Breaking and Entering

How does this plot turns out if i loose the [Intrigue] challenge and play 'Red Vengeance'? Do i draw cards from him and he can bring em into play if it is an attachment or location?

Correct. The other player both wins the challenge and satisfies claim when Red Vengeance is played. So the player initiating the challenge could get his own locations/attachments in play this way.

Correct. The other player both wins the challenge and satisfies claim when Red Vengeance is played. So the player initiating the challenge could get his own locations/attachments in play this way.

I dont know about that Red Vangeance says; cancel the claim effect of that challenge. Then, choose an opponent to satisfy the claim of that challenge as if he or she had lost the challenge as the defender. So wouldn't as far as the claim is concerned it be the attacker has just lost as the defender therefor the player that played Red Vengeance could but them under their control.

HA!  

I don't think so, because even though that player is discarding cards to satify the claim as if they had lost, they are still considered the winner of the challenge, so BaE would still give them the opportunity to put the cards into play.

Also, I'm not positive about if Red Vengeance could count for BaE. After our discussion about By Sword or by Guile, we've concluded that RV is a canceling effect. Since the claim is canceled, I'm not sure if the claim effect that the chosen player must fulfil is still considered to be claim or if it is considered to be a card effect. After all, according to RV the claim of this intrigue challenge was canceled.

but RV doesn't change the claim it just changes the target of claim so wouldn't it still be claim an no replacement?

The tricky part is RV says "cancel the claim" and then "pick an opponent to satisfy the claim..." but it doesn't use the important "instead" wording that is used in any other replacement effect.  So it is cancelling the claim effect and initiating it's own effect, which happens to be paying the claim of the challenge.  Both RV and bSobG use "cancel the claim" and neither uses "instead" so neither are actual claim "replacement" so much as they cancel claim and then have their own effect.   That is why you can't use either against the other, because once one is played, the "claim" is already "cancelled".

However, I'm not sure where that leaves us with regard to B&E.  Since RV uses the words "satisfy the claim" does that still count as the cards being discarded for the claim of an INT challenge?  Or are they now discarded as the effects of the RV event, essentially?

My understanding is you cancel the claim using Red Vengeance or By Sword or By Guile. If you had Breaking and Entering out, you do exactly what Red Vengeance says: you cancel the claim against you, then your opponent satisfies the claim as if he lost the challenge. In this case, he would satisfy the claim of an intrigue challenge, and if he discarded a card affected by Breaking and Entering, it would go into play.

The trick is, from my perspective, that the challenge was not cancelled - he is still the winner of the challenge, and as such, it goes into play under his control!

Let us use bSobG as an example, since that and RV function the same. Suppose a plot had the text "After resolving the claim of a Military Challenge, the winning player claims 1 power." If a player won a Military Challenge but used bSobG then this effect would not trigger since Military Claim was canceled and never resolved.

My reasoning for why RV functions the same is that since it cancels the claim and doesn't use instead, the resulting card discard (for an intrigue challenge) is a card effect and not a claim effect. Think of it as RV copies what ever effect claim would have been and lets you choose a player to fulfil it.

Another way to look at it is that B&E only affects cards discarded by the framework action of Intrigue challenges. RV cancels this framework action and then (by card effect) mirrors this claim but lets you choose who must satisfy it.

So the conclusion is that i would draw the cards from my opponents hand and he can't bring em into play if it is attachment or location?

If thats the case what happens if i have Doran Martell (PotS) out and my opponent looses the [Intrigue] challenge *edit*: as attacker?

Hmm, this one is even trickier. I'm not sure if Doran's ability alters the framework action so that the loser fulfills claim regardless of being the defender or not, or if it just counts as a passive.

But if I had to guess, I'd go with passive and say that B&E wouldn't come into play.

No idea if I'm right, though.