Again we had a game the other day and a question occured.

Friend of mine had The Blackfish in game with "Crown of Winter" on it. It was his only Char on the Field.

Crown of Winter: HS unique character only.

Attached character gets +2 STR and is immune to opponent's events and character abilities.

If the Black Raven card is not in play, it is Winter.

So far so good. A different opponent attacked me with military battle. I didn't defend and played Red Vengeance.

Red Vengeance: Response: After you lose a challenge as the defender, kneel 2 influence to cancel the claim effect of that challenge. Then, choose an opponent to satisfy the claim of that challenge as if he or she had lost the challenge as the defender.

As the new target, to satisfy the claim of that challenge, i chose the opponent with the Blackfish out.

Now my friend said, I cannot target him, because the Blackfish is immune to opponents event cards, such as red vengeance, and therefore cannot be killed.

My argument is, that i do not target the Blackfish himself, but the opponent. And the opponent has to fulfill the claim value. So the event card has no effect on the Blackfish and the immunity is ignored.

Whos right?

You are. The event chooses an opponent, who must satisfy military claim. His Blackfish, assuming that's his only character, is gonna bite the dust unless he can save him or he can't be killed.

Something ktom said in this thread http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=18&efcid=4&efidt=630599&efpag=0#631439 makes me think differently.

"And yes, that means that since it is Arya's effect that is resolving, characters immune to her ability could not be chosen. Her ability affects players (it does not target them; they are not "chosen"), who then have to choose characters to die by her ability - if it is a military challenge. Immune characters cannot be chosen. This is an old, old, point about immunity. If you have an event that says "Choose a player. That player must choose and kill a character he controls." and the only character the chosen player has out is immune to events, the event would have no effect. Choosing the player before choosing the character does not get around immunity. When it comes to immunity, you always look at what is being chosen, not who is doing the choosing. It all has to do with the way things are worded. That's why "that player cannot declare defenders this round" works differently from "characters controlled by that player cannot be declared as defenders this round." (Character immunity helps with the second phrase, but not the first.)"

Might that logic also apply to Red Vengeance with Crown of Winter?

That logic does not apply here. The Red Vengeance only says a different player must fullfill the claim. It does not affect the Blackfish.

Then, the claim effect will kill him - because he is not immune to claim.

Bolzano said:

I made the argument that since Arya says "Response: After you win a challenge in which Arya Stark attacked alone, each opponent with a Title that opposes your Title must also satisfy the claim of that challenge, if able." that it was claim killing them, so immunity should not apply, and was told otherwise. It was explained to me that her ability wasn't actually creating claim, but mimicing it, and that it was her ability actually killing characters (in the case of Military).

I don't see why the same reasoning wouldn't apply to Red Vengeance. Red Vengeance does not redirect claim. It cancels claim, and then chooses another player to fulfill that claim as though they had lost the challenge as the defender. If Arya's ability is the one killing characters in the case, then shouldn't it be Red Vengeance killing them in this case?

Is the phrase "as though they had lost the challenge as the defender" where the difference lies?

I accepted what I was told about Arya, though I never agreed with it (and the e-mail I sent to FFG was never answered), and I just can't wrap my head around what makes this case different enough to have a different answer.

KristoffStark said:

• Red Vengeance: House Martell only. Response: After you lose a challenge as the defender, kneel 2 influence to cancel the claim effect of that challenge. Then, choose an opponent to satisfy the claim of that challenge as if he or she had lost the challenge as the defender.

This card has to be played as a Save/Cancel to the Framework Event "Challenge result is implemented." It then selects a different player to implement the claim result "as if he or she had lost the challenge as the defender." The Blackfish being the only available target (just as he would be had his controller been the actual defender) he must be chosen to implement the challenge result. So, yes, that phrase (as well as the timing) is key.

Arya's ability doesn't kick in until after the Challenge Framework Action Window closes, in Step 5. So the two can't be treated the same; it is only by virtue of her character ability that the "claim" effect is being replicated.

As Amuk implies, it is all about the timing.

Arya's Response ability to "after you win a challenge" is triggered after claim has resolved completely. (ie, she is triggered in Step 5 and claim was over in Step 3.) So it is her ability, not claim itself, that is resolving.

Red Vengeance is played before claim is resolved (Step 2, with claim being resolved in Step 3). So when you choose a new player to "satisfy claim," that satisfaction of claim is happening when claim itself resolves - after the event is played.

Arya is different because she is a standard response that doesn't interrupt the initiate/resolve chain of the claim effect, and therefore cannot change the way it resolves. Red Vengeance is a cancel effect that by definition interrupts and changes the initiate/resolve chain of the claim effect. So Arya does not retroactively modify the way the claim effect had resolved, but Red Vengeance does proactively modify the way the claim effect will resolve.

Amuk said:

Alright, I see significance in the timing of the relevant effects.

That being said, I still see Red Vengeance as doing two things here:
First, it cancels the claim of the challenge.
THEN
It chooses an opponent to satisfy claim as if they had lost.

It is only by virtue of Red Vengeance that the chosen target is suffering the claim effect.

I still can't help but see the distinction that Red Vengeance is not redirecting the same claim effect (as Crown Regent redirects challenges). Instead it is cancelling a claim effect, and creating a new one.

If the fact that this effect occurs in the Claim Satisfaction Framework event means that it is "real claim," while Arya's ability being a Response triggered later makes her's a "fake claim" (in spite of the fact that they both use near identical wording of the phrase "opponent satisfies claim", and both "claim effects" are being generated by a card) then I suppose I'll have to accept it. But it's so counter-intuitive to me that it hurts.

And I'm sorry (particularly to those who took part in the thread I linked to) if this feels like I'm just stubbornly refusing to admit defeat in the debate, or beating a dead horse.

It's certainly not my intention to be a bother, or to make the same points again and again.

I just can't help that they still feel right to me, even in the face of consensus to the contrary.

To me, the similarities far outweigh the differences, and I still can't escape the idea that a card that specifically uses the name of a mechanic (like "claim") is not in fact treated like that mechanic because of timing.

There is also the fact that Pyat Pree can kill Cat o' Canals with his claim replacement effect, because he affects claim, claim kills Cat and Cat is not immune to claim.