Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ktom

  1. The reasoning for this would be that the rules for applying claim are all worded in terms of winning/losing the challenge. So unless a card effect specifically tells you to apply to someone other than the loser of the challenge, the claim is limited to the loser of the challenge. So, there are two possible situations: 1) You have the title and the Free Folk agenda. You win a qualifying intrigue challenge and apply claim - to as many players as you want because of the title's specific instructions. You then trigger the Reaction on the agenda to apply military or power claim. However, it will only be applied to the losing player because the title doesn't extend to power or military claim. 2) You have the title and the Free Folk agenda. You win a qualifying military or power challenge and apply claim - to just the losing player, of course. You then triggers the Reaction on the agenda to apply intrigue claim. Since you are now applying and resolving intrigue claim, the title's ability would kick in and could thus have the intrigue claim resolve against as many players as you like. Kakita Shiro's answer is 100% correct (i.e., the combination of the title and the agenda results in only the losing player suffering the power/military claim, but as many players as you choose suffering the intrigue claim), but that's the reasoning behind it, and why its true regardless of the type of challenge you actually win.
  2. RRG, p. 12: "Leaves Play The phrase 'leaves play' refers to any time a card makes a transition from an in play state to an out of play state. If a card leaves play, the following consequences occur simultaneously with the card leaving play: x All tokens on the card are returned to the treasury. x All duplicates on the card are discarded. x All attachments that are on the card are returned to their owners’ hands. x All lasting effects and/or delayed effects affecting the card while it is in play expire for that card." (The last two bullets are key to the question, letting you know that both the attachment and the effect giving it the trait are removed at death.) Also, RRG, p. 2: "Abilities ... x Card abilities only interact with, and can only target, cards that are in play, unless the ability text specifically refers to an out of play area or element. Card abilities on characters, locations, and attachments can only be initiated or affect the game from an in play area unless they specifically refer to being used from an out of play area, or require that the card be out of play for the ability to resolve. Event cards and agenda cards implicitly interact with the game from an out of play area, as established by the rules of their cardtypes." Which lets you know the attachment cannot work on a character that is not "in play" without some very specialized text.
  3. Yep. It's not like the attachment goes to the dead pile and stays attached to the character, and since attachments cannot work on a character they are not attached to, the character loses any benefit (or penalty) from the attachment when it is killed. Further, the rules are pretty clear that cards abilities cannot affect cards that are not in play unless they specifically say they do. So, if you want to use Old Wyk on characters that do not have the printed "Drowned God" trait, you're going to need to find a card effect that specifically says "gains the 'Drowned God' trait while in your dead pile."
  4. Specifically, the definition of "Cost" states: "A card's gold cost is the numerical value that must be paid to marshal or play the card." When you trigger the "Reaction" ability on The Prince's Plan, you are not actually playing the event - which, as defined in the LTP guide, only happens when you are triggering an event from your hand. You are merely triggering an ability on the card while it is in your discard pile. Because you are not playing the event card, you are not required to pay the gold cost printed in the upper left-hand corner of the card. Similarly, because you are not playing the event card, you cannot use "lower the cost to play..." effects - such as Littlerfinger's Meddling or Fealty - to reduce the cost required to trigger the ability on the card while it is in the discard pile. Note also that any cost written as part of a triggered ability on an event card is never considered part of the cost to play the event. Only the printed cost of the card (in the upper left-hand corner) is considered the cost to play the event. As such, the ability's separate cost can never be reduced by "lower the cost to play..." effects - such as Littlefinger's Meddling or Fealty - even when the ability cost is paid at the same time as the event's (gold) cost to play.
  5. This is true for unique characters. So once Eddard is dead, he is dead. You cannot marshal another copy of a unique card if you already have a copy in the dead pile. (See p. 22 of the rule book for confirmation and clarification of the rules for unique cards. It doesn't apply to non-unique cards. So, if you replace "Eddard Stark" with "Direwolf Pup" in your example, you CAN marshal the second copy. No, you cannot. If there is a copy of a unique card in your dead pile, you cannot bring another copy into play by any means - even as a duplicate.
  6. As stated above, Robert's STR is constantly changing based on the numbers of standing and kneeling characters. The STR he contributes to the challenge will depend on the number of kneeling characters when the challenge is resolved, not on the number of characters kneeling when he is declared as an attacker or defender.
  7. And even then, probably not. The source material IP may be a Games Workshop property, but the rule book, game mechanics, card design, and text of all existing cards are FFG copyright. It gets legally complicated to continue the game with a new company without paying the original company royalties (unless significant changes are made). Of course, we don't know if GW picked up the rights to the FFG copyright aspects of the games when the license ended, but based on the rumors around how the GW/FFG relationship fell apart, I'd guess it's more likely GW will create a new WH40K-themed card game than continue Conquest in anything resembling its current form.
  8. 1. See istaril's response. Players take turns initiating actions - you do one, then he does one, etc. - instead of one player initiating all the actions they want before the other guy gets a chance to. 2. You can never respond to an action with an action. You need a "reaction" or "interrupt" ability to "respond" to an action. So, the first player initiates an action, all players have the chance to trigger reaction abilities, then the next player can initiate an action (see #1/istaril's response above), etc.
  9. "Reserve" means cards with the Deep Strike keyword that have been deployed face-down at a planet, but not flipped over by paying the Deep Strike cost yet. So, if you have deployed this support card at your HQ, all of your face-down (i.e., otherwise blank) Deep Strike cards anywhere will count as if they had 1 command icon during command struggles.
  10. The only official stance on misplays is, "The players should agree on the best way to 'fix' the game state." - So, whatever you and your opponents agree is the best way to handle each of those play mistakes/scenarios is the correct way to handle it. - In a tournament game, if the players cannot agree, they will call a judge over, who will make a decision on how to "fix" the game state, and the players will be stuck with it. Traditionally, if someone messes up the play restrictions and/or triggering conditions (as in the scenarios you describe), and this is discovered right away, players usually just back-up and treat the situation as if the card hadn't been played, returning it to the player's hand - although their opponents know what they've got in hand now.
  11. To invoke the rules a little more specifically: The "Then..." part of Ser Gregor's ability involves choosing and killing a target character. The only target restriction placed on which character can be chosen is that its printed cost must be equal to the Pillaged card's printed cost. You cannot assume any other targeting restrictions based on the part of the ability before the "Then," and you certainly cannot assume any targeting restrictions based on the Support/Rival mechanic from melee titles. Note that the reaction was not triggered "against" any player to begin with. Pillage created a triggering condition, and the reaction was triggered against that. As far as the ability is concerned, who owns the card that was Pillaged only matters in that it has to match who owns the dead pile it is placed into. So there really is no connection between "the reaction was triggered against a different player" because the reaction was not actually triggered against a player - it was triggered against a card. So, there is nothing in the Ser Gregor's text or in the rules of the game that would limit the controller of the character targeted and killed by the "then" part of his ability to the same player who lost the challenge/had a character pillaged from his deck.
  12. There is no intrinsic limit on the number of "Action" abilities a player may initiate in a given window. Some actions will specifically include a limit or maximum in its text. Others will have practical limits based on cost/resources, game state, availability or triggering conditions, etc. But these will all arise from the ability's individual text. Also, there is no rule "turning off" the abilities of exhausted cards. You can initiate the ability on a card regardless of whether it is exhausted or not - assuming you can meet all play restrictions and pay all costs (e.g., an ability that says to exhaust the card in order to pay its cost clearly cannot be triggered when the card is exhausted - but because you cannot pay the cost, not because there is a blanket rule preventing you from using the abilities of exhausted cards).
  13. Yes. Nothing in the rules says that the card/resource bonus only counts from ready units, so that Void Pirate moving from HQ with your warlord is pretty handy.
  14. Otherwise, yes. If Jaime were immune to your own events, that would work. Since the creation of this thread, an entry in the FAQ was added to verify that delayed effects created by event cards are considered to be event effects if/when they resolve. As such, a card immune to events would also be immune to a delayed effect created by an event.
  15. Sure, because it's not like they could ever print another card that allows you to reveal a new plot card. But I suppose it's important for illustrative purposes of how continuous effects work to stick to the current card pool.
  16. Said another way, the new FAQ entry effectively says that you always round the result of an icon check to 0 or 1. It doesn't change the fact that you start from scratch each time you check for the icon, though. So before the new FAQ, the sequence of events in your scenario were: 1. Mil icon check, Balon alone: 1 (printed) = 1 (he has the icon) 2. Mil icon check, Balon + Syrio: 1 (printed) + 1 (gain from Syrio) = 2 (he has the icon) 3. Mil icon check, Balon + Syrio + Nymeria: 1 (printed) + 1 (gained from Syrio) - 1 (lost to Nymeria) = 1 (he has the icon) The thing to recognize is that #3 does not start from the result of #2 (i.e., "2 icons"), but rather it starts the whole calculation over again from scratch. When you recognize that this is how checking for icons works, it is easy to see that all the new rule does is round the result of #2 down to 1 instead of counting the number of treating the number of Mil icons as 2.
  17. I think the potential difficulty in that sentence is "add max 20 tokens to the pool." That implies to me that there will be times when there are fewer than 20. So what do you do if there are only 18? Roll again on a 19 or 20? And, you know, heaven forbid that there is ever a prime number of tokens in the bag that you then have to translate to your d20.
  18. He would immediately be considered to be participating again because his ability is a continuous effect. So actually, since Jon is already standing and he would immediately be participating again, you would not be allowed to trigger Highgarden on Jon in the first place because the game state will not change.
  19. Rather than go into an extended discussion of copyright law, I'll just mention that the issue was discussed in detail as part of this episode of the Beyond the Wall podcast.
  20. Is that confirmed? Yes several weeks ago. Apologies then; I was not aware. I'm not sure if anyone from FFG has specifically said, "You need 2 copies of the Core" - although they certainly may have. However, it has certainly been confirmed that the deckbuilding copy limit is 2, and that you don't get 2 copies of every player card in the Core, so the math unquestionably works out. People seem to be hedging on the answers here because of the following: A. It has been confirmed that a single Core can build 2 full decks that completely satisfy all deckbuilding rules (something that not all LCG Cores can claim). As such, a single Core set is fully playable for 2 players. However, you probably are not going to have a whole lot of customization choice, so the decks will not be optimal. B. It has been confirmed that the maximum copy limit for constructed decks is 2. Since most people feel that the "best possible experience" includes being able to make the best deck they can think up within the deckbuilding rules, you will need 2 copies of the Core in order to fully customize your decks for 2 players. C. Has it been confirmed that players may choose to play the same Investigator in a single game? I'm not sure I've seen that, and I could see thematic reasons why it would not be allowed. :: Assuming players can choose the same Investigator, you would have to "double-up" on B to give each player the option to play each investigator. If your definition of "best possible experience" includes every player having the option to play the Investigator they want, you'd need 4 Cores to cover the possibility that the 2 players want to play the same Investigator. Personally, I would suspect that if each player is using the same Investigator, you will not have the "best possible experience" while playing the two-player game, though. tl;dr - The game is supposed to be fully playable for 2 players with 1 Core set; however, since most LCG aficionados consider the option for full customization to be part of the "best possible experience," you will need 2 copies of the Core for 2 players (logically assuming they want to play different Investigators during the game).
  21. Whether or not the effect of the old plot is "nullified" will depend on that plot's actual text. Continuous effects will stop. Lasting effects will not.
  22. Sneak Attack is a continuous effect that is active for as long as the plot is your revealed plot. Because the effect it based on things that happened during the phase, It's "cannot initiate more than 1 challenge this phase" limitation looks back to the beginning of the phase; not just to the moment that it entered play. So, if you use Rains of Castamere to switch into Sneak Attack, you will not be able to initiate another challenge (since you have already initiated one that phase). But if Rains of Castamere is your plot when you initiate the INT challenge, they use Rains of Castamere to switch to another Scheme plot, you would be able to initiate additional challenges (because Sneak Attack is no longer active).
  23. That outcome does not match up with Varys' actual text. That's why it is usually so important to include the text of the cards you're asking about. Varys' text is: "Interrupt: When the dominance phase ends, remove Varys from the game to discard each character from play." Nightmares' text is: "Action: Choose a character or location. Until the end of the phase, treat that card’s printed text box as if it were blank (except for Traits)." So, the lasting effect from Nightmares (i.e., the blanking effect) continues to function until the phase is officially over - which happens when the "end phase" triggering condition resolves. Varys' ability interrupts the "end phase" triggering condition, which means that - like all interrupts - it is triggered before the triggering condition resolves. Your in depth explanation of the timing is therefore that a Nightmares played in the Dominance phase will not expire until the "end of dominance phase" framework window (5.3 on the flow chart) closes. Until then, the target character/location is considered blank. Varys' ability is an interrupt to the end of the dominance phase - meaning that it would be used after window 5.3 opens, but before it closes. This means that the lasting effect from Nightmares is still active (since 5.3 hasn't closed yet) and STOPS you from being able to trigger Varys. This is all outlined on p. 6 of the FAQ. That's a long way of saying that your understanding that Varys could still use his interrupt if targeted by Nightmares in the dominance phase is incorrect. (And that Grimwalker's response is incorrect because he seems to be thinking of Varys' ability as an "after the phase ends" reaction instead of a "when the phase ends" interrupt.)
  24. Control and planning based on building your deck rather than rolling the dice? The LCG, though the campaign mode, seems to have more of an ongoing story focus? At some point, it's kind of like trying to describe the difference between Yahtzee and Gin Rummy.
  25. No. The only thing it does is require extra "lose an icon" effects to take it away.
  • Create New...