Jump to content



Photo

Victarion Greyjoy(RotC) vs Eddard Stark(LoW)


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 xXxDaRkStAr

xXxDaRkStAr

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:59 AM

hello again :) as a newbie i am having a lot of questions for this game :) and i am posting again to specify a rule regarding an attacking Victarion Greyjoy... As it says if he is attacking, and i am having less naval than the attacking player, my opponent raises the claim by one... so what happens if i declare Eddard Stark as a blocker? does it drop the claim value back to 0? which character's ability comes first and which second?



#2 doulos2k

doulos2k

    Member

  • Members
  • 246 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:11 PM

It's been ruled in other threads that Eddard Stark's effect is a conditional constant that causes claim to be zero whenever he is defending. No amount of claim raising will ever raise that claim beyond zero due to this. 

 

The difficulty for me is being certain what Victarion's ability is. It also appears to be a conditional constant that claim is raised as long as the condition has been met. 

 

This is likely why you're getting views and not answers. Many of us were likely waiting for someone like Khudzlin, Ratatoskr, Istaril, or players with more experience to weigh in. Granted, we all hope for ktom, but his presence in answers has been more sporadic of late. 

 

My gut says that Eddard trumps Victarion, because Victarion's text could be considered a passive that only initiates at the point where claim matters, but I'm just not sure. 

 

Sorry, more than likely, I'm just over thinking it. 


Edited by doulos2k, 13 October 2013 - 11:12 PM.

Austin AGoT Players

http://agotaustin.com


#3 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,418 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:40 PM

Back when I was a newbie, I asked the same question with Arianne Martell (PotS) instead of Victarion. Her effect is also a conditional constant that raises claim while she is attacking. The answer was that the claim was 0.



#4 -Istaril

-Istaril

    Member

  • Members
  • 794 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 09:51 AM

Yeah, The justification isn't all that clear to even those of us you mention, doulos2k, but the current ruling is that Eddard trumps other such effects.



#5 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 10:34 AM

yeah. since Eddard doesn't lower the claim by a specified amount (just says lowered to 0), it trumps any raised claim.

 

If he, instead, said "lower [opponent(s)] claim by x," then it would not trump and would simply get factored in.


Edited by stormwolf27, 14 October 2013 - 10:35 AM.

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#6 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:36 AM

Trying to outline this argument a little so we can get a clearer discussion and outline what needs to be added to the FAQ, if anything.

 

Relevant text:

 

Eddard: "While Eddard Stark is defending, lower the attacking player's claim to 0."

 

Victarion: "While Victarion Greyjoy is attacking, raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 1 if you control more participating characters with [Naval] enhancements than the defending opponent."

 

Per a straight reading of the rules, its difficult to categorize Eddard and Victarion's abilities as constants. They more fall under passives. However, playing convention doesn't support them being passives as it raises the issue of the claim being raised or lowered permanently even after their condition becomes unmet.

 

From the FAQ, pg. 10, Section 3.11

 

"Passive Abilities: Passive abilities must initiate when applicable. These abilities are identified by their card text, which indicates when the ability initiates. Passive abilities are not affected by cards that prevent or cancel triggered effects or abilities. An example of a passive ability is the ability of Knight of Flowers (CORE B147).

Constant Abilities: Constant abilities are those that are continuously affecting the game state. Because there is no point of initiation, they cannot be canceled. Examples of constant abilities include the ability of Winter Castle (CORE S25)."

 

This is why I keep arguing for more granular ability types like "Conditional Constant." The FAQ's definition appears to clearly prevent both Eddard's and Victarion's abilities from being considered constants as they do not "continuously affect the game state" in an obvious and traditional sense. There is a point of "initiation" for their abilities, though it is simply the satisfaction or lack thereof with regards to a condition.

 

That being said, they are conflicting constants to boot. The game has no way of resolving conflicting constants. The rules for conflicting effects are exclusively passives, so this conflict goes unresolved if you consider it a conflict. Why is it a conflict? Because they both contain wording that can be reasonably argued as:

 

While Eddard = Defending

{

 AppliedClaim = 0

 

)

Loop

____________________________________________

 

While Victarion = Attacking

                {

 

                If MyNavalIcons > OppNavalIcons Then

 

                                AppliedClaim = Claim + 1

 

                End If

 

                }

Loop

 

They are mechanically identical in this interpretation and so would be considered conflicting.

 

There may be another valid interpretation, but this one is very reasonable in my opinion.

 

Right now there is no actual way to resolve this by the written rules I don't believe. If Eddard is to trump the other effects, then the precedent needs to be set within the FAQ that absolute modifiers dominate qualified modifiers. I don't really know if that exists currently.



#7 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:25 PM

Eddard's formula is (if defending and x>1, then x=0)

 

while Victarion's... using b for plot claim value... (if attacking [naval enhanced] > defending [naval enhanced], then x=b+1, if attacking [naval enhanced] < defending [naval enhanced], then x=b)

 

this goes into an argument with Fury of the Dragon (if you win a power challenge against x or y house, choose a character controlled by that opponent and lower its STR to 0 till the end of the phase)... no matter how many times you pump that character after it has been targeted by this, every time the character's STR is calculated, it will equal 0 until after the current phase.

 

You can be using Naval Superiority, declare Victarion as a [naval] attacker, and play 5 other things that raise claim (that many don't exist for Greyjoy, but bear with me) for a total of claim 9... but as soon as Eddard Stark is defending, that is all reduced to 0. Nothing further. The defense rests.


Edited by stormwolf27, 15 October 2013 - 12:30 PM.

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#8 doulos2k

doulos2k

    Member

  • Members
  • 246 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:37 PM

Point of clarification. Fury of the Dragon's effect is until the end of the round. And, honestly, the ruling on Fury's effect has been bent both ways over ttime without its text changing a nit. 


Austin AGoT Players

http://agotaustin.com


#9 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:42 PM

the point at which it ends is irrelevant to the argument, but I appreciate the clarification.

 

Reduce to 0 has always trumped raise by x when it comes to the passive or constant still being in effect. If it didn't give a duration, I could see the argument, but it does. it says to lower it while Eddard is defending, and with Fury it says to lower STR until end of the round. that means it constantly does it over and over until such time as it is "turned off" as it were


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#10 doulos2k

doulos2k

    Member

  • Members
  • 246 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:53 PM

I actually agree with your assessment, but your assertion that this has "always" been the case is just not true. Searches will show that Fury of the Dragon was ruled to be a lasting effect of a -X reduction and X equaled the character's strength at the point of initiation. Therefore, later strength buffs could still occur.

 

It has since been ruled by Damon to be as you are currently declaring it... but, to repeat, it has not "always" been the case.

 

My point was only to clarify that without an actual FAQ entry... the debate on this is understandable. There is no specific reasoning given as to why these are not conflicting effects - one raises, the other lowers (or reduces). Ktom's argument (back at the time he ruled it) was that it was an effect with a specific point of initiation and to assume the effect applied continuously was reading too much into the actual verbiage of the card.

 

To reiterate. I believe you are correct - reduce to zero and lower to zero are now ruled as lasting effects that remain until the expiration of the effect. But... the questions as to why and why they are not conflicting will continue to rage until it is explicitly defined.


Austin AGoT Players

http://agotaustin.com


#11 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 01:25 PM

I can get behind that.


"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#12 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:54 PM

I wouldn't apply all those while loops to each character ability like that.  I'd run a claim calculation function that is run constantly to obtain the claim value.

 

int TotalClaim;

int BaseClaim = revealedPlotClaim;

List<ClaimObject> claimModifiers = new List<ClaimObject>;

 

void CalculateClaim( )

{

     TotalClaim = BaseClaim;

     foreach( ClaimObject modifier in claimModifiers )

     {

           if (modifier.FinalClaimValue)

           {

               TotalClaim = modifier.value;

               break;

           }

           else

           {

               TotalClaim += modifier.value;

           }

     }

}

 

Yes, this function could be very different and the claim object and all code behind any of this could handle it thousands of ways.

 

claimModifiers is populated with all instances where claim has been modified.  We can apply the ignorance of all of this directly from Eddard Stark if we want... where we don't even enter such a subroutine and just make the claim zero.

 

With Victarion, I'd treat him where if his condition is met, he immediately applies his claim modification by adding it to claimModifiers.

 

The only conflict I can see potentially occurring is if there is an a card that makes claim X at the same time as Eddard Stark... but I believe we have an FAQ entry to handle such a thing.


Edited by Bomb, 15 October 2013 - 02:55 PM.


#13 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:22 AM

right. the only time(s) they truly conflict where it is an issue as to which is applied first is if Eddard was -x to claim, or if Victarion said to raise claim to x


Edited by stormwolf27, 16 October 2013 - 11:22 AM.

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka


#14 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 12:47 PM

Hmmm...

 

After reading and rethinking about this, the fact that Victarion increases claim on the plot card and that Eddard reduces claim itself is where I see a distinction that allows Eddard to take precedence. Does that make sense?

 

Essentially, Victarion raises the plots claim, but eddard modifies the framework action's claim is what I'm thinking. This all requires "attacking player's claim" to refer to the claim of the framework action, though. That could be a stretch, but Victarion refers specifically to the plot. Eddard could have said "attacking player's plot's claim", but does not.

 

@Bomb - That is totally what I wanted to write yesterday, but I didn't because I felt like I was putting a priority on the effects which I had no right to. Totally appreciate you typing it out, though.

 

@Storm - Ugh. I just read Fury of the Dragon and now I have another thing to think about. Didn't realize it said "reduce" to zero. Now I'm wondering how that works mechanically. Oh well, that's for another thread.






© 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