Jump to content



Photo

cersei attendant


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Robby Stark

Robby Stark

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:06 AM

here is cersei attendant http://www.cardgamed...y_11_131645.jpg

if you have multiple cersei's attendants in play can they trigger each other?

 

BONUS QUESTION is cat immune to eagle? cat and eagle: 

http://www.cardgamed...y_24_260634.jpg

http://www.cardgamed...ry_8_162322.jpg

 



#2 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:54 AM

Robby Stark said:

here is cersei attendant http://www.cardgamed...y_11_131645.jpg

if you have multiple cersei's attendants in play can they trigger each other?

Cards that have self-referential text cannot trigger off of other copies of it in play.

Here is a reference from the FAQ:

(3.13) Self-Referential Cards
 
 
When a card refers to its own name (e.g., the
Catelyn Stark
(CORE S6) card that reads,
"Response: After Catelyn Stark is declared
as a defender…"), it is referring to itself only.
This response cannot be triggered when an
opponent's
Catelyn Stark
is declared as a
defender.

Robby Stark said:

BONUS QUESTION is cat immune to eagle? cat and eagle: 

http://www.cardgamed...y_24_260634.jpg

http://www.cardgamed...ry_8_162322.jpg

Orell the Eagle does not create a play restriction directly to characters in play.  He creates a play restriction on the defending player by forcing them to declare 2 or more characters as defenders if they want to try to defend the challenge instead of just 1 or more.  Since Cat O' Canals is not immune to their players own decision making, they cannot be declared as your lone defender while Orell the Eagle is attacking. 

It is sort of similar to the reason why Pyat Pree can indirectly be the cause of killing Cat O' Canals.  He doesn't do the killing, he modifies the framework for military claim.  Since she isn't immune to military claim, she can be killed using Pyat Pree.



#3 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,409 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:26 AM

Pyat Pree can also modify intrigue claim.



#4 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:43 AM

Bomb said:

..Since Cat O' Canals is not immune to their players own decision making, they cannot be declared as your lone defender while Orell the Eagle is attacking. 

I have to disagree with this as Cat O' the Canals is immune to Dragon Fear. We probably need more explanation here.



#5 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 10:28 AM

mdc273 said:

Bomb said:

 

..Since Cat O' Canals is not immune to their players own decision making, they cannot be declared as your lone defender while Orell the Eagle is attacking. 

 

 

I have to disagree with this as Cat O' the Canals is immune to Dragon Fear. We probably need more explanation here.

Dragon Fear is telling you to do something to the attached character, which is directly affecting the character that is attached.

Orell the Eagle is telling the player how they can successfully defend a challenge.  It does nothing to the characters directly in play.

 

If Orell the Eagle said "characters cannot be declared as defenders unless 2 or more are declared as defenders", then Cat would be immune, because the play restriction would be imposed directly on the characters in play, and not on the player themselves.

This is also one of the reasons she is not immune to Joust.  Joust is placing a play restriction on the player themselves by telling the player he cannot declare more than one defender.  This thread was beaten to death about her versus Joust.

 



#6 Apophenia

Apophenia

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 10:47 AM

mdc273 said:

I have to disagree with this as Cat O' the Canals is immune to Dragon Fear. We probably need more explanation here.

 

Also… Good luck getting Dragon Fear on Cat O' The Canals considering she has "No attachments except a single Weapon".



#7 Robby Stark

Robby Stark

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 03:04 PM

it doesn't say ''cannot declare defenders'' so I can I still kneel cat as a defender? let's say she has the big ass-sword



#8 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,409 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:37 PM

Catelyn's effect (not that it is not an ability) has the explicit restriction "during an [INT] or [POW] challenge against you" and the implicit restriction of being in your hand (since her effect puts her into play from your hand). So she could never be jumped into a [MIL] challenge and she could never jump into a challenge if she was already in play. However, her effect could still be used during a [POW] challenge where Orell is attacking (or even [INT], should Orell get the icon) if she is in your hand. Effects like The Wall (neutral), Greatjon Umber or Guardian Wolf (the first 2 are abilities, the last is not), not being declaration of defenders, can be used. Using a Naval enhancement, being declaration of a single defender, cannot be used (though I'm not sure Orell does require the defenders to be declared at the same time).



#9 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 01:38 AM

@Khudzlin -

The character in question is Cat O' Canals, not Catelyn Stark.  :-)



#10 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,409 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 02:29 AM

Bomb said:

@Khudzlin -

The character in question is Cat O' Canals, not Catelyn Stark.  :-)

Oh.

Then: no way. The restriction is on the player, not the characters.



#11 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 02:56 AM

Bomb said:

 

@Khudzlin -

The character in question is Cat O' Canals, not Catelyn Stark.  :-)

 

 

someone brought her up earlier in another thread as a way to get around jank, I think is why he was talking about her ability when he saw "cat."


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


#12 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,409 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:02 AM

stormwolf27 said:

someone brought her up earlier in the thread as a way to get around orell, I think is why he was talking about her ability.

Thanks for proving I'm not complety out of it. However, I feel obliged to point out (as I did when I mentioned her last time) that LoW Catelyn Stark's effect is not an ability, since it is triggered while she is out of play (in hand). An ability is any text on a card in play, excluding traits and keywords (and obviously, flavor text), per the FAQ.



#13 stormwolf27

stormwolf27

    Member

  • Members
  • 623 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 03:07 AM

Khudzlin said:

stormwolf27 said:

 

someone brought her up earlier in the thread as a way to get around orell, I think is why he was talking about her ability.

 

 

Thanks for proving I'm not complety out of it. However, I feel obliged to point out (as I did when I mentioned her last time) that LoW Catelyn Stark's effect is not an ability, since it is triggered while she is out of play (in hand). An ability is any text on a card in play, excluding traits and keywords (and obviously, flavor text), per the FAQ.

gazundheit :-P


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


#14 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,409 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 04:58 AM

stormwolf27 said:

gazundheit :-P

Be careful or I'll call my lookalike Ratatoskr to punish you for mangling his native language (German).



#15 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:03 AM

Bomb said:

mdc273 said:

 

Bomb said:

 

..Since Cat O' Canals is not immune to their players own decision making, they cannot be declared as your lone defender while Orell the Eagle is attacking. 

 

 

I have to disagree with this as Cat O' the Canals is immune to Dragon Fear. We probably need more explanation here.

 

 

Dragon Fear is telling you to do something to the attached character, which is directly affecting the character that is attached.

Orell the Eagle is telling the player how they can successfully defend a challenge.  It does nothing to the characters directly in play.

 

If Orell the Eagle said "characters cannot be declared as defenders unless 2 or more are declared as defenders", then Cat would be immune, because the play restriction would be imposed directly on the characters in play, and not on the player themselves.

This is also one of the reasons she is not immune to Joust.  Joust is placing a play restriction on the player themselves by telling the player he cannot declare more than one defender.  This thread was beaten to death about her versus Joust.

 

No. Dragon Fear's text:

If there is at least 1 Dragon character in play, attached character must be chosen for Military claim if able.

Either this puts an onus on the player to choose the character with Dragon Fear for claim or this puts an onus on the character to force the player to choose itself for claim. Ktom has already stated that cards immune to attachments would be immune to Dragon Fear. This means the onus is put on the character.

Now lets look at Orell the Eagle:

While Orell the Eagle is attacking, opponents must declare at least 2 defenders in order to defend the challenge.

The only difference is that Orell actually mentions the opponent and Dragon Fear does not. Why does Dragon Fear not say "opponent must choose attached character for military claim if able"? It's implied. Therefore, it makes sense that Cat would be immune to Orell. Dragon Fear puts the onus on the character to choose itself, it says "no you can't". The same would happen with Orell. Cat would say "no I don't have to listen to you".



#16 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:22 AM

The only difference? 

Orell the Eagle doesn't say anything about affecting characters, period.  Characters have no direct interaction with Orell the Eagles ability, so there is nothing to be immune to.

Dragon Fear tells you to do something to the character it is attached to.  Cat O' Canals is immune to Dragon Fear because Dragon Fear does something to the character directly by painting a "target" on the attached character.

That is a HUGE difference.



#17 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:15 AM

Bomb said:

The only difference? 

Orell the Eagle doesn't say anything about affecting characters, period.  Characters have no direct interaction with Orell the Eagles ability, so there is nothing to be immune to.

Dragon Fear tells you to do something to the character it is attached to.  Cat O' Canals is immune to Dragon Fear because Dragon Fear does something to the character directly by painting a "target" on the attached character.

That is a HUGE difference.

I don't know where people get this idea that Dragon Fear does something to the character. There is literally nothing on the card that indicates Dragon Fear is doing something to the character.

Once again, as I have indicated before, Dragon Fear explicitly affects the player. The player can attempt to not choose the character to which Dragon Fear is attached, but it will not succeed. The player is forced by Dragon Fear to choose the attached character. The attached character is not killed by Dragon Fear, but by the generic framework action of claim. The closest Dragon Fear comes to doing anything to the character is pointing at it. The character ignores it.

Orell the Eagle puts the same type of restriction on the player. The player must defend with 2 characters or not defend at all. In the instance of Dragon Fear, this restriction on the player is considered something to which a character immune to attachments would be immune. It makes no sense to not apply the same logic to Orell the Eagle. Orell the Eagle, in the same vein, wags its finger at the characters that try to defend alone. The character ignores it.

Either both of these effects should be ignored by something immune to them or neither of them should.

No one has yet made the argument that Dragon Fear is an absolute abomination of templating and word choice and that the card should be interpreted as "Instead of normal military claim, reduce the claim by one. Kill attached character."



#18 Robby Stark

Robby Stark

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:42 PM

you guys like my bonus question a lot more than my actual titled question



#19 Robby Stark

Robby Stark

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:58 PM

mdc273 said:

the card should be interpreted as "Instead of normal military claim, reduce the claim by one. Kill attached character."

 

the problem with that is I aleardy find ''instead of normal claim'' cards extremely ambiguous. instead of claim cards that are already printed means that the normal claim is replaced by what follows it on the card. that would mean that if I play my favourite card FOCUSED OFFENSE and win a mil challenge, only attached character will die, as opposed to attached character + 2 other doods

while we're at it with normal claim replacement, heres a funny situation (I don't know if it was brought up before): let's say i'm running out-of-house hyper lordship pyat pree. while he is attacking alone I play direct assault and win. what then?



#20 Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,409 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:22 AM

You have 2 "replace claim" effects timed as passives. The first player chooses which goes last (each effect will replace the previous one).






© 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