I understand that in GoT there is an "all or nothing" system where if a card has two effects on the game, but one cannot happen, that the card can't be used, or…I don't really understand this at all. I looked in the FAQ, Rulebook, and Tournament rules for this information, but couldn't find it. Help me with this exact rule, please.

Now, bearing in mind that I am still shaky on the above rule, here is my question, working on the assumption that the above rule does, in fact, exist:

Doubting Septa

If Doubting Septa would be killed, instead put it on the bottom of your deck and draw 1 card.

What if you have already drawn 3 additional cards during the round, i.e. 1 from a Golden Tooth Mines and 2 more from Pyromancer's Cache?

I see a few ways this could go:

1) Doubting Septa goes on the bottom of your deck because the "all or nothing" rule does not apply, for some reason.

2) Doubting Septa goes to the dead pile, because she can't go to the bottom of your deck because you can't draw any additional cards and the "all or nothing" rule applies.

So which is it? Why? Where can I find the "all or nothing" rule?

-nihil

nihilistiskism said:

If a single effect has multiple parts and is legally initiated, you complete as much of the resolution of those multiple parts as you can while the rest of it is simply considered "unsuccessful."

For example, lets say you have an event card that says "Response: after you win an intrigue challenge choose a character. Kneel that character and discard all power and attachments from it." You win a challenge, play the event, and choose any character on the board (there is nothing in that effect saying the character must be controlled by an opponent, must be a Lord character, etc.; you can choose any character). That's all you need to do to successfully initiate the event. So the event has been initiated and you resolve as much of it as you can: kneel the character, discard any power, and discard any attachments. If the character is already kneeling, you still discard and power and attachment. If the character already has no power on it, you still kneel it and discard attachments, etc. There is no rule anywhere that says you have to be able to find a standing character with power and attachments before playing that event. Those are not requirements for initiating the event; they are only results when resolving.

The rule is that you must be able to successfully initiate an effect, but once initiated, any or all of the resolution can fail and/or be unsuccessful.

nihilistiskism said:

So again, not sure who is telling you this is a rule. The actual rule is that, so long as you can successfully pay the costs and meet all play restrictions (including target requirements), you can initiate an effect. Once initiated, there is no guarantee that the resolution will be successful. Anticipating complete and successful resolution is not a requirement for initiation.

Now, maybe whomever is telling you there is some sort of "all or nothing" rule that prevents you from initiating an effect if the resolution will be unsuccessful is making confusing some things about how the word "cannot" works. For example, if the only character I have on the board is a "cannot be killed" character, you would not be able to play/initiate an event that said "choose and kill an opponent's character." But that's not because the kill would be unsuccessful; it is because the rules specifically say "a character that 'cannot be killed' may not be chosen as the target of a kill effect." Since my only character may not be chosen as a target of "choose and kill an opponent's character," you cannot successfully initiate the effect because you cannot meet the play restrictions that require you to target an opponent's character.

But what if I have a character that "cannot be killed" and someone reveals the plot card Valar Morghulis to kill all characters in play? By this "all or none" rule, it would seem like the plot would not initiate at all, and therefore not kill the other 20 characters in play simply because the one "cannot be killed." It should be plain that that isn't how it works. The plot effect to "kill all characters" initiates (without trying to choose/target any characters, so the "cannot be killed" target restriction doesn't affect this) after you reveal the plot card whether you want it to or not. Once it initiates, it kills as much as it can. The "mortal" cannot hide behind the "immortal," so to speak.

Thank you for your detailed explanation.

To answer your imbedded question within the answer, it was explained to me as follows when I was considering including the Plot card "Threat from the East" in my deck:

Threat From the East

When revealed, you choose one:

• Each player Draws 3 cards and then Discards 3 random cards from their hand
• Each player Discards 3 random cards from their hand and then Draws 3 cards

It was told to me that if I had no cards in my hand, that choosing the second item on that bulleted list wouldn't work, or be legal, or have no effect, basically. I can't remember exactly the conversation, only that it convinced me to not include the card in my plot deck.

Is there some mixup?

-nihil

There is a mix-up in that someone is taking the following rule:

"(4.9) The word "then"

If a card uses the word "then," then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to be resolved."

and applying it to everything, whether the word "then" is used or not.

The rule simply says that if an effect says "Do X, then do Y," X must be completely successful before you can do Y.

The important part is the word "then." It does not follow from this rule that Y must be possible before you can even attempt to do X. And it certainly doesn't follow that if the effect says "Do X and Y," both X and Y must be possible before even attempting to initiate the effect.

Thanks very much! :-D

I appreciate the help. I'm still very new to getting my head around the game. /hat off

-nihil

No worries. We were all new at this game once, right?

And it's good to know the confusion came from an over-application of a real rule (and kind of a subtle one at that) instead of a rule being made up somewhere along the way.