In this thread, it's ruled that, if Hamshanks has a Mayfair deck (and is thus a Huckster), while unbooted in the same location as Tyx, then:
Both say you can't choose X if you can choose Y legally instead. Which would make both illegal targets, which turns off both traits in regards to Action cards, as Tyx only protects against action cards.
When they go to use an ability from elsewhere, it must effect Hamshanks if able.
Makes sense to me; the two create a condition where neither is able to legally be the target, so neither of their traits are active, and it's the wild west.
If I take that same train of thought, and apply it to two different targets pinned down in a shootout:
Shootout: Choose a dude. They must be selected as the first casualty. If that dude is chosen as the shooter, they get –3 bullets (minimum 0).
I would think that neither can be true (with respect to the first casualty), so neither is in effect, similar to this. But the ruling from the compendium is:
If multiple effects have been played that claim the first casualty, the player selecting that
casualty can select which applies. Once that first casualty has been chosen, any other
effects currently in play that require a dude to be selected as the first casualty are ignored.
Just want to reconcile this. The biggest difference I see between Ham + Tyx and PD + PD is the "if you can choose Y legally instead"... but that's pretty much an implicit given on every card effect, right? It's just stated explicitly because it makes contextual sense for those cards?
Would the ruling be different if PD was worded:
Shootout: Choose a dude. They must be selected as the first casualty if legally able to. If that dude is chosen as the shooter, they get –3 bullets (minimum 0).