9 replies to this topic

[mplain]

Greyjoy wins a military challenge unopposed, triggers The Seastone Chair, and attempts to kill Tyrion. Can Podrick save him?

 

The original triggering condition of "applying normal claim for an unopposed military challenge" is still considered to occur.

 

Is it the same thing as "applying military claim"?

 

Is "killing a character for military claim" the same triggering condition, timing-wise, or does it happen at a later point in time?

 

Is Tyrion now considered to be killed for military claim?

[migelpig]

Sea stone Chair

 

Interrupt: When claim is applied for an unopposed [Military] challenge in which you are the attacking player, kneel your faction card to choose a character without attachments, controlled by the losing opponent. Instead of the normal claim effects, kill that character.

 

Podrick Payne

 

Interrupt: When a character would be killed for [Military] claim, pay 2 gold and put Podrick Payne into play from your hand to save it. Then, if that character was Tyrion Lannister, you may pay 2 gold to choose and kill an attacking character.

 

Rulebook:

 

Military Claim:

 

When a player loses a military challenge as the defending player, that player must choose a number of different characters he or she controls equal to the claim value on the attacking player’s revealed plot card, and kill those characters. The chosen characters are all killed simultaneously.

 

I think not, normal claim effects = would be killed for Military claim.

Since Sea stone chair replaces the effect it's no longer Military Claim.

[bored2excess]

Conversely, it would work on spearmaiden since that just forces the targeting of ordinary claim, not a brand-new claim.

[mplain]

I think that "applying military claim" and "killing a character for military claim" are not the same, timing-wise. The application of military claim consists of choosing a character first, then killing it.

 

Also, if they were the same, you technically couldn't save the character after a claim replacement effect, because "would" interrupts (save) have priority over other interrupts to the same triggering condition.

 

The first point doesn't seem to apply to intrigue and power claim, as there are no choices involved (typically), but the second point seems like it should apply to all types of claim.

 

So, "applying claim" and what you actually do to satisfy it (resolving claim?) are different triggering conditions, timing-wise, in terms of interrupts.

 

Although reactions to applying claim (Insidious Scheme) and to resolving claim (new Cersei) would share the same window.

 

As for whether "applying claim for a military challenge" and "applying military claim" are the same thing, I think they might be, but they don't have to be.

[mplain]

tl;dr The triggering condition of "applying military claim" is considered to occur, for purposes of interrupts to the same triggering condition. But the event of "applying military claim" never occurs. "Killing a character for military claim" is a different triggering condition that refers to the prior event (which never occured).

 

Podrick Payne cannot save a character from The Seastone Chair.

[dukman]

I think that "applying military claim" and "killing a character for military claim" are not the same, timing-wise. The application of military claim consists of choosing a character first, then killing it.

 

Also, if they were the same, you technically couldn't save the character after a claim replacement effect, because "would" interrupts (save) have priority over other interrupts to the same triggering condition.

 

I believe you're right that they are different timing-wise. And since "Always resolve interrupts to a triggering condition before resolving the consequences of the triggering condition itself" I think these timings follow:

 

- "claim is applied" triggering condition initiates

   - interrupts to "when claim is applied" can be played (all different claim replacement interrupts)

   - interrupts to the triggering condition are resolved, the most recent replacement is active

- consequences of the triggering condition attempt to resolve (in a new way, if there's a replacement effect)

   - interrupts to "consequences" (kills) are played (all saves for would-be-killed characters)

- consequences resolve

- "claim is applied" is fully resolved and now reactions can be played

 

 

 

As for whether "applying claim for a military challenge" and "applying military claim" are the same thing, I think they might me, but they don't have to be.

 

They cannot be. Military claim is specifically described in the rulebook as "the defending player chooses and kills characters". And applying claim for military challenge is broader than that. 

 

Trial By Combat: Interrupt: When claim is applied for an Intrigue challenge, apply Military claim instead.

 

Insidious Scheme: Reaction: After claim is applied for an Intrigue challenge you won by 5 or more STR, draw 2 cards.

 

Even if you play TBC (and change the way claim resolves), you can also play Insidious Scheme (because claim was still applied for an Intrigue challenge). So "claim for X challenge" and "X claim" are different things.

 

That's why you cannot use Podrick to save from Seastone Chair, but also why you can use Podrick to save someone that's been Trial by Combated.

[Rafaelbal]

Couldnt she use hookshot and attack anyone but the Ironscale by going around the smoke?

[ktom]

Here's the thing, though:

 

While "claim is applied for a military challenge" and "would be killed for military claim" are two different triggering conditions, both are occurring in the same game space in the scenario you describe.

 

1. When "claim is applied," Seastone Chair is triggered. Once it successfully resolves and activates its replacement effect, you know that when the claim effect for this military challenge gets around to resolving, the chosen character (Tyrion) will die - as the result of resolving the claim for a military challenge.

2. So, once Seastone Chair resolves, you know Tyrion will die when the claim effect gets around to resolving. This is actually no different than knowing that a character chosen as the target for normal claim will die when the claim claim effect gets around to resolving.

3. It follows, then, that once Seastone Chair resolves successfully and the replacement effect is activated, Tyrion currently "would be killed for military claim."

4. Note that the character(s) chosen to die for normal military claim would NOT "be killed for military claim" any longer because the resolution of the claim effect has been changed by the replacement effect. (This is no different than the fact that once successfully saved, a character would no longer "be killed for military claim," which is the reason you cannot continually save the same character in order to create multiple "after a character is saved" triggering conditions.)

 

Taken all together, this means that once Seastone Chair successfully resolves, creating the replacement effect, Tyrion would be killed for (replaced) military claim - satisfying Pod's triggering condition.

 

Don't mistake the fact that the "claim is applied" triggering condition still exists once the replacement effect is applied as indicating that the original claim targets would still "be killed for military claim." Once the replacement effect is successfully applied, the original claim target(s) is no longer in danger of being killed - which is no different than how saving a character once shuts down all need (and opportunity) to save it again.

[mplain]

So "military claim" and "claim for a military challenge" are the same thing? Because a character would be killed in both cases? o_O

 

The way I see it, in both cases (normal claim and Seastone Chair) a character "would be killed as the result of resolving the claim for a military challenge", but only with normal claim he "would be killed for military claim". I agree with your #1 & #2, but I don't see how #3 follows from them...

 

4. Note that the character(s) chosen to die for normal military claim would NOT "be killed for military claim" any longer because the resolution of the claim effect has been changed by the replacement effect. (This is no different than the fact that once successfully saved, a character would no longer "be killed for military claim," which is the reason you cannot continually save the same character in order to create multiple "after a character is saved" triggering conditions.)

 
I don't understand this.
 
First, what character chosen to die for normal claim? This sounds like I need to chose who dies for normal claim, then my opponent chooses to trigger The Seastone Chair. I was 100% certain that I don't need to choose a char for claim until after my opponent triggers Seastone Chair and I cancel it.
 
Second, I don't understand the analogy with saves. Saves are "Would" interrupts that prevent their own triggering condition from resolving (a character that would be killed but is saved is not killed anymore). Replacement effects like Seastone Chair are not "Would" interrupts, they don't prevent their own triggering condition, they only change the specific way in which it resolves.

[mplain]

Best Answer

Got word from Daniel Schaefer:
 

Can Podrick Payne save a character killed by The Seastone Chair? Is modified claim for a military challenge considered to be "military claim"?

No, Podrick cannot save a character killed by the Seastone Chair. The triggering condition of a character being “killed for military claim” occurs only when a character is killed by the process described under “Military Claim” on p.13 of the Rules Reference. After applying Seastone Chair’s replacement effect, the claim for the challenge can no longer be defined as “military claim,” so Podrick’s ability cannot be triggered.