I wish there would be such neutral cancel. But now since it is Lannister only I am affraid it will not happen.

Well at Least I can cancel this cancel

Does Messenger Raven go back to hand if you Treachery it's trigger in Dominance?

Yes. Treachery cancels the effect (drawing a card), not the cost (returning the Raven to hand).

Correct.

Few questions from newbie.

1. Does this card cancel Milk of the poppy, when it is being played?

2. Can this card cancel the effects of already played Milk of the poppy? Tywin has been Milked, but you want to win Dominance since you have a lot of gold. Can you play Treachery during Dominance to cancel Milk effect?

no, it stops you from triggering an ability on a attachment/location/character, but can't do anything with passive abilities

To elaborate, the controller of Milk of the Poppy isn't doing anything to trigger its effect. After it is marshaled, it is just constantly blanking the attached card's text.

If the text of Milk of the Poppy read something like "Action: Kneel Milk of the Poppy to blank attached card's text box until the end of the phase", then Treachery could cancel that particular trigger.

With the current card pool, you'll need to get rid of Milk of the Poppy with either Confiscation, Rattleshirt's Raiders or Maester Cressen, or find some other way to remove the character from play (thus discarding Milk of the Poppy) and then bringing the character back into play (e.g. Waking the Dragon).

Thank you drakk and chem2702!

How does this card interact with Arianne Martell?  I keep thinking in MtG terms, which tells me that her effect isn't triggered, so you shouldn't be able to play this Treachery at all in response to using her effect.  As this isn't MtG, I am not sure if that is right or wrong, or how it would work with her effect.  Meaning, if I activate Arianne Martell's Action, can it be countered with Treachery, and if so what would be the resulting game state?  Would she still be in your hand?  Would the character be brought into play?  Both, neither?

can this cancel dupes? 

can this cancel dupes? 

it would in first edition. But no it can not in second edition. 

It's worth noting that the dupe effect itself is "cannot be canceled" (RRG, p.7), so it's not like some other, more general cancel effect than Treachery could cancel dupes, either.

Hi guys, so with this and Kingsroad, the cost of kingsroad to trigger is 'kneel and sacrifice' and that must be done before the effect is triggered correct? So in this case, the person kneels and sacrifices Kingsroad to reduce by 3 next character. Opponent plays Treachery here, cancelling the effect yes? So , the card is paid for and sacrificed, gone from the table, but the effect is cancelled by Treachery. A double ouch for the Kingsroad user, as they can't just wait until next round to use the card again (like you could if Lordsport Shipwright knelt Kingsroad to stop it being used that round).

Double post , apologies (not sure how to delete)

That's right. The cost of Kingsroad is still paid (i.e. kneel and sacrifice) but the effect has been canceled, so there is no 3-cost reduction for the next character that is marshaled by that player.

Thanks.

So I was playing as the Starks and had Winterfell out (+1 STR to all Starks) and my Lanni friend used Treachery on Winterfell, Not to cancel Winterfell's reaction but cancel the +1 STR. He ended up winning an insight challenge afterwards. 

I did not notice it at the time, but I believe he played the card out of rule there. The +1 STR isn't a triggered reaction, right?  Triggered reactions would be in bold, wouldn't they? 

Correct. A "triggered ability" would be preceded by a bold timing word. Since the +1 STR ability on Winterfell is not triggered, and Treachery can only cancel triggered abilities, you are describing an illegal play.

In fact, you cannot cancel/interrupt a constant ability like the +1 STR ability on Winterfell with anything in the game. This is because constant abilities are "always on," and so they cannot be interrupted by any ability, including a cancel, and would reassert themselves immediately anyway.

Nightmares would be able to "cancel" it for the phase, yeah?

Nightmares would be able to "cancel" it for the phase, yeah?

Nightmares would be able to turn it off for a phase. This is not the same as "cancel" (which you probably know given your use of quotes around the word), if for no other reason than that the timing if completely different. Specifically, Nightmares has to be played before the action you want the "+1 STR" to not apply to is initiated. In this example, once players consecutively pass in the action window before challenge resolution, it is too late to play Nightmares. This will actually come up quite a lot given how common the following scenario is:

- First Player/Attacking Player: I attack with characters A & B.

- Defending Player: I defend with characters C & D.

- First Player/Attacking Player: Have you got anything before we resolve? (This is his chance to trigger something, so by doing nothing, he is passing here.)

- Defending Player: No. (This is his chance to trigger something, so by doing nothing, there are consecutive passes and no more abilities can be triggered prior to resolving the challenge.)

- First Player/Attacking Player: OK. Since you have nothing, I play Nightmares on your Winterfell. I win.

(That exchange is technically illegal. Either the First Player/Attacking Player cannot play Nightmares, or the players agree to rewind completely and the Defending Player has the chance to trigger stuff "after" the consecutive pass, too. Depends on views/sportsmanship opinions of the two players.)

(That exchange is technically illegal. Either the First Player/Attacking Player cannot play Nightmares, or the players agree to rewind completely and the Defending Player has the chance to trigger stuff "after" the consecutive pass, too. Depends on views/sportsmanship opinions of the two players.)

I'm slower today (Martini) so I might need some explanation here. Why 1st player in your example can't play Nightmares? I understand that after declaring defenders, there is an action window and 1st player has to declare actions or pass. Is it illegal only because 1st player has to play Nightmares 1st, not to wait to 2nd player? Because after 2nd players pass too, action windows closed?

I just would like to understand reasoning because in the action window after declaring defenders, there's no reason for the 1st player to wait with Nightmares if he wants to "milk" Winterfell. He can just play it, as defender can't undo declaring (/kneeling) defenders. Why 1st player in your example would wait?

Yes, the exchange is illegal because the First Player cannot wait to act in an action window without running the risk that the other player passes and closes the window.

There are a couple of reasons the First Player might want to (or think he needs to) wait: 

- Depending on what the defending player does, it may be wiser to blank a card other than Winterfell.

- Depending on what the defending player does, the First Player might not need Nightmares and would like to save it for another situation.

- Maybe the defending player has exactly 1 gold in his gold pool, and the First Player is hoping the defending player will "play it down" and be unable to afford the Treachery or Hand's Judgment to cancel Nightmares.

There are all sorts of "extra information" scenarios like the ones above that could inspire the First Player to stall if they can. In my experience, it is not uncommon for the First Player to forget, in their desire to get that "extra information," that they are running the risk of the second player closing the action window by doing nothing, particularly when the game is at a pivotal point.

There are a couple of reasons the First Player might want to (or think he needs to) wait: 

- Depending on what the defending player does, it may be wiser to blank a card other than Winterfell.

- Depending on what the defending player does, the First Player might not need Nightmares and would like to save it for another situation.

- Maybe the defending player has exactly 1 gold in his gold pool, and the First Player is hoping the defending player will "play it down" and be unable to afford the Treachery or Hand's Judgment to cancel Nightmares

That makes sense o.c. thanks, then I understood correctly - 1st player could've wait to evaluate the situation and pass the opportunity to act. So in my mind I would just play those Nightmares considering that anything can happen anyway (Hand, Treachery etc). After all those are interrupts/reactions, no need to wait for action window for 2nd player.

I understand also the point that it might be quite common that if both players pass the action window, then 1st player would like to play some action anyway but according to rules he can't.