The question is, when can the fist player decide the passive effects order of resolution : for any passive effects or just for conflicting effects? And by the way, what are conflicting effects?

For a start, the FAQ says the following p.15:

"Passive Effects Conflict
If two passive effects are triggered at the same
time, the first player always chooses the order
in which these effects are resolved."

And this at p.17 :

"Remember that if two passive
abilities are triggered at the same time, their
order of resolution is determined by the first
player."

And this at p.15 :

"Lasting Effects Conflict
Even if not triggered at the same time,
multiple Lasting Effects may affect the
same card at the same time."

Let's assume the First player decide the order of resolution only for conflicting effects, and others resolves simultaneously when triggered.

One possibility is that conficting effects means that 2 effects cannot resolve at the same time because they kind of contradict each other : for example a character who would be killed and discarded at the same time. Following this definition, other effects that can live with eachother would resolve simultaneously. For instance, I can draw a card with Golden Tooth Mine and discard a character with Threat from the North. But in this case, timing become confusing. For example, which effect can I cancel first? Depending on if I cancel one or the other, my opponent might have different Responses. So how do we choose : rolling a dice? or maybe the first player should choose… and the 2 effects we thought not conflicting are indeed conflicting, and the only reason is that they are triggerred at the same time.

So, a definition of conflicting effects should be that they affect the game at the same time or are triggerred at the same time, which is very consistent with the FAQ wording p.15.

"Lasting Effects Conflict
Even if not triggered at the same time,
multiple Lasting Effects may affect the
same card at the same time."

And as a conclusion I'd say that the first player Always decide the order of resolution of passive effects, because when they trigger at the same time they are conflicting by definition.

And yes, there IS a nasty combo behind this :-D

Bolzano said:

While it is not well defined or specified in the rules or FAQ (think "passive effects aren't 'triggered', even though the rules and FAQ talks about 'passive effects are now triggered' all over the place), it has always been the case that the First Player only decides the order of passive effects that are in conflict. All other passive effects are said to happen simultaneously. That is the way the "first player choice" has always been played, going back to the earliest CCG days.

Passive effects conflict when either:

1. Resolving passive #1 could stop passive #2 from resolving (usually by negating the play restrictions), or
2. Resolving passive #1 could change the outcome of resolving passive #2.

The classic example of conflicting passive effects is simultaneous entry into different moribund states (for example, a valid "kill at 0" and a valid "discard at 0" on the same character). There are plenty of other examples, though:

• Two players with "Kings of Winter" agendas, for example, since who discards first may determine whether the other player has to discard at all.
• Frey Hospitality and Deadly, since Frey Hospitality could kill the only character eligible for Deadly.
• Fairweather Followers when it is Summer and Winter at the same time

But passives that aren't in conflict - because they are completely independent - are said to happen at the same time. For example, say that CS-Robert gains Vigilant. He attacks and you win the challenge, so he claims his power for Renown. There are now two pending passive effects: claiming the additional power for Renown and standing with Vigilant. The two are completely independent, so the First Player does not get to choose between "stand, then claim the extra power" and "claim the extra power, then stand." He just stands and claims the extra power simultaneously.

This is also going to be true, even where the resolution of passives may make other constant effect applicable. That doesn't enter into whether of not there is a conflict between the passives, though.

Let's say that CS-Mel has gained Vigilant, but has Greyscale on her. She just attacked and won the challenge, so has gained a power for Renown. Further, kneeling, she is currently at 1 STR. There are two passives pending: stand Mel with Vigilant and put a gold token on her from Greyscale. There's going to be a temptation to say that the stand from Vigilant and gaining the gold token from Greyscale conflict (the gold token kicks in a -1 STR modifier, the standing kicks in Mel's own +1 STR modifier, and there is a "discard at 0" effect waiting in the wings). But that isn't the case. The individual effects for standing Mel and putting a gold token on her remain completely independent, even though both start a cascade of other continuous and passive effects. So she stands and gets the gold token at the same time. This means that both the +1 STR and the -1 STR modifiers become active simultaneously, effectively canceling each other out and leaving Mel with 1-STR, safe from the "discard at 0" effect on Greyscale.

Anyway, long and short of it: First Player only determines the order of conflicting passives, not all pending passives. "Conflict" means that the outcome of one somehow directly changes the initiation or resolution of the other.

And between two effects that are not in conflict, which of them can I cancel first?

Also, in my above example, I could draw with the Golden Tooth Mine a cancel/save effect from Threat from the North. Ultimately, there must be an order and that in itself is the conflict that the FAQ points out quite clearly.

Back in CCG days, it was not played everywhere as you say. In France at least, people don't play this way. I still think it is pretty straightforward that the guy who wrote this entry meant "conflict =triggered at the same time" AND "always" speaks for itself:

"If two passive effects are triggered at the same
time, the first player always chooses the order
in which these effects are resolved."

Or would he mean that this paragraph does only apply for conflicting effects, whithout even defining what conflicting passive effects mean, when most of the wordings are clearly defined in this game? I don't really buy it.

While I agree with you that passives that are completely independant could resolve simultaneously, I think independant passives cannot exist. First, because there must be an order for cancel effects. And also, what if there was a cancel effect allowing you to draw a card? It would make all the passives conflicting. But the game does not know which cards you have in your hand, and so he must assume the passives are in conflict.

Bolzano said:

Your "what if there was a cancel effect allowing you to draw a card" argument would apply equally to the "what if there was a save effect allowing you to draw a card" situation. In arguing that all passives must have an imposed order because they could have unpredictable results, you are also arguing that all saves must have an imposed order because they could have unpredictable results, too. Be careful that in arguing in one context where things might be fuzzy, you aren't contradicting another context where things are clear.

Bolzano said:

Bolzano said:

ktom said:

I'm not sure why you are giving this example, which seems unrelated to the issue. Valar resolves as a plot "When revealed" effect and all the characters are killed at the same time during its resolution. It's not like there are separate effect killing each character. For each kill, a Save/Cancel opportunity opens.

And the rules for triggering Responses and passives are not related to eachother, so it's obvious that the players can choose the order of the saves.

So, no, I'm not at all saying that the saves should have an imposed order. They should be as defined per the rules, as we all know how to play them. But for passives, the rules says the first player always choose. The only thing is to know what they meant by Conflict.

But I am saying that since passives have unpredicable results, they should be assumed as conflicting by default. It also seems the FAQ entry is written to mean just that.

Honestly, the paragraph about passives doesn't even talk about conflict … :

4) Passive abilities are triggered
Any passive abilities that are triggered as a
result of the action (or a save/cancel response
hereto), are now initiated. As with the action
itself, before a passive ability is executed, all
players have the option to cancel it or to save
a target of the passive ability. If all players
pass on the save/cancel option, the ability
is executed. Remember that if two passive
abilities are triggered at the same time, their
order of resolution is determined by the first
player.

Doesn't it plainly just say that if they are triggered at the same time, the first player should choose?

ktom said:

Nate quoted your saying that two effects were not conflicting and would edit the FAQ to make it clear that passive effect do not necessarily conflict. I should have discussed it here directly but I just wanted to have the combo errated and I had no doubt it worked, so that's why I didn't post here beforehand.

Which basically means the FAQ as it is, do not really match with what you are saying - but it will if its modified - and I'm really not sure it should be modified.

Bolzano said:

The FAQ does say that the first player chooses the order when passive effects are "triggered" at the same time under the heading "Passive Effects Conflict" at one point. So the question seems to be more one of what "conflict" means. In my experience, players have taken "conflict" to mean a conflict of resolution. Obviously, the French experience you are reporting has taken "conflict" to mean a conflict of initiation. I agree that the FAQ could be clearer between these choices and that there is probably even a heavier leaning toward your interpretation.

But that doesn't change the fact that we have been quoting and explaining the first player privilege for years as setting the order when the resolutions conflict.

Bolzano said:

It's the impact of those direct results on the game state that is potentially unpredictable - especially as you start considering new passives, new options (from card draw), etc. that might or might not take place at some point further down the game state. Generally speaking, the answer you got from Nate, and what I have been trying to articulate here, is that "conflict" only gets to look at the direct, predictable results of the passives themselves, not to the extended possible ways the game state might change after the passive resolves.

Whether or not the FAQ "needs" to change is really something we have to leave up to FFG. You've made Nate aware of the concerns. From there, we have to trust him to do the right thing.