Formal Petition

[Rogue30 60]

Why Formal Petition has "limit 1 per House card"?

[ktom 598]

Because jumping from 9 power to "I win" in the Marshalling phase for 9 gold (not nearly as difficult as it sounds - if that's the point of your deck) is a pretty significant NPE.

I'd guess that the designers don't want you to be able to win on a "pay gold for power" kind of strategy.

[Rogue30 60]

ktom said:

I'd guess that the designers don't want you to be able to win on a "pay gold for power" kind of strategy.

That's why they did it unique.

BTW what's NPE?

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

That's why they did it unique.

Multiplayer collusion. The limit stops me from teaming up with friends to keep playing Petitions on the same House card, controlled by different players.

Rogue30 said:

BTW what's NPE?

Stands for "negative play experience." It's kind of a catch-all for "stupid loopholes than generally make the game less fun."

[Rogue30 60]

ktom said:

Multiplayer collusion. The limit stops me from teaming up with friends to keep playing Petitions on the same House card, controlled by different players.

And "Attach to your House card."?

[FATMOUSE 0]

Rogue30 said:

 

ktom said:

Multiplayer collusion. The limit stops me from teaming up with friends to keep playing Petitions on the same House card, controlled by different players.

 

And "Attach to your House card."?

 

 

The limit stops stacking of Formal Petition with attachment steal (i.e. Kraznys mo Nakloz during Summer).  Also, any chance you can put up the Agendas and Multiplayer Titles on your website, Rogue30?

[Rogue30 60]

FATMOUSE said:

 

The limit stops stacking of Formal Petition with attachment steal (i.e. Kraznys mo Nakloz during Summer). 

It's unique

FATMOUSE said:

Also, any chance you can put up the Agendas and Multiplayer Titles on your website, Rogue30?

Agendas are there, just hidden by default.

Titles - I think it's not necessary - my database was designed for looking synergies, while you thinking about new decks, new ideas. And also help new players. Title cards, well, they don't belong to deck building, and information that you got them in box is not that important. I don't know, they seem to me just like rulebook and plastic figures, and tokens.

[Twn2dn 1]

Yeah, for all intensive purposes, the "Limit 1 per house card" is probably unnecessary. On the other hand, there are always new cards coming out, and a future card could change the way something interacts. (For example, it would be kind of cool if there was a House Frey or "Twins" location that let you take control of opponent's unique cards even if you already had one in play and/or in your dead pile. I know that sounds extremely unlikely, but it theoretically could happen.) With the extra restrictions on this attachment, new cards could be printed without creating problems with this particular attachment.

[ktom 598]

My guess is developmental artifact.

Formal Petition is a reprint from the Flight of Dragons set, an expansion to the original "Westeros Edition" base set. In the Westeros Edition, attachments were not given unique flags. Things like Ice and Needle were not unique; they were given limits like "only 1 in play." I would guess that the decision to extend the unique flag to attachments, or at least to Formal Petition, came during the development and the limits placed on it to make it act unique were not removed from its text. Later, when it was reprinted, no one really thought twice about it.