1. if kindly man is taken control by the opponent and killed, will he become opponent's agenda if he has no agenda? and if he has agenda, where will kindly man go?

my opinion: since it's a replacement effect ( replace being killed), it'll become its controller's agenda if he has no agenda and will go to its owner's dead pile if its controller has agenda.

2. can arya (the narrow sea version)'s ability be triggered when kindly man becomes an agenda?

my opinion: i think not, cause his being killed is replaced.

3. can river raid be triggered by dark star?

my opinion: i think not, cause dark star's ability is also a replacement effect, it is not discarded at all.

You're right, the initial effect goes through if a replacement effect fails.

Wrong, the initial effect is still considered to have resolved successfully, which means you can pay for Maester of the Sun by discarding Darkstar into play.

Same as 2.

that means you can stand Bronn(core) instead of kill House Dayne Skirmisher ,then draw a card?

no killing the House Dayne skirmisher is a cost, if it doesn't die the cost is unpaid and effect is not triggered, aslo he can't be saved as part of the cards ability anyway (i know bronn doesn't save, he prevents dying)

Sulpures said:

1. Controller has no agenda, owner has no agenda: Kindly Man becomes the owner's agenda.
2. Controller has an agenda, owner has no agenda: Kindly Man goes to owner's dead pile (the "as your only agenda," judged from controller's point of view, is not valid).
3. Controller has no agenda, owner has an agenda: Kindly Man goes to owner's dead pile (it tries and fails to become owners agenda, replacement effect "fizzles," original kill destination reinstated)
4. Controller has an agenda, owner has an agend: Kindly Man goes to owner's dead pile. Duh.

thanks,what about Q2&Q3?about arya&dark star.

ktom said:

I can only find in faq "When a card leaves play for any reason, it always returns to its owner's discard pile, dead pile, hand, deck, or shadows area".

If the statement "whenever a card leaves play, it goes to its owner's corresponding out-of-play area" is true, you are right.

Sulpures said:

With The Kindly Man, it is not his being killed that is replaced, but his destination after dying. The way it works is that it is still a kill effect that removes him from play, so Arya can still respond to him dying, but he becomes an agenda instead of hitting the dead pile. As for Darkstar and River Raid, I would have to assume that the same holds true, he has been discarded for the purpose of responses to a card being discarded from the deck (or hand, whichever is true), even though the replacement effect changes his destination. However, I would like confirmation, as I'm not 100% certain that his replacement effect follows the same rule, though I can't see any reason why it wouldn't.

There are two types of replacement effects.

The common type reads, more or less, as "If X would happen, do Y instead ." These are usually "disposition" replacement effects that change the way a particular thing resolves without change the definition of what resolves. So, for example, when Darkstart says that if he would be discarded, put him into play, you effectively "discard him into play" instead of discarding him to the discard pile. It still counts as a successful "discard," though, for absolutely all other purposes (like paying costs, meeting the play restrictions of passives and responses, etc.) This is the same reason why, when using Pyat Pree, the identity of the challenge that resolves doesn't change, even though the claim effect for that challenge does.

The rare type reads, more or less, as "If X would happen, do Y instead of doing X ." It's a subtle difference, but a very real one. These replacement effects are "complete" replacements in that they not only change the way something resolves, they change the definition of what resolves, too. As far as I know, the only example of this in the current environment is CS-Bronn. If you stand a character instead of killing it because of his ability, it counts as a standing effect, not a killing effect, for absolutely all other purposes (costs, play restrictions, etc.).

The original answers from Khudzlin for #2 & #3 were correct.

ktom said:

Thanks for the explanation, Tom

I have Ser Kevan Lannister (VM) in play,then I use Enslaved control Opponent's Kindly Man

My opponent d eclare Military, I choose Ser Kevan Lannister to die,then my opponent play Die by the Sword kill Kindly Man

what happen?

I think first play decide,right?

I may be wrong about this.

Kevan Lannister will be moribund:Agenda before any responses can be played.

Kindly Man cannot attach to YOUR house card as an Agenda, since you do not own the card - when cards leave play they go to their owner's out of play area.

So, end result - Kevan is your agenda. Kindly Man is just dead.

If neither player has an agenda in the first place, the Kindly Man becomes its controller's agenda. Kevan is still moribund, so you don't have an agenda at the time.

But wouldn't Kindly Man become moribund:Agenda after the response is played (and while Kevan is still moribund), so they would both attempt to become an agenda at the same time?

Assuming you're right about a Kindly Man you don't own being able to become your agenda, that is.

radiskull said:

He is right. We've been through this a couple of times before.

Thanks for clearing that up. I remember the discussion on the subject a few months ago but not the actual resolution.

ktom said:

If the stolen Kindly Man is still controlled by the opponent during the moribund state, and Controller has no agenda, and the owner has no agenda: Kindly Man should become the Controller's agenda because the passive ability (that takes place during the moribund state) does not indicate it has to go to the owners house card.

I haven't found anything that indicates, the control of the card changes during Moribund.. only that it temporarily goes to the appropriate location on the owner's side of the board.

From the FAQ:

After a card is forced to leave play (by being killed, discarded, returned to its owner's hand or deck, or moved to its owner's shadows area) that card is considered Moribund for the duration of the action window. This includes cards that have been killed, discarded, or returned to hand/deck in order to pay a cost. The Moribund "state" lies after the effect that forced the card out of play, but before the card is physically placed in the dead/discard pile.

In order for a card to return to the owner's control it has to leave play which happens in step 6: End of Action. Moribund Cards Leave Play.

But before that happens, Kindly Man's passive ability would trigger in step 4. Passive Abilities (now triggered) are initiated.

Thus, in step 4 the card would check, the contollers house card for Agenda's.. if none it would resolve and attach, and if an agenda is present it would resolve and fail.

As far as, "Kindly Man can never end up as the Agenda of someone who is not its owner." Was that a statement of what you believe, or is that stated in the rules?

I have found nothing that indicates such.

Shikaku said:

Start with this:

"(4.11) Agenda Cards

Agenda cards are not considered to be in play. Further, the effects of an Agenda card cannot be canceled."

So, right there. Agenda cards are not "in play." That means that when a character becomes an agenda, it must leave play in order to become that agenda.

Then, as you quote:

" (3.31) Changing Control and Leaving Play

When a card leaves play for any reason, it always returns to its owner's discard pile, dead pile, hand, deck, or shadows area (depending on the specific circumstances)."

This stands for the fact that when a card leaves play "for any reason," it goes to its owner's corresponding out-of-play area. When a character becomes an agenda, it leaves play (as established above).

Now, you seem to be arguing that this list of out-of-play areas must be inclusive, and because "agenda" is not listed, the reversion of the card to its owner's corresponding out-of-play area does not include "agenda," even if it is an out-of-play area. To me, that is a pretty bad argument. Not only was this FAQ entry written years before the "character becomes agenda" effect existes, but the the bit about "depending on the circumstances" can cover any out-of-play area.

We went through this with Shadows too, by the way. People tried to argue that a card going from play to the Shadows area was not leabing play "for any reason" and that since "shadows area" was not included in the list of out-of-play areas, control did not revert when a "stolen" card was returned to Shadows. The ruling came down that "leaving play" was the operative term here and that the list of out-of-play areas was not to be considered inclusive within the reversion of control rule long before "shadows area" was added to the list.

So, short version: Agendas are not in play. Therefore, when Kindly Man is killed, it must physically leave play in order to become the agenda. Cards that leave play "for any reason" always return to their owner's appropriate out-of-play area (the list in the FAQ should not be considered "all inclusive," especially when FFG invents a new out-of-play area that can be reached from play).

And as a result, there is no situation in which Kindly Man will end up as an Agenda on any House card other than the one belonging to its owner. And since Kindly Man is "House Stark only," the practical upshot is that Kindly Man will never end up as an Agenda on any House card other than Stark.

Shikaku said:

Kindly Man's effect is a replacement effect, just like Doubting Sept, KotSea-Damphair, anything Stalwart, etc. That means that when a kill effect would send the card into the "moribund:dead pile" state, it instead sends it into the "moribund:agenda" state, assuming the replacement's effect's restrictions are met because its controller doesn't have an agenda. (This happens in Step 3, during the resolution of te kill effect, not in Step 4 - after the effect has already resolved and the card is already moribund.) Then in Step 6, the moribund card leaves play and goes to it's owner's out-of-play area corresponding to its moribund state.

In the end, what I have described in the above post (and in other threads) is correct - if you take the entire FAQ into account and do not insist on supplanting the meaning of "leaves play for any reason" with the non-inclusive list of out-of-play areas. But, don't take my word for it. Feel free to send it into FFG.

A better argument would be comparing character agendas to Balon Greyjoy (King's Landing) (whose ability is far more problematic - an agenda is at least visible) and invoking this most important of rules "when card text contradicts the rules, follow card text". Character agendas explicitly contradict the "return to owner" rule by saying "attach X to your House card" (this is at least as explicit as Balon Swann concerning the icon requirement to defend, if not more). A wording like the character agendas from 5 Kings would clear it up a bit (since they specify house affiliation). "attach X to its owner's House card" would be best.

Balon Greyjoy (King's Landing)
Response : After a card with the crest is discarded from a player's deck, kneel 1 influence or kneel a character to put that card into Shadows under your control. (Limit once per phase.)

Khudzlin said:

Except for the fact that "attach to your House card" does not contradict the "return to owner" rule any more than "instead put it on the bottom of your deck" does on Doubting Septa. (No one is struggling with the fact that if I take control of your Doubting Sept and she dies, I draw the card but she goes to the bottom of your deck, right?)

For something to directly contradict the "return to owner" rule (so that you follow the card text), it would have to say "place in it's controller's (corresponding out-of-play area)."

Khudzlin said:

This is a horrible comparison, by the way. It is totally different. When you use Balon, you take a card from an opponent's out-of-play area and put it into one of your out-of-play areas. The "return to owner" rule only applies when a card leaves play under the control of someone other than its owner. Balon doesn't make anything leave play. So this is not a good comparison or example for when an opponent takes control of a character agenda before it leaves play .