Can I trigger an effect that requires me to choose and discard a card from my hand if I have The Laughing Storm in play, standing?

I would think not, since the word choose means the card is a target and should be legal during initiation of the effect.

If you are talking about Ghost of High Heart, I'd think you could since the effect is to look at the players hand.  After that, I'd think everything else resolves as much as possible.

If not the above, which effect may you be speaking of?

I meant an effect that chooses a card. For instance, Doran Martell or For R'hllor.

I see what you are getting at. The chosen cards are targets of the effect. If all the designated targets of an effect are not available, you cannot trigger the effect. TLS says that cards "cannot" be discarded, so they cannot be chosen to be discarded either. Therefore, if TLS is standing, not all targets are available and the effect cannot be triggered in the first place.

The implication of your TLS scenario, though, is that if one player has no cards in hand, that you cannot trigger those "each opponent" effects you name at all. Are we willing to go that far? Or is this a situation where, like "revealing your hand" is not the same as "revealing a card"? Is there some subtlety of "hand" vs. "card in hand" going on here?

I don't know. I can't think of one. On the face of it, your analysis of TLS leaving you with no legal targets for the effects - preventing them from being triggered completely - is totally correct, though.

My first thought would be to go that far, yes.

It impacts very few cards - Restrict and Restrain and Fog of War, and the Arcmaester's Wrath.

As far as these cards are concerned, it doesn't seem so wierd that the effect cannot be triggered without legal target.

Could you detail what you are thinking with this "revealing a card " vs "revealing a card" analogy - I'm not sure where this is going.

Bolzano said:

So I was thinking there may be something similar here. Is there some subtlety in which the targeting of the effect is considered to be on the collective hand to then identify a single component of that hand, rather than on the individual card in that collective? If so, the target would work (TLS doesn't stop you from discarding your "hand," just the cards from it; technically, you could stop Narrow Escape even if you have TLS standing) and the effect could be played, even though it could not be resolved.

I don't see that or think it's really happening in this case, but I've missed some of the subtleties like that before.

So, not mentionning the possibility ktom just explained - I think it'd be worth asking Nate just to be sure whether or not its applicable -, here is an example:

PENNY

Text:
Ally, Fool Challenges: Kneel Penny to choose a character without attachments. The controller of that character chooses to either kneel that character or choose and discard 1 card from his or her hand.

First, even if the card is chosen in the 2nd sentence, it is still a target and should be valid when the effect is initiated. If TLS is in play standing and Penny's controller chooses him, TLS controller cannot choose to discard one card and therefore must kneel TLS.

Bolzano said:

The analysis of "can I target a card in hand to discard if TLS is standing" is totally valid - once the choice of which effect to resolve is made, but it doesn't have any impact on which option for resolution can be taken. Now, if she was worded without the first "choose" (e.g., "The controller of that character either kneels that character or chooses and discards 1 card from his or her hand."), then the inability to discard cards from your hand would lock in the option to kneel the character.

This is just another example where "Choose A or B. Do what you chose." Allows you to choose to do something that cannot resolve successfully, but "Do A or B" does not.

I agree on Sorrowfull Man and Shiled Island Dromont.

But, in Penny's situation, the word "choose" is used twice. The first time to have the opponent : Choose A or B.

A = kneel that character

B = choose and discard 1 card.

We are still at the inittiation step when the opponent must choose A or B. So B is an illegal choice because it target a card that cannot be discarded - so you can't attempt to do it by choosing B. The word "cannot" prevent this attempt, unlike in Sorrowful Man's situation where it is possible to try an option that will be resolved unsuccessfully.

Bolzano said:

An order is imposed on every initiation. There is a specific one in the FAQ, describing how gold penalties are modified before costs as a whole are modified, etc. Part of that order (though not stated word-for-word in the FAQ) is that when choices are made in a particular order, that order can limit subsequent choices.

For example, the plot Drunken Allegations says "When revealed,choose an opponent. Then, you and that opponent must each choose and kneel a standing character." We'll ignore the fact that the opponent must be chosen before you even get to targeting characters as not applicable here because Penny does not have a "then" in her effect. However, we know from rulings (in the FAQ) that when you get to the part about the two players each choose a standing character, the person who revealed the plot chooses first. What's important, though, is that that player's choice will limit the next player's choice. That is, the other player may not choose the same character that the player who revealed the plot chose, even though the effect is still initiating and that character is not kneeling yet. This is because a character cannot be chosen as a target twice for the same effect. If all these choices were happening "at the same time" just because we are "still in the initiation step," both character should be able to choose the same character.

So, there is an order imposed when a single initiating effect imposes multiple choices, with the first choice potentially limiting the second choice. That means, in Penny's case, that the first choice ("A or B") locks in which resolution will happen. It should be plain that the first choice is separate from the second because unless the play does choose B, the choice of card never even happens.

There is no restriction on the first choice ("A or B"), so the restriction on the possible second choice does not limit your options at that point. Look at it this way: Let's say I have a card that says "Choose an opponent. That opponent chooses and kneels a standing character he controls." Why can't I choose an opponent with no characters in play? The "choose an opponent" part does not limit my choice of opponents to ones who have standing characters - only the opponent, once chosen, is limited by those restrictions.

It's the same thing with Penny. Since there is an order to the choosing, imposed by the way effect initiation has always worked, and the two choices are separate, limits on the potential second choice (which cards can or cannot be discarded) are not anticipated to therefore be limits on the first choice (which of two possible effects will be resolved).

Ktom, I think you just made an interesting observation on The Laughing Storm.

Here's my thought. Laughing Storm explicitly states that cards cannot be discarded. It does not state that your hand can not be discarded. Therefore you would still have to discard your hand to Narrow Escape. Plus the discard effect on Narrow Escape is a cost and therefore could never be satisfied without this interpretation.

Does that sound right?

mdc273 said:

I mentioned TLS's interaction with Narrow Escape above, but to be perfectly clear about it:

• On p.11 of the FAQ, we are told that discarding your hand does not qualify as discarding the cards from your hand
• TLS only says that cards cannot be discarded from your hand
• Therefore, TLS does not prevent a player from discarding their hand as a separate (collective) entity
• Narrow Escape says that its effect can be blocked by a character discarding their hand of at least 1 card.
• So, if a player with TLS in play (standing) wants to block Narrow Escape, their hand will end up in the discard pile (because, as the FAQ says, you are discarding the entire hand, not the individual cards from that hand).
• IF IT DIDN'T WORK THAT WAY - and TLS did stop the individual cards in your hand from being discarded when you discard your entire hand, TLS would actually stop you from being able to block Narrow Escape because discarding your hand is required to do so, and you were not able to discard anything

Hope that makes it clearer. The bottom line is "TLS's ability is totally inapplicable to Narrow Escape. Nothing special happens with Narrow Escape when TLS is involved."

~Sadly, the world will never see anyone actually do this since every deck with TLS in it has Val as its Restricted card.

Amuk said:

I think the point mdc was trying to get at was that if people aren't aware of the difference between "discard your hand" and "discard the cards from your hand," they might try to block an opponent's Narrow Escape by discarding their hand - only to have the cards stay there because of TLS. (Which, of course, doesn't work on a whoooole bunch of levels.)

Amuk said:

I've seen at least one with Fear of Winter (and it is very violent).

ktom said:

I should probably read the thread more carefully before trying to be clever and making myself look dumb.