Jump to content

Nitro Pirate

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Nitro Pirate

  1. Mathias Fricot said: THIS BEING SAID At the end of the day your only running 60-65 cards in a deck, so with all these options of good cards they can only fit so many in. And I think thats why we see such balance in terms of tournament results etc. All the other houses might have significantly fewer cost-effective/OP/competitive/whateveryouwanttocallit cards in absolute number, but things don't phase out. So you can still make a competitive deck in another house, it's just going to have less "competitive" options for what cards are worth those deck slots. For clarification: if you have 200 really good cards, you can still only have 60 in a deck. If you have 60 good cards, you can still only have 60 in a deck. I agree with this and said as much in my original post (although worded much differently), and I don't feel this makes an iota of difference to how I view the cards Martell keep being blessed with :-)
  2. Mighty Jim said: Sorry, this is way off-topic, but where's the tournament in Sheffield? who's running it etc. I'm based in Nottingham, and always on the look-out for AGoT events in this part of the world. Sorry for the late reply - It's being run by Jim from Patriot Games. Lifted from their website... Saturday 3rd December A Game of Thrones LCG Tournament at Patriot Games Sheffield. Doors open 10am. Start 11.30am. FREE Entry Prizes include playmat, counters and badges. Not sure if they've run any before, it'll be the first I've attended.
  3. Rock, Paper, Scissors is something of an oversimplification, but the sentiment behind it is true to some extent. There is no such thing as a perfect deck as you can always find cards which will specifically work well again a certain type of deck construction and ensure that you include them in your own deck design. However, this can make your own deck weaker or stronger to certain builds. GoT is a peculiarity amongst this type of game as it has more readily available search than any other game I've played. The mechanics around how the searches work is also plays a major factor, especially the plot card search effects. For this reason, as well as the relatively high draw numbers compared to similar games, it's much easier (and often more beneficial, so that you have more options available to you) to have singles and doubles of cards throughout your deck, with only the most crucial cards seeing three copies. This is in stark contrast to a game like MTG where decks are generally made with the maximum number (4, in MTG) of each vital card and perhaps doubles of the cards you want in there, but don't want to risk filling your hand with. This lends a much more strategic approach to how you play GoT than other similar games. It's more about the decisions you make than the cards you draw at random, although the random element can never be completely eliminated. What I will say is that when I first began playing the game, some joust decks did seem to consistently wipe the floor with other decks to such a one sided degree that I thought the search/draw mechanics were working against the game in Joust and that it must always have been designed with Melee in mind. The latter may in fact be true, but over time I found that the issue I had with Joust was more to do with the skewed mindset I had of how decks should be constructed, and a lack of cards to pool from. Those issues have now been resolved, and I've had tons of Joust games against loads of different decks / houses that are hard to call either way.
  4. Kordovan said: I really like to know where you come from Nitro (US i guess) because here in europe, Martell they aren't that outrageous at all, and they don't win tournaments. European champiionship took place last week end in castle Stalheck and saw no Martell win anything (around 120 players attended) I'm from the UK, North East. We only have a small pool of GoT regulars on Teesside (around 15 people) but many are successful competitive gamers, and we know strength when we see it. A few of us will be going to play a joust tournament in Sheffield next Saturday, so it'll be interesting to see what type of decks they like in the slightly less North than North. I'm betting it's Martell.
  5. Kennon said: bloodycelt said: Why is Gaston Grey that overpowered? The end-result is: Pay (2,3) gold if you have a useless character in your deck (Edric, the new Myrcella I hear is coming out). or Pay 4/5 gold for Arianne or TRV to return a character to it's opponent's hand which can be saved by a duplicate or loyal guard. 1. It's repeatable but it effectively costs gold. 2. It can be saved from. 3. While the location is cheap, its unique and can be discarded by every location-hate card out there, and frozen solided. ------------ Let's compare this to the other removal cards that IMHO are more efficient and better: A Game of Cyvasse - 0 cost, kneels yours and an opponent's character (if they can), and bounces a character - so a net gain in my opinion. A Lannister Pays His Debts/I'm You Writ Small - Both of these are good because if you are doing poorly all you need is the opponent to attack and win (the former), or the opponent to defend (the latter). And you gain a character advantage. Lannisport Brothel Alchemist Guild Hall Kingswood Trail/Black Cells Bear Island The new lanni attachment that just uses your power to pay for stuff. Gaston Grey because it costs 1 gold is decent enough to include in every martell deck, but unlike the prior cards I listed. This card either forces the player to reduce his deck efficiency by putting in enough noble-crest cards that would not normally be in a martell deck, or have a hard decision in returning a 4/5 cost character to hand. I just don't see Ghaston Grey being a problem card. Martell is going to become a problem with all the new icon-hate combined with A Game of Cyvasse - similar to Lannister hyper kneel. And what that caused was an errata on Alchemist Guild Hall and restricting the castellian. I would say Cyvasse would be the next to be restricted. With better icon hate, that event is going to have less of a risk and is much more efficient than GG. Responses in order to your reference: 1. You didn't factor in the net loss of gold that your opponent suffers. I'd sure pay 2-3 gold each turn to remove a character from challenges and give my opponent -4 gold each turn as they replay that character. Game of Cyvasse- Net card loss, as you've used your event, but they have the character to play again. Also, if they have a higher STR intrigue character, you effectively can't play it. Can also be saved from, which you seem to list a negative for GG. As an event, can be canceled rather more easily. Cyvasse is great for a number of reasons, but surely isn't hands down better. A Lannister Pays His Debts- Similar to Game of Cyvasse in that it requires a certain gamestate in order to be played. Also, you've knelt a character of your own and removed one of theirs, while Cyvasse might kneel an extra character of theirs as well. Also, ALPHD as a kill effect can be saved against by considerably more cards than return to hand effects. As an event, can be canceled rather more easily. I'm You Writ Small- Again, you're dependant on your opponent playing along for you to be able to play this. While that normally happens, GG requires no more interaction from your opponent than that they have characters on the board. As a kill effect can be saved against by considerably more cards than return to hand effects. As an event, can be canceled rather more easily. Lannisport Brothel- The first one that I think is actually an apt comparison. The Brothel does cost slightly more, though likely not enough to matter. Still, the ability for GG to also essentially give your opponent -X Gold next round is HUGE in the comparison. Also, GG can be used in the middle of a challenge to return characters to hand and alter combat math, which Brothel just can't compare to. Alchemist Guild Hall- Hmmm... in the general ballpark, but a less apt comparison than Brothel. Thanks to the Limited Response and kneeling itself, you'll only be triggering AGH once per round, and GG does have the option to be used multiple times if you have characters for it. While GG requires pretty specific cards as does AGH, GG returns those characters to your hand in order to be replayed and set up the combo to roll again. AGH either requires new cards to bring out of shadows each turn, or a pretty specific usage of Sister of Truth, and sadly, the Sister will be unable to participate in challenges when used that way, unlike your nobles with GG. Does work with the Trail as well, however. Kingswood Trail- Due to putting itself back into Shadows, sets itself up for repeated use, and thus offers a worth comparison. Unfortunately, bringing it out of Shadows each round costs you gold, without also costing your opponent gold the way GG does. Black Cells- See Alchemist Guild Hall entry, but subtract the part about being a Limited Response. Bear Island- Similar to Brothel, a much more worthy comparison. However, Bear Island has much farther reaching deckbuilding restrictions in order to get use out of it than including 6 low cost nobles. Also, Bear Island is a kill effect, which is the only type of removal that's saved against by every character save in the game. It does at least get bonus points for being permanent removal. Too bad it has that non-Stark targetting restriction. GG can hit anyone at all. Slander and Lies (Lannister attachment)- I'm not really quite sure why this one is in the discussion. Flogged and Chained would have been much more appropriate. S&L does nothing at all for character control, though it is quite an amazing way to control power flow, and if it sees play at all on top of GG, is pretty much the final nail in the coffin of Brotherhood decks. Also, my mind is blown at the idea that Cyvasse is more efficient than GG. In the purest card game sense, efficiency is measured in terms of card advantage and thus card counts. You will always have a net loss of one card (Game of Cyvasse itself) when used, while GG will never have that penalty, no matter how many times you use it. Well put. To add some other uses Ghaston Grey has over most of the 'comparatively powerful' cards listed: Ghaston Grey can be used to save a noble character from certain death if you know you'd otherwise lose them to claim, and causes your opponent a setback at the same time. Negative attachment removal from one of your noble characters. Using it to returning one of your stolen characters back to your own hand. There's almost no end to how versatile GG can be. There are plenty of limits to those other cards. However, as it got a mention, Bear Island does have a great rule which should maybe apply to GG as a less savage way of reducing it's effectiveness? I doubt it would make much difference, but it may be more acceptable to Martell players than simply restricting / banning it. Personally, I can live with it the way it is as long as they remove the 'Martell' from the latest incarnation of Myrcella (she should say 'Lannister Only' imo). They'd still need to be careful with future noble releases tho.
  6. Maester_LUke said: Thanks for sharing, Cowboy... We don't get enough local tournament reports, especially not with decklists. How long have you all been playing for? How did you determine the "top fourth?" The highest power total in 2nd pace? Oh wait, I misunderstood what you meant. Thought you'd rumbled the fact that our final table was larger than it should have been. We played three rounds before the final table. After three rounds the points were totalled. Three players were tied on 15 points apiece for the final spot, so we used strength of schedule to break the tie. The winner of this tie breaker was actually the winner of the final table and became the (former) Teesside champ
  7. No so much a report as a list of entrants and winners. Was the first tourney tho. As one of the players in that tourney (which was actually a few weeks ago... we've had another since then!), I can say that the bulk of us have been playing for around 5-6 months. Places 1-4 were determined by the usual power method. The tournament guide recommends a final table of only three players when you have 12 or less. Oddly enough, we didn't notice this during the first tournament and opted to go with a final table of 4. As this was easy enough to work out from the three scoring rounds before the final table, we decided to stick with it for the second tournament when we had 10 people involved. This may be contrary to the official format, but the format does prioritise table size at 4 players apiece so I don't understand the need to keep this down to 3 for the final table? Oh, and Mr R Sampson... I'm pretty sure that K Eason won on round two, not three :-)
  8. Thanks for the report, and well done. I wouldn't have been brave enough to play that :-)
  9. Ratatoskr said: Tomdidiot said: That being said, I think every other Stark Siege at Stahleck was running Valar, and my opponents did use it against me to good effect. Joseph (Bolzano) didn't. I'm not sure it would have made a difference in the game against me. That's the thing with Valar, anyway. Everybody feels they need to run it, and I don't disagree. But how often does it really change the outcome of a game? In the sense that before Valar, you were bound to lose, and because of Valar you turn it around and win? Sure, sometimes it does, but not that often in my experience. Sometimes you can also use it as an offensive weapon (my favourite use of it). But mostly, when you play Valar, you're grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to turn around a lost game, and it rarely works. To put it bluntly, in four of five cases when you play Valar, it essentially means you've given up. Have to say that I agree with this 100%. I play much more melee than I do joust, but I've found that in both environments that a player who actually plays Valar seldom ends up winning the game. Often, they will slow down or (occasionally) speed up their demise. Setting back up again with zero claim and only 2 gold puts you behind from the get go. A much more versatile plot to have in your plot deck is Wildfire Assault. I don't believe there's no place for Valar. I think that decks that are specifically set up to take advantage of it can use it to good effect. But in most cases, by the time you choose you play it you're usually praying for a bit of luck.
  10. Part of my issue with the current design is along those lines though... I don't want GG to be banned or restricted, although that now seem inevitable. Either that or the environment suffers for it... but testament to the strength and synergy of many Martell cards is the fact that they already have more restricted cards than any other house, but they keep having cards thrown their way that make the majority of people inhale through their teeth and shake their head. There is no Martell hate here, just a desire for better balance. I know they haven't had their deluxe boxset yet, but Martell get way more love and attention than Lannister (lost Oasis should have been a Lannister card!!), but Targ are another House who really need to see a run of strong cards consistent with their house themes. They've had their boxset, and still no-one plays them. However, to get myself back on topic, Martell are also the first choice of many people to 'splash' into their decks to the power and general usefulness of their cards. I don't want to see people stop playing GoT because Martell stop them from playing their decks.
  11. Nitro Pirate said: The Grand Melee - The Vaith, what a horrible location. to come up against, and to add to the other horrible locations they have. This can absolutely ruin an opponents day. Doran Martell is also in this pack. He's expansion, but I don't think anyone would disagree that he's a playable enough card (not really any issues with this card tbh, but it's still good) Sorry, meant to say Doran is expensive... with we could edit :-)
  12. Just wondering what people's thoughts are on Martell? In my local play environment we have a ton of Martell decks. Initially, this was because PotS was the only deluxe expansion anyone could get hold of. However, despite the current availability of all expansions except Kings of the Sea, Martell still sees more play than any other deck. Initially, we were all in awe of the KOTHH / Red Vengeance / Princes Plans / TRV / TVB decks, but as time has moved on some players have removed the agenda, removed the Red Vengeances, and even removed TVB and the decks are still extremely solid and difficult to break down. Other cards that see regular play and are a complete nightmare: Lost Oasis, Ghaston Grey, Poison Dagger, Alchemy Shop, Game of Cyvasse, Orphans of the Greenblood, Taste for Blood, Burning on the Sand, He Calls it Thinking, Venomous Blade and (recently) the Renown Sandsnake explosions... There are also some extremely fruity character abilities that other houses could only hope to have on their side, yet there doesn't appear to be any obvious weakness here. Most of the characters are efficient cost for strength (as opposed to Greyjoy characters, who are expensive) and have a good amount of icons. The general consensus amongst the group I play with is that the Martell mechanics work very well, very well indeed, and that of all the houses these would be in the least need of a leg up when it comes to up and coming cards. Unfortunately, FFG don't seem to agree as whenever a new set is released there are always some ridiculous Martell cards. Look at the latest few: Tourney for the Hand - Dorea Sand, a new sand snake with a phenomenal ability (when you lose a challenge, your sand snakes don't kneel to attack) and is the very same pack is A Nest of Vipers, giving all your sand snakes renown ! Note that the trigger for A Nest of Vipers doesn't even need to be one of your own characters getting killed... The new Darkstar's not bad either. The Grand Melee - The Vaith, what a horrible location. to come up against, and to add to the other horrible locations they have. This can absolutely ruin an opponents day. Doran Martell is also in this pack. He's expansion, but I don't think anyone would disagree that he's a playable enough card (not really any issues with this card tbh, but it's still good) On Dangerous Grounds - Myrcella Lannister, what a brilliant little card this is. I love it, and I'm happy to see that Lannister got a card like that as it really fits in with how I see them. OH WAIT, SHE'S MARTELL TOO??! There's really NO need to have this card as Martell, you give Lannister some great title manipulation (Varys, Myrcella) and then dilute it by letting Martell have direct access to that mechanic? Madness, I know Myrcella has a place as a Martell card but NOT this version of her. I really hope this gets errata to Lannister only. And if she's not good enough for the Martell lovers, another ridiculous location is included in this pack.The Scourge. A location so horrible I refuse to mention it further. Alright, I got a little excited there at points, and I do play Martell myself before anyone asks - but my concern is for the players who have no interest in playing Martell, who see this cards and think WTF?! I don't believe for one minute that this makes Martell unbeatable, it's just that you can bank on most Martell cards in a pack being excellent whereas a lot of other houses tend to get a more even mix. The only thing that stops a lot of Martell cards being auto include is the fact there's just so many brilliant cards and abilities. Anyhow, that's how I feel and I think they need to tone down some of the brutal Martell disruption so that players of other houses can continue to enjoy the game and provide worthy opposition.
  13. Nitro Pirate said: Hey all, This isn't a report of any kind, but we had a tournament at our local games store today and I'm interested in your views on something that happened during play. Just a flash-poll of opinion, really. We had ten players, so two games of three people and one game of four people for each round. We had three rounds, and then went to the final table. I play to win, like most people. I don't mean that in the heavy, serious minded killer deck, killer attitude sense that some people mean when they say 'I played to win'. I mean that I play the game with a view to doing my best and hopefully coming out on top, something even the most casual of gamers should be doing. Just to set the scene, here's my record leading up-to round 3... Game 1, three players - 2nd Game 2, three players - 1st Game 3... During game three I found myself in an unenviable position. Stark had an appalling turn two and lost all of the cards from his hand and everything but locations from play. To take advantage of this, I played the plot Prince that was Promised so that my Beric could take full advantage. This wouldn't be a winning move, but would put me in a strong position. I do so, only to realise to my horror that Lannister to my immediate right has a Timmet with more attachments on than Beric. I plan to remedy this during my turn, but things don't turn out as planned and suddenly Lannister is on 14 power. I'm on 6 power, Baratheon (to my left) is on a 4 power, and Stark has nothing. Next plot phase, I play Take Them By Surprise! and hand the first player to Lannister, as my intention was for him to win immediately, guaranteeing me second place and a place at the final table. Stark and Baratheon (especially Stark) go a bit mad at this, citing the spirit of the game, etc. The truth is, I would have selected myself as the first player and done some damage to Lannister. This would also have allowed Baratheon and Stark to get back into the game. Lannister would then have tussled with me during his challenges, and we could have tussled one another to a standstill for the next couple of rounds. from my point of view, I'd made an error with my turn three plot which hadn't so much as handed the game to Lannister, but pushed it out of my immediate grasp. I could have went on to win, or I could have went on to come last, but I settled for second because I wanted to see the final table (which I then won!), although I feel some element of guilt at almost 'fixing' the game in such a way. I think the sting in the tale for Stark and Baratheon is that our regular games are one-off games and everyone plays to win at any cost. But playing to qualify for a final table is a different experience, and sometimes it's best to concede defeat for a reasonable placement (A bit like the final table, as there was literally no prize for second place!). These are people I play with regularly, not randoms at an event, so when Stark went home in a bit of a mood, his day and his chances at making final table in ruins, I felt a bit bad. I'm curious about other people's experiences with this type of thing, and how you deal with it? Anyone agree or disagree with the chain of events? Not looking for vindication, I'm just genuinely interested in how people handle such things. Sorry, just to correct a typo in there I meant to say I COULD have selected myself as first player. The post makes no sense without that correction.
  14. Hey all, This isn't a report of any kind, but we had a tournament at our local games store today and I'm interested in your views on something that happened during play. Just a flash-poll of opinion, really. We had ten players, so two games of three people and one game of four people for each round. We had three rounds, and then went to the final table. I play to win, like most people. I don't mean that in the heavy, serious minded killer deck, killer attitude sense that some people mean when they say 'I played to win'. I mean that I play the game with a view to doing my best and hopefully coming out on top, something even the most casual of gamers should be doing. Just to set the scene, here's my record leading up-to round 3... Game 1, three players - 2nd Game 2, three players - 1st Game 3... During game three I found myself in an unenviable position. Stark had an appalling turn two and lost all of the cards from his hand and everything but locations from play. To take advantage of this, I played the plot Prince that was Promised so that my Beric could take full advantage. This wouldn't be a winning move, but would put me in a strong position. I do so, only to realise to my horror that Lannister to my immediate right has a Timmet with more attachments on than Beric. I plan to remedy this during my turn, but things don't turn out as planned and suddenly Lannister is on 14 power. I'm on 6 power, Baratheon (to my left) is on a 4 power, and Stark has nothing. Next plot phase, I play Take Them By Surprise! and hand the first player to Lannister, as my intention was for him to win immediately, guaranteeing me second place and a place at the final table. Stark and Baratheon (especially Stark) go a bit mad at this, citing the spirit of the game, etc. The truth is, I would have selected myself as the first player and done some damage to Lannister. This would also have allowed Baratheon and Stark to get back into the game. Lannister would then have tussled with me during his challenges, and we could have tussled one another to a standstill for the next couple of rounds. from my point of view, I'd made an error with my turn three plot which hadn't so much as handed the game to Lannister, but pushed it out of my immediate grasp. I could have went on to win, or I could have went on to come last, but I settled for second because I wanted to see the final table (which I then won!), although I feel some element of guilt at almost 'fixing' the game in such a way. I think the sting in the tale for Stark and Baratheon is that our regular games are one-off games and everyone plays to win at any cost. But playing to qualify for a final table is a different experience, and sometimes it's best to concede defeat for a reasonable placement (A bit like the final table, as there was literally no prize for second place!). These are people I play with regularly, not randoms at an event, so when Stark went home in a bit of a mood, his day and his chances at making final table in ruins, I felt a bit bad. I'm curious about other people's experiences with this type of thing, and how you deal with it? Anyone agree or disagree with the chain of events? Not looking for vindication, I'm just genuinely interested in how people handle such things.
  15. CowboyJesus said: Hi there, Sorry for the delay with the tourney report shall crack on with it shortly, should hopefully be ready before the next tourney takes place We had a tourney today and you haven't posted the last report... get it sorted !! :-)
  16. Hi all Is it possible for it to be both Winter and Summer at the same time? If Wildfire Assault is played as a plot, at the same time as Power of Blood, is it possible for the Power of Blood player to keep upto six character by naming those that CAN be killed? Will I win my local tournament tomorrow? (later today?) If you win a power challenge with BWB but don't control a brotherhoof character, does your opponent lose any power? :-) xxx
  17. ktom said: It is the actual gold paid for the character, not the unmodified cost of the character. Proper love ktom me like :-)
  18. I've not playtested this card, nor have I seen it played by anyone. I do agree that it's a weak card and, with any deck I can think of, there'd be cards I'd rather have in. I think this one is confined to the wildling theme decks.
  19. What you're saying makes complete sense and I agree with it. It's shame that some of these inconsistencies exist, but given the scale and scope of the game it's no surprise that these things creep in over time and I think the FAQ is generally very comprehensive and clear. I was just surprised this hadn't been addressed already, although the BWB isn't exactly ancient... I guess the purpose behind my original post was to see if anyone could actually point me to something I'd missed. That didn't happen, but only because that section doesn't exist and as you say there's some genuine inconsistency. The currently adopted way of handling claim for power seems to be in need of revision, but I also think that for gameplay reasons either the BWB agenda or Eastwatch-by-the-Sea should see some errata. Ideally, I'd like to see Eastwatch-by-the-Sea say something like 'that cards controller must them move the power to their House card' (yes, this is purely because BWB deck's do not need this kind of assassin, they already have to content with Milk of the Poppy, Ghaston Grey, Slander and Lies, a host of other text blanking effects, and most recently, Meera Reed to contend with!), and also/or for the BWB Agenda to say "If you would claim power or if power would be moved to your House, it must be placed on a Brotherhood character you control instead. Opponents may choose and take power from your Brotherhood characters to fulfill the claim of Power challenges initiated against you." I do think I'll send this in to FFG and see what happens. I'm not expecting fireworks, but with the surge of interest in this game the time would never be better to wrap up some of these loose ends. Thanks for the insights, I'll no doubt be back to check on more rules soon, although definitely not on something as contentious as this
  20. ktom said: "Because that's what the FAQ rules says to do" is, indeed, pretty convincing. Haha, touche
  21. Newbiek said: 1. What happend when someone attach Milk of the Poppy on the Summer Reserves (or Winter Reserves and other Reinforcements)? Has "Summer Reserves" any textbox? 2. If "Summer Reserves" leave game, leave it as character or event? (go to dead pile, or discard pile) 3. If "Summer Reserves" go to deadpile, is in deadpile considered as character or event? (effect of Silent Sisters) 4. Has "Summer Reserves" printed STR? Excuse me, my English. Thank you for answers. 1. I don't know the answer to this one, although I suspect it would cause it to be discarded. 2. One of the players in my gaming group assured me that it went to the discard pile and he explained somesuch reasoning or other. I don't recall the exact details, but it sounded convincing 3. It's an event because it's text is only active whilst it's in play, and it's only it's text that makes it a character. Cards in the dead/discard piles aren't in play. 4. No it doesn't, I do know this much for certain
  22. D) -istaril and Marshall Lambert appear to give different answers here. I agree with -istaril's reply, with the addition that the action window proceeds clockwise from the First Player, so you may be able to steal gold if you're not the first player, just as long as you're not sat to the immediate right of the first player.
  23. ktom said: Here's the other problem with this line of reasoning. We know for a fact that "you" is always read from the point of view of the card's controller. So if you're going to hold fast to the "the losing player is the one moving the power" technicality here, it is still incorrect to interpret the "you" on the Agenda as applying to all players. It only applies to "you," not your opponents. That means that every power challenge you win - when your opponent has power to steal - is going to end up putting power tokens on your House card because the Agenda doesn't force your opponents to do anything. That's going to be worse for Brotherhood decks than Eastwatch ever could be. I think you’ve misunderstood my line of reasoning, or at least, I may not have articulated it well enough. However, this is a point I was working towards, as the current game rules as interpreted by most would appear to be make this agenda worthless, unless that interpretation is selective. This is something I find absurd, which leaves me to believe that some of the wording in the game is being taken out of its intended context. ktom said: In the end, if you want something official, send the question to FFG. Whether "educated opinion" or "clear application and interpretation," the result I've explained above is how it's going to end up, though. Confidence, arrogance, or exasperation at someone who doesn’t understand the rules as well as you? It’s alright, I’m still quite new to this game and I’m learning a lot from these forums. I hope you don’t mind me saying that I’d appreciate your continued input into this thread as I’m not done with it just yet… Ratatoskr said: Then Nitro Pirate said "I've read the rulebook and the FAQ from cover to cover and nowhere can I find anything that directly supports this statement" (I'm sure the "educated opinion" bit and the generous offer not to be offended if proved wrong sounded a tad rude only to my oversensitive ears, and besides I'm guessing your discussions with Rogue have given you a thick skin anyway). I wasn’t aware I’d said this out loud, although my educated opinion is that you’re talking metaphorically. Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’ll take no offence Ratatoskr said: Well, there's this (FAQ page 22): You can, however, move power that is already in the game onto that House card by, for example, winning a power challenge. This is not something I’d missed. The full passage actually says – “Moving power is not considered claiming power. If an effect prevents you from claiming power for your House card, you cannot bring power into the game from the power pool and place it on your House card. You can, however, move power that is already in the game onto that House card by, for example, winning a power challenge.” Taken at face value, what this tells us is that power is only regarded as ‘claim’ if it’s being ‘claimed’ from the power pool. Power that’s already in play is there to be moved, not claimed. First off, the passage makes it clear that moving and claiming are not the same thing. It goes on to say that restrictions to claiming power for your house card are only in effect when taking power from the power pool. Any power that’s in play (ie; sat on an opponent’s house card) is regarded as being moved, the example it gives being the winning of a power challenge. Consider the wording in the rulebook: “Power Challenge: The defending opponent takes a number of power counters from his House card equal to the claim value on the attacker’s revealed plot card, and places them on the attacker’s House card.” (I’ll be honest, I’d forgotten that it even said ‘places’ rather than ‘moves’… a pernickety person may wish to argue that placing and moving are different effects and that this would bypass the BWB Agenda. I am no such person, so I’ll put that aside for the time being.) The wording here uses the phrase ‘equal to the claim value’ on the attackers plot card. But, as in the FAQ you kindly pointed out, it’s not claim. It’s just moving power equal to the claim value, and moving and claiming power are not the same. This section of the rulebook has not been the subject of errata, so should be considered to be correct as written. Now might be a good time for me to refer back to that particular FAQ, actually. With the rulebook making it clear that the losing opponent moves the power, it means we have to consider that the errata is either contradictory or is being taken out of context. The part that interests me is actually the excerpt you used: “You can, however, move power that is already in the game onto that House card by, for example, winning a power challenge.” Well we know it can’t mean YOU in the literal sense moving the power, because that would be contradictory to the rules. Therefore it must be out of context. The use of ‘you’ here perhaps being similar to the use of ‘you’ on the Brotherhood without Banners Agenda, if you see where I’m going that…
  24. Hello, There are people here much better equipped to answer your question than I. However, the rules state that the 'first player' chooses the order in which simultaneous effects are triggered.
  25. ktom said: Claim effects are considered initiated by and done for the benefit of the winner, so the "you" forcing the placement of power moved during a power challenge onto Brotherhood characters applies to challenges won by you, even though it is technically the opponent picking up and moving the power. (That is, "you" initiate the effect, even though the loser of the challenge goes through the motions.) Eastwatch is the silver-bullet card against the Brotherhood characters/deck theme. It helps to have Lady Stoneheart around. Hmm, I've read the rulebook and the FAQ from cover to cover and nowhere can I find anything that directly supports this statement, which leads me to believe that this is your educated opinion rather than a written rule. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'll take no offence.
×
×
  • Create New...