If the plot Threat from the East is flipped and the discard three then draw three option is chosen, would Wildling Wisewoman's ability negate the draw part or would is stop the whole effect from happening?

When revealed, you choose one:
-Each player draws 3 cards and then discards 3 random cards from hand.
-Each player discards 3 random cards from hand and then draws 3 cards.

Type: Character House: Neutral
Cost: 3
STR: 2 Icon: Intrigue,Power
Wildling.
Response: Kneel Wildling Wisewoman to cancel 1 card effect that would allow an opponent to draw 1 or more cards.
Crest: Learned

Neither.

If you choose the "discard, then draw" option, the Wisewoman's effect could not be used before the discard is successful - because if it is not successful, the effect does not let you draw cards. And she could not be used to cancel JUST the draw part because you are not allowed to play cancels to just part of an effect.

If, on the other hand, you chose the "draw, then discard" option, she'd cancel the whole thing - for all players.

Cancels are an "all-or-none" proposition. You cannot cancel just part of an effect

So essentially if the discard option is chosen it would be too late to cancel the draw is that the reasoning► Since the cancel can only affect draw effects that has to be the first thing happening in order for the cancel to work► Would this be the same for Bay of Ice which says "After a player wins initiative that player kneels all copies of Bay of Ice, then draws a card." ►

Another question on the Wisewoman, since she doesn''t say "triggered" can she be used to cancel passive draw effects like the Knights of the Realm and King of Summer Agendas►

boben_fett said:

So, ignore (some of) what I said above. Wildling Wisewoman can cancel effects based on "then, draw a card" effects. But when she does, she cancels the entire effect. So, she can cancel Threat From the East, no matter which option you choose first, but she will cancel the entire effect - so there will be no drawing and no discarding at all.

boben_fett said:

The text is this:

(4.18) Canceling an effect that "Would" Occur
When attempting to cancel an effect that "would" occur, that effect would have to occur (if it were not canceled) by the end of step 3 of the action window the cancel interrupts.

So for Wildling Wisewoman to be able to cancel a then effect, it would need to be resolved as part of step 3 (since the timing of then effects has not been officially clarified - that is, in the FAQ-, it''s an important information).

Khudzlin said:

Do the pre-then part of the effect needs to be resolved successfully to allow the Wisewoman to cancel the effect?

For instance if I cant discard 3 card, can I cancel Threat from the East? I would say no, but just to be sure.

Bolzano said:

The "would occur" FAQ entry simply says that for Wildling Wisewoman applies where the cards are drawn by the end of Step 3, assuming successful resolution. (I am inferring the "assuming successful resolution" bit from the "if it were not canceled" text in the entry.) I don't think it's a stretch to say that part of assuming the successful resolution is assuming that the post-then part is also successful. While the initiation/resolution timing is not well defined, the "then" part of the effect would have to occur by the end of the Step 3, so it seems to fit here.

For example, if there was a card that said "cancel an effect that would return a character to its owner's hand," I would say it could cancel Cyvasse, even though at the point of canceling, you don't know for sure whether anything will be returned to hand when the event resolves (because no one has actually "won" the kneeling game yet). I say this because, assuming successful resolution, it will all be over by the end of Step 3 - which is what the FAQ entry requires. This is a little different from a conditional cancel (eg, "that chooses a House Dayne character as a target" or "that targets a Stark card") based on the character returned to hand because - at the time of the cancel - that target has not been determined yet.

/head explodes. i dont follow any of this. i thought it was a universal rule that THENs could be saved from but not canceled.

dcdennis said:

I guess it is not considered canceling a "then" effect if it is canceling the entire effect.

At the "Save/Cancel" window(waaay before it reaches the point of "then"), the "then" portion is considered something that "would" occur, and so if a cancel looks for a specific type of effect, it can look at the "then" portion of an as if it "would occur" and makes the entire effect something that can be canceled.

So with Wildling Wisewoman, she cancels a card effect that would allow an opponent to draw 1 or more cards. So any effect that *would* eventually allow the opponent to draw 1 or more cards ends up becoming eligible to being canceled. Even if the draw part of the effect is a newly created lasting effect or a "then" portion of the effect… it can then be canceled long before it even reaches that.

"Kneel this card to give a participating character +2 STR until the end of the challenge. If you win the challenge, draw 1 card."

"Kneel this card to give a participating character +2 STR until the end of the challenge. Then, draw 1 card."

If the opponent has triggered either of these, Wildling Wisewoman can cancel each of these effects because it leaves open a window possibility that the opponent can draw 1 card at some point in the effect.

That is what I am gathering from ktom.

ktom said:

So, if my opponent has TLS in play when he reveals TFtE and chooses the discard first option, can she still cancel the entire effect given that, based on the state of the board, my opponent will not be able to draw cards?

Amuk said:

The only thing that the FAQ entry says is factored into whether the "would" condition is met is whether the cards are drawn in the resolution step of the effect that is being interrupted by the cancel. That includes "then, draw" effects, but would not include "delayed draw" effects like Insidious Ways or Longship Iron Victory.

dcdennis said:

However, "then draw" does open the entire effect up to cancelation by Wildling Wisewoman because, according to the FAQ, the appropriate way to figure out if an effect "would" do something is to look ahead and see if the something happens in Step 3. The draw in a "then draw" effect does happen in Step 3, so the effect "would allow" an opponent to draw cards - even if there are other factors (which the FAQ doesn't say you consider one way or another) might prevent it from happening.

After all, if you want to get brutally technical, you never know if something must happen in Step 3 until you get past Step 2 and confirm that there is no save or cancel. Nothing is "ensured" until it actually resolves. So it makes sense that "would" is judged in a "no external factors" analysis.

What about an effect like Satin's ability where the draw is conditioned to a choice after a then? Even assuming successful resolution, we're not certain drawing will be part of the effects.

Relevant text:

Kneel a Night's Watch character to reveal the top card of each player's deck. Then (choose one): each player discards that card, draws that card, or returns it to the top of his or her deck.

Khudzlin said:

The effect "would allow" cards to be drawn by the end of Step 3 of the action the Wisewoman is trying to interrupt and cancel. So the FAQ's determination of "would" is satisfied.

"Would" is determined by the effect's potential resolution as written in Step 3, not on the "obvious outcome" of the resolution. If "draw" exists anywhere on the decision tree, and its resolution would be in Step 3 if those branches are followed, the effect "would allow" the opponent to draw cards.

ktom said:

by this logic if the only chars that the cyvasse initiator's opponent has in play are house dayne, then cyvasse could be canceled since the only available targets are dayne. still doesnt seem right.

dcdennis said:

The other distinction you are missing is that the analysis for "would" does not take the board situation into account. It looks only at the text effect of the card it is trying to cancel. That's why the Wisewoman is able to cancel an effect that uses the word "draw," even when the draw cap has been reached or some other outside factor would prevent the draw.

I think you are applying the Wildwoman reasoning to the Healer's play restrictions, but they are evaluated completely differently. The difference is that the Wildwoman cancels effects based on how they "would" resolve while the Healer cancels effects based on how they did initiate. So no, this logic does not say that the Healer could cancel Cyvasse if all of a player's characters that could be returned to hand in Step 3 are House Dayne (although it could cancel Cyvasse if a player chose to kneel a House Dayne character with an intrigue icon in Step 1 for the part before the "then").

fair enoguh

ktom said:

So the characters are chosen in step 1 with all players taking part in the initiation (each choosing one of their characters)?

Khudzlin said:

The character returned to hand is not chosen until Step 3, after it is determined who, if anyone, is able to do so.

The FAQ entry talks about effects that "would occur", not that would be resolved successfully - that it is the same, I'm not sure if that's just another asumption or straightforward in English.

But note that an effect can be resolved unsuccessfully even if it was not cancelled, hence my question. And it is the case of TftE. Even if not cancelled, the effect would not occur / be resolved successfully by the end of Step 3.

However, if "occur" means to be resolved (successfully or not), it would work as you say.

Bolzano said:

So, by saying that the effect "would have to occur … by the end of step 3," the FAQ is saying that the effect must have the potential to make the effect in question happen by the end of step 3. By not specifying any other conditions, it places no other limitation on that potential, effectively saying it only needs to be possible within that time frame - not definite, likely, or even probable. In short, what the FAQ entry leaves out is what makes it fairly broad.

That is what is leading to my conclusions that when you are looking at Wildling Wisewoman, she is able to cancel any effect which creates the potential for a player to draw a card by the end of step 3, disregarding any other question of how probable - or even possible - that draw effect is within the current situation.

Bolzano said:

The thing is that at the time of the cancel, you don't know if any cards will actually be drawn or not. Or rather, *you* might know, but *the game* doesn't, because the precondition for drawing cards with TftE is the successful resolution of the pre-Then part of the effect, and you only know if the pre-Then part of the effect resolves successfully when you actually try to resolve it - which happens in step 3 of the action window, *after* the cancel opportunity. I fact, I think that's the whole point of the "would" wording - to enable you to cancel conditional effects whose condition is checked during the resolution of the effect, not the initiation.

If I am following correctly, WW could also cancel a save against a Greyjoy player with Aeron Damphair as their agenda then?

Kid Gruesome said:

No. The save and Aeron's Response are two different effects. The pre-Then and post-Then part of TftE are two parts of the same effect.

The save is not the card effect that "would allow an opponent to draw 1 or more cards" - the Response is. You could cancel that one with WW - only in this case, you can't, because it's an Agenda effect, and those cannot be cancelled. If it was a character ability, or an event, you could cancel it with WW.