Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About guyhancock

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brighton, Sussex, United Kingdom
  1. It's probably covered though as a first timer at Worlds ... how will it work? Do I register or just turn up with my Lotus invitation? What can I expect from the schedule? And when will be have the dates (with events per day) so that travel and hotels can be arranged? Thanks Guy
  2. Hi everyone I'm looking for ideas, guidance or just a set of rules for running a league in our local group. Any ideas, including links to the answer , appreciated. cheers Guy
  3. stace3000 Only just come on here so sorry for slow response. There's a number of us playing at Dice Saloon down in Brighton. There's a tournament on Dec 10th if you're interested in getting some games in and we have a local group on Facebook. cheers Guy
  4. This looks like a good place to ask a question about a situation that come up yesterday. I think this is answered in the first response above and just want to confirm it. If someone as Lord Commander redirects a challenge on the themself, can the Crown Regent then redirect the challenge? I'm reading the above as saying "No" because the time for them to do that has passed. One of the players thought that the Lord Commander creates a new challenge, though if they have already declared attackers I presume that is not the case. cheers and thanks Guy
  5. Rydo72 (I said I was no good with "real" names and forum names), that was its first run and I was really quite pleased with it. I came second, though if I could have won another challenge (I was the last player) I would have won. Unfortunately too many characters had been knelt, and I chose to do a military rather than intrigue with the character I "borrowed" (though I'm not sure that would have done any better). As a result Dom won with his "get three power if you win dominance". So, really close. In some ways it was a semi-typical melee where one or two players get to be King-maker(s) as there are two players in a position to win. As for the White Book, that gave me three or four power during the game. It really makes you think about whether you want to defend a challenge to win it, rather than save those characters for attacking, because there is a reward for doing so. I'm really looking forward to giving it a proper run of games. cheers Guy
  6. Thanks to The Magus .... it is great that you've organized these and it was good to meet and play against other players. cheers Guy
  7. For those of us coming up from Brighton, the trains go to Victoria and London Bridge so it isn't too hard to get to Docklands or elsewhere. Looking forward to it. cheers Guy
  8. A quick couple of points ... I only left the word "Response:" off my definitions to save writing; in all cases it should be read as being there and makes no difference to my intent. I agree with the opportunity for the save mechanic to be interrupted but again, the definitions were merely to show intent and effect without full reference to other mechanics. As for your question "How would you word Viserys' ability so that it both saved him and returned him to hand in a way that his ability would only activate when his controller wanted it to - and not automatically whenever he was killed or discarded, whether his controller wanted it to or not? Remember that his ability should not have a cost and that the game defines a "save" effect as using both the "Response" trigger word and the word "save" somewhere in the effect." I would use the following: Response: Save Viserys Targaryen from being killed or discarded from play, then return him to his owner's hand. And that is where our disagreement lies, we read this text in the very different ways. I'm guessing that there is little point in saying more as I feel that we have different opinions/definitions on this matter and that it would be hard to change them. I will continue to let my opponents play these cards with the majority definition (i.e. it is an automatic save). I took your suggestion and have sent a question to FFG to get a definitive answer to this one. cheers and have fun gaming Guy
  9. Ktom, I fully appreciate that there isn't always a cost. However, the cards in question are making "save" into something other than the standard verb. With the Viserys example you use we have two possible definitions: Yours: Viserys saves himself and then return him to your hand; Mine: Save (using a response of some sort) Viserys and then return him to your hand. I would postulate that if your definition is the correct one the card would simply read: "If Viserys were to be killed or discarded, return him to your hand", which I believe is used for several other cards whether this is to your hand or deck. The same can be used for the example of Tarle; why not just say "If Tarle were to be killed, instead he gains one power". And for Davos "If Davos were to be killed, pay 1 gold or return him to his owner's hand". In all these cases, if the save is automatic, without cost and self-referential it is un-necessary to us the word "save". In light of that, my contention is that the word "save" is used as a direct verb and requires you to use some mechanism to perform the save. All in all I think this comes down to how do we read the phrase "Save Viserys Targaryen from being killed or discarded from play". To me that is clearly saying that I need to save him; everyone else appears to think this means he saves himself. If your definition is correct, does that mean that "They shall not cross" can come into play when someone tries to discard a location? Surely, you have to save that location first. cheers Guy
  10. I may run one of these in a while, after I have tried with some shadows in my current Targ-saver deck. In the meantime, my thinking is that this idea (a City of Shadows deck using mutli-house shadows cards) is not viable due to the very high cost of playing the cards which would make it worthwhile. For example, the mercenaries are very good BUT you will be paying 7 gold (2 into shadows and then S4 + 1 to bring them out). For that gold you can marshall a lot of other cards, each with their own benefit; all you lose is the ability of popping cards in to play outside the marshalling phase. cheers Guy
  11. ktom said: Mat_Not_Barlow said: 1. Cards like Tarle, Davos and Viserys that say "Response Save X from being killed/discarded etc, Then do Y" Does this mean that their responses can be chosen to save themselves or would I have had to 'Save' them in some way, Iron Mines, Lightbringer etc? Since the effects specifically say to save them, THEN do something else, the effect does the actual saving before it does the something else. For example, since Viserys says "Response: save Viserys from being killed or discarded, then return him to his owner's hand," the Response is first triggered to save him, then it returns him to hand. If you needed to save him with some other effect first, he'd say "Response: After Viserys is saved from being killed or discarded, return him to...". With luck, that hypothetical wording helps show the difference. As the one leading the discussion against this with Matt I have to say that I'm still not convinced on this question. I appreciate your comment Ktom, about the fact that there is no "after" in the wording. However, your opening sentence also says ""to save them" and I still don't see where there is anything that actually saves these characters. I would argue that the use of the word "save" means "save this character" and then do XYZ otherwise there is no cost for these actions whereas the norm for the game mechanic is "pay a cost then do something" (i.e. kneel 1 influence then stand a character). In the example characters listed there is no cost and that, to me, seems unreasonable and outside the standard operating mechanism of the game. cheers Guy
  12. Githanas, I'm hoping that making it summer, money locations and the twilight market can help this but it will be difficult. I'm even taking Little Finger to try to help boost this. I mainly play melee, not a huge fan of joust, so would hope for occasionally getting Master of Coin but wont bet on it. Have had a few tactical ideas but it is going need money all the way. I'm thinking of half and half for the shadows/non-shadows cards for the first run, and then tweak for there. cheers Guy
  13. Hi there, I'm one of the guys mentioned by Mat-not in his post. Can't make the 2nd but really looking forward to the meet on the 6th, especially to play melee against other players to see how you play and construct decks. Probably bringing my Targ attachment deck. cheers Guy
  14. I'm thinking about building a shadows Targ deck with the City of Shadows. I've got a list of cards, both shadows and non-shadows, which I think will work but have a couple of questions about building this deck. 1. My feeling is that shadows is an expensive mechanism. I plan to counter this with Summer and locations. Is that a good way to go? 2. How many shadows cards make a shadows deck? It might seem silly but, looking at the cards available, you could build a deck with the majority of the cards having the shadow crest; alternatively you could take just a couple of the really good ones. My thinking is that (a) all shadows just wont work, being too expensive; and (b) too few cards would not really be a shadows deck. So .... ? Looking forward to your thoughts. Guy
  • Create New...