Following on from finding out that you cannot cancel a cost ....

Can you treat costs as effects?

An example is

Player A has Tommen

Marshalling: Kneel Tommen Baratheon to draw a card.

Player B has Dockside Brothel

After an opponent's character is knelt by a card effect, kneel Dockside Brothel to have a unique [Lannister] character claim 1 power.

So if Player A kneels Tommen - to pay a cost - can Player B trigger Dockside Brothel

My group is saying that paying a cost can still be a card effect ... whereas I am sceptical and think a cost is cost and should not meet the brothels criteria

There have been several other instances of this but this is the first example that comes to mind - I am more concerned where a player is paying the cost and also getting the secondary benefit

Your group has it right, the response is to an opponents character being knelt, this condition is met and the dockside brothel can respond.

Cards like hellhot docks would not be so amazing if it were not the case.

In more detail:

Costs are not treated as separate effects in their own right, but the are treated as PART of the larger effect/ability they pay for. It can get a little confusing because the word "effect" can mean the entire, larger effect/ability (restrictions, cost AND resolved results -- like in "...is knelt by a card effect..."), or just the resolved results of something (like in "...cancel the effects of a card..."). The difference tends to lie in context and construction - like "effect just triggered" only refering to triggered effects, even though the initiation of a passive effect could be said to represent an effect "just triggered," depending on which meaning of "triggered" you take.

"By an effect" has traditionally been interpreted to use the "entire, larger" meaning (restrictions, costs AND resolved results) of the word "effect."

Compare this to something like Hellholt Engineer, which is only usable when a location is knelt "by a player" - which is limited to cost.

Hold on a second. Paying a cost by kneeling a card is not the same thing as it being knelt by a card effect. Otherwise kneeling influence to pay costs would be considered kneeling it by a card effect for the same purposes. And I'm pretty sure it's been argued in the past that kneeling influence is not a card effect in it's own right.

Dockside Brothel cannot respond to Tommen Baratheon being knelt to pay the cost for his own card effect because the player is doing the kneeling, not the card effect itself.

You say that paying a cost is not a card effect, but then say it counts as a card effect for the purposes of triggering responses. That is just incredibly inconsistent.

Does this mean that Motley Crewman will discard additional cards when Iron Fleet Raider's cost is triggered by an opponent?

I agree that if Dockside Brothel said "After an opponent's character is knelt..." then Tommen kneeling to pay for the cost of his own effect would count as something you can trigger off of, but not with the way Dockside Brothel is currently worded.

"By an effect" has traditionally been interpreted to use the "entire, larger" meaning (restrictions, costs AND resolved results) of the word "effect."

Since when has that been the case? I've only ever heard card effect refer to the resolved results. By that logic, if someone discards Dornish Paramour to draw 2 cards and the opponent kneels Wildling Wisewoman to cancel it ("Response: Kneel Wildling Wisewoman to cancel 1 card effect that would allow an opponent to draw 1 or more cards"), the Dornish Paramour would no longer be discarded. Maybe it's just such a fringe example that it's never come up, but that just sounds inherently wrong to me.

Another example: Castle Battlements gives the attached location immunity to all other non-plot card effects. So does that mean you could no longer kneel that location to pay a cost it's not affiliated with? For example, kneel it for influence for an event, or perhaps if it was a Kingdom location kneel it for Heart of the Kingdoms effect?

Furthermore, nowhere in the FAQ does it say that costs are part of a card effect, from what I can tell. If I'm missing the passage please point it out to me, but it just sounds wrong!

Gonna have to support JC and Adam on this one, I have never seen any reason for "Costs" to be included in card effects.

Costs are what the player paid in order to (trigger/resolve) the effect. X to do Y, X is the cost, Y is the effect.

do you see what happens ktom? do you see what happens when you teach these impudent whelps the rules too good! now we have all these little 'experts' running around contradicting you in front of the children. SMITE THEM!

I've only ever heard card effect refer to the resolved results.

It's not that simple. That double meaning of the word "effect" that ktom talks about does exist. You can see it for example on page 10 of the FAQ:

(3.6) Triggered Effects

Any effect that a player chooses to execute is

considered a "triggered effect." Thus any effect

that begins with a "Phase:" or "Response:"

is a triggered effect. Also note that playing

an event card is thus considered a triggered

effect. A "triggered ability" is a triggered effect

printed on a card already in play.

We see that "triggered ability" is a specific subcategory of "triggered effect". All triggered abilities are triggered effects, but not vice versa. The Response on Khal Drogo is a triggered effect, but not a triggered ability. The Response on Castellan of the Rock is both a triggered effect and a triggered ability.

It is clear from page 15 of the FAQ, where the elements of a character ability are defined, that costs, targets, play restrictions and effects are all elements of an "ability". Ergo, they are all elements of a "triggered effect" in the sense of FAQ §3.6. Ergo, the FAQ does use the word "effect" in two ways, just as ktom said above:

1) denoting the totality of a "card effect", including costs, targets, play restrictions and effects AND

2) denoting only the effect part of the "card effect", as opposed to costs, targets and play restrictions

Now, the question is whether "card effect" is ever used in the sense of #1 above on cards. We know that "cancel a card effect" only extends to the "effect" portion of the "card effect" (when you cancel, costs stay paid and targets stay chosen).

We also know that "immune to card effects" does not extend to costs. But immunity *does* extend to choosing targets (a card that is immune to card effects cannot be chosen as a target of a card effect). That alone is proof enough that "card effect" *can* refer to more than just the "effect" part.

The question remains whether play restrictions that refer to card effects, like Dockside Brothel, Arbour Guardsman, Company of the Cat, Killer of the Wounded etc., use the wider or the narrower meaning of the word "effect". I can see it going both ways, but when ktom says that it has historically been used in the wider sense in these cases, I'll believe him. He tends to know these things.

Besides the fact that I disagree with the loose interpretation, this opens card interpretation doors that I think are not good for the game. One of the stigmas this game has are complex, convoluted rules that require an Asian or magic robot to interpret them all. If this ends up being how the game rules work, it forces me to question every card that references a card effect in the game and how they should be ruled at an official tournament.

We can't have inconsistent definitions of game terms like this where some are ruled one way and others ruled another. It's an atrocity for the game and I'm kind of getting tired of it. I can appreciate rule applications from the CCG days, but even after reviewing the FAQ multiple times, they have outlined what is to me a clear definition of "effect" and a clear definition of a "cost".

QQ?

see everybody? Even my bestest of friends are not above a little troll post here and there =D

I'll support JC, Adam, Istaril and Bomb: ruling that what happens to cards because of a cost counts as happening by the effect the cost is paying for will create so many problems we have to shut that door firmly right now.

Having reread my initial comments (more accurately rereading dockside brothel and the need for an effect) i also agree that dockside cant trigger, my mistake.

I was reading it in line with inn of the kneeling man which only stipulates a character being knelt (with str2 or lower and in summer/winter).

I'll go and quietly sit in a dark corner.

I am so excited for darth ktom to come back and force choke all of you padawans.

Does this mean that Motley Crewman will discard additional cards when Iron Fleet Raider's cost is triggered by an opponent?

The rest in me (I can't see to get the quote to appear seperately):

Any Phase: Discard the top card of your deck to give Iron Fleed Raiders -2 STR until the end of the phase. Only opponents can trigger this effect.

Any effect that discards 1 or more cards from an opponent's deck discards an additional card

Well I hope so ...maybe I am biased due to playing a Greyjoy milling deck a lot, but I was not think of this as a cost and basically assumed if anyone discards a card from the top of their deck then Moyley Crewman adds 1 to the discard count

i.e I would expect Motley Crewman to cause an extra card to be discarded for Asshai Initiate ... but the discard is definately a cost

Any Phase: Discard the top 2 cards of your deck to choose 1 character in any dead pile. Move that character to its owner's discard pile. (Limit once per round.)

I would also expect to collect power on Corpse Lake if a character was discarded in the above

So it looks like I am contradicting my own question ... the Brothel wasn't really the example I wanted to use but couldn't think of actual game situations where this cost thing has bugged me .. which was players getting addiitional benefit from paying costs (for their own actions)

And this is going to be long, so most people aren't going to read this any more carefully than they read the last one....

First, let me say thank-you to Rat for pointing out that where the FAQ points out that costs are part of a card's ability -- and therefore part of the card's "effect" given how loose the entire community is by using "ability" and "effect" interchangeably in many situations. You know you do, so don't even try. You mean multiple things based on context when you say "trigger," "claim" and "target," too, so don't try to tell me you have always used "ability" and "effect" as clearly defined, different terms.

Next, let me say that you have blown this out of proportion and put words in my mouth. What I said was that the phrase "...by an effect..." (see the quotation marks?) has traditionally been interpreted to encompass the "all parts of the ability" meaning of "effect." That does not necessary carry over to "...any effect that..." (Motley Crewman). Context is everything here. It's the word "by" that is important. When you are past the resolution step and looking back to see what happened, you are usually looking at the entire sequence of events - costs and resolved effects. But when you are looking forward because you haven't gotten to the resolution step yet and are therefore working out aspects of initiation and resolution, you are usually looking at the limited meaning where "effect" means "resolved effect."

Oh, and can I say that when I say "The word can have Meaning #1 or Meaning #2, depending on context," does the argument that "It can never have Meaning #1 because here are some contexts where it has Meaning #2" really make sense?

>> Dornish Paramour/Wildling Wisewoman: Didn't my original post cite cancels as a time when "...a card effect..." did not include costs?

>> Castle Battlements and Immunity "to costs": Let's not forget that the FAQ specifically defines using the immune card to pay costs as being outside the scope of immunity (3.18). Interestingly enough, that part of the immunity entry was included because - when immunity was first introduced - people assumed that immune cards could not pay the cost of the things they were immune to (or be included in play restrictions for that matter).

Now let's look at the counter examples:

>>> The FAQ says that "No player may draw more than three additional cards per round, regardless of card effects." (The Draw Cap, p. 9). So, since the word "effect" always means "resolved effect," if FFG ever made card that said "Draw a card to..." (i.e. used draw as a cost), using it would NOT count toward the draw cap. (Obviously, my argument is that the word "effect" has the larger, inclusive meaning here and that drawing as cost would still count against the draw cap.)

NOTE: "But FFG has never made a card that uses draw as a cost" is not a valid argument against this point. But if you need a more concrete example....

>>> FAQ 4.3 (p. 13) says that "If an effect has the word 'cannot' in its description, then it is an absolute: That effect may not be overridden by other effects." So, again, since the word "effect" always means "resolved effect," costs CAN override the word "cannot" and you can kill CBK characters or discard CBD cards when paying a cost? Or a Lanni character hit by Black Cells (so it "cannot" kneel or stand) can still be knelt to pay the cost of something like ALPHD? THAT'S how you have always played until just this moment when I pointed it out to you? (Again, I obviously argue that the word "effect" takes on the larger, inclusive meaning here and that a card that "cannot X" is not allowed to be used to do X when paying a cost.)

Anyway, long story short, "effect" can have two separate meanings, one of which encompasses the other (just to make it more confusing). That can be seen clearly from a reading of the rules/FAQ.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may be using the wrong meaning when looking specifically at Dockside Brothel. Seems to me, the "by a card effect" is there to differentiate the kneeling from being knelt as an attacker or defender, not to differentiate between between kneeling for initiation and resolution. But I could be wrong.

BOOM GOES THE KTYNAMITE!!!

But did you actually read it Dennis? Color me skeptical.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may be using the wrong meaning when looking specifically at Dockside Brothel. Seems to me, the "by a card effect" is there to differentiate the kneeling from being knelt as an attacker or defender, not to differentiate between between kneeling for initiation and resolution. But I could be wrong.

I'd like to point out that I actually do share the misgivings of the unruly padawans up to a point. The FAQ playing it fast and loose with game terms is one thing, it is notoriously imprecise with terminology anyway (triggered passives anyone?). Card text should be held to a higher standard IMO (not that it always is, regrettably). If excluding costs from interacting with Dockside Brothel and its ilk is the price for moving toward a more consistent use of the term "effect" on card text, I'm all for it.

But did you actually read it Dennis? Color me skeptical.

I read it all, I swear.

And I agree with Ratatoskr in that there are two meanings of effect - where I draw the line, as it were, is that I think all references to "effect" printed on cards only refer to the narrower definition (Ratatoskr's definition 2); what happens after the cost.

While the FAQ and rules documents can use the word Effect to mean the entirety (every result of a triggered or initiated effect (sensu lato) or the effect (sensu stricto)), I don't think there's a case where any card does.

ktom -

Just so you know, I was not directing any frustration toward you, so if that is the impression I had given you, I apologize. We appreciate members of the community like you that take the time to explain the rules and interpretations of these rules and it helps everyone understand the game better.

That being said, I understand that the FAQ has terminology thrown around loosely all over the place, however there are also places that terminology is specifically defined.

I do not wish to write up a long post, but do you agree that a cost is paid and initiated by a player and not specifically "by a card effect"? "by a player" is identified specifically on a card effect(Hellholt Engineer was mentioned earlier). Should "by a player" include "by a card effect"?

And I agree with Ratatoskr in that there are two meanings of effect - where I draw the line, as it were, is that I think all references to "effect" printed on cards only refer to the narrower definition (Ratatoskr's definition 2); what happens after the cost.

But did you actually read it Dennis? Color me skeptical.

fu ck yes I did. If there is any chance that a post will prove bone wrong I will read every word just to make sure he eats crow (get it? Subtle NW reference?). Mwahahahahahahahha! #backedtherighthorse

Well, that sounds reasonable, and I could certainly get behind it. We do that with "triggered" and "choose," after all. But before I could fully endorse it, I'd want to check to see if there are any existing exceptions. Case in point:

I do not wish to write up a long post, but do you agree that a cost is paid and initiated by a player and not specifically "by a card effect"? "by a player" is identified specifically on a card effect (Hellholt Engineer was mentioned earlier). Should "by a player" include "by a card effect"?

We do know from Hellholt Engineer that a cost is initiated "by a player," although the resolving effects are not considered to be accomplished directly by that player. That does not mean, however, that the cost is solely initiated by the player. The player needs some sort of card "effect" in order to create the option of paying that cost in the first place, doesn't he? Said another way, a player uses a card effect when paying a cost. Wouldn't that mean that when the cost is paid "by a player," it is also paid "by (the) card effect" that player used as a tool?

AND we have a card that uses this language to prove the point!

Arbour Guardsman: "Response: After **YOU** kneel a standing character using a card effect, add 2 gold to your gold pool from the treasury. (Limit once per round)." (emphasis added, of course)

Now, the fact that it is "...after YOU kneel..." should limit the Response to working after a character is knelt for cost -- the same way that Hellholt Engineer does, right? It's clearly referencing a player doing the kneeling. And the "using a card effect" language distinguishes the "kneel for cost" restriction to the cost of card effects/abilities, leaving out things like attacking, defending, and Naval.

So it's pretty clear from the language on Arbour Guardsman that when a player kneels for cost, a "card effect" is involved. And sad to say, -Istaril, it is also an example of the word "effect" appearing in card text that encompasses the broader meaning of "effect" (i.e., includes initiation with the resolution in the definition).

But did you actually read it Dennis? Color me skeptical.

fu ck yes I did. If there is any chance that a post will prove bone wrong I will read every word just to make sure he eats crow (get it? Subtle NW reference?). Mwahahahahahahahha! #backedtherighthorse

Just checking. Because the post was above the 2-line limit and didn't include a **** joke - you know, as discussed on agotcards recently.