Quick question re this ...

My current plot card is Uneasy Truce

In order to initiate a Military challenge, an attacker must give the defender 2 gold tokens from his or her gold pool.

Playing a melee game with two other players - A and B

B has the redirect title

Player A initiates a military challenge against player B and pays him 2 gold

Player B redirects the challenge

Player A then attacks me - taking the 2 gold back off player B and giving it to me

Is that correct?

I was hoping for the alternative as per:

Once the challenge has been redirected, my argument would be that if player A wants to attack me he has to give me 2 gold and at that point he does not have any gold ... so I am not a legitimate target and therefore the challege has revert to being against player B

Why does Player A get his 2 gold back from Player B?

Why does Player A get his 2 gold back from Player B?

Who told you he does?

When you get to the point of redirecting, you are past the point of initiating the challenge. You are not initiating the challenge again. Therefore, you are past the point where the attacking player pays the gold - a prerequisite for initiating the challenge. You don't get to "un-pay" at this point, nor do you have a chance to pay someone else.

Since there is no other defender you paid 2 gold to, there is no other legal choice for defender - and there must be one if you want to redirect.

"Who told you he does" .... my two opponents who wanted to attack me!!!

So my assumption was sort of correct - there is only one player who has been paid the gold, so that is the only player who can be attacked?

If that player redirects, the fact that there are no other legitimate targets means the redirect is wasted ... I beleive the player is entitled to waste their redirect if they really want

Oh wow. So this means that during this plot you simply cannot redirect [a Military challenge] as there are no other legal targets?

If that player redirects, the fact that there are no other legitimate targets means the redirect is wasted ... I beleive the player is entitled to waste their redirect if they really want

No. If there are no other legitimate defenders, there is no redirect at all. It can't be used. If it can't be used, it can't be "wasted."

Oh wow. So this means that during this plot you simply cannot redirect [a Military challenge] as there are no other legal targets?

Yep. Just like the "Mutual" plots in a 3-player game.

Errr, what?

The redirect happens after initiation. So the attacker initiates the challenge and pays 2 gold. The challenge is now happening and the redirect doesn't force a new initiation to happen, so they should be able to be redirected without paying gold. The plot doesn't prevent a challenge from resolving unless gold has been paid. It just affects the initiation, which should be over when the redirect happens.

Why can't the redirect occur?

Why can't the redirect occur?

Because the plot says that you must give the 2 gold to the defender . Therefore, only the opponent who received the 2 gold is a legal defender for that challenge. You don't get to ignore that restriction once the challenge is initiated and the original defender is named - just like you cannot ignore Title restrictions or card effects like King Robert's Host and ToTrials-Catelyn. Since there are no other legal defenders, you cannot use the redirect.

Re not being allowed to waste the redirect ... as Ktom emphasised .... I believe you Ktom and am not trying to dispute that fact

Bit of an odd one as the comments in the original rule book are misleading / open to interperation

The text starts by commenting that the redirect can only be used once, then comments about the challenge reverting against the original defender if there are no other legitimate targets

This inferred to me that the redirect has been used and wasted ... it does say the redirect is cancelled

Why can't the redirect occur?

Because the plot says that you must give the 2 gold to the defender . Therefore, only the opponent who received the 2 gold is a legal defender for that challenge. You don't get to ignore that restriction once the challenge is initiated and the original defender is named - just like you cannot ignore Title restrictions or card effects like King Robert's Host and ToTrials-Catelyn. Since there are no other legal defenders, you cannot use the redirect.

I'm still not understanding. What's the timing breakdown? I'm assuming the 2 gold is part of the initiation.

For reference:

"After a player initiates a challenge and declares a target and attackers, you may use this title to make that player choose a new target for the attack! That player must choose a legal target. If there are no other legal targets, the attack goes through against the original target."

"In order to initiate a Military challenge, an attacker must give the defender 2 gold tokens from his or her gold pool."

So it seems to me like it's either:

1) Declare Attackers and Pay Defender (player who you attacked)

2) Redirect challenge

3) New Defender Declares Defenders

OR

1) Declare Attackers

2) Redirect Challenge

3) Pay New Defender and Defender Declares Defenders

In my eyes, it's the first scenario. So what is your interpretation? Is it:

1) Declare attackers and pay defender

2) Redirect

3) Declare attackers and pay a different defender

"In order to initiate" puts the requirement to pay in #1. So the sequence is:

1. Announce type of challenge and identify/pay defending player.

2. Declare attacking characters

3. Redirect, choosing a new defending player. (No option to pay a new defender available since the payment had to occur in #1 to initiate the challenge in the first place.)

We know that in #3, the new defender chosen for redirect must be a legal choice of defender that could have been chosen in #1. That's why you can't get around things like Catelyn, King Robert's Host, or "supports" with the redirect.

The only defender that was legal in #1 was the one you paid the gold to. Any other opponent was not legal in #1 because they did not receive the gold. Since that was the only legal defender in #1, the play restrictions on redirecting in #3 (which require a different opponent who would have been legal in #1) are not met - so you cannot redirect.

Since the challenge is already initiated, and there is no provision in the redirect rules that allow you to MAKE an opponent who was an illegal choice in #1 into a legal choice during #3, I don't see why the "in order to initiate" text on Uneasy Peace could be invoked again to pay an additional 2 gold to a new player and make a new legal defender for the same challenge. I could be wrong, though. Maybe FFG would rule that you are allowed to pay and create a new legal choice for defender in #3. I just don't see it, outside an official ruling.

I can see both sides of the argument, but cannot provide any more insight on top of ktom's. If this is becoming an issue for anyone, I'd send the question to FFG just to be sure.

Personally, I'd probably rule it with ktom's interpretation because "Supports" and a number of card effects create play restrictions that prevent the redirect from letting opponents choose specific opponents as your new targets, and that feels like a pretty safe precedent to use here.

My original thought was that the attacker should just pay another 2 gold to the new defender and if he had no gold he could not do the challenge

Ktom suggested this is not the case as the window for paying the gold has elapsed

"When you get to the point of redirecting, you are past the point of initiating the challenge"

In order to initiate a Military challenge, an attacker must give the defender 2 gold tokens from his or her gold pool.

Now here's the question ... I thought there was no difference between Initiate and Declare

If the challenge is redirected, doesn't the attacker declare the challenge again? ... I assume that this means they do not

If a redirected challenge is not Declared or Initiated a second time, how does this fit in with i.e. Frozen Sea

If it is Winter, each opponent cannot initiate more than 2 challenges against you each phase

Is that limit by-passed becuase the redirected challenge is not initiated against a second target?

Maybe it is an Intrigue challenge being redirected against someone with Catyln Stark

If it is Winter and you have at least 1 card in Shadows, opponents cannot declare Intrigue challenges against you.

There seems to be some contradiction here ...

I assume when challenges are redirected against opponents when either of the above conditions exists, the conditions apply ... but this suggests the challenge is being declared / initiated even if it is redirected ... and therefore the conditions are also met to allow the attacker to pay another 2 gold (in the case of Uneasy Truce)

Remind me not to start posts of with "Just a quick question...."

Just reread something Ktom mentioned:

We know that in #3, the new defender chosen for redirect must be a legal choice of defender that could have been chosen in #1. That's why you can't get around things like Catelyn, King Robert's Host, or "supports" with the redirect.

Sounds like one of those odd rules which are just known ... a bit like not being allowed to choose to kill someone who cannot be killed but being allowed E.G. to choose to stand someone who is already standing / cannot stand ...

Sounds like one of those odd rules which are just known ... a bit like not being allowed to choose to kill someone who cannot be killed but being allowed E.G. to choose to stand someone who is already standing / cannot stand ...

This comparison seems a little disingenuous. You are equating specific rules text with practical impossibility.

The two situations are not comparable. When something has the text "cannot be killed," that is an actual game effect that carries definitions as detailed in the FAQ - including being an illegal target for effects that attempt to kill. As a practical impossibility, it is impossible to stand a character that is already standing, but that's not the same thing as carrying the text "cannot stand." If a card did have the text "cannot stand," it would be an illegal target for effects that attempt to stand it - regardless of whether it was standing or kneeling at the time.

The practical impossibility of successful resolution related to a card does not necessarily make that card an illegal target of a particular effect. There is nothing in the rules that states or implies this. But there is something in the rules that makes a card with the specific text "cannot be X" an illegal target for "X."

This isn't a single "odd [rule] which [is] just known." It is two separate rules for two separate situations that are not nearly as similar as people often think.

"In order to initiate" puts the requirement to pay in #1. So the sequence is:

1. Announce type of challenge and identify/pay defending player.

2. Declare attacking characters

3. Redirect, choosing a new defending player. (No option to pay a new defender available since the payment had to occur in #1 to initiate the challenge in the first place.)

We know that in #3, the new defender chosen for redirect must be a legal choice of defender that could have been chosen in #1. That's why you can't get around things like Catelyn, King Robert's Host, or "supports" with the redirect.

Okay, I got it. You're taking Uneasy Truce as both a restriction AND an initiation cost. That's where I was not on the same page.

Edit: I'm not sure I agree. But I at least see where you're coming from and can apply that logic to other similar situations.

re This comparison seems a little disingenuous

I think it was just a bad example, sorry ... it actually stems from some previous thread (re red wedding) and that seemed to imply something special about kills, as opposed to something special about Cannot (which I fully understand)