Jump to content



Photo

Robert Baratheon from the Grand melee


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Sealtyk

Sealtyk

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 04:44 PM

Just saw Robert's card from the Grand melee chapter pack. I have a few questions. He has the keyword melee on him, what does that mean? Also, it says While Robert Baratheon is attacking alone in a Power challenge, each opponent you are not attacking may declare 1 eligible character as a defender. If you win the challenge, instead of the normal claim effects, each opponent must satisfy the claim effect of the challenge. Can someone break this down in terms I can understand lol? How do you attack more than one player? Are the players not already satisfying the claim of the challenge when satisfying the normal claim effects?



#2 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,769 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 05:12 PM

Sealtyk said:

Just saw Robert's card from the Grand melee chapter pack. I have a few questions. He has the keyword melee on him, what does that mean?

When you buy the Chapter Packs in the Champion's cycle, they come with an insert that explains the new keywords.

 

Melee: means that character, while the character is participating in a challenge, it gets +1 STR for each other participating character controlled by an opponent.

Joust: means that when that character is attacking alone, the defending player may not declare more than one defender.

Sealtyk said:

How do you attack more than one player?

Where does it say anything about attacking more than one player? In fact, it specifically says that each opponent you are NOT attacking may declare a defender. Controlling a defending character does not make someone a defending player - otherwise, all unopposed challenges would have no defending players, right? The only defending player - and the only person being attacked - is the player named by the attacker when they initiate the challenge (and before someone says it - yes, redirect effects, including the "supports" defense, will change the defending player; there's just no need to complicate this answer with those scenarios).

 

Sealtyk said:

Are the players not already satisfying the claim of the challenge when satisfying the normal claim effects?

Normal claim effects are only ever satisfied by the defending player. As we just discussed, if Player A attacks Player B, Players C and D will not be involved in the "normal" claim. So Robert's effect says to do something different than what is "normal" if he wins the challenge.

 

Robert works like this: Player A attacks Player B with Robert. When Player B declares defenders, Players C and D may also declare 1 defender each, if they like. When you total the challenge STR, you add up the combined STR of all defending characters, no matter who owns or controls them. (Player B is still the only defending player, even though Players C and D may also control characters defending in the challenge.) If Robert still happens to win, then all three of Player A's opponents - B, C, & D - will each have to move power to Player A's House card, just as if they were the defender in the challenge. They'll have to do this if Robert wins, whether they declared defenders or not.

What makes the claim effect "not normal" is that more than one person is satisfying it - something that directly contradicts the rules of the game, hence the "instead of" wording.



#3 Sealtyk

Sealtyk

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 06:03 PM

I glossed over "not" in the card text, I apologize. So, if you own Robert, you claim a power point for each other opponent who declared a defender?



#4 Sealtyk

Sealtyk

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 06:04 PM

disregard that last post, I just reread your reply

 



#5 Miklos

Miklos

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 01:22 AM

One question on Robert: If I start the challenge with Robert and Meera Reed (who can withdraw from the challenge by standing her) and I wait until the player I attacked declare defender(s); during the challenge I remove Meera from the challenge: do the other players get the "may declare 1 defender" while Robert is now attacking alone?



#6 radiskull

radiskull

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:57 AM

If they've already declared defenders, removing Meera will not make the opponent remove defenders.



#7 Miklos

Miklos

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

If they've already declared defenders, removing Meera will not make the opponent remove defenders.

I think you misunderstood my question:

Melee, 4 players.

Player 1 - Robert and Meera attacks. At this moment only the attacked player (player 2) may declare defenders (can declare as many as wishes).

Then during challenge, I remove Meera from the challenge. Do player 3 and 4 have the opportunity to declare now 1 defender each as now Robert is attacking alone?


Edited by Miklos, 20 October 2013 - 01:07 PM.


#8 radiskull

radiskull

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 01:36 PM

Oh, you are right. I did misunderstand.

 

And yes, I think that is the case.



#9 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 11:32 PM

By the way, you're thinking of Osha, not Meera Reed.



#10 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 09:12 AM

Doesn't Robert's ability only allow the 2 other opponent's to declare defenders during the standard "declare defenders" Framework Action Window?

 

So if you attack with Robert and anyone else, allow your opponent to declare (or not) regular defenders, THEN remove the other attacker from the challenge, it is beyond the normal window for the others to declare defenders - yet they would still pay claim (assuming you win the challenge).    Right?

 

Side note - just "standing" a character does not remove them from a challenge.   It has to be an effect that actually says "removes from the challenge".

 

This Robert also pairs really well with the Compelled by the Crown event.  


Edited by Slothgodfather, 21 October 2013 - 09:12 AM.


#11 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:02 AM

I believe Robert allows the other opponents to declare defenders at any time they would be allowed to if they were defending players, including with the naval enhancement.

 

However, your scenario works if no one can declare naval defenders.

 

Note that the defender can still jump Catelyn Stark (or Guardian Wolf) and anyone can come in with the Greatjon. The defender can also declare a naval attacker to deactivate Robert's text.

 

Compelled by the Crown does take care of all of theses cases.



#12 Miklos

Miklos

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:09 AM

I believe Robert allows the other opponents to declare defenders at any time they would be allowed to if they were defending players, including with the naval enhancement.

 

However, your scenario works if no one can declare naval defenders.

 

Note that the defender can still jump Catelyn Stark (or Guardian Wolf) and anyone can come in with the Greatjon. The defender can also declare a naval attacker to deactivate Robert's text.

 

Compelled by the Crown does take care of all of theses cases.

 

 

Right, I meant Osha. Though declaring naval defenders by player 3 and 4 does not work. Naval attackers and naval defenders can be declared only by the attacker and the defender (in this case player 1 and player 2).

 

Still, the question has not been answered clearly.

If defender(s) have been declared by player 2 and then player 1 manages to remove all attacking character but Robert, do player 3 and 4 allowed to put one character each to the challenge?



#13 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:26 AM

Well, as Robert himself allows players 3 and 4 to declare defenders, the "cards trump rules" rule comes into action, in my opinion, and players 3 and 4 can declare one naval defender each. Though we should send the question to FFG to be sure.

 

However, the opportunity for declaring normal defenders has passed, so they cannot declare normal defenders.



#14 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 07:03 AM

Well, as Robert himself allows players 3 and 4 to declare defenders, the "cards trump rules" rule comes into action, in my opinion, and players 3 and 4 can declare one naval defender each. Though we should send the question to FFG to be sure.

 

However, the opportunity for declaring normal defenders has passed, so they cannot declare normal defenders.

 

I agree with this interpretation.  Declaring a naval defender is considered to be inclusive of declaring a defender when it comes to responses and meeting conditions of passive card effects.



#15 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 11:17 AM

For reference:

 

"Melee. Renown.
While Robert Baratheon is attacking alone in a Power challenge, each opponent you are not attacking may declare 1 eligible character as a defender. If you win the challenge, instead of the normal claim effects, each opponent must satisfy the claim effect of the challenge.
"

 

I don't think there's much to question here. The rules are actually very succinct on this card.

 

"While Robert Baratheon is attacking alone in a Power challenge, each opponent you are not attacking may declare 1 eligible character as a defender."

 

This is a conditional constant that becomes active as soon as Robert Baratheon is attacking alone. When Robert Baratheon attacks with Osha, the condition is not met. As the condition is not met, the conditional constant allows the framework action to go unmodified. This means only the attacked player can declare defenders. After they declare defenders, removing Osha satisfies the condition on Robert and the conditional constant now kicks in. The Declar Defenders FWA is passed and so they can not "declare" defenders. They also are not the attacker or defender and can not bring Naval characters into the challenge.

 

Additionally, Robert's "cards trump rules" only applies to the Declare Defenders FWA. Without this text, no other player is able to declare defenders except the one attacked even though they would be affected by the conditional constant. The scope of the effect allows them to "declare" defenders, which is exclusive to the FWA. You'll note that there is no character who "jumps" into a challenge that uses the "declare" word as part of the effect. The two prime examples I can think of are Greatjon Umber and Catelyn Stark.

 

"Challenges: Kneel Greatjon Umber to have him participate in the current Military or Power challenge as either the attacker or as the defender."

 

"Challenges: Kneel Greatjon Umber to have him participate in the current challenge as a defender. Then, if your Title supports the defending player's Title, Greatjon Umber claims 1 power."

 

"House Stark only.Challenges: Put Catelyn Stark into play from your hand, knelt as a defender during an Intrigue or Power challenge initiated against you. At the end of the phase, if Catelyn Stark is still in play, return her to your hand."

 

There is enough ambiguity with regards to a lot of the intended meanings of text and this certainly falls into that category, but I think this card text is actually perfectly written and any percieved ambiguity with regards to it is just a lack of faith in FFG. Not that the lack of faith is undeserved or that an e-mail shouldn't be sent.


Edited by mdc273, 22 October 2013 - 11:18 AM.


#16 doulos2k

doulos2k

    Member

  • Members
  • 246 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:19 PM

MDC - I think you take this too narrowly. The Naval ability did not exist when this card was printed, true. But, to say that it only applies to the Defending FAW is assuming intent.

 

The Naval rules are explicit that the Naval ability is to be considered the same as "declaring" an attacker or defender. Robert's text would, in plain reading, would agree with Khudzlin's interpretation.

 

It's FFG that added the ambiguity by explicitly stating the Naval ability is considered to be "declaring" attackers and defenders. Had they not have stated that, I'd agree with you - the ability is straightforward... but, since they did, we'd have to assume they'd considered this card that already existed in the format and take that language at face value.


Austin AGoT Players

http://agotaustin.com


#17 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:55 PM

I would recommend sending the question directly to FFG to get the answer we are looking for.  I agree with Khudzlin's interpretation, but we've seen it ruled in the direct opposite before.


  • doulos2k likes this

#18 doulos2k

doulos2k

    Member

  • Members
  • 246 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:22 AM

Agreed.


Austin AGoT Players

http://agotaustin.com


#19 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:40 PM

I agree with sending in the question as confirmation is always a good thing.

 



MDC - I think you take this too narrowly. The Naval ability did not exist when this card was printed, true. But, to say that it only applies to the Defending FAW is assuming intent.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I see "may declare 1 eligible character as a defender" as modifying the Declare Defenders Framework Action (i. e. It doesn't say "May declare 1 standing character as a defender as a player action after defenders have been declared."). The only other possibility I can think of would be that as soon as Robert's conditional is satisfied, the non-attacked players could immediately declare defenders. That would be more passive-like than constant-like, though, and doesn't sit right with me.

 

 



The Naval rules are explicit that the Naval ability is to be considered the same as "declaring" an attacker or defender. Robert's text would, in plain reading, would agree with Khudzlin's interpretation.

 

Is there something in the FAQ that references this or is it playing convention (as I'm generally far removed from playing convention in my arguments)? I couldn't find it when I searched the keyword 'defender'. For reference, here is the relevant passage of the Naval rules:

 

"Any time after an attack is declared, the attacking or defending player can kneel a non-participating character with a [Naval] enhancement on the matching challenge icon and declare it as a [Naval] attacker or defender in that challenge." - FAQ pg. 30

 

Note that declaring someone as a [Naval] attacker or defender is limited to you being the attacking or defending player. Back to Robert's ability, he does not cause the non-defending players to be considered one of the attacking or defending players.

 

""While Robert Baratheon is attacking alone in a Power challenge, each opponent you are not attacking may declare 1 eligible character as a defender."

 

This is what leads me to the conclusion that a [Naval] attacker or defender can not be declared unless you are the attacking or defending player in the challenge. A prerequisite that is checked during initiation of the [Naval] mechanic is never met and so the effect/mechanic will never successfully initiate nor resolve.

 

I agree that playing convention and the ultimate answer may differ from the verbatim cards, but I am of the opinion that the cards give a very clear cut answer that any clarification beyond confirmation will undermine the integrity, succinctness, and elegance of the cards and rules being referenced.

 

Edit: Is it considered rude to multi-quote? I always feel weird doing it. Though I did figure it out!


Edited by mdc273, 23 October 2013 - 01:40 PM.


#20 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:12 AM

Since everyone is mentioning sending the question in, but no one has said they would I nominate MDC to send in the question.    ^_^






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS