Yes. That is the framework. You look at all the passives that are trying to initiate in Step 4.I. Assuming they do not affect each others' play restrictions or target requirements, they all resolve in the same Step 4.III. Then, you check the board again to see if any new passives were created in Step 4.III. Those would then be resolved in Step 4.IV.
Something that initiates in Step 4.IV cannot conflict with something that conflicts in Step 4.I.
Yes. That is the framework. You look at all the passives that are trying to initiate in Step 4.I. Assuming they do not affect each others' play restrictions or target requirements, they all resolve in the same Step 4.III. Then, you check the board again to see if any new passives were created in Step 4.III. Those would then be resolved in Step 4.IV.
Something that initiates in Step 4.IV cannot conflict with something that conflicts in Step 4.I.
Then I think that will help most of us understand this whole thread a bit more. Thanks ktom!
I think it would be simpler to always have the first player choose the next passive to resolve.
Perhaps, but that also has its own problems, particularly when you have multiple passives that kick off new passives.
For example, Tarle + Greyscale + Devious Intentions + any "kill at 0" effect.
There will always be corner cases, unless we get a complete rulebook like MtG's (very long and detailed). I'd love to see a complete overhaul of the rulebook/FAQ to clarify the rules, but I'm not holding my breath.
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?
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)
Delayed reaction time!!!
So this response was illustrating why Cot3EC gets discarded no matter what. There is no reason that 2e and 2a could not be flipped, but Cot3EC would still get discarded.
Edit: Editting quoted things really botch posts...
Edited by mdc273mcd: Yeah, a standard response isn't possible until #3; that much is no problem. But what if the card is Risen from the Sea or some other save event?
Here are the additional things in your breakdown that need to be considered:
- It is the fact that 2e and 2a could be flipped with no real affect on the overall outcome that defines them as "not conflicting" (and therefore both initiated in 2a under the current FAQ)
- Why does Valar initiate in 2b? Why does it get to "jump ahead" of Kingsroad? Isn't it a passive that needs to be resolved - just like Bungled and Kingsroad? Since the order of passives isn't dictated by the satisfaction of their play restrictions (otherwise "after you win/lose" passives would have to take place before, for example, "after you claim power for renown" passives - and they don't), why does Valar jump ahead of Kingsroad?
Actually, FAQ 2.2 says that "when revealed" plot passives must resolve before any other passives initiated by revealing a plot card.
All "when revealed" plot effects must resolve before any other passive effects initiated by the revealing of a plot card(s) are resolved.
This means they take precedence over effects like Golden Tooth Mine and Bay of Ice (though that last is actually initiated by the initiative count). It says nothing about passives initiated by any other occurence.
I think it would be simpler to always have the first player choose the next passive to resolve.
+1
Perhaps, but that also has its own problems, particularly when you have multiple passives that kick off new passives.
For example, Tarle + Greyscale + Devious Intentions + any "kill at 0" effect.
For this run-down I assume that the first player (FP) decides the order in which passives resolve and that Tarle gets burned to exactly STR 0 as part of a player action:
step 3: Tarle goes to STR 0
step 4: FP decides the order in which kill/discard passives are initiated, he chooses kill first
step 4.1: kill passive initiates, (4.2) save is used, Tarle goes to STR 1 and claims 1 power
step 4.4.1: Greyscale's gold passive is initiated, Tarle goes to STR 0
step 4.4.4: FP decides the order in which kill/discard passives are initiated, he chooses kill first
step 4.4.4.1: kill passive initiates, (4.2) save is used, Tarle goes to STR 1 and claims 1 power
step 4.4.4.4.1: Greyscale's gold passive is initiated, Tarle goes to STR 0
step 4.4.4.4.4: FP decides the order in which kill/discard passives are initiated, he chooses kill first
step 4.4.4.4.4.1: kill passive initiates, (4.2) save is used, Tarle goes to STR 1 and claims 1 power
...
step 4.4(...).4.4.1: Greyscale's gold passive is initiated, Tarle goes to STR 0
step 4.4(...).4.4.4: FP decides the order for kill/discard passives, he chooses discard first
step 4.4(...).4.4.4.1: Tarle is discarded
step 4.4(...).4.4.4.4: no new passives
step 4.4(...).4.4.4: kill passive fails to resolve since Tarle is moribund:discard
step 4.4(...).4: discard passive fails to resolve since Tarle is moribund:discard
...
step 4.4.4: discard passive fails to resolve since Tarle is moribund:discard
step 4: discard passive fails to resolve since Tarle is moribund:discard
The run-down shows the potentially infinite chain of passive initiations and its resolution in case "discard first" is chosen at any point. Because each passive effect allows directly responding passive effects to initiate during step 4 of its own resolution, the order is always predetermined or determined by the first player.
Mistakes anyone?
Edited by livingENDActually, FAQ 2.2 says that "when revealed" plot passives must resolve before any other passives initiated by revealing a plot card.
All "when revealed" plot effects must resolve before any other passive effects initiated by the revealing of a plot card(s) are resolved.
This means they take precedence over effects like Golden Tooth Mine and Bay of Ice (though that last is actually initiated by the initiative count). It says nothing about passives initiated by any other occurence.
Yes. But this only applies in the "reveal plots" framework action window - not every time you reveal a plot card through card effect.
Yes. But this only applies in the "reveal plots" framework action window - not every time you reveal a plot card through card effect.
I don't see that precision in section 2.2. The sentence I underlined below even suggests to me that it applies whenever a plot is revealed.
(2.2) Plot Effect Resolution
Continuous or constant plot effects take effect immediately and simultaneously, as soon as the plot cards are revealed. The first player determines the order in which all "when revealed" plot effects are resolved. "When revealed" plot effects are essentially self-referential passive effects that initiate in response to the revealing of the plot card with the "when revealed" effect. They are resolved (in the order determined by the first player) during step 4 of the action window in which the plot card was revealed . All "when revealed" plot effects must resolve before any other passive effects initiated by the revealing of a plot card(s) are resolved.
OK. I will accept that they take precedence over other "after a plot is revealed" passives regardless of when they are revealed, but I do not think this entry says anything about, in the Bungled/Kingsroad scenario, that using Bungled to reveal a "when revealed" plot automatically creates a situation in which the new "when revealed" passive would have to initiate before Kingsroad. They are not triggered by the same thing, so the pre-existing (and non-conflicting) Kingsroad should be considered to happen simultaneously with Bungled - which then sparks the resolution of the new "when revealed" plot.
The FAQ says that used plots return to the plot deck during the passive step of plot resolution for the final plot revelation.
What happens if I reveal Betrayal at the Wall as my last plot? Does returning the used plots happen before you must pick a new plot? Right now it looks like Betrayal at the Wall will do nothing if it is the last plot revealed from your plot deck.
Yes, if Betrayal at the Wall is revealed in the plot phase as your last plot, its "when revealed" text would have to resolve before you cycled your used plots into your plot deck - leaving no plots in your plot deck for you to reveal with its effect.
This is the same reason why, if your last plot is a City or River plot, all your other plots are still in the used plot pile for resolving their effects.
That's what most of us thought, but I wanted to be sure by confirming it with you. Thanks!
Edited by Bombmcd: Yeah, a standard response isn't possible until #3; that much is no problem. But what if the card is Risen from the Sea or some other save event?
Here are the additional things in your breakdown that need to be considered:
- It is the fact that 2e and 2a could be flipped with no real affect on the overall outcome that defines them as "not conflicting" (and therefore both initiated in 2a under the current FAQ)
- Why does Valar initiate in 2b? Why does it get to "jump ahead" of Kingsroad? Isn't it a passive that needs to be resolved - just like Bungled and Kingsroad? Since the order of passives isn't dictated by the satisfaction of their play restrictions (otherwise "after you win/lose" passives would have to take place before, for example, "after you claim power for renown" passives - and they don't), why does Valar jump ahead of Kingsroad?
Oh I didn't want to touch on that. You pointing out that non-conflicting passives all resolve at the same time was a new concept for me. I actually imagined they were all a FIFO stack until now. It didn't make sense to me otherwise (and it still sort of doesn't as they do technically all have to revolve as a FIFO stack, but that's irrelevant to this conversation).
This has been a rather interesting post... Good stuff!