Hello, I have got two questions.

----------------------

First is about Double Bluff:

House Lannister only. Response: After defenders have been declared in a challenge, kneel 2 influence or pay 2 gold to change the effect of winning the challenge to that of another challenge type.

What do Double Bluff effect? Change it only claim effect? But why there is no write "to change claim effect to another one"?

----------------------

Second is about word triggered in two forms. Triggered effect and effect triggered.

Ex. 1: High Septon (LotR): … Immune to triggered effects. …
Ex. 2: River Blockade (RoR): … Cancel the first location effect triggered by an opponent each round. …

In LCG rules in both type of action window is written:

4. Passive abilities (now triggered) are initiated.

I think triggered effects are effect with Response, Any phase or <phase> keyword.
Means it River Blockade can cancel passive effect (if it is first effect), because the effect is triggered?
If it is not true, why is in rules written about triggering passive abilities?

----------------------

Thanks for answers.

Newbiek said:

The fact that it doesn't use the words "claim effect" doesn't change the fact that "effect of winning the challenge" is the same thing. It's a wording choice, not some subtle attempt to change the effect of the card to some hidden meaning other than the obvious one.

Newbiek said:

So, even though when you are talking about the timing order, people may say "this is when passive effects are triggered," that does not make passive effects count as "triggered effects" as the game defines them.

ktom said:

I think there is side effect. We can say "claim effect" is part of "effect of winning the challenge". But the decision that I am "winner of military challenge" could be the part of "effect of winning the challenge" too.

Ex.: Twist of Fate changes only the claim effect. But on the Double Bluff is about changing effect of winning to another challenge type not only claim effect.

ktom said:

I don't talk about triggered effect, because the word "first effect triggered each round" don't reference to the triggered effects, but to the effects, that are triggered first, by player of course.

It could be reason to remove this word from LCG rules. But there is rule: Framework Actions "Passive effect that are triggered due to any of proceeding framework events are initiated. Robert Baratheon's passive ability reads … this passive ability is now automatically triggered, and Robert claim …". It means passive effect can be triggered (not triggered effect, but triggered). And The Iron Throne says: "… Kneel The Iron Throne to cancel a character ability just triggered. …" It could means passive or active ability. How you can explain this?

Newbiek said:

This has been discussed a hundred times.

It is highly unfortunate that FFG used the word "trigger" for the initiation of passive effects. It is also unfortunate that they haven't cleared these questions up in the FAQ yet, because they come up again and again.

The thing is this:

When the word "triggered" appears on card text, it *always* refers to the specific game concept of a "triggered effect". It does not make a difference if it says "triggered effect" or "effect just triggered". The Iron Throne and River Row cancel only triggered effects, not passive effects.

The FAQ uses "trigger" in a few instances in connection with passive effects. In these cases, they use the word not as the specific game term, but as the general English verb meaning "initiate". It is unfortunate, they shouldn't have done it, but there you are. As I said, this has been discussed lots of times, and the result is always that "effects just triggered" is the same as "triggered effects".

Newbiek said:

There is nothing other than the "claim effect" in the "effect of winning the challenge." What else, besides the claim effect, is it that you see in "effect of winning the challenge"?

Ratatoskr said:

Discussed with who? With authors of cards or rules? Can you paste link?

ktom said:

Where is written " There is nothing other than the 'claim effect' in the 'effect of winning the challenge.' "? This is only yours and mine opinion. I don't mean that I am "winner of challenge" is effect of winning, but the "winner of military challenge". Because, then I can use after-effects, like "After you win military challenge."

Newbiek said:

I think I see what's confusing you. You're reading "effect of winning the challenge" to mean that it would change the whole structure of it, including the type. But it doesn't.

There's nothing in Double Bluff's text that changes the type of challenge you won, just the effect of claim. So, if you win a military challenge and play Double Bluff to take power instead of killing characters, you can still play "When you win a military challenge…" effects, too. The two determinations are separate. Once you initiate a military challenge, that's the kind of challenge it is. You can't do another one (absent some other card effect) and your one standard military challenge for the round is used up (just as it would be if it fizzled with no resolution or winner). All Double Bluff does is change claim: the effect of winning. On its face, it refers only to effects related to the type initiated being changed; it doesn't affect other "effects of winning" (using the word "effect" loosely) like claiming renown.

So, the wording is perhaps slightly imprecise (because FFG simply refuses to use a consistent template for these things) but the actual result is pretty clear: After defenders are declared, you can change the claim effect. But it's still whatever type of challenge you started out doing and other effects contingent on that challenge type are still valid.

Newbiek said:

If "authors of cards or rules" is the only authority you are going to accept on this question, send the question directly to FFG. But they will tell you that "first effect triggered" refers to triggered effects only, even if the FAQ does use the words "trigger" and "initiate" interchangeably when referring to passive effects, and River Blockade will not cancel passive effects. (Your Lannister opponent will get his card for Golden Tooth Mines, for example.)

Newbiek said:

So, since Double Bluff does not change the type of challenge that was initiated, it does not change the type of challenge won or lost for purposes of Responses - or anything else for that matter.

Amuk said:

I am not talking about initialization more military challenges, only about changing winning type.
And how you write: absent some other card effect. There is no reason, why this card must change only claim effect.

ktom said:

Are there any other official authorities excepts rules and authors?

Newbiek said:

Well, in a nutshell, Double Bluff only changes the effect (= claim) of the challenge. It says nothing about changing the type of challenge. Really, I don't see how effect could be misunderstood to mean type. Even though you win an intrigue challenge, with the claim being fulfilled by killing a character due to Double Bluff, it's still for all intents and purposes an intrigue challenge. The wording on Double Bluff being slightly different does not make it function differently, since there is no difference between claim and effect.

FFG tends to be a bit sloppy with some of it's wordings (doesn't always use an established template), which can lead to these kinds of slight differences in card texts. And yes, there are cases in AGOT cards, where a slight difference in wording changes a card's functionality, this just isn't one of them.

Ktom's been for a LONG time the primary judge at the FFG held World Championships, and short of asking the designers, you won't get a higher authority on this.

Newbiek said:

There is a reason. The reason being "challenge effect" is not synonymous with "challenge type". "Challenge type" is used to describe the claim of a different challenge.

We have:

Challenge Type - Effect

Intrigue - Opponent must discard cards from hand
Power - Take power from opponents house card and put on your own
Military - Opponent must kill a character

"to change the effect of winning the challenge to that of another challenge type"

Pretend I attack with Military and Double Bluff is played, and the effect of winning the challenge is changed to the challenge type Intrigue. If I am identifying the effect of an Intrigue challenge type, I am not changing the challenge type to Intrigue. The mapping of Type to Effect is all that is being used. Either way you are trying to identify the effect of the challenge type by naming the challenge type. In this case, it is now a Military challenge with a claim effect of "losing opponent must discard cards from hand".

Claim replacement does not change anything else about the challenge you won.

Ask yourself this question: What is the effect of winning an Intrigue challenge?

Newbiek said:

Unfortunately, the only authority you are going to find on these boards are unofficial ones. The discussion and interpretation here, no matter how rational and/or persuasive it may be, is only going to give you an "unofficial" answer. Even if it is based on official sources (such as the rules documents or conversation with the authors), it still ends up being unofficial on these board because it is reported by unofficial sources. Some of those unofficial sources will ber more persuasive than others (and hold different "authority" as such), but "persuasive" is all you're going to get on these boards. If you need something "authoratative," particularly when all the unofficial, persuasive sources are telling you the same thing (as in this case on the "cards that say 'effect triggered' does not include passive effects" question), you need to take it directly to FFG.

No one from FFG will answer a rules question posted to these boards.

As for the the Double Bluff question, you have to keep in mind that FFG has not always been consistent with their wording (and Double Bluff is a reprint of a card that pre-dates Twist of Fate by about 5 years, so it is not surprising that they use different words to say the same thing). Just because the wording is different does not necessarily indicate they act differently in practice. For example, some cards say "lower cost," others say "reduce cost," but both are prohibited by cards that say "the cost of cards cannot be lowered" and cards that say "the cost of cards cannot be reduced."

If you find a difference in wording (such as between Double Bluff and Twist of Fate) and there is an interpretation that makes sense for the difference, absolutely go with it. But given the history of things like "lower" and "reduce" (or "passive effects trigger now" for that matter), don't assume that some different interpretation must make sense or be true because the wording is different. As much as it probably should be that way, it sadly is not.

So, Double Bluff only changes what you do when the challenge resolves. It is very much like a replacement effect in that regard. The military challenge resolves the way an intrigue challenge normally does. That doesn't change the type of challenge you won/lost (and therefore, what types of Responses can be played) any more than, say, Stalwart changes the fact that the character was killed (and therefore, you play Responses to the character being killed, not returned to your deck). For Double Bluff to do any differently would be a very, very deep change in the way challenges are identified in the game.

Newbiek said:

I didn't think you were. I was simply laying out the whole process for clarity's sake.

Newbiek said:
And how you write: absent some other card effect. There is no reason, why this card must change only claim effect.

When I say "absent some other card effect," I mean something like Power Behind the Throne that allows an additional challenge of a particular type. Again, just explicating the entire process involved with a challenge.

As for the reason this card only changes claim type, and nothing else, it's because that's what the card says:

• Response: After defenders have been declared in a challenge, kneel 2 influence or pay 2 gold to change the effect of winning the challenge to that of another challenge type.

For it to do what you seem to want it to do, it would need to read "Response: After defenders have been declared in a challenge, kneel 2 influence or pay 2 gold to change the challenge to another challenge type." As a control player, I would love a card that did that. Sadly, FFG in its wisdom has not seen fit to provide me with any such card (at least none I can think of in the LCG). Because Double Bluff quite plainly refers to an already-initiated challenge and limits itself to changing the "effect" of that challenge, it cannot be read as doing any more than allowing you a replacement effect with respect to the type of claim the loser has to pay.

Remember, there are other "effects" of challenges than just claim. Renown, as I already noted, is one of them. But Renown doesn't care what type of challenge the character won. Thus, Double Bluff doesn't affect it in any way. The only framework "effect" of winning a challenge that cares about the type of challenge it is is claim. Other card effects might care, of course, and you are free to play any of those that include the challenge type you initiated as part of their play restrictions despite changing the claim type effect with Double Bluff.

EDIT: Have I ever mentioned how much I hate FFG's forum app? ~Anyone else kinda feel that way?

Amuk said:

Renown is an effect of the keyword "Renown," not an effect of the challenge. "Unopposed" is the effect of the rule mechanic defining unoppose challenges, not an effect of the challenge. Both rely on the particular results of a challenge to determine whether or not their play restrictions are met, but this does not make them "effects" of the challenge any more than Price of War is an "effect" of the challenge it is Responding to.

Just because they are all framework events in the same framework action window does not make them effects of one another. They are all part of resolving a challenge, but that is not the same as saying they are "effects" of winning the challenge.

The only "effect" of winning a challenge is the claim effect. There is nothing else that happens solely because the challenge is won or lost. Everything else is a separate effect that looks to the condition of winning or losing the challenge as a play restriction.

ktom said:

My apologies for the lack of clarity. As I said above, I was using the word "effects" very loosely when I put it that way so as to help distinguish the effect that DB applies to from the other things that happen when a challenge resolves. I should have repeated the caveat--I did not mean to imply that Renown or other events are themselves actually effects of challenges under the rules.

Ah. I see where you were going with the quotation marks around the word "effects" now.

My apologies if my response was too heavy-handed.

ktom said:

Nah. I'm trying to get to where I can get all this stuff right so I want to be corrected if I get something wrong. I'm the guy in my meta all the rules questions go to, so I am happy to have you course correct me. And I usually try to avoid using terms in a way that could conflate separate issues but here I think there might be a language barrier so I was trying to keep it as simple as possible.

OK, you are still repeating "It doesn't change challenge type," yes I agree. But I dont say this, I say that change "effect of winning a challenge" and "claim effect" is only one part of that effect. Why?

Yes, this card is reprint. And for fully understand this card we must look in the old rules (CCG Rules, here)

1. Defender wins?
   If you win the challenge as the defender, no effects take place
   (except for card effects which are triggered by a player “winning
   a challenge”). You are simply considered to have successfully
   stopped the challenge against your House.
2. Unopposed Challenges
   During the Resolve step of any challenge, if the attacker wins
   the challenge, and the defender had a total STR of 0 (or no
   defending characters), then the attacker claims 1 bonus power
   for his or her House from the power pool. This bonus power is
   in addition to all other effects of winning a challenge.

OK, what is ALL other effects of winning a challenge? From the second we can decide there are (was) more effects of winning a challenge. From the first we can assume, that "winning a challenge" is a effect. It is posible, because this card you must play before resolving of challenge. And my opinion is, that you can by this card change the type of winning a challenge. You can still initiate only 3 different challenges, this card does not change it. But you can by using this card win three time military challenge.

I think different between normal "change claim effect" and "change effect of winning" is in changing result what type of challenge you win.

Yes, maybe I am wrong, but I don't see, any other rule-based arguments.

Newbiek said:

Newbiek said:

It is also important to note that the part you highlight in the "defender wins a challenge" that says "except for card effects which are triggered by a player 'winning a challenge'" is referring to card effect, not challenge effects. As such, they would be considered effects of using the card, not effects of winning the challenge. This is especially true for triggered effects because winning the challenge is not enough to make those happen - the player has to use choose for them to happen.

Newbiek said:

Newbiek said:

If the result of the challenge defined what type of challenge you won for the purpose of play restrictions on Responses, etc., you would not be able to use "after you win a military/intrigue/power challenge" responses on defense because you would not be able to define what type of challenge you won. The reason you CAN use such effects on defense is because Responses and the like are card effects, not challenge effects. And winning the challenge is a play restriction, not the initiation, of such effects.

This is a rule-based argument, it's just a different interpretation of the rules than the one you are seeing. The difference seems to be how the overall timing structure and game context is being applied, as opposed to a strict look at just the words being used.

I think it would be crazy if it changed the challenge type for a few reasons.

1 - We have cards that depend on the type of challenge occurring at that moment in time.

We have event cards with effects like Compelled by the Crown and Lethal Counterattack that depend on the challenge type currently happening.
Compelled by the Crown - Challenges: Choose one participating character on each side during an INT or a POW challenge. Remove all other characters from the challenge. Then,stand all Baratheon characters with Banner attachments attached.

Lethal Counterattack - Challenges: During a challenge,kneel 2 of your characters to kill all attacking characters. Limit 1 per challenge.

And characters with abilities like Bitter Crone, Ancient Mariner, and Blood-crazed Screamer.
Bitter Crone - During MIL challenges, characters cannot be saved.
Ancient Mariner - Ancient Mariner gets -3 STR during MIL challenges.
Blood-crazed Screamer - If you have won a single MIL challenge as the attacker this phase, you may declare 1 additional challenge (to a maximum of 2) by declaring Blood-Crazed Screamer and any number of eligible Dothraki characters as attackers.

2 - We have an applied condition from Double Bluff.

"to change the effect of winning the challenge to that of another challenge type"
This means that the only time a change occurs is when the challenge is won. So does that mean you cannot

3 - We have possible play restrictions in place during Melee games.

How would this affect plots like Mutual Cause where you cannot initiate POW challenges against a chosen opponent? You are not allowed to redirect an attack against a player you cannot attack. You are not allowed to use Myrcella Lannister to exchange titles mid-challenge because it could cause you to attack someone you support, so changing the challenge type mid-challenge could cause the same illegal situation with plots like that.

4 - We have cards that can cancel the determination of the challenge winner depending on the challenge type.

Feigned Retreat, True Power, and Misinformation cancel the winners of specific challenge types and make the player of the event the winner of them. How would this work with Double Bluff's strange conditional challenge type change?

These are some reasons that I think if Double Bluff worked the way you are digging at would really cause a bunch of confusion and problems. Changing the effect of winning the challenge does not imply you are changing the type. Changing the type of challenge won would imply you are changing the type.

I think that you should contact Nate or Damon of FFG to get the clarity of what the "effect of winning the challenge" actually can mean so that you can get the answers you seek. I don't see it meaning anything other than claim because if you consider collecting unopposed power and collecting renown power "effects of winning the challenge", then that doesn't actually change challenge resolution.

I hope you find the answers you seek.

Bomb said:

This card are talking about challenge type, but Double Bluff dont say about changing challenge type. But about effect of winning, you are still in military challenge, but you win power challenge (thru this card).

Bomb said:

This is the point of question. If you are in power challenge, but change it to military, and you won this challenge. You can use this ability.

Bomb said:

No, challenge is won by attacker or defender. Challenge resolve everytime (except card effects) and decide who won the challenge. There is no draw (except card effects).

Bomb said:

Again, this card don't manipulate with challenge type or initiation of this challenge.

Bomb said:

If Double Bluff change the winning, to that you win MIL challenge instead of INT, then you can use Feigned Retreat. Timing is simple, because these cards are responses to winning, but Double Bluff is response to declaring defenders.

I hope, I show you how I mean it.
But yes, I agree with you, it is really complicated question, I am writing email to FFG. And thx, everybody for your answers.

Newbiek said:

This is no different than one of the new character agendas being killed and becoming an agenda. The character dies, but through the effect goes to your House card instead of the dead pile. But it is still killed, and you would play Responses to the card being killed.

Newbiek said:

ktom said:

I can say same thing: It does not say that change only the claim effect.

Sorry, but that type of arguments is nonsense.

Newbiek said:

And now we come full circle. "Claim effect" and "effects of winning a challenge" are the same thing. They are synonyms. So Double Bluff does say that only the claim effect is changed.

It is your insistence that "effect of winning a challenge" must mean something different than "claim effect" - despite being told that by every poster - that is resulting in this impasse. We'll see what FFG says when you send the question to them. You clearly need to hear it as dicta.

Newbiek said:

What do you think is an "effect of winning the challenge"? I just don't understand what else might be an "effect" to you.