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?

This is getting too nitty gritty to leave up to forum discussion. Did anyone rules link this yet?

I don't agree with a player needing a card effect to create the option of paying a cost. The payment of a cost to initiate an effect lies firmly as a game mechanic to me. Kneeling a card to pay a cost is a game mechanic in my mind. The cards effect (i. e. the cancellable portion) did not kneel the card that paid the cost. A game mechanic allowed the card to be knelt to pay the initiation cost.

This is could just as easily be the correct answer, which is I think where this whole argument is stemming from.

Also, I just found out why I hate the lack of official FFG participation on these forums. It's called The Word of Dante. It's a TV trope, but the concept clearly applies here.

Edit: I don't really agree with the Arbor Guardsman intepretation:

Arbor 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)."

You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf - "Any phase: Choose and kneel a non-Noble character. Then, that character claims 1 power."

Your argument is dependent on You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf directly doing the kneeling while I would argue that it is allowing you to do the kneeling via card effect. It is the via card effect that prevents you from kneeling immune to event cards.

Who is choosing the character? You.

Who is kneeling the character? You. This is directly inferred from standard English grammar. It is an imperative sentence. Imperative sentences always tell you what to do.

Edit 2: Your... stupid Egnlish language...

alex AND bone eating crow in one thread? life is good. punch and pie party at my house tonight! everyone not named bone and istaril are invited =D

edit: omg ktom please make this a trifecta and put matt (mdc) in his place too. all this glory in one thread is too much excitement for me. i need to go lay down.

This is getting too nitty gritty to leave up to forum discussion. Did anyone rules link this yet?

I agree. We're going in circles here and the question of whether "...is knelt by a card effect..." includes being knelt to pay a cost or not is better sent for official clarification at this point.

That being said -- and at the risk of giving Dennis an aneurysm --

The payment of a cost to initiate an effect lies firmly as a game mechanic to me. Kneeling a card to pay a cost is a game mechanic in my mind. The cards effect (i. e. the cancellable portion) did not kneel the card that paid the cost. A game mechanic allowed the card to be knelt to pay the initiation cost.

Costs are not a separate game mechanic. They are a part of whatever action/event/ability/mechanic you are initiating and resolving. That's defined in the FAQ, virtually word for word. It is not in question. What is in question is when, and to what extent, "action/event/ability/mechanic" is considered synonymous with the generic term "effect."

How to tell when card text or a rules document is using the generic term "effect" vs. the specific term "effect" (which is another part of whatever action/event/ability/mechanic you are initiating and resolving) is also in question.

Your argument is dependent on You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf directly doing the kneeling while I would argue that it is allowing you to do the kneeling via card effect. It is the via card effect that prevents you from kneeling immune to event cards.

Your interpretation here has been refuted by the "look at what is resolving, not who is choosing the target" argument so many times that I'm not going to go over it again. Instead, I will simply point out that your interpretation of YKtWD is in direct contradiction to the ruling from FFG on Hellholt Engineer - which we know can only respond when a location is knelt to pay a cost by an opponent. But by your interpretation of YKtWD, you should also be able to trigger HE after an opponent plays a "choose and kneel a location" effect such as Storming the Shore.

So, to sum up the thread so far for everyone in an attempt to avoid further circles:

1. Costs do count as part of the action/event/ability/mechanic they pay for. Other parts include the play restrictions, target requirements, and specific results/effects that resolve. It's in the FAQ and it's pointless for anyone to try to convince me otherwise.

2. The community, rules documents, and card text uses the specific term "effect" when referring to the results that resolve in an action/event/ability/mechanic AND the general term "effect" as a synonym for the action/event/ability/mechanic as a whole. When the word "effect" is being used as a specific term or a general term is not always clear - although some instances (specific in cancels, general in the definition of the word "cannot") are clearer than others. We can argue this situations as much as we want, but the applicability of those arguments to different situations is not always going to be 1-to-1. However, we all agree that the world would be a better place if "effect" meant just one thing in this game, not two, but that just isn't the current reality.

3. I freely admit that Dockside Brothel is one of those situations where it is not clear which meaning is being used. I'd argue "general," but can appreciate the validity of the argument for "specific." Sending the question to FFG for official response is probably the best way to clear it up.

i need a cigarette.

Because I am not sure if anyone else will take the initiative to send it in to FFG, I've sent them the following via the Rules Questions link.

Is paying a cost considered a card effect for the purposes of triggering responses and passive effects?

For example, let's say I have Dockside Brothel and the opponent has Tommen Baratheon(either version) in play. The opponent kneels Tommen to trigger his ability. Would Dockside Brothel be able to trigger off of Tommen kneeling to pay for the cost of his own effect?

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

If Dockside Brothel can trigger off of the kneeling of a character to pay a cost for an effect, how can we easily distinguish costs as card effects for the purposes of responses and passive effects that trigger based off of "card effect" as the condition?

I'll report back if and when I receive an answer so we can clear this whole thing up. If they rule the way ktom has interpreted how it might work, it will cause me to rethink how the game identifies such conditions because I think it needs to work consistently one way or the other. I don't really feel like taking the Verbal portion of the SATs just to figure out context sensitivity of card effects and terminology. I'd rather cheat off of the brainiac to my left or right.

Wow. Got an immediate response from Damon Stone:

No, paying a cost is not considered a card effect.

There you go. I was wrong, and the "...by a card effect..." wording on Dockside Brothel should not be interpreted as including cost.

(Of course, now we should make Damon's head explode by asking him about the "...using a card effect..." wording on Arbor Guardsman.)

Sh it

Warning: Damon's ruling makes most of this response moot, but I'm worried I accidentally offended Ktom with my apparent idiocy before so I just wanted to clarify something.

Ktom, I aplogise if I irked you with the initial response. Had no intention of "blowing this out of proportion" or "putting words in your mouth".

That said:

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

No, no it didn't. You said "[the word "effect" can mean] just the resolved results of something (like in "...cancel the effects of a card...") ". Emphasis yours.

I deliberately chose the example of Wildling Wisewoman because it's a rare cancel that says "cancel a card effect" rather than "cancel the effects of a card". Your example for when the word effect would "mean the entire, larger effect/ability (restrictions, cost AND resolved results)" specifically uses the phrase "card effect" rather than "effects of a card".

You do go onto say that the difference "tends to lie in context" as WELL as the wording on the card, and I'll accept that could well be what you meant. I'm just trying to explain why I misinterpreted you originally. I assure you it wasn't an attempt to put words in your mouth, it's just simply how I read what you said the first time round.

I accept this is basically pedantry, but given how vital the precise wording on these cards is (and I seriously wish this stuff was templated simpler and better, but I think we all do so there's no point going on), I thought it was worth clarifying.

"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.""

This makes it a lot clearer than in your intial post, can I just say.

Also, I don't see how anything you say about your examples with the draw cap or, in particular, the "cannot" meaning, are arguments for a cost necessarily being part of a card effect. Helmut helpfully pointed out the part of the FAQ I missed that clarified the word effect can be used to include the cost, but I don't think your examples hold up, I'm sorry to say. Obviously Damon has since outright stated this so this part is less important, but I just wanted to explain my reasoning.

Just because the FAQ doesn't specifically say "cost or effect", I don't see why that would mean a cost is inclusive in the term effect when referring to the text regarding draw or "cannot". At best it's loosely implied, which isn't good enough. In particular, your example here:

">>> 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?"

I don't see why just because the FAQ example would (in this hypothetical example where we're in a world of assuming "effect" always means "resolved effect") not specifically state you cannot kill a CBK character for a cost, that that means you could. You couldn't kill a CBK character for military claim either, but that is not stated in the FAQ, so by your logic since it doesn't specifically say you couldn't kill them for a cost and that therefore you could, you could also kill a CBK character for military claim, something that is known not to be a card effect.

Apologies for how long this is, especially on a topic that's already been Archmaester'd, but the impression my initial post gave off really wasn't sitting well with me so I wanted the chance to explain my reasoning slightly further.

It's not worth going into the long discussion, but I thank you for the sentiment. I was not offended by anyone in this discussion. I was just generally frustrated by the way things had been extended to lengths that I did not see following from the original post.

Just one thing:

You couldn't kill a CBK character for military claim either, but that is not stated in the FAQ, so by your logic since it doesn't specifically say you couldn't kill them for a cost and that therefore you could, you could also kill a CBK character for military claim, something that is known not to be a card effect.

There is specific language in the FAQ stating that CBK characters cannot be chosen for military claim:

"A character that cannot be killed/saved/etc. may not be chosen for that effect."

Note that since this language does not specify "card effect," it encompasses framework events and other game effects, such as military claim. Since military claim chooses people to die, this rule stops CBK characters from being chosen as targets for military claim, the same as it stops them from being chosen as targets for triggered effects that kill.

So, since the FAQ does specifically say you can't target CBK character for military claim, the "by your logic" argument doesn't track.

Did anyone follow up about Arbor Guardsman? I've always played it as "effects other than those requiring kneeling for costs" or Ratatoskr's second meaning above; Ktom has been playing it with the more inclusive "effects which include those kneeling for costs".

Just wondering which sense has wider traction so far "in the real world," in other words, who is playing it which way?

Sh it

F*$(% YOU BUDDY!!!!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

HIGH FIVE, BOMB!!!!

On a side note. Apparently in Hearthstone there is a player that is renowned for how stupidly he played against one of the best players in the world. That player's handle was Dennis. So Dennis is a derogatory term in Hearthstone. Lulz. He did what could arguably considered the equivalent of playing Making an Example on turn 1.

The only reason I don't send questions is 'cause I never get a response. :[

I agree on the Arbor Guardsman question. I don't like my logic as I do want the card to be doing the kneeling, but the verbiage they chose is now stuck on Arbor Guardsman so the inference is obnoxiously relevant. I still think the "you via card effect" logic works. The card is generating an effect that allows you to kneel a card and therefore it is during the resolution of a card effect that the kneeling is occurring and so the immunity applies. It's slightly twisted logic, but it's a good foundation to work from in the future.

@OKTarg - Just about anything Ktom says is generally how it's being played. Again, though. It's Word of Dante and can be unexpectedly overturned at any time. Hell even Damon gets overturned sometimes. There could be another update from Nate next week if this goes against something that disrupts the core of the game and Ktom could very well be proven right. We never know.

Edit: I don't know where I went on that Arbor Guardsman part. I'm gonna start over.

So going by my "during the resolution of an effect logic", because you do the kneeling during the effect resolution You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf would trigger Arbor Guardsman, but kneeling to pay a cost wouldn't. I'm just spit-balling that, so we need that clarification for sure from FFG.

So going by my "during the resolution of an effect logic", because you do the kneeling during the effect resolution You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf would trigger Arbor Guardsman, but kneeling to pay a cost wouldn't. I'm just spit-balling that, so we need that clarification for sure from FFG.

This interpretation of You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf, i.e., that you do the kneeling during the effect resolution, is still incorrect as known and verified by the Hellholt Engineer ruling -- which says the player (or "you") does not do the kneeling during effect resolution.

I'll check with FFG about Arbor Guardsman.

Arbor Guardsman:

According to Nate, the intention was "after a character is knelt by a card effect that is controlled or initiated by you." That said, he sees how the current wording is similar enough to Hellholt Engineer that it invokes a "knelt as cost" interpretation. He will include a clarification/rewording for the card in the next FAQ.

Good to see sanity win.

Awesome. Much appreciated, Ktom!

Edit: #FFGOfficialResponse #ArborGuardsman