Wildfire Assault and Icy Catapult

By myersd37, in 2. AGoT Rules Discussion

Icy Catapult:

"Limited Response: After attached character leaves play, choose and kill a character without attachments. (Limit 1 Limited Response per round.)"

Wildfire Assault:

"When revealed, each player chooses up to 3 of his or her characters. All characters not chosen are killed (cannot be saved)."

Assuming my opponent's characters have no attachments, can I let my character with Icy Catapult die to leave my opponent with two characters by the time plots resolve?

The timing would look something like:

I choose Wildfire to resolve. We both choose our three characters to keep. I trigger the limited response on Icy Catapult and choose one of the three characters my opponent chose to keep. Everyone not selected (plus the one the Icy Catapult snagged) go to the dead pile.

Do I have this right? Or is there some way my opponent can not make his "choices" known before I choose who Icy Catapult will take out?

myersd37 said:

Assuming my opponent's characters have no attachments, can I let my character with Icy Catapult die to leave my opponent with two characters by the time plots resolve?
burla

myersd37 said:

I choose Wildfire to resolve. We both choose our three characters to keep. I trigger the limited response on Icy Catapult and choose one of the three characters my opponent chose to keep. Everyone not selected (plus the one the Icy Catapult snagged) go to the dead pile.
  • Person who revealed the Wildfire plot chooses their 3.
  • Person who did not reveal the plot chooses their 3.
  • All characters not chosen die (one of them had Icy Catapault attached)
  • Passive effects to revealing/resolving plots are resolved.
  • Responses to revealing/resolving plots are resolved - this includes Icy Catapault, whose attached character died as part of resolving plots, so your only legal target will be one of the 3 not chosen by your opponent when resolving Wildfire.

myersd37 said:

Do I have this right? Or is there some way my opponent can not make his "choices" known before I choose who Icy Catapult will take out?
after

Thanks for the response.

I have a follow up Icy Catpult question.

My opponent has a bodyguard attachment (Response: discard BG from play to save attached character from being killed or discarded from play) on his only character in play.

I marshall House Umber Berserkers (When HUB comes into play, each player must choose a character he or she controls. Kill each chosen character).

I choose my Icy Catapulted weenie to die from HUB's passive ability. My opponent obviously must choose his only character. My question is this: Is the Bodyguard in the discard pile by the time Icy Catapult can trigger and therefore make his Lord a viable target? Does it depend on initiative? Or do we choose characters simultaneously and they are killed simultaneously, and Icy Catapult could not kill?

Thanks.

myersd37 said:

I choose my Icy Catapulted weenie to die from HUB's passive ability. My opponent obviously must choose his only character. My question is this: Is the Bodyguard in the discard pile by the time Icy Catapult can trigger and therefore make his Lord a viable target? Does it depend on initiative? Or do we choose characters simultaneously and they are killed simultaneously, and Icy Catapult could not kill?

Just like above, you have to resolve House Umber Berserkers completely before you ever have a change to use Icy Catapault. It's a Response to that character being killed, so you need to let the effect that is killing it resolve. Completely.

So, after House Umber Berserkers resolves (your character dies and his character is saved), you would be able to use Icy Catapault. You get to choose and kill a character without attachments. Unfortunately for you, since you are still in the same action window, the Bodyguard on the Lord is still on the table (though moribund), so the Lord still counts as having an attachment on it, making it an illegal target for Icy Catapault. You would get to choose and kill some other character, though.

Again, Ktom, thanks for the clear explanation.