The Brimstone

Question:
If an opponent loses an intrigue challenge with a claim greater than 1, could this response be triggered for each card discarded, since they are discarded one at a time and not all at once?

Yes - there's no limiting text that says 1 or more cards. You could trigger this every time a card is discarded from any opponent's hand.

A related example of a card that shows a limiting exception is Corpse Lake (TBC) - it's per effect in that case, not per card. That exception doesn't exist here.

Geez - this looks amazing in Melee. You could really wreak havoc if someone plays For R'hllor (RotO). A big hand and you're nuking a lot of icons.

Geez - this looks amazing in Melee. You could really wreak havoc if someone plays For R'hllor (RotO). A big hand and you're nuking a lot of icons.

Playing this with The Prince's Wrath (PotS), Orphan of the Greenblood (PotS), and The Scourge (ODG) just wreaks havok. I also started using Poisoned Spear (APS) too, which just twists the knife a little.

Haha - pure evil! I like it! So, essentially, this card can undo whatever anyone might have wanted to do to undo The Scourge (ODG)? Thinking through the response sequence, opponent discards a card to restore an icon, so it seems they're cost/response goes first and then you can respond with removing that icon due to the discarded card... have I got that right?

Yea Doulos. If you start with the scourge to remove icons, and they discard cards to return some icons, you can remove them right back or pick a different target to remove icons from using the Brimstone reponse.

Even better if you use the Scourge against a tri-con and your oppenent discards a few cards, then you could use the Brimstone to remove icons of some of their single-con characters.

Wow... might need to try me some Martell... I've shied away from it after facing 3 Martells in the same game at the Tulsa Regional - that was nerve wracking!

<-- Benjamin from the Tulsa Regionals and yes, it was amusing you got to experience your first dose of Martell against 3 different builds as your first game!

I'm a bit bias on the Martell side but if you have the cards you should definately check them out. They do favor a "win by losing" strategy for many card effects, which may be hard for a Targ purist to wrap their head around! LOL.

Hah! Hi Benjamin! Cards like this really pique the curiosity of the Shagga player in me.

So great with
The Scourge (ODG)!!

Yes - there's no limiting text that says 1 or more cards. You could trigger this every time a card is discarded from any opponent's hand.

A related example of a card that shows a limiting exception is Corpse Lake (TBC) - it's per effect in that case, not per card. That exception doesn't exist here.

I have to admit I'm confused by this response. Isn't discarding two cards as part of a 2 claim the same action? So first you resolve claim and then have the opportunity to respond, no? How can a player respond to each of the discarded cards in a single (2 or more) claim?

@14shirt - Even though the discard happens during claim, each card discarded is providing a response opportunity for Brimstone. The play restriction for Brimstone's response is that A (singular) card is discarded from the opponent's hand. When the Response window opens, multiple cards have still been discarded, so the play restriction has been met multiple times. Since Brimstone does not have self-limiting text, it can respond to each discarded card.

The discard happening during claim doesn't suddenly lump all cards into a single effect as there is no game rule that would lump all elements in a single Framework Event into a singular element for the sake of passives and responses. It's the card's play restriction text that is doing the responding that governs what can be done. Since Brimstone specifically says after A card is discarded - it's looking back throughout the entire Framework Action Window (in this particular example since the question was about claim) to see if there were any effects that discarded cards and then it can respond to each and every single one of those because its text says it can.

EDIT: Sorry - looks like I basically said the same thing twice there... just in a different way.

(1.1) Drawing Multiple Cards
When a player draws multiple cards (e.g., by
drawing 2 cards during his draw phase, or due
to a card effect like that of Insidious Ways
(CORE L163), he is considered to be drawing
them one at a time, not all at once. This is
important for effects that may trigger by a card
being drawn.

Assuming this is similar for "discard multiple cards" then it further justifies Doulos's answer.

Thanks for clarifying, Doulos, and providing an actual rule, Sloth.

Honestly, it makes sense given the language of the card itself, but I wasn't aware you could have a response "within" a single claim (i.e. between the first and second discard). I guess technically it is occuring after claim but responding to both discards, but still.

Well, we rarely run into it, but ALL response timing suffers from this same issue... especially during a Framework Action Window because Responses CANNOT occur until ALL Framework Events have completed AND Passives to those Framework Events have also happened.

So, hypothetically, if there were effects that discarded cards during the save/cancel step of EVERY framework event during the challenge resolution FAW, any card that could respond to discard effects would still have to wait until the Response step to respond to each of those discard effects. We just tend to think of claim as a more singular event, but it isn't. The only thing that's happening is the delay that's required by the Framework rules - responses to all framework events and passives (that aren't saves/cancels) must wait until the response window opens.

Interesting. I'm actually almost getting it.

Am I right in assuming that I can trigger the response in a melee game if the other players are initiating Intrigue Challenges against each other, as long as my title doesn't support the title of whomever has to fulfill the claim?

A supporting title doesn't mean a player is not your opponent. Other than that: Yes, your assumptions are correct.

Okay, thanks. Wow this Location is seriously crazy...