Hi again.

I have a question about when cards like red vengeance can be played and when Character abilities like from Ellaria Sand trigger.

Here the situation: 4 Players: A (Baratheon), B, C, D (Martell). I was Player D.

Player B got Initiative and choses Player A as first Player. Player A's Plot Card is Fury of the Stag.

Fury of the Stag: After you win a Power challenge against an opponent with a House Targaryen or a House Martell House card, choose a character controlled by that opponent. Take control of that character.

To make a long story short: He attacked me with Power and won the challenge unopposed. I had Ellaria Sand in Play with attatchment Taste for Blood.

Ellaria Sand: Response: After you lose a challenge, move 1 power from any character to Ellaria Sand.

Taste for Blood: Attached character gets +1 STR. Response: After you lose a challenge as the defender, attached character claims 1 power.

I lost the challenge 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.

My question now is: What triggers first and when can I play Red Vengeance?

The Frame Action Window of the Rules says:

1. Determine winner of Challenge

2. Challenge result is implemented

3. Reward for unopposed Challenge is awarded

4. Renown is awarded

If active player takes his next challenge opportunity, there would be a Player Action Window. But if he is saying he is finished with challenges, there is no more player action window.

In order to play red vengeance and trigger Ellaria Sands and Taste for Blood abillity, first i have to lose the challenge. This means it has to be after Step 1 of the Frame Action Window above. But if he says he is finished with challenges, where is the player action window to play red vengeance. Raven Cards can only be played in player action windows right?

Also, what triggers first? The "after you lose a challenge" effects or his "after you win a challenge" effect from the plot card.

Player A was first Player, so we decided, that his Plot Card effect would trigger first, and he took my Ellaria Sand with all her Power and attatchment on it.

If Ellarias and TfB Effect would have triggerd first, I would have won the game.

Who can settle this for me?

So, there are a couple misconceptions here. I only have a few minutes here, but I'll come back and clear up some more later.

One issue seems to be that while you correctly identified that you can only play an Any Phase or Challenges "event" as a player action, Red Vengeance is a special type of action because it's a "Response" with the words "Cancel". That means it's played in step "2" of the framework action window, and can actually be used in this case (See Save/Cancel responses in the FAQ).

Note that Red Vengeance won't change whether Fury of the Stag works or not, since his plot triggers off him winning (not off who gets the claim). Burning on the Sand, however, would prevent Fury of the Stag from working.

I'll post again in an hour or so to clear up a few other points you brought up.

-Istaril said:

Never said that. I just played it to save 1 more Power on my House.

I don't think Istaril was accusing you of saying that - he was just adding the clarification (hence him starting that sentence with "Note").

The important part to understand is that Red Vengeance is technically a Cancel of the claim of a challenge. That can be played during the cancel portion of Framework Event 2 (Challenge Result is implemented).

Unfortunately, I can't give an authoritative answer on the primary question. My gut tells me you did it right because he was FP and he would get first action since the response is to a game effect (not a player action).

Ok, here's another portion of your answer (again, sorry for doing this in parts)

The "After you win a challenge" and "After you lose a challenge" are both passives, and therefore trigger directly after your step "4" (Renown is awarded). Passives like that have the same timing, and so are resolved in the order determined by the first player. However, both Ellaria's ability and Taste for Blood are not passives, they are Responses (and are therefore triggered *after* passives).


So your framework events 1-4 all happen, Renown is claimed, and then we trigger any passives that have triggered off any of the 4 previous triggers. This could be a passive that triggers off winning a challenge, losing a challenge, someone dying for claim, someone claiming power for unopposed, someone claiming power for renown. It wouldn't matter which it was, they're all happening "now" in an order determined by the first player. In your case, Ellaria's "Vengeful" and the Bara player's plot would be resolved, if relevant, in an order determined by the first player.

After all those passives initiate (each potentially cancelled, resolved, etc, according to the FAQ chart), it's now the time for Responses like Ellaria's and Taste for Blood to trigger. Here, these responses are not resolved in the order determined by the first player, but rather as they are triggered (response opportunities cycle clockwise around the table).

At this point, you would no longer be able to initiate Ellaria's response, since she would be under the Bara player's control. However, you could still trigger Taste for Blood, since that attachment is under your control. As it would give Ellaria one more power, and Ellaria isn't yours… that might not be a good idea.

To clarify another point of confusion here, note that nothing that happened here counts as a "player action". It doesn't matter whether this is his first challenge, or his last before he passes it on to the next player, since everything we're talking about is either a framework action, a save/cancel response, a passive, or a response. "Player Actions" in the Challenges phase are denoted by bold texted "Any Phase" or "Challenges" (eg Nightmares), and you're right that once you start the process of those framework events 1-4, there's no opportunity to play such a card until the next player action window.


In summary, regardless of who was the first player, the bara player's passive triggers before any of the responses which would net you power.

Here is the stepwise breakdown of what should have happened:

Step 1.1 - Determine winner of challenge (count participating STR, etc.) is initiated
Step 2.1 - Save/cancel vs. "determine winner."
Step 3.1 - Resolve "determine winner." Attacker (Baratheon) officially becomes "winner" and defender (Martell) officially becomes "loser" of the challenge. NOTE : This is NOT where you play standard "Response" effects to winning or losing the challenge!!!! It is just where you get the "status."

Step 1.2 - Challenge results are initiated
Step 2.2 - Save/cancel vs. "challenge results" ( THIS is where Red Vengeance is played. As a "cancel" response, it is always played between the initiation and resolution of whatever it is canceling. Note that Response effects that use the words "cancel" and "save" have a different timing than Response effects that do not. So you can't use the fact that Red Vengeance's Response is played before the plot resolves to explain why Ellaria's Response should resolve before the plot resolves, too. They are completely different classes of Responses. )
Step 3.2 - Resolve challenge result (with the "new" player chosen by the person playing Red Vengeance feeling the pinch).

Step 1.3 - Reward unopposed initiated
Step 2.3 - Save/cancel vs. "reward unopposed"
Step 3.3 - Resolve unopposed (attacker claims 1 power for his House)

Step 1.4 - Renown award initiated
Step 2.4 - Save/cancel vs. awarding Renown
Step 3.4 - Resolve Renown (attackers Renown characters claim 1 power each)

Step 4 - Passive effects to ANYTHING that happened in Steps 1.1 - 3.4 are resolved. If there is a conflict, the First Player (not the active player) chooses the order. ( THIS is where the Baratheon player's plot is going to resolve. Assume they take control of Ellaria.)

Step 5 - Response effects to ANYTHING that happened in Steps 1.1 - 4. Starting with the First Player, players take turns triggering Response effects. ( NOTE : Players can respond to any valid response opportunity when it is their turn to use a Response - so, since there is no set order for Responses, there is not "what triggers first; "after you win" or "after you lose"? There is only "which player gets to trigger first"?)
>> At this point, since the Baratheon player is First Player, he would get to take the first Response - of he has any. After he does, or passes, it goes clockwise from there (so players B and C actually get the chance to trigger a Response before D, but it is unlikely they will have anything). Then, D gets a chance to trigger a Response. He cannot trigger Ellaria anymore (since he doesn't control her), but could still trigger Power of Blood.

Step 6 - End window; challenge resolution is done - players can now take actions (ie, "Any Phase" and "Challenge" actions) before the active player initiates his next challenge.

So, as was already mentioned, the fact that the plot is a passive and Ellaria is a Response is what sealed the situation. Passives will always come before Responses.

The usual source of confusion, and one of the most common mistakes in the game, is that people want to play their Responses to winning/losing a challenge between Steps 3.1 and 1.2. However, the rules are very clear that all framework events in a framework action window (like challenge resolution) need to individually initiate and resolve before passives or Responses to any of those framework events can be played. So, you do not Respond to winning (or losing) the challenge before claim, unopposed, or Renown. (Of course, it wouldn't have made a difference in this scenario because even if the passives/responses to winning/losing the challenge took place between 3.1 and 1.2, instead of at Steps 4 & 5, the plot's passive would STILL come before Ellaria's Response.)

Hope that made sense and helps to clarify both the specific sequence and some of the general questions.

Is that the generally used numbering scheme Ktom? Wouldn't 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 2.1.1…etc. make more sense? It just seems counter intuitive for 3.1 to come before 1.2, imo…

Oops, I meant 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2…etc

I would say no, because all the Step 1.x are the initiation of the effect. Step 2.x are all saves/cancels. Step 3.x are all resolution, etc.

Each of those are a seperate step. But for each different value of x they are part of a sub-window that allows for save/cancels for each.

You cycle through step 1-3 as many times as necessary, then proceed to Step 4 which will trigger passives off of anything that happened during any of the previous steps. Step 4 can also cycle through Step 1-3 again since there are initiation/save-cancels/resolutions to passive effects.

Slothgodfather said:

In my view, using the convention "1.1, 1.2, 1.3" to indicate that the first framework event goes though its "initiate, save/cancel, resolve" steps before the second even starts ends up being more confusing because the FAQ talks about "Step 1 - Initiation." So since I tend to read "1.1, 1.2, 1.3" as sub-parts of "Step 1 - Initiation" rather than "Framework event #1, initiate, save/cancel, resolve," going with the "1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 1.2…" sequence works better for me. But in the end, the point is that each framework event goes through the complete sequence of "initiate, save/cancel, resolve" before the next one starts its own "initiate, save/cancel, resolve" sequence. Number it however you want, so long as that sequence and concept comes across.