

loffenx said: