My revealed plot is Bungled Orders. My opponent loses a challenge and chooses to reveal Bungled Orders for the passive on mine. Does he have to reveal yet another plot for the passive on his newly revealed Bungled Orders?

Yes. You are still in the "lost a challenge" passive step, so his (now active) plot text will initiate.

Thanks for the clarification.

How does Bungled Orders interact with the Winter version of the new Kingsroad location?

To give a more specific scenario, I attack my opponent who has Bungled Orders revealed for a POW challenge. It is winter and I win the challenge. After claim, renown, etc happens we get to the passives step. My opponent, with 1 card in hand, wants to use Orders to switch into Valar. The single card in hand is a Call of the Three Eyed Crow. I, having won the challenge, wish to use the Kingsroad passive to discard that 1 remaining card.

How does this play out? Assume that the defending Stark player (with Bungled Orders revealed) is the First Player.

Seems to me like the First Player would decide the order of passive resolution. But wouldn't both passives get resolved before Responses to those passives could be played?

It seems to me that Call of the 3 Eyed Crow would get discarded before it could be played in any event.

Ah, well Cot3C is a bad example isn't it? LOL. I was thinking of it as a save played during Step 2 of the Valar initiation/resolution step. What if it was an actual save such as Rhymes with Meek that was in hand?

Seems to me like the First Player would decide the order of passive resolution. But wouldn't both passives get resolved before Responses to those passives could be played?

It seems to me that Call of the 3 Eyed Crow would get discarded before it could be played in any event.

100% this. But yea, if you had a save in hand the save woud be able to trigger before you could get the discard because...

1) Claim/Challenge Resolution/Other FWAs

2) Passives go off (Bungled Orders triggers here)

2a) Bungled takes effect and your opponent chooses Valar

2b) Valar initiates, all valid characters (i. e. are killable) in play now have Moribund:Dead queued up on them.

2c) Saves and cancels (e. g. Risen from the Sea) are triggerable

2d) Valar takes effect and kills all valid characters

2e) The Kingsroad triggers and discards a card from the opponent's hand (discarding Cot3EC)

3) Responses (Cot3EC triggers here)

Seems to me like the First Player would decide the order of passive resolution. But wouldn't both passives get resolved before Responses to those passives could be played?

It seems to me that Call of the 3 Eyed Crow would get discarded before it could be played in any event.

100% this. But yea, if you had a save in hand the save woud be able to trigger before you could get the discard because...

1) Claim/Challenge Resolution/Other FWAs

2) Passives go off (Bungled Orders triggers here)

2a) Bungled takes effect and your opponent chooses Valar

2b) Valar initiates, all valid characters (i. e. are killable) in play now have Moribund:Dead queued up on them.

2c) Saves and cancels (e. g. Risen from the Sea) are triggerable

2d) Valar takes effect and kills all valid characters

2e) The Kingsroad triggers and discards a card from the opponent's hand (discarding Cot3EC)

3) Responses (Cot3EC triggers here)

But why MUST Kingsroad trigger in 2e and not 2a? We know from Cersei's Scheme v Vengeful keyword that plot passives do not happen first always--the only specific definition is during the plot framework window the When Revealds happen first. Can the first player not choose to have the Kingsroad go before Bungled?

Or another example:

Summer Kingsroad and a Bungled into Rule by Decree....there are lots of examples in which the order of a passive and a plot initiation matter and a workable ruling seems needed.

Yea, either they happen at the same time like all other passives, or they are considered conflicting and FP gets to decide the order. However, at the beginning of Step 4 the effects (discard a card from hand) and (chose a new plot) does not seem to conflict with each other the way Schemes and vengeful does (kneel a character, stand a character).

Yea, either they happen at the same time like all other passives, or they are considered conflicting and FP gets to decide the order. However, at the beginning of Step 4 the effects (discard a card from hand) and (chose a new plot) does not seem to conflict with each other the way Schemes and vengeful does (kneel a character, stand a character).

Like I posted in the other thread on CardGameDB, schemes v vengeful isn't technically conflicting in the same way as TFTN and Flamekissed since you can stand a standing character and kneel a kneeling character. Thus, stand/kneel is irrelevant for those effects and therefore they're not 'conflicting' in terms of game rules. It's just that in this instance the order matters. So maybe order mattering is what makes them conflicting in the first place--which is the exact same situation here with Bungled and Kingsroad. They aren't 'conflicting' in that they are telling us to do two different things, but the order matters and therefore there is some sort of conflict. THat's why I'm arguing that the First Player decides in this situation.

If passive effects initiate at the same time, then how does the newly revealed Bungled Orders trigger? Aren't we already in the resolution step of passive effects?

Conflicting passive effects are those where the resolution of one would impact the play restrictions and/or successful resolution of the other. That is why Cersei's Scheme and Vengeful conflict: since standing a character that is already standing is considered "unsuccessful," Cersei's Scheme changing the kneeling/standing status of a character potentially affects how successful the resolution of Vengeful will be.

That said, there is no direct conflict between between Bundled Orders and The Kingsroad. Whether or not the location(s) is(are) kneeling has no affect on the play restrictions and/or success of revealing a new plot. As such, they are considered to happen simultaneously. The card would be considered discarded at the same time the new plot (Valar in the example) came into play. There will be no opportunity to play the card from hand in Response to the new passive (from the newly revealed plot) before it is discarded.

That's actually an important thing to recognize: The potential conflict in the "Bungled-Orders-Into-Valar" scenario is NOT between Kingsroad and Bungled Orders; it is between Kingsroad and a potential Response to a potential new "when revealed" passive put into play by the successful resolution of Bungled Orders. That is too many "potentials" to be considered a "conflicting passive" that would allow the first player to choose.

Or, said another way, the success or failure of Bungled Orders does not impact the success or failure of Kingsroad. So they don't conflict. Now, if there was a hypothetical effect in play that said "players with no cards in hand cannot reveal new plots outside the plot phase," then Kingsroad and Bungled Orders would conflict if the opponent had just one card in hand (because a successful resolution of Kingsroad would make a successful resolution of Bungled Orders illegal).

Thanks ktom!

Hmmmm. I can clearly see where you're going here KTom about Bungled v Kingsroad. However, I'm not so sure about Cersei's Scheme v Vengeful.

Can I really not choose a kneeling character for Scheme? Say my opponent has Valar Dohaeris out or something and I want to keep a particular character standing...can I not kneel someone already knelt? How does the success or failure of this operation affect who my opponent can stand or not stand for vengeful? Similarly, can I not choose to pass on vengeful for the same reason? The keyword does include "may" after all....it's hard for me to buy that a "may" conflicts with anything.

Now, in real life, of course I can see why vigilant/schemes matters a lot. But I just don't see how they *must* conflict. Couldn't I just say (using the logic above about Bungled) that we must each simultaneously choose a character since the effects themselves being successful or not isn't inherent in schemes or vigilant?

I think the important distinction is the outcome is different. In the Orders vs KR, the outcome of one resolving over the other has no effect on the capacity for the effect to resolve. It does create a personal conflict as you may want to flip a different plot depending upon what card is discarded, but with regards to the effects, they don't interact.

Schemes is trying to kneel someone and Vengeful is trying to stand someone. These are now conflicting because they are attempting to stand/kneel a character at the same time. The only way to resolve this "fairly" is to allow the FP to determine the order in which the effects activate.

If you say that they should happen at the same time, lets say we both count to three and point to a character, in your case that you want to kneel and in my case that I want to stand. If we pick the same character - what should the result be? The only way to determine that is to determine which effect goes off first.

OKTarg -

You can choose a kneeling character with Cersei's Schemes. It is a legal target. This does not mean Cersei's Schemes will resolve successfully.

Yes, the Lannister player can choose to kneel a character that is already kneeling for Scheme, and the Martell player can choose to stand Vengeful characters that are already standing. This, in fact, ends up creating the conflict between the two effects rather than arguing against a conflict.

Couldn't I just say (using the logic above about Bungled) that we must each simultaneously choose a character since the effects themselves being successful or not isn't inherent in schemes or vigilant?

So lets go with this idea. You both have to choose character(s) "simultaneously" (remembering that the Lannister player can kneel a character that is already kneeling and the Martell player can stand Vengeful characters that are already standing). Leaving aside that there is no practical way in which to choose simultaneously (probably a good enough reason to see the effects as conflicting), what happens if you both choose the same character? For example:

- The Lanni player chooses to (unsuccessfully) kneel a kneeling Darkstar, who the Martell player wants to (successfully) stand with Vengeful; or

- The Lanni player chooses to (successfully) kneel a standing Darkstar, who the Martell player wants to (unsuccessfully) stand with Vengeful.

In situations like those, does the character end up standing or kneeling? Which of the two effects will be considered successful, and which will be considered unsuccessful?

You cannot kneel a character with one effect and stand the same character with another effect simultaneously, which is a very real and direct possibility of trying to resolve Scheme and Vengeful simultaneously. Therefore, I think it is pretty clear that they conflict and must therefore be resolved sequentially rather than simultaneously.

I"m really not trying to be a butt, so thanks for bearing with.

Saying the two effects could potentially conflict is different than saying that they DO conflict. If we both point to the same character, at that point the first player would surely decide, right? SInce at that point we have a confliction. (both a sentence fragment AND a misspelling!)

A 'potential' conflict seems different to me and then at that point it's harder to decide what effects do, in fact, conflict since we have to look ahead to their resolution.

Again, this is how I've played it and probably the best way to do it, but perhaps it would have been cleaner all around for the first player to decide all passives.

The first player deciding all passives has its own problems in various situations.

I see what you're getting at with how hard it can be to decide if there is a conflict when you have to look so far down the decision tree that you need to be a chess grandmaster, a logical statistician, and a clairvoyant all at the same time. It's kind of like the "Bungled Orders/Kingsroad" example above: they would conflict if Bungled Orders went into a kill plot and if the card in hand was a save and if the player decided to use it. You can't say they conflict because there are too many unknowns involved before resolving one would have any sort of impact on resolving the other.

The difference, though, is that in the Scheme/Vengence situation, you don't have to look any farther than the resolutions of the effects themselves. There are no "ifs" involved, other than choice of target. No crystal ball needed to see the potential problem.

Here's another example. Does Deadly conflict with Vengeful when Stoic Resolve is revealed? You attack with a Deadly character. I lose, with two kneeling (and thus CBK) defenders, but one has Vengeful. Whether or not there is a legal target for Deadly will depend on whether or not I decide to stand it for Vengeful -- which under the "potential conflicts don't seem like true conflicts" interpretation you've outlined means that there is no true conflict until we figure out which characters, if any, I choose for Vengeful.

There is a scenario in which the effects could be resolved simultaneously without conflict (choose not to stand for Deadly), just like there is a scenario in which Schemes and Vengeful could be resolved simultaneously without conflict (don't choose the same character for both effects). But there is also a scenario in which resolving the effects simultaneously leads to a paradox and/or an illegal game situation (choosing a CBK character to be killed; trying to stand and kneel a character at the same time).

What it comes down to is that if the simultaneous resolution of two effects could create such an illegal game state and/or paradox, they conflict -- even if there are ways to resolve them in which such a result wouldn't happen. The first player chooses the order to ensure that the potential conflict never happens. However, don't read too much into that. If it requires the initiation of another effect beyond the two in question to see whether or not there is a potential conflict (like in the Bungled Orders/Kingsroad example), the "potential conflict = real conflict" interpretation doesn't apply.

Seems pretty common sense and practical. Thanks for outlining all your reasoning behind everything. I still wonder if there are potential/true conflicts that reasoned TO's could disagree on--I'm sure there are and that's why I'm wishing for a more clear precedent for passives.

But--that's not the world we live in. So simultaneous it is! Rip that card from my hand; then I will Bungle you! But not then; at the same time!

I'm still with Buz's original interpretation, because I just think it makes more sense to provide a consistent structure for how it would play out. If there's a potential conflict then there should be an order to the events, because what if the conflict comes up? For instance, what if the losing player wants to Bungled into Dry Season, which would immediately blank Kingsroad (so under the current logic, simultaneously with Kingsroad kneeling)? Nevermind if the losing player wants to, what if they have to because it's the last plot in their plot deck? At what point does it become a conflicting passive, particularly with hidden information?

You have to take the board as you find it when you find it. Your situation says that there is a conflict between Bungled and Kingsroad because of an effect that isn't even in play at the time you are checking for a conflict.

Both Bungled and Kingsroad try to initiate and resolve at the same time (Step 4.I). They can, so they do. The fact that Bungled might bring a third card into play that would conflict with Kingsroad doesn't change that. You can't conflict with hidden information, only "public knowledge." So, because Kingsroad kneels/discards at exactly the same time that Bungled reveals Dry Season, there can be no more conflict between Kingsroad and Dry Season than there is between Bungled and Dry Season.

Would a passive effect that is a product of another one initiate in the same passive effect step(framework step 4) or would it initiate in the passive effects step of the passive effect(step IV of initiating a passive effect). That might make it more clear as to how a passive effect can initiate after others have already initiated at the same time. This would lead to no conflict with the other passive effects because technically those have all already initiated(at the same time).