There has been some discussion in agotcards.org about this new spoiled plot:

If I reveal a plot with a "when revealed" effect using this plot, do I resolve that effect immediately or does it become part of the "order chosen by the first player" with any remaining plot "when revealed" effects that haven't been resolved yet?

There have been a few different opinions so I'd like to see what people(ktom, yay!) think.

If interested in the arguments of any side in the discussion, go here .

It's a "when revealed," so, if there are other "when revealed" plots, it triggers in the order determined by the first player.

So, if all other "when revealed" plots have been resolved before Betrayal, then the new plot would resolve immediately. If not, then others could be resolved first.

The way that it is usually played is that passives "activated" by the resolution of another passive are "added in" to the line of other passives waiting to resolve rather than being resolved as PART of the resolution of the original passive.

For example, Lyanna Stark has the text "After Lyanna Stark is killed, stand all Lord characters in play." If she is killed by Valar or some other plot, the Lord characters typically would not stand until after all other "when revealed" plots have been resolved - indicating that her passive was lumped into all the other pending passives in that current "Step 4" of the action window. Following this "traditional" timing interpretation, if the player revealing Betrayal at the Wall revealed a "when revealed" plot when his own plot was resolved, that "when revealed" plot would be lumped in with all the other pending passives (although, as a "when revealed" plot effect, it would need to go before any pending non-plot passive), effectively allowing the First Player to choose where in the order of other unresolved "when revealed" plots the new plot would be resolved.

This is NOT what would happen following a strict reading of the timing chart, but it is the actual, current practice.

The way that it is usually played is that passives "activated" by the resolution of another passive are "added in" to the line of other passives waiting to resolve rather than being resolved as PART of the resolution of the original passive.

For example, Lyanna Stark has the text "After Lyanna Stark is killed, stand all Lord characters in play." If she is killed by Valar or some other plot, the Lord characters typically would not stand until after all other "when revealed" plots have been resolved - indicating that her passive was lumped into all the other pending passives in that current "Step 4" of the action window. Following this "traditional" timing interpretation, if the player revealing Betrayal at the Wall revealed a "when revealed" plot when his own plot was resolved, that "when revealed" plot would be lumped in with all the other pending passives (although, as a "when revealed" plot effect, it would need to go before any pending non-plot passive), effectively allowing the First Player to choose where in the order of other unresolved "when revealed" plots the new plot would be resolved.

This is NOT what would happen following a strict reading of the timing chart, but it is the actual, current practice.

That was my interpretation as well. It doesn't really help that the timing charts have been updated to include When Revealed (and shadows) to the framework actions, in direct contradiction to the timing rules specified in their respective rules.

The question for me then becomes: are there any examples of something triggered in 4.IV (passives responding to passives) and not in 4?

If Lyanna killed by deadly in step 4.III, would Lyanna's stand take place in 4.IV, or, since it's not responding to the activation or triggering of Deadly but rather of a character dying, would it activate in Step 4. Or, put another way, is the plot revealed by Betrayal *technically* (if not by convention) initiating because it was revealed (therefore as part of 4), or initiating because of the the passive "When Revealed" of Betrayal (in 4.IV).

If Lyanna killed by deadly in step 4.III, would Lyanna's stand take place in 4.IV, or, since it's not responding to the activation or triggering of Deadly but rather of a character dying, would it activate in Step 4.

And that's the reason no one is entirely sure - because the stand so rarely conflicts with anything, the difference between the stand resolving in deadly's Step 4.IV and its own Steps 4.I-III is purely academic 98% of the time.

Traditional play and interpretation - regardless of what the timing chart might imply - is that if Lyanna is killed for deadly, her stand ability would be in its own Step 4.I-III, not in a Step 4.IV for deadly. This is basically because if it DID resolve in the Step 4.IV for deadly, it would effectively require a Step 4.IV.i - Step 4.IV.iv, which could in turn require a Step 4.IV.iv.1 - Step 4.IV.iv.4, and so on - and that gets too confusing, too quickly. You end up creating a "LIFO" stack of passive effects, and we know that't not how the game works.

Thanks for the replies everyone. The timing is important because of effects like Valar that might be waiting to be triggered.

Welcome back to the forums ktom!

Did you notice that they have removed some of the AGoT avatars but they kept ktoms?

Yeah, welcome back! I was surprised to see his name beside a post and had to double check the date of the post despite the topic being fresh, lol. I never noticed the removal of avatars as mine wasn't removed.

Yeah, welcome back! I was surprised to see his name beside a post and had to double check the date of the post despite the topic being fresh, lol. I never noticed the removal of avatars as mine wasn't removed.

Mine was removed, but I found one more akin to the way I had looked on the day I found it. Since then I got a haircut and shaved my beard. Now I'm too lazy to change it.

Yeah, that's why I chose mine too, I was totally looking like a dragon when I picked it, lol

welcome back,ktom!

I agree with Ktom. He's effectively presenting Magic's stack concept, which is really what the whole passive thing is anyway. AGoT has a stack of passive effects awaiting resolution that the first player decides. The new plot being revealed results in a new passive being added to the stack (as there is no other place it can go) and becoming a valid option for the first player to choose as the next effect from the stack to resolve.

There's an issue with the new FAQ that I'm concerned about, though. It explicitly says "conflicting passives." Conflicting passives are technically things like Flame-Kissed and Threat from the North killing a character at the same time. I really think this new phrasing of the first player only choosing how to resolve "conflicting passives" could lead to some playing as if passives are a FIFO stack, which they are not by current playing convention.

I don't think there's a problem. The "conflicting passives" phrasing is really a formalization of what people already do - at least unconsciously.

When multiple passives have nothing to do with each other, people just start doing them naturally. For example, if it is winter and you control Golden Tooth Mines and I control Red Warlock, when we reveal plots, chances are, we are not waiting around to see whether the First Player wants you to draw before I kneel, or whether he wants me to kneel before you draw. We just do it because, you know, who cares? It is only when resolving one effect changes the way another effect might resolve that people start looking for the First Player's input. Dueling Kings of Winter agendas when one player has exactly 1 more card in hand than the other is a prime example.

Effectively, we have always been playing the way the new phrasing describes. I think FFG just updated the phrasing to be clear about why one particular combo I can think of doesn't work.