I have TLS stand in play.Penny choose my character to kneel.

I must choose to kneel that character ,right?Because TLS's ability say "can't", I can't choose to do somthing that I can't,right?

snowfrost said:

What you are not allowed to do is initiate an effect that you cannot successfully pay the costs or meet the play restrictions for. So "cannot be killed" or "moribund," for example, stops you from initiating a kill effect against that character because the rules specifically defined it as an illegal target, making it impossible to meet the play restrictions necessary to initiate the effect.

So, by using the word "choose," Penny has a loophole. The effect forces you to "choose" A or B, and then execute it. So, since the choice of A or B is not specifically the initiation of what you choose, the choice of "discard" can be successful, even if the discard itself cannot be. It's like choosing to kneel a character that is already knelt.

In fact, that's another way to look at it. Penny's effect does not say to choose a standing character, so Penny's controller could choose a character that is already kneeling. But by doing so, you are not forced to discard a card just because choosing to kneel would be unsuccessful. You can choose to kneel the character, then laugh at Penny's controller for being short-sighted.

Now, if the word "choose" was not used in Penny's effect (i.e.: "The controller of that character either kneels that character or chooses and discards 1 card from his or her hand."), the choice of which effect to resolve would not be separate from its initiation, and you would be forced into a successful resolution, assuming one was available.

1.choose A or B

you can choose A or B as you want,even if A or B "can't do " or "do unsuccessfully",.

eg.penny&TSL

2.choose and do X

(1)you can choose A,whether do X successful or not.

eg. A Game of Cyvasse,you can choose someone that is kneeled

(2)you can't choose A that can't do X

eg.Marched to the Wall,you can't choose someone that can't be discard from play

3.choose A,do X

you can choose A,even if A "can't do X"or"do unsuccessfully"

eg.House Umber Berserkers,you can choose someone that can't be killed(eg.Beric Dondarrion)

am I right?thanks.

"Choose and do X" and "Choose A. Do X." are identical. The difference between A Game of Cyvasse and House Umber Berserkers is that a knelt character is a legal target for a kneel effect, while a character that "cannot be killed" isn't a legal target for a kill effect (just like a character previously targeted by Black Cells isn't a legal target for a kneel effect). Immunities are also applicable: The Red Viper (PotS) is immune to events and character abilities, so can be targeted by neither.

Just out of curiosity (and to make sure I understand this distinction correctly), if a character has been hit with The Black Cells , you can't choose the kneeling option, right?

As Ktom said, you can still choose either option with Penny, regardless of whether it will succeed or not.

Based on the distinction you both made of not being allowed to choose a "can not be killed" character for an effect that will eventually try to kill them, why can you choose a "can not be knelt or stood" character for the effect that will try to kneel them? Does that distinction only apply to kill effects?

OK, here's where the confusion comes from as well as how it actually works:

The Rule : You cannot initiate an effect unless you can initiate it successfully. (This includes paying costs, meeting play restrictions, and choosing targets.)

The Common Confusion : The rule is often interpreted as: "You cannot initiate an effect unless you can resolve it successfully." (Obviously, this is very different from the actual rule.)

One of the major sources of thinking that "The Rule" should be treated as "The Common Confusion" is acually grounded in the way immunity and the word "cannot" work. People forget that immunity and "cannot" do two separate and distinct things:

1. They make it illegal to target the immune/"cannot" card with an effect that would do X.
2. They make it so that if an effect that does X is successfully initiated, the resolution of X will be unsuccessful for that card.

The problem is that #1 makes it so that you cannot target a CBK character with a kill effect, which makes it so that you are not able to successfully initiate that kill effect. (The Rule, following #1 of how "cannot" works.) But people tend to think that it is #2 of how "cannot" works that has made the kill effect unsuccessful. That is, they think that the initiation was illegal because the character would not have been killed. But that's not what happened. What happened was that the initiation was illegal because you did not have a valid target - which is a basic requirement for successful initiation.

Now, once an effect is successfully initiated, as much of it resolves as possible - but there is no guarantee that any of it will, or any requirement that any of it must. So long as you can legally initiate it, you can legally play an effect - even if there is no practical outcome. For example, if it is the Dominance phase and you kneel 4 standing influence, you can play Westeros Bleeds - even if there are no characters in play to discard. You met all of the requirements to successfully initiate the effect: you just didn't get any return on your investment.

So that's what this all boils down to: If you can successfully initiate the effect (by meeting its play restrictions and targeting requirements and paying the full cost), initiation will be successful. But a successful initiation does not require or guarantee a successful resolution.

Now, let's look at those various situations (in order of simplicity).

1. "Choose and do X (to A)." - This is the basic situation. Whether or not X will be successful has no bearing on the choice of A; so you can choose A, even if X is impossible to do to A. This is the "Choose and kneel a kneeling character" situation. However, watch for other, outside effects that independently make A an illegal choice for the effect (for example, if A is "cannot be X"). Examples: No Quarter , Meereenese Brothel .

2. " Choose A. Do X." - As Khudzlin says, FFG has ruled that despite the different format, this is exactly the same as #1. So the answer for "Choose and do X (to A)" is the same answer for "Choose A. Do X." Examples: The Lion's Will , House Umber Berserkers .

3. "Choose X or Y. Do that to A" - Here, you are not choosing targets, but rather choosing which effect will resolve. You haven't actually started doing X or Y to A yet because your choice is required to set one of them in motion. You are, for all intents and purposes, building the "Choose A. Do X." effect on the fly - and there is nothing that says X is required to be successful once the effect is initiated, remember? As such, it is perfectly legal to choose to set an unsuccessful X in motion, even if choosing to set Y in motion would have led to a successful effect resolution. Examples: Penny , PotS-Theon Greyjoy .

4. "Do X or Y to A." - The difference between this and #3 is the real headache for most people. Intuitively, they want #3 to work like #4, but the lack of the word "choose" before "X or Y" makes a huge difference in the template of this game. Unlike #3, where there is a choice of which effect will even attempt to resolve (with the one not chosen never even getting the chance to resolve), the fact that there is no formal choice between X and Y means that the game will try to resolve both of them. This template will try to resolve all options until one of them is successful (in the order determined by the person identified in by the card's text - with the controller of the card being the "default" determiner). (I know: you want to say that the First Player decides all timing conflicts. But that's only true if there is no effect or rule saying that someone else should decide the timing conflict. These effects always indicate a player - although it is often through the "you" of command, which applies to the controller of the card.) So, whichever is first (X or Y), if it is successful, the effect stops. If it is not, the effect moves on to the second. In the end, neither one has to be successful, but both are given the chance. (That's the difference to #3; the fact that you choose either X or Y means that the other is never given the chance.) Examples: The White Book , Sorrowful Man (post errata).

J_Roel said:

Remember that Penny chooses the target character before the other player determines what kind of effect (kneel or discard) she has actually initiated. Because the target character is chosen before the actual effect is determined, there is no requirement to choose the actual effect so as to make the target character "retroactively legal."

So the difference between "Penny vs. 'cannot kneel' characters" and "Die By the Sword vs. 'cannot be killed' characters" is that with Penny, you don't know if it is a kneeling effect when the target is chosen, but with DbtS, you do know it is a killing effect when the target is chosen.

Oh, okay, slight misunderstanding. So, if Penny said "The controller of that character chooses to either kill that character or choose and discard a card from their hand" and it was a "cannot be killed" character, they would actually be allowed to choose "kill" even though it wouldn't work. I thought what you guys were implying above was that "cannot" meant (in this imaginary situation, for example) that you were never allowed to choose the opton if the word cannot was involved, which I should have realised was incorrect, as the original example was choosing to discard when Laughing Storm says "cannot discard cards from your hand"

thanks,i think i got it.

but" FFG has ruled that despite the different format, this is exactly the same as #1. ",i can't find this rule….

ktom said:

Cannot we consider that a kneeling character cannot be knelt the same way we consider a noble character with Power of Blood cannot be killed? I have never understand this rule.

Adkadi said:

If you treat knelt characters as "cannot be knelt," you're making up a rule that is not written down anyway - and that FFG has continually declined to write.

Of course you are right, but it is still a little contradictory.

If you can kneel a kneeling character and because of that you can trigger an effect that do so, why couldn't you knelt a kneeling character in order to pay a cost?

I know that this is being the way to play this game but i dont see why we need rules which say us obvious things like these. Also, there are cards such as Game of Cyvasse whose text has "if able" words that wouldn't have sense to use. In fact, you can't kneel a kneeling character to fulfill this event.

Adkadi said:

You can trigger any effect as long as you pay the costs and have legal targets. For an effect that says "Choose and kneel a character.", you can choose a knelt character because it doesn't specify that the character must be standing. "Choose and kneel a standing character." makes kneeling characters illegal targets for the effect. There is nothing in the rules that states that you can only trigger effects as long as they are successful. Kneeling a knelt character is always unsuccessful.

As for paying costs, you cannot kneel a knelt character to pay the cost for the effect. Kneeling a knelt character will always be unsuccessful and if you cannot pay costs for an effect, you cannot trigger the effect. You are mixing up "paying costs for an effect" and "resolving an effect". You MUST pay the cost for an effect in order to trigger it. You DO NOT have to successfully resolve it in order to trigger it.

Adkadi said:

You can't kneel a kneeling character. What you can do is choose an already kneeling character as the target of a kneel effect. Big difference. That's also the reason why you can't pay the cost of kneeling a character with an already knelt character. Because a cost must be paid fully und successfully in order for the subsequent effect to resolve, i.e. if the cost is to kneel a character, then you must kneel a character. And you can't kneel a kneeling character.

Adkadi said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if you're saying that the "if able" on Game of Cyvasse is unnecessary, you're wrong. If the "if able" wasn't there, you could play Cyvasse only if all players had a character with an INT icon in play. With the card worded as it is, you can play it if not all players do.

Bomb said:

Sure, I get it and I know how to act in this situations. The point is the difference between be able to kill someone and be able to kneel someone. When we are allowing to trigger a kneeling effect because a knelt character can be chosen for this purpose and we aren't doing so in killing effects with Power of Blood we are saying that a kneeling char can be knelt the same way we know that a noble char cant be killed. So, if these are the conditions, we cant kill a noble char to pay a killing cost but then, isn't contradictory not be able to pay a kneeling cost with a knelt char? Actually the problem is not in this side but on the other one. It seems obvious that you have to kneel an standing character to pay a kneeling cost, just I dont see why that simple working can't be applied for everything, making the logic of ruling ambigous.

I want to clarify that I understand the way the rules try to work, in fact the difference we could see is that a kneeling character still can be knelt later as long as he stands in some time so we can trigger the effect although it doesnt resolve successfully. But I think that if we need a rule that says: You can't kneel a kneeling character, which at first seems to be obvious, we need a rule that says: You can kneel a kneeling character but you cant consider that you kneel him if you are paying a cost.

Ratatoskr said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if you're saying that the "if able" on Game of Cyvasse is unnecessary, you're wrong. If the "if able" wasn't there, you could play Cyvasse only if all players had a character with an INT icon in play. With the card worded as it is, you can play it if not all players do.

You are right, I only focused on the kneeling part. My bad.

PD: I dont know how to do a multi-quote haha.

I think you're struggle comes from interpreting a knelt character as the same as "cannot be knelt" and a kneeling effect being required to be successful. An effect does not need to be able to execute successfully to be triggered, it simply needs to be able to be successfully initiated.

For a card like "Distraction" the initiation is to choose a character with a military icon. The resolution is to kneel the character. If you choose a standing character, Distraction successfully resolves with the effect of kneeling the character and allowing responses to the successful kneeling of a character to be triggered. If you choose a kneeling character the Distraction effect initiates, but does not successfully resolve. As it does not successfully resolve, the knelt character is not knelt again and responses to successfully kneeling a character can not be triggered. If the player tries to choose a character that is immune to events or does not have a military icon, Distraction cannot successfully initiate and therefore can not be played. These are each distinct and significantly different situations.

Cannot be killed prevents initiation of effects that have a resolution of killing a chosen character from initating by creating a framework by which the game denies the initiation of the effect. I attempt to initiate Die by the Sword on a Noble during a Power of Blood turn. The game simply goes "you can not do that" and the effect does not initiate. This is similar to the third situation for distraction above. You try to illegally initiate an effect and are disallowed from doing so.

Taking a more real life example, let's say someone already has the flu. I can inject them with the same strain of flu, but it will have no effect. This is more what is happening when you try to resolve a kneel effect on a kneeling character.

The example of not being able to initiate something is more like a restraining order. "You are not allowed to get within 200 feet of this person." This prevents you from doing anything that requires you to get within 200 feet of the person, meaning you can't even attempt to initiate something like a face to face conversation.

Edit: I suck at spell checking…

You cannot target a card that has immunity to the cards effects. You cannot target a card for an effect that has "cannot be X" applied to it, where X is a particular effect.

The below is from the FAQ:

(3.15) Targetting and Immunity
A card cannot be chosen as a target of effects
to which it is immune.

(4.3) The word "cannot"
If an effect has the word "cannot" in its
description, then it is an absolute: That effect
may not be overridden by other effects.
For example, if Wildfire Assault (CORE
L191) is played, which has an effect that kills
characters and "cannot be saved," then a card
like Bodyguard (CORE T150) that saves that
character would not work. Also note that if a
card cannot be saved, a player cannot even
attempt to save it with a saving card or effect.
Note, however, that Wildfire Assault may still
be canceled, because it does not have the text
"cannot be canceled."
A character that cannot be killed/saved/etc.
may not be chosen for that effect.

As for costs, you can't trigger an effect if you can't pay a cost. Paying a cost must be successful. I have no idea what you are trying to get at when you compare "cannot be killed" when you must kill a character to pay a cost versus kneeling an already knelt character to pay a cost. You can do neither in order to pay a cost. This is completely different from eligible targets for card effects..

Adkadi said:

The problem you are running into is that when the word "cannot" is specifically used in rules or card text, it means two separate, but distinct, things. Using the "Cannot be Killed" from Power of Blood as an example, those two things are:

1. The "cannot be killed" card is not a legal target when initiating a kill effect.
2. Even if a kill effect is successfully initiated, the "cannot be killed" card is not affected by it.

Since the word "cannot" has a specific definition in this game and there is no rule or card that specifically says "kneeling cards cannot be knelt," you do not apply the rules/definition for the word "cannot" to the situation.

So, the fact that you can attempt to kneel a character that is already kneeling, but the attempt will not be successful, means that #2 of the specific "cannot be" language applies to kneeling a character that is already knelt, but #1 does not. So a kneeling character is never successfully knelt again, but the fact that the effect will not be successful at resolution , does not reach backwards in time and make the kneeling character an ineligible target for the kneeling effect at initiation .

Thanks for the answers.

Before write anything I want to say that I haven't any issue with ruling, I know when I can choose a knelt character at the moment of trigger an effect and the reason behind this way of playing. I just gonna go to the origin of this ruling interpretation which makes difference between can't be killed and can't be knelt.

As you have said, an unsuccesfull kneeling event takes place when we choose a kneeling char as a target, but why it is unsuccessfull? because the character CAN'T be knelt again. The character can kneel but as long as he is standing. So if a character that is already knelt can't kneel again why can an "choose A and kneel X" effect be triggered? Why do we need a rule that says that a kneeling char cannot be knelt when it is what happens when you try it?

You can do all interpretations you want but in spite of there isn't any rule that explictly says that a kneeling char cannot be knelt we can do this interpretation too. I dont understand why this point is not clarified in the faqs and why is his interpretation on players hands.

EDIT: The last ktom intervention is an example of what ffg should states in his ruling book/faq.

Adkadi said:

Because the rules for triggering effect is the following:

a) Determine the cost (to either marshal the
card or pay for the card's effect) or costs
b) Check play restrictions, including
verification of applicable targets.
c) Apply any penalties to the cost(s). (Any
effects that modify a penalty are applied to that
penalty before it becomes a part of the cost.)
d) Apply any other active modifiers (including
reducers) to the cost(s).
e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Marshal the card, or trigger the effect.
Choose targets (if applicable) and proceed to
step two.

For an effect like You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf!:

"Any phase: Choose and kneel a non- character. Then, that character claims 1 power."

a) We see there is no cost.
b) The target is a non-noble character.
c) There is no penalty in this example.
d) There is no active modifer in this example.
e) There are no costs to pay.
f) We can now trigger the effect on the chosen target.

The importance here is, if the target is a knelt character, the effect is unsuccessful. Because it is unsuccessful, the targeted character does not claim any power. Only if the character is successfully knelt by this effect will the THEN portion of the effect kick in.

Keep in mind that an effect can also be put into a position to be canceled, therefore resulting in an unsuccessful effect as well.

Adkadi said:

I don't really follow this. If you don't successfully apply the effect on a character, then it is unsuccessful. There is no rule in place that says you cannot kneel a knelt character. If the state of the character is unchanged, then the effect is unsuccessful. The character does not go from standing to kneeling.

Adkadi said:

Can you do me a favor and elaborate on this a little more. I don't understand exactly what you are saying here. You are trying to dispute this knelt to knelt topic specifically. The general "was the effect successful or unsuccessful" observation is applicable to any time a target for an effect is uneffected by the effect. The primary reason this is important is for opening Response opportunities.

"Response: After a character is knelt, do X."
"Response: After a characters STR is lowered, do X."

Consider Maegi Crone:

"Response: After a character's STR is reduced to 0, draw 1 card."

If you apply -1 STR on to a 0 STR character, you cannot trigger Maegi Crone's response because the character's STR was not actually reduced to 0.

Bomb said:

First of all, I understand all of your arguments and I have to say that they have sense in the play context. But I still think that is an interpretation result.

In "You've killed the wrong dwarf" example, in b) step you could check if the character is already knelt as a verification task. I don't know if in ruling there is something that states that a character already killed (moribund) cannot be chosen as a target of killing effect, I think so, but I don't get why doesnt it happen in the same way for knelt state. A killed char cannot be killed, he is already killed. A kneeling char cannot be knelt, he is already kneeling.

Of course I understand the way of playing, basically we can do everything we want as long as we obey the game rulling. If there is nothing saying us that we can't choose a kneeling character as a target of a kneeling effect we can do it and that is all.

Adkadi said:

I think you're getting some very basic concepts (in so far as they are fundamental AGoT concepts, not simple concepts) confused here.

There is no rule saying that a killed card can not be killed, BUT there is a rule that says a Moribund card can not have it's Moribund state changed (even to the same Moribund state). This covers trying to kill a character that has already been killed as you can not try to change Moribund:Dead to Moribund:Dead. The game simply disallows it.

So a let's say you kill Jaime Lannister. Jaime Lannister's status is Moribund:Dead. No effect can change his Moribund:Dead state to another Moribund state.

A knelt character is GameState:Knelt (this is new terminology I'm using). There is no rule that says a card in a given GameState can not have it's GameState changed like there is for Moribund..There is also no limitation inherent to the card "You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf" that dictates you must choose a character of GameState:Standing. The only mandates on "You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf" are CardType:Character, CardType:Non-Noble. Therefore, the Moribund logic does not apply. Moribund rules are exclusively for cards leaving play. They do not apply to any card that is currently in play and there is no documented logic in the rules to imply they should that I am aware of.

Your last line is very apropos, though probably too general.

Adkadi said:

You're right, we could . However that is not how the game works.

In the b) step, you only look for what the effect asks you to check for choosing a legal target. There are kneeling effects that have specific criteria for what is an eligible target. A prime example of this is the plot Drunken Allegations .

"When revealed, choose an opponent. Then, you and that opponent must each choose and kneel a standing character."

In this effect, step b) is "A standing character." for the characters that are legal targets. You cannot choose a character that is already knelt because the criteria for a legal target is a standing character.

How long have you been playing the game for? Maybe we can help clear up a few other scenarios for you that might seem counter intuitive or confusing.