What happens if you trigger Val when you have already reached your draw cap?

Two thoughts to go along with the question:

(1) It should be legal to trigger Val because the draw cap only prevents you from drawing cards and not from initiating effects that allow you to draw cards. (e.g. Valyrian Steel Link, Parting Blow can still be triggered)

(2) The interesting part is whether you have to discard the revealed (and not drawn) card from the top of your deck or not.

Any ideas?

You reveal the card, cannot draw it. As written, you would discard it from the top of your deck, but if the intention is "otherwise, discard it (from your hand)" (I could see this being argued), you would not.

My thoughts exactly. However, I stopped minding intentions a long time ago.

FFG has ruled that Val's "reveal and draw" are a singular effect. You cannot trigger Val's ability if you are at draw cap.

Much appreciated.

FFG has ruled that Val's "reveal and draw" are a singular effect. You cannot trigger Val's ability if you are at draw cap.

To clarify, you mean you can trigger Val, but it will have absolutely no effect if it resolves?

Are you sure? It sounds like this means you can't trigger Val at all.

I'm not sure - hence the question mark. I was fairly certain you could trigger an effect that won't resolve succesfully (regardless of the reason), unless it chose a target or you couldn't pay the cost.

Well, per this thread at CGDB where Bomb asked FFG, Damon specifically says "may not trigger Val" so I'm assuming you just can't trigger, but I see your point.

Here's the post pasted from there for convenience...


Bomb, on 02 May 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I just submitted the following Rules Question to FFG just because I need to have the answer :

Good afternoon,

Val's ability(not that I need to quote it, but just to help):

"Any Phase: Reveal and draw the top card of your deck. Play that card as your next response or action, if able. Otherwise, discard it."

Are "reveal" and "draw" independent effects or is "reveal and draw" the same independent effect? So, if I am currently draw capped and I have Val in play, can I trigger her ability only to "reveal" and subsequently discard the revealed card since I can't draw it? Is this a way to add to my discard pile any time I want?

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.

I've just received this answer from Damon which confirms what I suspected would be the reason it couldn't be done.

Damon's Answer:
Reveal and draw is a single effect. If you have reached your draw cap, you may not trigger Val.

At least now my conscience is clear of finding some weird complete and udder deck milling possibility.

Well, there's a new card that cancels the next 3 effects triggered - if Val could trigger to no effect, that'd be a pretty effective counter.

Hence I opened this thread.

(1) It should be legal to trigger Val because the draw cap only prevents you from drawing cards and not from initiating effects that allow you to draw cards. (e.g. Valyrian Steel Link, Parting Blow can still be triggered)

I think this is the statement/misconception that is causing the confusion.

The draw cap acts as a play restriction that must be considered at both initiation and resolution, so you actually cannot trigger a draw effect when you have already reached your draw cap. Most people seem to focus on the application at resolution because of the "if you've drawn 2 cards already this round, you can trigger a 'draw 3' effect and the cap will stop you from getting the second and third cards" example - forgetting that the cap is checked at initiation, too.

This concept isn't all that strange. It's like having to consider the restrictions "cannot be killed" creates both at resolution (where the character simply doesn't die when the effect resolves) and initiation (where the character cannot be targeted to die, and indeed is never in danger of being killed - preventing to possibility of triggering useful, but unnecessary, save effects).

Therefore:

1. If you have already met your draw cap, you cannot trigger a "draw a card" effect because you cannot draw more cards that round. (Which means, btw, that if you know someone who has been triggering Valyrian Steel Link after they have met their draw cap in order to spark off all of the other Response links, they have been playing wrong.)

2. If you have 1 left before meeting your draw cap, the "you can't draw any more cards" restriction passes at the initiation of "draw 2 cards," but it fails at the resolution of drawing card #2.

3. And, as always, if the draw is part of a multiple effect, the draw cap cannot prevent you from triggering the effect for the non-draw part of it.

When Damon says "reveal and draw are a single effect," he is confirming that #3 isn't a factor, saying that you cannot trigger Val's effect for the "reveal" alone once you have reached your draw cap.

All a very long way of saying that once you have reached your draw cap, you really cannot innate Val's ability.

Okay, now I am confused.

You responded to Uncle Joker's question

"Can I kneel a maester with Valyrian Steel Link to draw [...] but I already reached my draw cap?"

with

"[...] the draw cap stops you from drawing more than the total of three extra cards at resolution, not at initiation. So you are allowed to trigger draw effects [...] if you have already reached the draw cap."

(link here )

but now you are explaining that

"The draw cap acts as a play restriction that must be considered at both initiation and resolution, so you actually cannot trigger a draw effect when you have already reached your draw cap.".

What has changed since then? Is there an official ruling by Nate or Damon I am missing?

Damon's ruling on Val above, indicating that reaching draw cap stops you from initiating draw effects, trumps anything I said a year ago.

Phew, I am relieved.

So are we saying that if an effect said, "Draw a card and stand all characters in play", that you wouldn't be able to play it if you were at the draw cap? That doesn't sound right to me.

Makes sense to me. Just to be sure, let me try that out loud... "If you are at draw cap, you cannot initiate an effect that would cause you to draw a card." Yep... even out loud it sounds right to me. ;-)

So are we saying that if an effect said, "Draw a card and stand all characters in play", that you wouldn't be able to play it if you were at the draw cap? That doesn't sound right to me.

Check out my post again, particularly where I said:

"3. And, as always, if the draw is part of a multiple effect , the draw cap cannot prevent you from triggering the effect for the non-draw part of it."

"Draw a card and stand all characters in play" is a multiple effect, so the draw cap doesn't stop you from triggering it for the stand part.

Multiple effects isn't really defined in the rules or FAQ that I can see, so I'm going to go with the official phrasing "additional effects" that I was able to find. If you see "multiple effects" properly defined, let me know so I can read it. Also, why is "Draw a card and stand all characters in play" considered multiple effects? It doesn't follow the logic on page 14 of the FAQ which states that "Separate effects will always be separated in a different paragraph." This is clearly not the case for the card I hypothesized. Unfortunately, that page is explicit to Events, so it's not really broadly applicable (the same phrasing is used for character effects, though).

This also supports that Val's ability is a single effect (not additional effects) and all aspects would be nullified at failure to initiate as such.

I don't even want to get into this, but page 14 also says, "Treat each separate effect as its own card." This would seem to imply that it would even get it's own save/cancel window as it says to treat each separate effect as it's own card. Unrelated, but unsettling to me.

Also, why is "Draw a card and stand all characters in play" considered multiple effects?

You can't possibly be serious. It does MULTIPLE THINGS. It's considered "a multiple effect", not "multiple effects". Don't pluralize something to change its meaning just so you can then be obtuse about it.

Also, if we're being obtuse, "multiple effects" (which is a thing that you just made up by misquoting ktom), aren't the same thing as "separate effects" in the language of the FAQ.

WTB ignore button.

This also supports that Val's ability is a single effect (not additional effects) and all aspects would be nullified at failure to initiate as such.

I see what you're getting at there. I'll admit I didn't understand it when I initially read your hypothetical card. If it were real, I'd suggest sending it to FFG directly, but I would argue that they are still "separate," despite not being in separate sentences, because there are two different verbs ("draw" and "stand") that are independently acting upon completely different objects (the top card of your deck and all characters in play). This is very different from Val where, despite there being two different verbs ("reveal" and "draw"), they are acting on the exact same object (the top card of your deck) in such a way that, while technically independent, forms a single "motion," if you will. Kind of a "draw so that everyone can see what you drew."

There is just no way of reading "draw a card and kneel every character in play" as a "single" effect because the two things the statement does are so dissimilar. It might need errata to correct it (I'd be shocked to see a card worked this way instead of "Draw a card. Kneel every character in play," really), though, which is why if it were real, I'd say to send it directly to FFG.

I don't even want to get into this, but page 14 also says, "Treat each separate effect as its own card." This would seem to imply that it would even get it's own save/cancel window as it says to treat each separate effect as it's own card. Unrelated, but unsettling to me.

OK, we won't get into it, but you are unsettling yourself. "Treat each separate effect as its own card" is illustrative. The only way that this implies that each would get its own save/cancel step is if you considered them to be triggered separately. Obviously, despite the separate effects, there is a single trigger - a single point of initiation. They initiate at the same time - so there is only one save/cancel step available, but they resolve separately (as if each were on its own card). I think you might be jumping at shadows with this one.

Wait, that passage about separate effects is about multiple blocks of text, each with its own triggers. In other words, this is about cards like The Weasel's Way. Here's the complete paragraph (Additional Notes under Events, repeated under Character abilities).

Some event cards may have two or more completely separate effects, each with its own play restrictions, cost, or targets. Separate effects will always be separated in a different paragraph. Treat each separate effect as its own card. Unless the event card specifically says otherwise, one effect has no impact upon the other.

Sorry. I thought he was referring to the entry on the word "then," which used to use wording similar to that at some point in the history of the document.

Yes, "completely separate effects" that have their own "play restrictions, cost, or targets" indicates that the entry is referring to two separate initiations and two separate actions to trigger them. So yes, there would be separate opportunities for save/cancel because there are separate initiations.

The important thing, though, is that the hypothetical "draw a card and kneel all characters in play" is not an example of this because there is a single initiation of a single card effect that does more than one thing when it resolves. That doesn't change the fact that, because it does more than one thing when it resolves, most people would call this a single ability with multiple effects. Don't get confused by the fact that the word "effect" can mean "the text on a card that tells you what that card does" or "thing that happens during the resolution step(s) of an action window."

I was pointing out the big flaw in Mdc's argument: applying an out-of-context quotation to a case it doesn't apply to. The passage that applies here is 4.9:

(4.9) The word "then"

If a card has multiple effects, all effects on the card are resolved, if possible, independently of whether any other effects of the card are successful, with the following important exception:
If a card uses the word "then," then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to be resolved.

I am not aware of a passage about whether a multiple effect can be triggered if one of them is under a non-targeted (a targeted one would make it illegal for sure) "cannot" prohibition (this one is about resolution). A related question might be "is it legal to play Westeros Bleeds if all characters in play are either immune to events or 'cannot be discarded'?"

@Ktom - Hmmm... I like the interpretation that because it acts on a single subject that it's a single effect. Is that codified anywhere in the rules? My main point of contention is that playing convention effectively divides effects up by periods when the rules divide effects up by paragraph and they just don't jive. Here's the full text from page 14:

"Additional Notes
Some event cards may have two or more completely separate effects, each with its own play restrictions, cost, or targets. Separate effects will always be separated in a different paragraph. Treat each separate effect as its own card. Unless the event card specifically says otherwise, one effect has no impact upon the other."

Emphasis mine. Technically this is in direct conflict with periods denoting separate effects due to the use of the word "always."

Again, this has nothing to do with playing convention and everything to do with properly outlining the argument and means by which to fix the text within the rules to match playing convention (as do most of my posts).

@Khudzlin - Why does 4.9 apply here? Val doesn't have the word "then" in the text and neither does my hypothetical effect. Did I miss a "then" effect somewhere?