Well you will always have one valid target when you start to resolve Repo Man, and then two when it comes time to reattach IO.

I'd play him x3.

Sounds like it. If you can eat 100 donuts in 30 minutes then I will give you $100. You must eat the full 100 donuts to get the full $100. Each player must shuffle a won story card that is not The Well into the story deck. Then destroy all Day or Night cards in play. Can't get the latter without having successfully done the former. And now I want donuts.

As long as you have a character on your side of the board you always have a legal target for the stealing of Infernal Obsession. I take control of Infernal Obsession per Repo Man's ability. I detach IO to move it to a legal target on my side of the board. IO having been moved that first character immediately switches back to my control. Now I have at least two legal targets for IO, Repo Man and Bob. I don't think there is any discard.

Muhahahaha!

Where is that damned *like* button.

Why do people keep saying that Narrow Escape was brought back as a foil to Valar as if that was a bad thing? They were both released during the same block back in the CCG days, having one and not the other seems... odd. And to be honest I'm not sure that it was. Considering it came out in the Kings of the Storm box I see it as being much more likely that it was brought back as a way to help Baratheon protect renown characters from an Aggro military deck.

Rogue30 said: kpmccoy21 said: But DON'T CONFUSE YOUR PERSONAL VISION OF THE GAME WITH WHAT IS GOODBAD FOR THE GAME. I'm not sure what are you thinking: do you mean we should always wait for FFG to find out bad cards by themselfs _OR_ that Jaqen, Compelled by the rock etc. should be unbanned (never banned) _and players should adapt? Those two do not equal each other. He isn't saying that a card that doesn't fit your playstyle can't also be bad for the game, he is cautioning not to confuse the two. For the record I agree with that statement 100% as well as with Staglord's general premise that a card should be in play for 3-6 months before it is banned. Before anyone gets on their hyperbole horse (rings) no card has been nor, I go out on a limb here, will veer be printed that is 1 cost and says you win the game. There are cards that players as a whole disagree on how much of an effect it will have. Let them actually get into play, let people try to abuse them and then if they do turn out to have a warping effect errata or ban as is needed.

Is there anyone else hoping for more banningserrata on cards because of power level? After the bannings of Magdah BirdsEndless Interrogation is there anything else that needs to be addressed? What are people playing at regionals this year? Anyone have any predictions on what the top factionfaction pairings are going to be at the various regionals?

No you are splitting hairs, but unintentionally. The quote implies that the Title Sword of the Morning,the sword Dawn go to the House Dayne knight who is most worthy to wield it. GRRM was asked about this at a Q&Ahe confirmed it, the titlesword stay in-house. Generations may go by with the title being vacant, but it is only ever granted to someone within the House, by bloodmarriage.

The cards are usually pretty good about naming any restrictions that must be considered... but not always (I'm looking at you Rich Widow).

After reading all of your examples for Damon I see where someone could easily get confused without referring to the relevant sections. I can see someone stating that the cards may be trying to bend or break the rules and therefor the Golden Rule is in effect, though I still think that is not a well founded argument, and the burden of proof would be on that debater since the rulebook and FAQ due specifically state what a triggered effect and a passive are, they do not define what an effect that triggers is, but since it sometimes does and sometimes does not fit the very specific description of what a triggered effect is, I think that the right ruling is pretty easy to determine, All Triggered effects are effects that trigger, but not all effects that trigger are triggered effects. On those grounds I withdraw my thought that there is no need for any type of clarification. Clearly something needs to be said. Get to it Damon! Work that magic!

KallistiBRC said: I completely agree with Jhaelen on this. Sure, if you read through the entirety of the FAQ and Rulebook, hopefully you come to the right conclusion. But then you read that section on Chess Prodigy and is talks about passive effects based on trrigger. You *seriously* don't see how that could be very confusing to somebody who doesn't scour this rules forum all the time? Or, even conceivably, they're sitting in their game club with no access to the internet to see discussions such as this one, and have only the faq and rulebook printed out. They're going to have to rule this on their own. And sure, that may be a good exercise for them, and awesome if they become better rules lawyers for it, but perhaps it's not necessarily our job to force their education upon them. Maybe, instead, we can fix the issues with the faq such as updating the chess prodigy ruling (and any other spot that might reference passive effects and triggers). Then those two players can actually make the right ruling in confidence. Also note, things like the C.P. text allow for "evil" players to try and manipulate the rules w/ some rules lawyering in a tournament situation, which could get the TD's involved etc etc. I really can't understand the justification for not fixing/clarifying issues, especially when questions have been specifically asked for by the faq maintainers. KallistiBRC said: I completely agree with Jhaelen on this. Sure, if you read through the entirety of the FAQ and Rulebook, hopefully you come to the right conclusion. But then you read that section on Chess Prodigy and is talks about passive effects based on trrigger. You *seriously* don't see how that could be very confusing to somebody who doesn't scour this rules forum all the time? Honestly no I don't not when the parts that actually reference Passives and Triggered effects are explicit. There is literally no other conceivable interpretation of those passages that I can come up with. You don't have to read the entire rulebook cover to cover, nor the FAQ, you can just go to the sections that deal with the question at hand what is a triggered effect or what is a passive and the answer is right there. Black and white (well black and tan). Are you honestly saying that you can read either of those sections and come up with any logical argument? The bit with Chess Prodigy is a serious piece of inference. To me it comes down to one of two things, someone hasn't thought to look at the two sections which are actually about the question or it is based on a person wanting a thing to be a certain way and trying to rules lawyer it into being, and ignoring the two parts that actually discuss what a passive and triggered effect are and how they are differentiated in the game. KallistiBRC said: Or, even conceivably, they're sitting in their game club with no access to the internet to see discussions such as this one, and have only the faq and rulebook printed out. They're going to have to rule this on their own. And sure, that may be a good exercise for them, and awesome if they become better rules lawyers for it, but perhaps it's not necessarily our job to force their education upon them. Maybe, instead, we can fix the issues with the faq such as updating the chess prodigy ruling (and any other spot that might reference passive effects and triggers). Then those two players can actually make the right ruling in confidence. Also note, things like the C.P. text allow for "evil" players to try and manipulate the rules w/ some rules lawyering in a tournament situation, which could get the TD's involved etc etc. I really can't understand the justification for not fixing/clarifying issues, especially when questions have been specifically asked for by the faq maintainers. I have yet to see any argument that says it needs to be clarified. Seriously when you have two sections which no one has been able to come up with an argument to refute clearly saying the exact same thing in sections labeled Passive and Triggered effects respectively, in order to support an obvious interpretation which uses species reasoning in an attempt to reach a conclusion that the example is not even addressing. How would you alter the Chess Prodigy example that still gets across the exact same thing but avoids the word trigger (which is precisely what is happening, despite the effect not qualifying as a triggered effect)? Oh and it has to not allow for any other possible interpretation, no matter how poorly read. I couldn't do it. Then again, Damon comes across as a pretty smart guy. Perhaps he has some magic turn of phrase that will better illustrate how the mechanics of the game work. I'll certainly applaud him if he can.

No he is rich and politically connected. If he did see the inside of a jail it would be some low-security prison where he would hardly be inconvenienced.

Well we already have Secrets of Oldtown announced, and on its way. They have to have another set already started by now. ADwD doesn't get released until this Summer just a month or two before SoO wraps up assuming no delays. I can't see them having designed, tested, and printed something based on ADwD, given GRRM says he is still working on the book (I'm guessing in his final rewrite). So if I had to guess It will be 2012 when we something based solely on ADwD. Then again, if they received enough early chapters that we don't have, perhaps there could be some influence of those on whatever comes after SoO.

A thing can be clearly stated and clearly written and people still be confused... when they haven't bothered to actually read the documentation, or they had no context by which to understand the information when it was first read. Do you know any of these individuals who you could quote or show the relevant section to who would still not understand it? I mean if someone is ESL or something that is understandable, but after reading it what person over the age of twelve (and I'm being generous with twelve) doesn't get that a triggered effect looks like This: and a passive doesn't?

No, actually I don't. It took me two minutes to find the relevant sections in both documents, in total. I'm all for clarifications that can't be deduced from the written documents, but in this case it is clearly covered. At some point we as players we have to do our own due diligence to read and apply the rules that are already present in the game that cover our questions and confusions. No bold text before the effect means it cannot be a triggered effect. It's in the rulebook and the FAQ. This is not something that should require further clarification. Then again, I used to work tech-support so I do expect people to have at least read the included reference material included with items they purchase, and so may have a lower tolerance for people who don't go to that first, before requesting help from more official channels.

Where in the fact does it say that? There is a difference in game terms between an effect that has triggering requirement, and a triggered effect. The rulebook clearly states what are considered triggered effects, Page 13 "A triggered effect is any effect preceded by the following text in bold: Action, Disrupt, Response, or Forced Response. It does not include or allow for any statement about any other factor, requirement, or templating to determine whether or not something is a triggered effect. To add to this the FAQ also clearly states what are considered passive effects, Page 4 "Passive effects are ongoing effects that are not optional, unless otherwise stated. Passive effects and abilities do not hae a trigger such as Action:, Forced Responce:, Response:, or Disrupt:" I'm pretty sure that covers all bases.

Yeah, I'd like to scoff but on BGG I've seen dozens of questions on all the LCG games that makes it really evident that the person has not actually read the rulebook. Not the FAQ, the RULEBOOK. I mean seriously. RTFM.

All those things I pointed out were based purely on your statements. If people get upset that FFG enforces its legal rights so they quit then, IMO, they were never really in for the long hall to begin with. The point was when you start making fan made sets available to the general public FFG may be required to send a cease and desist letter, and have you take down the content. If you don't want them to do that, then a simple email asking if there is any problems with this would be so incredibly simple, that I cannot fathom why you would choose not to do it before you went that route.

Gualdo I think you are making a very critical mistake in the point I'm trying to make. In the US FFG may have no choice but to require such uses of the IP to be pulled, or risk giving up the right to stop someone infringing upon it for profit, as well as potentially violating their contract with George R. R. Martin who they hold a license with for the A Song of Ice and Fire books. You may be creating a situation that upsets the fans and looses FFG money, AGoT players, and potentially upsets the working relationship between Mr. Martin and FFG, all because you don't want to send a simple email asking if doing this is okay. I just don't get that.

I like the idea of being able to have a few of the hatchlings in Shadows feeding my Dragonpit. Perhaps one in play to leverage its deadly to win a challenge or two, and bring out one of the matching big dragons and bringing the hatchlings out of shadows as necessary to ensure he stays around kicking ass and taking names.

Well said ktom. I think a lot of things like this happen pretty regularly. We miss the forest for the trees. We conceive of the game, a House, a build, a card in a certain way, and miss that it has other uses/ways of interacting or influencing the game. Sometimes what we see as secondary effects are in fact the more effective one at asserting our dominance on the game/board but we miss it because it doesn't fit into the box we placed it all in at the very beginning. I think I need to rip apart my decks and go through my collection with a fresh and open mind. Maybe I'll find something new.

KallistiBRC said: Can Repo Man's passive ability (which seems like a triggered effect) be cancelled/disrupted? Why would it be able to be canceled/disrupted? It clearly has no triggering phrase which makes it a passive and passives cannot be canceled (as noted in Timing Structure (v1.0) Actions, Disrupts, and Responses, page 7 of the FAQ. Or is the question more of, "Is Repo Man supposed to be a triggered effect?"

Well, technically fan art would be the art in the frame work, but the template itself and icons would all be covered under some sort of license. It is your site, you can do what you want, but I you hosting it makes any illegality done on the part of the creator something you can legally be held responsible for (take a look at all the music sharing sites that were forced to close down or were sued into bankruptcy for an example). I am not an IP lawyer but I do know that certain aspects of Trademark law involves a company being forced to protect its rights otherwise it can lose them, i.e. forced to shut down a fansite to be able to prevent someone from printing and selling such fan art. A Call of Cthulhu player was asked to take down fan art story cards... now his had something to do with providing a way for them to be printed and I have no idea if you are going to make that part of it... but personally I'd take a very conservative stance on this rather than risk them being in a position where they are forced to take action.