Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sttyca

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/26/1984

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States
  1. this. it's the most common reason for these questions. not necessarily just in the EU, but yeah.
  2. Not sure if that works right. I thought you could only declare [naval] attackers/defenders if you are the attacking/defending player, and I'm pretty sure you aren't the defending player if you're supporting, since they are still required to pay the claim if you lose. Same reason if you support with a renown defender and win, they don't claim power for participating. I reserve the right to be wrong in my interpretation, but that's how I've understood it from past discussions on the subject.
  3. Exactly, because you resolve each save/cancel response individually. In a nutshell: Player A reveals Valar Morghulis, and, somehow still ends up first player. Player A is playing Martell and has two copies of Maester of the Sun in play. He kneels one, then discards Darkstar from his hand, putting Darkstar into play instead of in his discard to save the second one from being killed. (this is because first player gets first response to framework actions, which I believe resolving the when revealed of a plot is... I might be wrong there... and if I am, just swap the order of player A and player B reactions) Player B has a couple of unique characters with dupes on them. He/She discards one dupe from one character to save them from being killed. Player A kneels the second Maester and discards a card from his hand to save Darkstar from being killed. Player B discards one dupe from another character to save them from being killed. This continues back and forth until neither player has anymore save/cancel responses to trigger/play or both pass on the opportunity, at which point, both players are able to trigger regular responses and passives to the resolution of Valar, before all cards go moribund.
  4. Though this would be a good idea in the short run, with the new mechanics and rulings on specific situations coming out so rapidly, not to mention the errata on cards that are found to be worded incorrectly for their intended purpose, it would not be a fiscally prudent solution. If they printed a hard cover edition of the comprehensive rules and released it every time something changes, they would ultimately end up losing money, because fewer and fewer people would buy them as they began to realize the frequency at which they were released. On the flip side, even if they only released it on a regular schedule like with the current FAQ releases, they'd run into the same problem as they do with the FAQ. People would have questions in between releases that they would have to check the fora and/or ask rules questions via the link on the web site. The current method of releasing digital, free, copies of the FAQ on a semi-regular basis is the most consumer friendly and fiscally responsible way for them to distribute this type of material. It just honestly makes more business sense.
  5. the fact that it says "you can/may" means it refers to only the person who played the event. Any card effect that says "you," "your," refers to only the person triggering or playing the effect getting its benefits.
  6. If the character agenda is active (i.e. the character has died and is now attached to the house card as the only agenda), then they are running an agenda. It doesn't matter if it's a regular agenda or character-turned-agenda. In this example, no, NCF will not kneel to attack that person.
  7. It refers to power tokens when referencing an opponent who has more power than you. As far as when you can trigger it, you can use her ability during any player action window during the challenges phase. This is regardless of whether a challenge is happening and regardless of whose turn it is to be the active player.
  8. if it's an event card, then it still immune, providing your opponent triggered the effect. However, if you are the one that triggered/played this event, then it would not be immune, as it's not an "opponent(s)... effect"
  9. don't forget, because it becomes a "condition" attachment after playing it, there are other ways of getting rid of Ward, without having to win specific challenges. Also, depending on the house you're playing, there's plenty of "attachment hate" out there to get rid of either one. It's Seductive Promise you've got to watch out for, cause unless you've got your own character stealing mechanic, it's theirs for the rest of the game (providing they use the character and don't let him/her die)
  10. ~ Detailing minutiae, insisting it makes a difference in the cosmic scheme of things? Just another day on the AGoT boards. preach it brother
  11. I am so confused by your use of i.e. (i. e. it's wrong, e. g. this sentence is proper usage) I am such a jerk. D: -50 DKP for both of us!!!!! either is acceptable... i.e. translated means "that is" (usually to clarify a sentence, that is to make it easier to understand) and e.g. translated means "example given" Just depends on your actual wording However, in HastAttack's sentence, neither is needed...
  12. Follow up question....So if Rhaegar dies, each phase still ends sequentially? So what would happen with the new Bloodthirst agenda if Rhaegar was used for claim durning a military challenge, but the Bloodthirst player still had fewer characters? Would he still get to draw two cards at the end of the challenge phase? If it's an "end of phase" trigger, then, whoever fulfills it gets the benefit.
  • Create New...