Jump to content

WWDrakey

Members
  • Content Count

    434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About WWDrakey

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Tampere, Finland
  1. Icon-dancing for 7 straight hours (a WWDrakey TR) A little background: So, this weekend we had the Finnish Regionals, with 22 participants covering 3 nationalities (mostly Finns, but also a few Swedes and a lone Spaniard). That's the largest Tournament held in the Country, ever! Since several people had trains to catch at 7 PM, and turnout was larger than expected, the Tourney went with 50 minute rounds with all games (even Cut games) being played to the end of the *phase*, not the round. Oh, and all games were played back-to-back, with a maximum of 5 minute breaks. A history of dancing: I've often been a strong proponent of Soft-Control over Hard-Control, since it just creates much and more interesting games... for both players. If you can just play whack the mole with *everything* somebody else brings to the board, where's the *interesting* part at? Feels about as subtle and cunning as a mailed fist to the face. Now, my favorite form of Soft-Control has been Icon Manipulation, ever since that orange Princes of the Sun Box came out some years ago... and I've been tinkering with it ever since. In the end, it became one of my ultimate goals in the game - "To build or see a truly competitive Icon Manipulation deck". Oh, it's been splashed into 'Martell good-stuff' decks along the way, but I'm talking about it as a full-on main theme, like what Hyperkneel is to Lanni Aggro. Or pure burn is to Dothraki with Illyrio and Incinerate. Now, it should also be pointed out that icon manipulation is... well, fundamentally both more interesting, and at the same time, weaker, than kneel can ever be. Why? Well, firstly, while a card can be either standing or flipped sideways, you can do selective removal of icons, which does not completely negate a character, but still allows you to Control the paths open to your opponent. Secondly, completely stripping a character from it's icons leaves it standing. And what does that mean? Well, it means that while a kneel deck can just kneel you out, pull off unopposed challenges, and then also grab dominance to accelerate it's win... an icon manipulation deck, even when stripping everything away, will still be feeding it's opponent power via dominance. Anyway, for the longest stretch of time the theme was... well, nowhere near ready. The cards/engines just didn't exist. The first inklings of possibility started to appear when The Maester's Path came out, but since Black Iron Link was the only Link allowing removal of icons, and it only worked on intrigue icons, it just wasn't enough to kick the theme into gear. Finally, it was the Champions Cycle with the combination of Scourge / Brimstone / Vaith that really provided some decent engines... But no matter how hard one tried to crack that egg, it never quite opened out. The reason? Turns out that real Icon manipulation needs some very specific things: 1) Like all Soft Control, it's the most card-consuming type of deck available... so a steady and strong source of draw is paramount 2) Due to it's mechanical interactions, it needs a plotline that it can leverage to supplement it's card effects 3) It needs a way handle the fact that the opponent is constantly accumulating power 4) it needs influence as much as Targ Burn does That's quite a hefty order... and the criteria never could be quite filled out. Either a specific draw-engine was too weak, or too costly so it couldn't work with the double-resource curve due to influence, or the whole thing managed to Control but still lost the game slowly but surely to dominance losses. Honestly, I've built so many icon manipulation decks along the years, it's borderline obsessive. None of them ever really clicked. I do sorta pity Ire, he's had to play (and usually win) against so many of them, now that I think of it... Finally, in the closing stages of the Kingsroad Cycle, a true solution presented itself, which easily ticked all the boxes - Bloodthirst. But then, there were some other issues left. The Scourge was still on the list (due to some knee-jerk reaction on House of Dreams, which was completely unfounded), as was The Orphan of Greenblood (due to being such a good overall card). Also, there's the fact that BT was everywhere (and teched against, hard), due to Burning on the Sands being such a badly designed card, Viper being the only 5g char really worth his cost, board sweeps being too easy and Prince's Plans errata being broken by Prayers. So, before the 5.0 FAQ, I just figured it's better to work on some of my other eternity-projects (ended up finally making my other old dream of 'Stark Murder Hill' working, and taking 2nd with it at our SC), and check back after the FAQ hit. And once the FAQ hit, the conditions were... optimal, finally. So, after 4-5 years of impatient waiting, I could finally play competitively with the cards I'd always wanted to play with! The Dancer: Let's start with the list: House Martell / Bloodthirst Plots (7) Valar Dohaeris Wildfire Assault Valar Morghulis Desolate Passage Loyalty Money Can Buy Lead by Example Lineage and Legacy Characters (15) 2x The Red Viper (Princes of the Sun) 1x Arianne Martell (Princes of the Sun) 3x Watchful Servant 2x Dayne Spearman 1x Maester Myles 1x Littlefinger (A Hidden Agenda) 2x Southron Mercenaries 1x Orell the Eagle 1x Quentyn Martell 1x Ellaria Sand (Princes of the Sun) Events (22) 3x The Prince's Plans 2x Choosing the Spear 3x The Only Game that Matters 3x He Calls It Thinking 3x The Prince's Wrath 2x Paper Shield 3x Red Vengeance 1x Nightmares 2x Scorpions Underfoot Locations (24) 1x Hellholt Docks 3x Dornish Fiefdoms 1x Street of Silk 2x Lord Doran's Chambers 3x Summer Sea 2x Southron Stronghold 3x Kingsroad Fiefdom 2x Vale Rookery 2x Qhoyne 1x Shivering Sea 1x The Vaith 3x The Scourge Attachments (2) 1x Bastard 1x Milk of the Poppy ...and then for some explanation: The key parts of the deck to understand are the plots, and how they interact with Icon Manipulation. Be it Lineage and Legacy (which allows closing down of two challenges, just by controlling a single icon type), Lead By Example (which forces either over-commitment or closes down a bunch of challenges) or Desolate Passage (with Vaith + Myles/Only Game that Matters). Then there are the 'cutting down the weeds' plots in Wildfire, Valar D., Valar... which, when possible, were meant to be triggered via Vale Rookery, so as to always have a plot that *actually does something* revealed. Loyalty is more related to the way BT needs to keep a small but steady board-presence on the table, and it allows you to save-up a bit on card expenditure for a round. So, what the deck really does is... control your Power-icons. Nope, not the intrigue ones, nor even the military ones... the power-ones. Why? It's a simple maths equation in the end: If you push through 2 unopposed challenges and win dominance, while I push through a single unopposed power-challenge at 1-claim, what's the overall net gain? 2-2. Yep, break-even. Working from that base, then selectively also tying away other challenges (or negating them with Only Game that Matters) and meanwhile leveraging numerous ways to help generate/steal a bit more power... that's how the deck rolls. It's fair to say, that 80-90% of the Challenges I ever make with the deck are... power-challenges. The rest are ones with either Southron Mercs, a Choosing The Spear'd Arianne for some supplementary intrigue... or the Viper going about for a final rush. In the end, Power is Power. Oh, and there's some important toolboxing in the deck for specific problem cards (Nightmares, Milk of the Poppy, Bastard), which help immensely... especially as they are all useful in any game, but especially help win some of the worst matchups (like blanking a Longship Maiden's Bane with Nightmares, then repeating the feat with Prince's Plans once or twice). And... a fair-warning: The deck is hella hard to play right. I'd easily compare it to old school 'always return Forever Burning' -type Burn (before all these new-fangled Incinerate type point-n-click things appeared, but rather you had to combine a plethora of different effects to do something and only ran lackluster little characters). It fries your brain, if played for too long. The Dances: Round 1: Greyjoy N/A (Winter Aggro, Marauders, Search and Detain, Bay of Ice) Generously, my deck decided that it would be a good way to start the day by denying me any influence... For the first 3 Rounds (that's about 20 cards from my deck). Having a Prince's Plans + 2x Scorpions Underfoot + Prince's Wrath stuck in my hand did not help. Hellholt Docks was doing a fine job keeping The Kingsroads from ruining my hand, but I had to spend way too many important events in order to stall the game up... which backfired hard, after a double Seasick stopped my Prince's Plans when I finally *did* draw into influence. That was the first tipping point, and I could not get my foot through the door anymore properly... was still holding on with Arianne, but a late game Search and Detain on her hit my economy a bit too hard, and that was game. After this one, I had almost 15 minutes of time. Little did I know, it would be the only such luxury I would have a for a long time... Result: Loss Record: 0-1 Round 2: Lannister Conquest(Martell) (Castellan + Ghaston + pain... maybe Rivers?) After my second mulligan of the day into a horrible second hand, I was starting to think my deck had it in for me... a load of scrambling proceeded, but somehow I kept my head above the water... with my opponent edging uncomfortably close to 15. However, my early game tactic of forcing the Lanni to go first, then not bringing out characters - forcing them to leave their Nobles out to be Valar'd (M/D, either works) slowly withered away their eligible bounce-tech. Then, I was able to stop them just short of 15 and start pushing back and accumulating with Viper and Arianne. That's literally by the skin of my teeth... and just before time was called. From here on out, every game I played started going close to time (or indeed, did not finish before). With all rounds being played back-to-back (we had a lot of people travelling from far away and needing to make trains etc.), and my BT not being the fastest to win or lose, it was going to be a *rough* day. Result: Win Record: 1-1 Round 3: Baratheon Black Sails (Melisandre's Scheme, usual BS tech, Battle for the Shield Islands) My first thought: By rights this should be doable. My second thought: Last time I faced this guy, it was in our SC final, where he won against me with an Anti-BT oriented Baratheon deck. Uh-oh. The Scourge was having a rough day. First it got discarded (twice) with NMLs against the Greyjoy, and now it was stolen round 1 with that fun Epic Battle. Well, thankfully it's not at all crucial to the deck. Nice to have? Sure. Reliable? Not really - Qhoyne is almost always better in this deck. Managed to deny the hold completely, which started slowly but surely unraveling his game... Salladhor hit the table round 2 and was dead or discarded by Round 3. A clutch draw from Bloodthirst into an Only Game that Matters allowed the Viper to steal back a The Scourge on the second Epic, and it all started unravelling from there. Fun deck, good match. Result: Win Record: 2-1 Round 4: Martell Summer (Summer + Ghaston + Rivers) So... another game of two denial-ing decks matching up. What *fun*! Well, for once, my deck actually decided to not bite me after the Mulligan, and I got the first really decent setup/start of the day. This proved necessary, as I had to do quite a bit of work again to dismantle the Ghaston engine (well-timed Nightmares on it to leave Nobles dawdling for removal in Dominance etc.), hitting intrigue with Arianne to clear more nobles from hand etc. I had a pretty firm grip of the game by the end, but sadly our gruesome Control match took too long, and time was called during Marshalling, with me winning by... 11-3?. My opponent did have the Viper + To The Spears out, but I could've negated some of his icons along the way, so that wasn't really a problem. Result: Modified Win Record: 3-1 Round 5: The Old Way (Maiden's Bane, Naval Escorts, Gran etc.) Eugh. I'm not a big fan of this particular matchup. When I started finetuning my deck, it was the one I *always* lost to, almost straight out. But, after some important fixes (Nightmares, Docks, Milk), and more importantly figuring out how it can be hamstringed, I knew I had a decent fighting chance. All I needed were time and the right cards... and well, The Old Way isn't really one to Rush. But the match was going to be *long*, a real grudge-match. Thankfully, my deck was improving it's setups all through the day, giving me a nice board presence. First round saw a setup of Gran + 2x Naval Escorts + a few other warships, grow with some more board presence, a dupe on Grand and LIV. Meanwhile, I had something better: I was able to play more locations than him, and he had no saves on the board. He tossed some Seasicks on a Scourge (due to my influence-heavy start they were not gonna do anything) to keep icons, grabbed a little power and I just stalled somewhat. Second round... I Valar'd. Why? Because Gran ain't immune if you don't have more locations, now is he? Thinking on the dupe, and there went all his characters. And more importantly, with no characters left, there went the Naval Escorts. From there on, the game started slowly shifting in my direction. Maiden's Bane hit the table, but I also drew into Docks and Nightmares Early, so I was able to keep it in check. A surprise Choosin the Spear killed an Iron Fleet Scout on the Old Way, while a military did in for another one. Southron Mercenaries were crushing opposition. I don't think I saw Milk, but thankfully Alannys and Baelor were also a bit late to the party. However, the length of this matchup meant we were most likely hitting time. And so we did, with me leading at around 11 to 2 or 3. Baelor had just hit the table at that point, but I'd gotten Prince's Plans off, so had a hand full of good control events that weren't in my discard... so all-in-all, it seemed to just be a matter of time before I'd have pulled it off... maybe 2-3 rounds more. Almost had 5 minutes after this game, and had been playing the icon manipulation for 5 straight hours. My brain *hurt*. Still functioning, somehow, though. Result: Modified Win Record: 4-1 Top 8: Lannister No Agenda (Pentoshi, Cities, Kneel) This one was... painful. I had to play characterless for something like 4-5 rounds, only pulling off some weeding with plots and doing a host of denial and triggering Vale Rookery... Why? Pentoshi screws havoc with my smaller characters, and couldn't spend the resources on a bigger one. Scourge and Qhoyne were getting A City Besieged away, so had to pull off every trick I had to stall the game... Thankfully I was also accumulating the cards I needed, although being at 0 power to 10 was... a bleak sight. Well, finally started really doing anything on the table on something like Round... 5 or 6? After Littlefinger got killed by City of Soldiers, I brought in Ellaria, who stalled Tywin nicely. Then a duped Viper to match her, and finally Quentyn as support. A huge deal of icons magically disappearing in select places and Nightmares on Pentoshi allowed me a good push for the Viper... and once his Valar hit, I still stayed at 10 power (to his 11 or 12), thanks to Mr. Dragon-Bait's ability giving me back the 2 power I lost on Ellaria dying. He wasn't really able to come back from his own Valar anymore, and the Viper cruised. Apparently he liked the fact that I had shaved a similar beard to the one in the HBO series, and felt compelled to help me take this. Result: Win Top 4: Targaryen No Agenda (Dothraki, Fleeing to the Wall, Attack from the Sea, flood-o-flesh) Ohh-kay. Apparently I was the only Finn left in the Finnish Regional (two Swedes and a Spaniard left) at this point, and had been running 6 hours of icon manipulation, straight. Remarkably enough, I was still, somehow, able to think through the patterns... at least to a degree. Dothraki appeared, Dothraki got icons manipulated, more Dothraki appeared, there was a Rookery at one point... Attack from the Sea kneels my locations. And my power-challenges with 2-3 STR characters were burnt down by Incinerates, but I was still stalling him decently in Power. A huge pile of locations went to Fleeing to the Wall, which wasn't really an issue, since I had both of the important inf/gold locations left. Slowly, but sure I crept back into the game... lasted nicely to his (8th) plot (Valar), after which I brought out the Southron Mercenaries and started pushing even more. Hell of a fun game... except that my left hand started cramping quite bad due to the 7-hours of straight icon dancing with the BT. Literally, it was painful to hold the cards in my hand anymore. So, we're at 12-13, with me going first. I've got a Southron Mercenaries in play. Cancels in hand. Drop a duped Viper into play, he has no intrigue icons, and I've got some icon manipulation tricks... End scene: Time rings, just as I've given over Marshalling to him. Remember that 50-minutes and until the end of the phase I mentioned earlier? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's not like I did not know the risks of taking BT to a tightly timed Tourney... I knew them full well, and accepted them. I had load of fun with the deck, it was awesomely fun to play. And it was real icon manipulation, truly working, against all other kinds of proper competitive decks. Result: Timed loss The final matchup ended up being Targaryen NA vs. Lannister Power Behind the Throne... and was apparently played on the boat to Sweden, since we were running tight on the schedule. Afterthoughts: Playing the deck made me think a lot about NPE. All day, I was trying to make my case for the fact that BT... doesn't have to be NPE. Or rather, isn't NPE by itself, even though it can be leveraged in such a direction. Well, any more NPE than say, your average Lanni kneel or Targ Burn. Control is what it is, there's no bitching that. But then, is getting hammered round 1 with a plethora of kill events and high claim... somehow a nice experience? Especially if your deck just can never get back up again, due to an endless flood of said behaviour? I wonder. I was told that I was "stalling", when I was removing their P icons to push through one of my own with the sole character I had on the board... and of course to not let them make one. Odd, here I always thought getting power was the *point* of the game, not the hitting of stuff on head, or trying to beat your opponent into submission? At times I felt like the civilized party in some matchups: "You go ahead and assault us with your armies and your spies. We will not attack you back, albeit we won't prove to be easy targets either. Sometimes we may trick you into hitting yourself, but that's your own fault from assaulting in the first place. Meanwhile, we will work to amass power. Through legitimate means and exertion of authority. We may tie your hands with political deals and well-placed holdings, but that is merely self defence." What I really felt aftwewards was, that the game needs more ways of playing it, without having to constantly hit all your foes in the face. Or burning them. Or discarding them. More tricks, less bashing, if you will. Be those tricks for gaining power, misleading your opponent or just causing chaos... Simply drawing more cards to remove more cards than your opponent, one way or another is... kinda boring. Oh, and big props to all the Conspirators (you know who you are), and especially my Quill and Tankard Bretheren, for helping bounce/bash ideas, and playtest that deck. Also, thanks for Tapani for running a good Regional Tourney here in Finland, and everybody (especially the Swedes) for showing up!
  2. @Pandemic: Shows what I get for cutting corners by copy-pasting the text without being thorough enough with checking it through - good catch. Not sure if that really solves the control/participation issue though, although it does make more of a case for that interpretation. And that interpretation would tend to bring further questions with regard to the effect and switching between sides, as you mention. @Ktom: I was thinking pretty much the same thing with the timing, but it's always good to have a second opinion. I also recall several other cases down the years when we've heard rumours of 'new interpretation's from GenCon/Worlds, and I'm pretty sure the actual ratio of those having been confirmed later on is below 50%. Usually just misunderstandings of one kind or another. The Scourge thing is really a nice example of self-referentiality providing interesting outcomes... Anyway, I think I'll follow your suggestion and submit Ours for the Taking vs. Maiden's Bane to FFG as a question. If somebody comes up with another corner-case there which may cause issues, I'd gladly add it to the query.
  3. So, we now have the card text for Longship Maiden's Bane, which was one of the cards already partially spoiled earlier for A Hidden Agenda. The cardtext is: Warship Challenges: During a challenge, kneel Longship Maiden's Bane to have it participate in the current challenge as a character with 'cannot be killed' and X STR. X is the number of Warship cards you control. Now, after a bit of thinking this made me think back on Ours for the Taking, and how these two will interact? I can see this going in a few different directions, but don't want to steer the discussion, so I thought I'd just raise the question. On a related note, I remember hearing some rumours about Ours for the Taking being ruled contrary to the way discussed here at Worlds. Is this just hearsay, or is there some truth to the matter? I tried submitting a question on that (with using Scourge during an Epic Phase, or Aegon's Hill during Marshalling as examples) to FFG, but so far no response. Actually, with regard to The Scourge, if you utilize the effect via Ours for the Taking, should the character be considered to have lost the icon to The Scourge or to Ours for the Taking? This is quite relevant due to the Response: on The Scourge.
  4. I'm sorry if I contributed to that thread's demise. It's too bad you cannot create a thread that can only be posted to by yourself to make sure it is clean and untainted. Heh, sorry if that came out more irked than it was meant. And you were definitely not to blame, I was just being overly optimistic with the whole concept to begin with. I guess my frustration is much more at there not being any officially provided way of gathering such rulings into one place, where they could be easily accessible. They do form a surprisingly large part of the way cards are to be interpreted, so it would be nice to have them more available. Even some kind of stickied thread with at least partial moderation (moving discussions to separate threads) would help with this. Actually... if the old method of being able to indefinitely edit the first post in a thread is still available, then having a post where all of the submitted stuff is edited into the first post could maybe work without there being any clutter between the rulings. Clutter after them isn't an issue, but if you have to crawl through a page of discussion to find the next ruling, then that's a bit unwieldy. And having the discussion afterwards would provide the possibility for corrections, clarifications etc. without reducing the value as a collected reference. Too bad I'm swamped with work, that might actually be a more worthy approach to pursue.
  5. Well, that statement (immediately) was directly from Damon. The relevant thread on FFG Forums where I also mentioned this: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/83567-rulings-from-ffg/ It also has a link to the CardgameDB discussion that was related to this: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5583-new-player-questions-round-3/page__st__600 I have to admit, I was pretty confused when we got the actual answer from him as well. I always felt that it happening passively was very logical timing-wise. Side-comment: With that thread I was desperately trying to start a clean thread, which only related info directly obtained from FFG, so that we could have it in one place instead of spread out willy-nilly. Naturally it didn't take long for the thread to devolve into the usual bickering... * Looks at certain people quite pointedly. *
  6. Ugh... I'm going to have to be an irritating rules lawyer again (due to certain choices of vocabulary, which are probably just slightly off by accident): I need to remind everyone of the fact that passive abilities are not triggered, not optional and it's the common duty of all players at a table to remember them. Unless there's some kind of 'may' involved in the wording, which Kings of Winter does not have. So, it's not a case of the player with The Kings of Winter Agenda being the only person who needs to remember it. I'll refer you to the Code of Conduct portion of the Tourney Rules, particularly that for Misrepresentation. However, that said, I've got no doubt whatsoever that a player of Mathlete's caliber would resort to anything in the form of Misrepresentation. Oh, and backtracking after choices/actions are made is always difficult thing in competitive games. So, I guess I mainly wanted to point out to the would-be Jaime's out there that any kind of ignoring of mandatory passives is not 'playing to win' but rather 'playing against the rules'.
  7. Just to be petty (and get further rise out of you), wouldn't that have to be "The Unwise Man's Fear"?
  8. I do understand that all of this is quite tongue-in-cheek. However, just to make sure everybody is aware, here are the relevant portions from the Tourney Rules: Collusion refers to any attempt by two or more players to act as partners or teammates sharing a common hidden or premeditated strategy for a match or tournament, with the intent of gaining competitive advantage for one or more of the cheating party. Team Play refers to the act of entering and/or approaching an event as a team or block of players, with the intent to manipulate the field so as to gain advantage against players who are competing as individuals. The team uses one another’s deck selections to inform or dictate their own deck selections, which are intended to be made as individuals. Tournament Organizer Authority: If a TO believes that he has encountered behavior that would be considered unethical by either the letter or spirit of the rules outlined in this document, he may and should, at his sole discrection, take the measures (including match forfeitures, penalties, and/ or disqualifications) he sees as necessary to ensure the integrity and fairness of his event.
  9. From stormwolf27 in the "Can you much and more with only 2 cards left in either yours or opponents deck?" -thread. Question: Can you use Much and More when one or more player(s) has less than 4 cards in his/her deck and just reveal what's left, add one to their hand and "shuffle" the rest together? Answer: Yes.
  10. From Vaapad in the Blood Magic Ritual thread: Vaapad to Damon via the rules link: "How does Blood Magic Ritual interact with a character that has the "No Attachments" keyword? I can see it two ways: 1) the "No Attachments" character enters play, BMR cannot attach to it, BMR is discarded, and the character remains in play unconditionally; or 2) because a player cannot successfully resolve the entire response on BMR if he chooses a "No Attachments" character, that character is not a valid target for BMR in the first place. Please let me know which, if either, of those is correct. " Damon's reply: "1."
  11. Question:Does the 'Any House except X' deckbuilding restriction on the new Prayer events allow the cards to be played with the 'Neutral Faction' house card? Answer:Yes, the Neutral Faction does not have the House affiliation of the prohibited house so they could use all of the prayers.
  12. mdc273 said: @WWDrakey - I am the one interpreting it as a triggered response. Everyone else must be interpreting it as explanation and clarification text, if they weren't it would fail to ever enter play as I've indicated and literally would do nothing. You appear to be dismissing that the effect as printed is unprecedented, that's fine. It doesn't change that fact, though. Again, I'm the one saying it is a triggered effect, everyone else must be saying it's explanation and clarification text or the argument for it ever entering play falls apart. If you're referring to my original original argument, the burden is not on me. The card does not function as printed and the burden on resolving the issue falls upon each indivudal TO. Most TOs will rule with the concensus, as will I. This does not change the fact that the card is unprecedented and does not function as printed. Equally, the TO interpretation that the card enters play and then is discarded is also inaccurate. Individual TOs may rule that it works this way, but the rules as printed do not support that. I will rule this way if it is the consensus, but it is not correct. The point I was getting at was what you said earlier: "having an effect before the attach effect is unprecedented". Let me say this really unkindly (I apologize beforehand) to drive the point home: This is completely and utterly false. There is only one triggered effect in the text. Not several ones. Only one bloody effect. A triggered effect is just that: one effect. Okay? Once you take that into account, the card is by no way "unprecedented". If there were "several effects", then you could just cancel one of them. But you always cancel one effect, which is the whole triggered effect. Comprende? Now, it is not unprecedented for the clarification to be part of a triggered effect, as can be seen from, f.ex. Maester Malleon's Tome: Response: After Maester Malleon's Tome comes out of Shadows, attach it to a unique character. Then, if it is Winter, look at an opponent's unused plot deck, and move a plot card from that plot deck to that player's used plot pile. Another clarification text in the form of a triggered effect, presto. Now, what you're arguing is that the "clarification for attaching has to be at the beginning of a triggered effect, can't be in the end or middle". Which you're not really in any way basing on anything. Or are you? If you have a basis for this, please link to the rules. Otherwise, according to your argument, Turncloak would actually succesfully attach when brought out of shadows, regardless of whether it is brought out during the Challenges phase. In both cases the clariification is within a triggered effect, only the textual position of the clarification is different and the existence of the target before the effect is triggered. And this is exactly what the addition to the FAQ was made to clarify. One opportunity to attach only. Now, the point about Blood Magic Ritual is that it directly states that "it will be creating a target for itself through it's triggered effect". Which basically works according to the Golden Rule (Card text over rules mechanics in case of conflict. For some reason I was unable to locate this in the current FAQ and Rules by text searching… odd). And here's probably part of your problem. You're not liking the fact that Blood Magic Ritual by itself changes the rules for itself. Which is what a lot of cards, starting from Fox's Teeth, tend to do. It's not that the card doesn't work, it's just that it bends the existing rules a bit to work. So, the only real question are the No Attachments characters, and whether you can trigger the effect choosing a No Attachments character as the target to begin with (this would be the crux of the original issue). If you are allowed to trigger it in the first place, then you start executing the effect and like Bomb said: character comes into play, Ritual can't attach, the character remains in play, Ritual cannot anymore attach legally, and thus gets discarded. No characters were harmed in the process.
  13. mdc273 said: "Character, location, and attachment cards that come out of Shadows come out standing. Attachment cards attach to another card when they come out of Shadows, as indicated in their text – if there are no eligible cards to attach to, the attachment card is discarded." Let's re-examine that passage and apply it without interpretation of the card's intended effect. There is no indication of how the card is attached on Blood Magic Ritual as there are on the former Shadow cards (having an effect before the attach effect is unprecedented). This means it will never have an eligible card to attach to and will thus be discarded as it is required to be attached to something per that passage. So as written and without interpretation, this card is useless. The apparent consensus interpretation will fall much as Darknoj indicates except Blood Magic Ritual never enters play. This is implicitly supported by the quote from the FAQ on the Dragon Skull question, emphasis is mine: "If the Shadow card cannot legally attach (or the attempt to attach is canceled) the card is instead discarded and is not considered to have come into play." Sigh. Let's get your terminology straight, that might help clarify this. There are only three types of effects in the game (see FAQ, I pointed you to this several times already). Now, the whole Response: on Blood Magic Ritual is one triggered effect. It's not somehow a combination of several effects, it's one effect. There is no "sub-triggered-effect" of "partial triggered effect" type of effect in the game, that is all your imagination. While the effect is often executed one step at a time, don't be fooled. It's still just one effect. The easiest place to help understand this is to look at Wildling Wisewoman, who cancels one whole effect, even though only a portion of it would be granting draw. Now, the Shadow-rules talk only about the fact that the text on the card needs to indicate how a card attaches. Nothing whatsoever about the first sentence in a triggered effect. And, as we all should know by now, every single effect in AGoT needs to be executed to completion, before something else (be it a game mechanic or a card effect) can take place, unless the words save or cancel are involved. There is text on the card (word attached in the Response:), so this effect will be the one used for the attaching. So, before it is executed, the card will not be attached to anything, due to the "only one chance to attach" portion of the rules. And the card won't get discarded before the clarifying effect is either executed to completion or cancelled (until then it "can legally attach", by triggering the effect that is). Now, since what everybody else is arguing is based on the existing rules for triggered effects, and you're the one saying that somehow the Response: effect is not executed like triggered effects usually are (to completion, before anything else takes effect), the burden is with you to: 1) convince everybody else that this is the case using the text one the card and existing rules + rulings (which you are trying to do, but nobody is believing you) or 2) send the question to FFG and report your findings. Let's think of it this way. If you're the one trying to overturn an established theory in physics, it's your job to first figure out a test that proves conclusively that your theory is correct and that the existing one is false, then it is again your job to do those do that test with scientific rigour and report all the findings. It's not somehow the job of the scientific community to painstakingly prove your theory wrong. So, you've had your crack at 1) and it doesn't seem to be working. Now, if you truly believe in your theory, I suggest you follow 2), submit the question and then report your answer.
  14. Question: Brienne is attacking, goes undefended and the defender has Bungled Orders Revealed. When the effect on Bungled Orders happens, the defender chooses to reveal City of Spiders (having a City of Soldiers in the used pile). Does the effect from City of Spiders (copying City of Soldiers) happen and a character get killed? Answer: Brienne only stops bolded triggered effects. City of Spiders is using trigger to show when a passive is supposed to initiate, 'When revealed' effects are not triggered effects.
  15. Hah. Sorry about being such a curmudgeon. Got the answer for Brienne already from Damon: Brienne only stops bolded triggered effects. City of Spiders is using trigger to show when a passive is supposed to initiate, 'When revealed' effects are not triggered effects. Pretty straightforward, and should not leave room for doubt.
×
×
  • Create New...