"Challenges: Kneel Magister Illyrio to choose an opponent and name a challenge type. That opponent must pay you 1 gold from his or her gold pool each time he or she initiates a challenge of this type." (Illyrio)

A spin-off from the previous thread about the duration of his effect, and others like it. Its situation's on cards like these where the opponent must pay an amount of gold before a challenge or action is taken... Is it only if they have the gold they pay it, or just ignore it otherwise? Or if they can't pay the gold, then the desired challenge or effect CANNOT be completed?

I'm sure there's some precedent for this already in AGoT applied to these cards, but I couldn't find it. Thanks much!

RJM said:

yes.

Well, the templates are very inconsistent on these types of effects. Compare something like Janos Slynt ("must pay before triggering") or Motley ("must give if they wish to declare") to Ilyrio ("must pay each time they initiate"). Whether the gold is part of the cost or just an additional consequence can get fuzzy.

In the end, though, there are two things that let you know you cannot do something if you haven't got the gold. The use of the word "pay" clearly indicates that the gold is a cost. If a cost cannot be paid, you're out of luck. The second thing is the historical use of the term "if able" to indicate that something normally associated with the initiation of an effect is optional (e.g., "choose a character controlled by each opponent, if able"). The lack of it here is a pretty good indication that paying the gold is required.

So a longer explanation than Lars, but the same answer.

Ktom, i thought that the main way to know wether something is a cost or an effect was "Do X to do Y"

An easy way to identify the cost is the formula
"Do X to do Y " in which the first part, do X,
is the cost .

Note that some event cards may have detrimental
effects in addition to beneficial effects,
which should not be confused with a cost.
For example, an event might read "Draw
three cards. Kneel three of your characters."
Kneeling your characters is an additional
effect, not a cost, because it was not phrased
in "Do X to do Y " format. Thus you could still
play this card even if you had no characters
in play. If the event had read, "Kneel three
of your characters to draw three cards," then
kneeling your characters would be a cost, and
you would have to kneel three characters to
play the event.

I took this form the FaQ, and that is the way we've been using around here to identify wether things are mandatory or not.
Illyrio, Janos Slynt and the others you are talking about haven't the formula "Do X todo Y", so they don't impose Costs, but Effects, and since they are effects, they must be completed as much as possible, but still work if you can't complete them. So if Janos Slynt is in game and its winter, i must pay you when i use something that costs influence, but if i haven't anu gold, i can still use such effects, because Janos Slynt reads "must... before..." instead of the Cost formual "do X to do Y"

under Tzummain's site the issue of "in order to" seems to be the stumbling block for Illyrio's ability to be a must payment for Y effect:

http://www.tzumainn.com/agot/cards/card.php?card_id=3866#

So which is it? Is it a 'Do X to do Y' or an optional cost which is reinforced 'if able'?

I have been corrected in reference to the use of the word "pay" since August of last year. I apologize for not adding to the tzumainn post.

(I was trying to avoid the lengthier explanation.... Ah, well.)

Yes, the "Do X to do Y" is the easiest way to tell if X is a cost. That obviously is not happening here. But remember that being able to pay the cost is not the only thing that restricts whether or not you are able to initiate an effect. There are also target requirements and play restrictions. You cannot initiate an effect if you cannot choose all the required targets. Similarly, if you cannot verify/meet all the play restrictions, you cannot initiate the effect, either.

Now, Illyrio reads "That opponent must pay you 1 gold from his or her gold pool each time he or she initiates a challenge of this type." The requirement to pay you gold is not a result (or additional effect to use the FAQ language) of initiating the challenge. That would be " after or when he or she initiates a challenge of this type." Rather, it is a play restriction - as indicated by the word "pay" and the verb tense that indicates the payment happens along with the actual challenge initiation. As a play restriction, you must meet it in order to successfully complete the initiation. Therefore, no gold, no challenge.

Slynt is even clearer because the gold must be paid before triggering the effect.

The lack of the term "if able" indicates that the play restriction is absolute. You can't fudge it if you have no gold.

So yeah, you got me. Technically, paying the gold is a play restriction, not a cost. It would be much easier if it were worded as a cost, but that doesn't change the end result.

Thanks for the in-depth explanations, ktom. Very much appreciated.

RJM said:

Nah. I was being something of a prick with the tone there. Sorry for that....

ktom said:

Haha. No worries, I didn't pick up on it (the tone) at all actually. :-) Thanks though.

Now, I suppose only the duration of effect is still in contention for dispute.

I deeply disagree in this case, Ktom. "pay restrictions" is a completely different concept of what you are saying. "Do X to do Y" is the only true way identified in the FaQ to say when something is a cost and when it isn't. Pay restrictions are the notes like "Challegne:" or "Any Phase:" and have nothing to do with this case. So i must keep my first oppinion about this.

Aertes said:

was staying out of this, but this is a case of FAQing away common sense.

Lets say i'm on a soccer team. To do y [play a game of soccer] I have to do x [have a team of 11 players]. Now if the only way to play soccer is through one league (i.e. the winter league) which says you must pay $50.00 to play soccer in this league i can't play soccer in the league without paying $50 even though to play soccer i have a team of 11 people. Janos Slynt is the commish of this winter league and he is the one telling me i must pay $50. I can't say to him, sorry i spent all my money on the gas to get here I don't have $50.00 but i am playing anyway. The $50 is a barrier to entry, before i get to do x to do y. If i can't meet the barrier i don't even have the option of doing x.

So if it is winter and you want to trigger an effect with an influence cost and Mr. Commish Slynt is telling you that you must pay a gold before you do, you do not have the option of saying sorry i have no gold but i'm going to trigger it anyway. If you have no gold then you cannot trigger an influence cost.

another way to look at it is slynt is adding another cost which reads "Do x [pay 1 gold] to do y [trigger an influence cost]" to any effect with an influnce cost.

Im sorry Lars but i dont see it that way. If Slynt was applying an aditional cost, I would read "players must pay 1 gold TO use an effect with a cost of influence". But thats not the formula he uses, so it isn't a cost, its an effect. Slynt applies the efffect of making you pay 1 gold when you use an effect with a cost of influence, and since its an effect, i will do it as far as im able to and nothing more.

Thats my opinion of course, in fact its the way we are playing around here, and it helps greatly to aviud misunderstandings, moreover, we are followign the rules and Faqs, since here i see only the opinion of one and the other, and opinions are always as valuable as the other one. We rather like to hold withing the written rules.

Aertes said:

Play restrictions cover a lot more than simply "Challenge" of "Any Phase." According to the FAQ, play restrictions are defined as "an element that controls when or how often [an effect] may be played." So "if it is Winter" is a play restriction. Or "if you control a King character" is a play restrictions. Or "after you win a challenge by 4 or more total STR" is a play restriction.

So specifically for Illyrio, the phrase "That opponent must pay you 1 gold from his or her gold pool each time he or she initiates a challenge of this type" is an added condition put on when the game effect of initiating a challenge can be done. That's a play restriction. And, as the FAQ says, "If you cannot meet the play restrictions of [an effect], you may not play that [effect]."

You seem to be saying that if something is not a cost, it must be an effect. But there are other options. You also seem to be interpreting the resultant effect of something like Illyrio's or Slynt's abilities as an overall effect. The resolution of such effects actually creates a constant effect (for a set duration) that then becomes a play restriction on other abilities - not new effects added to those abilities.

For example, pretend instead that Illyrio's ability said "That opponent must declare a Lord or Lady character each time he or she initiates a challenge of that type." That's not a cost, right? So can you initiate the challenge if you do not have a character with the appropriate trait? No, because according to this effect placed upon initiating challenges of that type, declaring a Lord or Lady character is a necessary condition for initiation, just like having characters with the appropriate challenge icons is. But your reading of the "pay 1 gold" text would seem to indicate that declaring a Lord or Lady is an effect rather than a play condition and, as such, you would only be required to do so if you had a Lord or Lady in play - with no impact on the game if you did not.

So you see, it's not your adherence to the written rules and FAQ that's in question here. Just your interpretation of them.

But don't take our word for it. Use the "Rules Questions" link in the footer to send the questions directly to FFG. (They rarely answer questions directly on the boards without someone calling direct attention to it.)

ktom said:

In fact... thats exactly the way we are playing here. Bur if you say so, im starting to reconsider that... hmmmm my friend's won't like this at all when i tell them, we got used to dis way of playing...

May i ask one more thing?, there's a card that made us all argue for a long time in the past:

Motley
Attached character's controller must give you 1 gold token from his or her gold pool each time he or she wishes to declare attached character as an attacker or defender, or trigger attached character's ability.

In this case, is my opponent able to use a character with Motely if he has no gold remaining?

Aertes said:

Let me just say that the inconsistent wording/templating on these kinds of cards has made interpretation of them difficult for everyone. I thought Illyrio's "must pay gold" was adding an effect rather than a play restriction the first time I read it as well. And I have 5 years of experience with this game as a player, Night's Watch TO and national event judge.

Motley is another one that you have to read a couple of times. It also does not follow the "Do X to do Y" template, so giving the gold is not considered a cost. However, it does describe a condition placed upon a player who wants to do something ("wishes to declare attached character as an attacker, defender, or trigger attached character's ability"), mandating something else must be done first ("must give you 1 gold token"). So, since a condition is placed upon what has to happen before the attached character is declared as an attacker, defender or its ability is used, that makes the attachment's effect a play restriction on those other activities. And if you cannot meet something's play restrictions, you cannot initiate it

That's a very long way of saying a character with Motley on it becomes useless (except as a dominance engine or if it has passive abilities) if you have no gold remaining. It is a stupidly powerful attachment.

ktom said:

I really would like FFG's final word on this. Has anyone asked the question to an FFG official yet? If not, I'm going to do it, because it's really confusing for me (I was still considering the concusion on tzumainn's site was the right one, which the opposite of what is being said here).

I wish they had used a more standard template for those effects.

ktom said:

A little out of subject, but I can't help agreeing with that ("stupidly powerful").

I asked Nate French, and he said:

Magister Illyrio's ability is mandatory: if a player cannot pay the
gold, he cannot initiate a challenge of the chosen type.

Nate French
Game Design and Development
Fantasy Flight Games

Sorry to dig an old topic like this one, but we had quite a debate in France about this card so I asked Mr French (no pun intended).

As there was no official answer on this forum, I thought it might be helpful to post it.

I'm glad that these all three cards work the same way (it's simpler and logical). I was also confused by ktom's old answer on tzumainn.com

Hi all.

May I ask another one?

Let's say I have in play Janos Slint ("..players must pay 1 gold before triggering any effect with an influence cost") and Tywin ("response: cancel the effects of an event card unless any player kneels 1 influence").

Clearly, I cannot use Tywin on an event that not require influence to add also Janos condition to that event, right? Because Janos is a cost, and is checked in phase 1) of the Action Window, while Tywin is a response, and is checked in phase 2).

Thank you.

Clearly, I cannot use Tywin on an event that not require influence to add also Janos condition to that event, right?

I'm not entirely sure, but I think you are asking if that CCG version of Tywin adds an influence cost to events, thus making them susceptible to Janos Slynt. He does not.

As you say, Tywin is an optional cancel and is therefore only triggered after the event's costs (including what Janos adds) have been paid in full. You cannot "retroactively" increase a cost that has already been paid.

Further, the "unless any player kneels 1 influence" text is not actually a cost of anything, so Slynt's effect doesn't apply. That 1 influence is a play restriction of Tywin's own cancel effect that any player can fulfill to negate the successful resolution of Tywin's cancel.

Thank you, ktom.

You got exactly what I meant.