Jump to content



Photo

FAQ Version 1.4 Errata


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 jhagen

jhagen

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 09:47 AM

 

Below are clarification to the rules that are ambiguous or not properly defined in the current FAQ or corrections to factual errors.

 

RULES CLARIFICATIONS

Mustering into sea zones: You may muster at a stronghold or castle in an adjacent sea zone with or without a port being present in the mustering castle or strongholds zone. (1)

House Cards

"Ser Loras Tyrell" If you are attacking and win this combat, Move the March Order token used with the marching force. The March Order may be resolved again later this round. (2)

 Q: If House Greyjoy plays his “Victarion Greyjoy” House card against House Baratheon’s “Sallador Saan” House card, are the participating Greyjoy Ships still reduced to 0 combat strength?
 A: Yes and No, depending on which card is resolved first. The text of the cards are resolved in Iron Throne turn order. (3)

 Q: If Mace Tyrell’s text ability destroys the last remaining defending unit, does the combat still continue?
 A: No. Combat immediately ends and the embattled area is now treated like an empty region. (4)

 Q: If a conflict between a pair of played house cards come up what do I do?

 A: If an issue comes up about the timing of a house card's resolution, Any “Ignore” or “Cancel” text abilities are first resolved in the player order of the Iron Throne track. Then other conflicting text abilities are then resolved in the player order of the Iron Throne track. After the outcome of combat is determined, any “win/lose this combat…” text abilities are resolved in the player order of the Iron Throne track. Lastly, "after combat" effects are resolved. Keep in mind the first card is implemented completely before that of the second card. (3)

 Q: When a player is defending an area containing a Power token and loses the combat while also playing the “Arianne Martell” House card, is the Power token removed?
 A: Yes, as are any Martell Order tokens or power tokens present in that area. (5)

 

Combat and Unit Movement

 Q: Can Siege Engines be chosen to satisfy the necessary number of casualties suffered as the loser in a combat?
 A: Yes. Siege Engines are units (like all others) and resolve combat normally with the only exception being that they may not retreat. (6)

 

 

 

References:

1. Rulebook page 9. (mustering)

2. To resolve possible reactions with other house cards while still preserving the integrity, functionality and spirit of the card mechanic.

3. Rulebook page 19. (house cards) in this circumstance the card could reduce to 0 before Greyjoy added +1 (end strength = 1)or +1 could be added before it is reduced to 0. (end strength = 0)

4. Rulebook page 20. (step 5 of combat resolution adresses this card specifically) In this case the initial combat strength is recalculated to null and support cannot be provided to an empty region and order tokens are removed from empty regions.

5. Rulebook Page 21. (step 4 of combat - combat cleanup) If the combat was won by the attacker, remove any Order token the defender had assigned to the embattled area (if one remains) as well as any Power token in the area.

6. Rulebook page 6. (definition of a unit) page 9. (mustering) page 12. (assign orders) page 21. (casualties) page 24. (controlling areas)



#2 dypaca

dypaca

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 12 May 2012 - 07:52 AM

By factual errors, do you mean rulings you don't like?

I realize that things like the Siege Engine question should probably be labeled as Errata instead of Frequently Asked Questions, but I think that the FAQ entry is intended to be read as an official rule, even though it was omitted from the rulebook.

Plus, even if you are trying to stick strictly to the rule book over the official FAQ, I don't see why no units would have 'null' combat strength, and that that aborts the battle, instead of just having zero combat strength and continuing.  When they ruled that way in first edition it always seemed like a very strange decision to me (but I did accept that it was an official addition to the rules).

I like your comment about mustering, as alot of people misread that rule, but your interpretation is correct (as shown in the example).  The expanded house card timing and Arianne Martell rewording also seem to be in line with the official rules.  Everything else seems like house rules though.



#3 jhagen

jhagen

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 11:07 AM

 

Thanks for the passive-aggressive dig dypaca,

NO these are not the rules i "dont like" they are just factually incorrect within the guidelines of the rulebook.

For all you know, the FAQ was arbitrarily answered by someone who has little or no knowledge of the game. And because it comes on "official" FFG letterhead you will accept it as gospel without question?

The AGoT FAQ missed the mark completely on many frequently contested subjects.

As for the:

Q: If Mace Tyrell’s text ability destroys the last remaining defending unit, does the combat still continue?
  A: No. Combat immediately ends and the embattled area is now treated like an empty region.

What the rulebook did not clarify was if the ONLY unit in the region was a footman.

so what we know according to the rulebook:

- Card text can violate the rules, and if they do their text is allowed.

- Cards can force a recalculation of combat strength making a new value.

- Whenever a player marches one or more of his units into an area containing units from another House, combat ensues.

So…

If a card removes the last unit from an area and that forces a recalculation in combat, and if there is no longer any units in the embattled area…

combat never ensues.

Therefore the region must be treated like a vacant region.

 

Now one could argue that the area is now embattled. and support is provided to an embattled area by adjacent territories.

 

Now ask yourself:

If support is only provided to units, how can you support an empty region?

What would happen if Tyrell used the card on a region with one footman, a stronghold and a consolidate token?

What if that territory was supported by too many forces? would the consolidate token resolve on an empty territory?

What if that territory had a power token on it, making sure that control of that region still belonged to the defender?

Keep in mind tokens may never be placed in regions without units. Nowhere in the rulebook addresses vacant regions with tokens on them. (FFG missed this possibility in playtest). That is why they addressed them in the FAQ in the way they did:

Q: When a player is defending an area containing
a Power token and loses the combat while also playing
the “Arianne Martell” House card, is the Power token
removed?
A: Yes, as are any Martell Order tokens present
in that area, since an area without units cannot
contain an Order token
.

Unfortunately this is never mentioned in the rulebook anywhere. FFG is trying to rewrite the rulebook to address holes in the rules without directly addressing them.

This FAQ point is properly answered by the following quote from the rulebook (page 21- bottom right):

4. Combat Clean Up
After combat is completed, remove the attacking player’s March Order token from the game board. If the combat was won by the attacker, remove any Order token the defender had assigned to the embattled area (if one remains) as well as any Power token in the area (which would exist if the defending player had previously established control there, see page 24).

You can see where the Tyrell card killing the lone footman in a region with a token present can cause problems where they did not win the combat, because the token is not removed in this instance.

In order to avoid a BLACK HOLE in the rule set, the above rule for the tyrell card was made. Using the best of all angles of the variables.

 

 



#4 jhagen

jhagen

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 12:56 PM

 

As for the:

 Q: If House Greyjoy plays his “Victarion Greyjoy” House card against House Baratheon’s “Sallador Saan” House card, are the participating Greyjoy Ships still reduced to 0 combat strength?

A: Yes and No, depending on which card is resolved first. The text of the cards are resolved in Iron Throne turn order. (3)
  
The rules specifically state the cards are resolved in turn order.

so the card interaction can be solved mathematically: (assume greyjoy ships variable = G)

initial value:

G=1

"sallador saan" played:

G=0

"Victarion Greyjoy" played:

G+1 = 1

now in the other direction:

initial value:

G=1

"Victarion Greyjoy" played:

G+1 = 2

"sallador saan" played:

G=0
 

Here is the direct quote from the rulebook (page 19):

The House Cards
Each player begins the game with seven unique House cards.
These represent characters lending their abilities and strength to
combat (for a visual breakdown of a House card, see the “House
Card Breakdown” diagram above).
After players reveal House cards during a combat, the text
abilities of the two House cards are immediately resolved. Some
text abilities specify that they are implemented later during the
same combat (such as “at the end of the combat”) but unless stated
otherwise, implement the effect immediately.
There are instances when the exact order of House card
resolution is important. Should a timing conflict occur, follow this
order of operations:
1. Any “Ignore” or “Cancel” text abilities are first resolved in
the player order of the Iron Throne track.
A Greyjoy House Card
2. Other conflicting text abilities are then resolved in the player
order of the Iron Throne track.
3. After the outcome of combat is determined, any “win/lose
this combat…” text abilities are resolved in the player order of
the Iron Throne track.
The text ability of the first card is implemented completely
before that of the second card.

Now once you have read that description, you see the turn order matters. and the "sallador saan" value of "0" does not persist throughout the combat but only through its resolution before the greyjoy bumps it back up 1.

here is food for thought:

Victarion
Greyjoy
3

If you are attacking, all of your
participating Ships (incl. supporting
Greyjoy Ships) add +2 to combat
strength instead of +1.

With the above rule in mind you would have an argument that depending on turn order the "sallador saan" could have no effect on the combat because like the saan card, "Victarion Greyjoy" is assigning a value of +2 in combat. and the "rather than +1" is just for reminder to the layman what it's value is supposed to be in the first place.

So taking both theh mechanics and the intended effect of the card the above ruling was made for the FAQ.



#5 dypaca

dypaca

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 03:22 PM

Sorry to come off as snide.  I just felt that you were presenting this as an unreleased future version (the current FAQ is 1.0) of the official FAQ, when as far as I can tell it is just your personal rulings.  FFG is not just trying to rewrite the rulebook, the purpose of an official FAQ and Errata is to override and add to the rulebook.  So while it is fine to post the FAQ you would have written, and the beauty of board games is that people can play by whatever house rules they agree to, I felt it was disingenuous to present these as corrections to factual errors.

…but since I enjoy debating rules, here's how I would enterpret the rulebook in the absence of the official FAQ.

For Mace Tyrell, you still marched units into an area with one or more enemy units, so combat ensues.  I don't feel that re-calculating combat strength is an indication that you redetermine whether combat is necessary.  After all, you are still going to go through combat cleanup which is a step in the combat rules.

The goal of avoiding further rulings for orders without units is a reason to change Mace Tyrell.  The game either needs your patch for Mace Tyrell and a similar rule for Tides of Battle cards, or the general rule that orders without units are discarded, or several rulings for how these are handled later in the turn.  (Note: before the official FAQ, some of the email responses players were getting from FFG seemed to be going down the third path.  Even though the FAQ is very indirect, I'm glad it went the way it did).

For Victarion and Kevan, I think the 'instead of +1' is supposed to mean 'only if the unit would otherwise provide +1'.  Therefor they don't provide any bonuses for routed units, or any ships affected by Sallador.



#6 jhagen

jhagen

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:03 AM

right click the faq on this website and click "save as" you will see they have assigned the faq version 1.4



#7 dypaca

dypaca

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 01:32 PM

jhagen said:

right click the faq on this website and click "save as" you will see they have assigned the faq version 1.4

Ah, I see where you got the 1 4 from.  I was going based on the version on the first page of the FAQ.



#8 jhagen

jhagen

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 28 May 2012 - 08:40 AM

the most important thing is to understand what errata and faq means.

errata- changes to the rules for the next printing. so when the game goes to print for its next time. the new rules will be read as such.

faq- questions/answers on how to interpret convoluted or complex interactions and their rulings. or answers to frequently asked questions.

 

this is why this 1.4 errata was made in the first place. to answer questions.

rules changes do not belong in an faq. thusly, they arent rules changes.

 






© 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