Ratatoskr

Members
  • Content count

    1,592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ratatoskr

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Munich, Bavaria, Germany
  1. Thanks for the kind words, guys. We're already working on the next issue.
  2. Thank you! Issue 4 is up. http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/index.html/_/articles/quill-tankard-regulars-volume-ii-issue-4-r1366
  3. I'm a tad late posting this, admittedly, but Quill & Tankard Regulars, our article series on rules and timing issues, has made the switch to 2nd edition. The first three issues are already up, and issue 4 should follow shortly. These four issues offer a preview on 2.0 rules and what the most important changes are compared to 1.0, accompanied by exclusive spoilers. Well, they were at the time. Enjoy! Quill & Tankard Regulars - Out with the Old, in with the... Old? Issue 1: Seen in Flames - Reactions and Challenge Resolution Issue 2: Seen in Flames - Attachments, Duplicates and Setup Issue 3: Seen in Flames - Phase Structure Issue 4: Seen in Flames - Interrupts, Cancels and Saves I will try and update this thread when new issues are released. Links to all issues can also be found here. If you're looking for the first series, that covered AGoT LCG 1st edition, you'll find links to all issues here.
  4. ~If the Core Set contains less than full playsets of one thousand different cards (three thousand pieces of cardboard), or costs even a dime over five bucks, I will refuse to buy this stupid game and badmouth FFG on Twitter!
  5. Yeah, that's pretty much a given. Interesting. I wouldn't use sudden death, because it kinda defeats the purpose of timed elimination rounds if the situation can still arise that one single game goes on for another hour after time call - however unlikely that situation may be. Going by seeding seems possible but also a bit bland. I would rule that the TMP player is out and the opponent advances. To me, that is simply an application of the good old "cannot beats everything" rule. Both a card effect *and* the tournament rules say that the TMP player "cannot" win, so he cannot be awarded the effect of a win. Nothing says that the player further away from his victory condition "cannot" win, so gets awarded the effect of winning by default. I cannot be sure, but I seem to remember this is what the Stahleck judges last year agreed they'd do in that situation. Now, if *both* players run TMP and have chains left at time call I'd just let the one closer to his victory condition (in power) advance. I realize that's a direct contradiction of the reasoning above, but to me that's just a case of common sense over stubborn application of principle, you know? The alternative would be to take them both out of the tournament, but that, while doable, would be a bit silly. Note that I would disregard the amount of chains left on the agendas in that last case. The stated win condition of both players is still getting the required amount of power. Getting all chains off the agenda is *not* a win condition, it's just a card effect that prevents a player from reaching his win condition.
  6. How would you resolve the situation if this occured in a timed single elimination game (i.e. after the cut)?
  7. Good point about Hotah's Axe, Khudzlin. I see a difference between gaining an already present property, and losing a property that was not there to begin with. In my mind there is no doubt that a "lose a property" effect cannot be successful if the property was not there to begin with. The card had zero instances of the property before the effect, and it has zero instances after the effect. There is no change in game state. I would rule that Hotah's Axe cannot be used on a character with no icons, on the grounds of the new FAQ 3.6. No part of the effect can resolve successfully. The icon loss part cannot be successful, ergo the pre-then part has not resolved completely, ergo the post-then part cannot happen (even if the play restriction of the post-then part is fulfilled from the start). My doubt is more about gaining a present property. I can see that going both ways. On the one hand, you can argue that having an icon or a trait or a keyword is a binary state - you either have it, or you don't. On the other hand, gaining an already present icon, trait or keyword *does* alter the game state - if a subsequent effect removes that property, it does make a difference if the affected card has one or two "instances" of the property, i.e. if there is an additional active effect granting that property or not.
  8. Sorry, didn't mean to scare you Yeah, of course judges do have to stop at think about situations are presented to them at times. And because they are under pressure to make a decision, and they are only human, sometimes they even get a call wrong. It's how it is. Generally, though, this game is not as hard as it might seem, or as some people make it out to be. It's just that some hairy situations can come up at the fringes. That's what ktom is for. As for the voting thing, I've not seen that done in this game. Players will try to figure out situations by themselves, but once a judge is called, he should make a binding decision. IMO, a judge should not leave the resolution of an issue to the players once he is called.
  9. If you choose a character that already has Deadly for this, is the pre-Then part considered successful? In other words, does gaining another instance of an existing property (like a keyword, trait or icon) count as gaining that property? If the answer to the questions above is 'no', it would mean that you cannot play I'm You Writ Small on a character that already has Deadly, because, as per the new FAQ 3.6, no part of the effect can resolve successfully. For the same reason, you couldn't play Vigilant Stag on a character that already has Vigilant, or Dragon Support on a character that already has Melee. If the answer is 'yes', you could play these cards under those circumstances. Would that also mean that gaining another instance of an existing property would count as a change of property for the purposes of new FAQ 3.47, which would allow you to initiate "after a card gains a trait/keyword/icon" type responses/passives in such a case? That last part is purely academic, admittedly, because I don't think there are such responses/passives (at least I can't think of any). Or is it rather the other way round, and 3.47 actually corroborates the interpretation that the answer should be 'no'? It ostensibly deals only with the play restrictions for passives and responses, but might it be argued that it in fact sets a precedence for player actions too? The sentence "A character can never have more than one icon of a specified kind" (FAQ page 17, under "Multiple Lasting Effects") seems to indicate that gaining another instance of an existing property does *not* count as gaining that property - assuming that keywords and traits are treated the same as icons, which I don't see a reason not to. Thoughts?
  10. End of phase effects are never actions, they're always passive effects. "Action" is a specific term. ~Well, theoretically they could design an effect like Dragonstone Port: "Players may take actions after the End of any Phase initiates, but before it resolves".
  11. Thank you, ktom. What I figured.
  12. Naval Escort is not self-referential. Is NavEsc "1 location that would kneel to trigger its effect" as per the play restrictions of Ours for the Taking? Can OftT ever copy NavEsc at all? If yes, can other Warship locations be knelt as additional costs? If they can, is it obligatory for the chosen NavEsc to be among the Warship locations that make up X?
  13. I disagree, and I don't quite understand the logic. If you're playing strictly casual, no 1ed product becomes obsolete *ever*. Cards only become obsolete with regards to tournament play. In casusal play, cards can and will be used as long as players are willing to play the game. I don't regard the standalone board games I buy as "obsolete" just because there will not be any expansions forthcoming. For example, I own the War of the Ring 1st edition board game. Is it "obsolete" just because a 2nd second edition has since come out which I don't own? Can I not play it anymore? What is different for people who own some 1st ed AGoT LCG cards and only play locally and casually with them? I know game groups who still play AGoT CCG and other discontinued collectible card games locally. Sure, if people plan to ditch their 1st ed cards when 2nd ed comes out, and buy into that one, that should inform their decision on what 1st ed cards to buy now. But I don't think it's necessary to discourage anybody from buying a 2nd core set now. It's as good an option to expand a card pool as it ever was. People just need to keep in mind that no more new 1st ed cards will be forthcoming from mid-2015 on, and that 1st ed tournaments will slowly fade away. They will need to make up their own minds what conclusions to draw from that knowledge. The gist of it is this: A second core set is a good option to expand a new card pool, especially if several players have to be supplied from that one card pool. It is not compulsory though - it's just as possible to buy deluxe expansions or chapter packs first, especially if you're prepared to use proxies for the CS cards you need more than one of. Personally, I don't like to use proxies all that much. Even though I have a very large card pool (I own at least 3 copies of every LCG card ever printed, and of the vast majority of cards I own 6+ copies), I need to resort to using proxies of some cards for casual play, because in addition to the ~5-8 decks I have usually built at the same time, I have a draft cube of 1100+ cards permanently built. But I try to avoid proxies as much as I can. People need to decide for themselves how much proxying they can stomach.
  14. Funnily enough, yes. See MarthWMaster's post above.
  15. I agree with Istaril on all points. An entire game with the card layout of that alt art wyldside would be a disaster.