Jump to content



Photo

Twist of Fate and Brotherhood without Banners


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Lukasz Omasta

Lukasz Omasta

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:22 AM

Hi guys.

Twist lets my opponent change claim type from one to another. Brotherhood agenda states that power can be taken from Brotherhood characters to fulfill the claim of PWR challenges initiated against you. Can I take power using claim replacement like Twist or Double Bluff? The challenge initiated was not a PWR challenge.



#2 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:12 PM

As long as you're changing the claim type to a power challenge, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do so.


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


#3 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,555 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 08:57 PM

stormwolf27 said:

As long as you're changing the claim type to a power challenge, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do so.

But BwB says "Opponents may choose and take power from your Brotherhood characters to fulfill the claim of Power challenges initiated against you." (Emphasis mine). Even if the claim effects are replaced with those of another challenge, the challenge still has not been initiated as a POW challenge. That's where the OP's question is coming from.

I'll admit that I'm unsure about this. I tend to agree that it should be possible, but I'd like to hear ktom's opinion about this.



#4 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:45 AM

Ratatoskr said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

As long as you're changing the claim type to a power challenge, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do so.

 

 

But BwB says "Opponents may choose and take power from your Brotherhood characters to fulfill the claim of Power challenges initiated against you." (Emphasis mine). Even if the claim effects are replaced with those of another challenge, the challenge still has not been initiated as a POW challenge. That's where the OP's question is coming from.

I'll admit that I'm unsure about this. I tend to agree that it should be possible, but I'd like to hear ktom's opinion about this.

While it's true that it could be interpreted like that, I do believe that it was clarified (either in a rules question email or another posting, or both… I can't remember) that it was worded that way to prevent confusion, and allow the opponent to still have an option to move power through claim from the brotherhood characters, since it is almost impossible that the brotherhood player will ever have power on their house during the game.

I think the "initiated" part of the wording stems from the fact that this card was out before either Twist of Fate or Double Bluff, when there wasn't really anything that could change another challenge to POW challenge claim… and they just felt it wasn't necessary to erratta it.


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


#5 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,555 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:11 AM

stormwolf27 said:

I think the "initiated" part of the wording stems from the fact that this card was out before either Twist of Fate or Double Bluff, when there wasn't really anything that could change another challenge to POW challenge claim… and they just felt it wasn't necessary to erratta it.

Double Bluff is a CCG reprint, so this kind of effects was around way before BwB.



#6 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:40 AM

Ratatoskr said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

I think the "initiated" part of the wording stems from the fact that this card was out before either Twist of Fate or Double Bluff, when there wasn't really anything that could change another challenge to POW challenge claim… and they just felt it wasn't necessary to erratta it.

 

 

Double Bluff is a CCG reprint, so this kind of effects was around way before BwB.

But at the same time, there were a lot of CCG reprints whose wordings weren't considered when they wrote the rules, making the RAW and RAI conflict over them. I'm not saying you're wrong about your interpretation, but just something to consider when referring to reprinted effects.


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


#7 mr Oppenheimer

mr Oppenheimer

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:36 PM

Since it seems we can't get straight answer, just email Damon Stone regarding this.



#8 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,561 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:29 AM

While Twist of Fate does not change the type of challenge that was initiated, you are still being held responsible for POW claim in a challenge initiated against you. I read the Agenda as caring about the claim type in challenges in which you are the losing player.

"Initiated against you" tends to be read as "in which you are the defending player." Crown Regent doesn't get around Across the Summer Sea even though the redirected challenge does not technically "initiate" the challenge against the Targ player. If you take a challenge for someone you Support, thereby becoming the defending player, you can drop LW-Catelyn into the challenge as a defender, even though the challenge was not technically "initiated" against you.

So the whole "it wasn't a POW challenge that was initiated, even though we are resolving the claim of a POW challenge" doesn't seem to track. We'll see if Damon says anything different, but it seems to me that the effects of these two cards (Twist of Fate & Brotherhood without Banners) combine rather than the agenda trumping the plot.



#9 Skowza

Skowza

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,131 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:25 PM

Hmm, never paid that much attention to wording on BwB, so how about Melee Robert against BwB then; if he wins a challenge against player A, and player B is running BwB, Robert cannot take power from player B's characters because the challenge wasnt initiated against player B and player B wasnt the defending player?  Sorry if this has been asked and answered already.



#10 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,561 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

Skowza said:

Hmm, never paid that much attention to wording on BwB, so how about Melee Robert against BwB then; if he wins a challenge against player A, and player B is running BwB, Robert cannot take power from player B's characters because the challenge wasnt initiated against player B and player B wasnt the defending player?  Sorry if this has been asked and answered already.
You are misreading my previous answer. 

If you are a Brotherhood player and you are on the hook for POWER claim as if you were the defender (and Robert counts - he is a claim replacement effect), it comes off of one of your characters. The Agenda does not protect you from challenge/claim manipulation effects.



#11 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,555 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:47 PM

ktom said:

While Twist of Fate does not change the type of challenge that was initiated, you are still being held responsible for POW claim in a challenge initiated against you. I read the Agenda as caring about the claim type in challenges in which you are the losing player.

"Initiated against you" tends to be read as "in which you are the defending player." Crown Regent doesn't get around Across the Summer Sea even though the redirected challenge does not technically "initiate" the challenge against the Targ player. If you take a challenge for someone you Support, thereby becoming the defending player, you can drop LW-Catelyn into the challenge as a defender, even though the challenge was not technically "initiated" against you.

So the whole "it wasn't a POW challenge that was initiated, even though we are resolving the claim of a POW challenge" doesn't seem to track. We'll see if Damon says anything different, but it seems to me that the effects of these two cards (Twist of Fate & Brotherhood without Banners) combine rather than the agenda trumping the plot.

Thank you, ktom. I agree that this is the interpretation makes the most sense, even if the wording on BwB makes it a tad ambiguous.






© 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