Alchemist's shop, burning sands, and other card questions

[MrDudeguy 10]

I apologize in advance, I do not know how to link cards to the forums. For this post I will simply describe the card for those who do not know what it is...

Alchemist's Shop:

"Your Characters with weapon attachments yo control get +2 STR and gain deadly."

Does the STR bonus stack with multiple alchemist shops in play? (+4 for two, +6 for three?)

Burning on the Sands:

"Response: If an opponent would win a challenge against you, cancel the determination of the challenge winner. No one wins the challenge."

I know that you can't play any cads referring to "defending a challenge" if the challenge is unopposed (since there is no defender), but would this card be able to cancel the challenge outcome of an unopposed challenge? And if so, would it cancel the power bonus claimed for unopposed challenges?

Finaly, I have a question regarding the "Sand Snake" characters. I think I know the answer, but just in case... Some of the sand snake characters buff each other by giving them icons and/or keyword abilities (i.e. All Sand Snake characters you control get an Intrigue icon and stealth). If they already have an intrigue icon, do they still recieve stealth? I guess this boils down to other buffs as well, as from attachments or events. If a character already has one part of the buff, can it still recieve the second part?

 

[Skowza 9]

MrDudeguy said:

Alchemist's Shop:

"Your Characters with weapon attachments yo control get +2 STR and gain deadly."

Does the STR bonus stack with multiple alchemist shops in play? (+4 for two, +6 for three?)

Yes.

MrDudeguy said:

Burning on the Sands:

"Response: If an opponent would win a challenge against you, cancel the determination of the challenge winner. No one wins the challenge."

I know that you can't play any cads referring to "defending a challenge" if the challenge is unopposed (since there is no defender), but would this card be able to cancel the challenge outcome of an unopposed challenge? And if so, would it cancel the power bonus claimed for unopposed challenges?

Yes and Yes.

MrDudeguy said:

Finaly, I have a question regarding the "Sand Snake" characters. I think I know the answer, but just in case... Some of the sand snake characters buff each other by giving them icons and/or keyword abilities (i.e. All Sand Snake characters you control get an Intrigue icon and stealth). If they already have an intrigue icon, do they still recieve stealth? I guess this boils down to other buffs as well, as from attachments or events. If a character already has one part of the buff, can it still recieve the second part?

Yes.
 

[ktom 598]

Some additional detail is probably in order here.

Skowza said:

MrDudeguy said:

 

Alchemist's Shop:

"Your Characters with weapon attachments yo control get +2 STR and gain deadly."

Does the STR bonus stack with multiple alchemist shops in play? (+4 for two, +6 for three?)

 

 

Yes.

In this game, cards are individual based on the actual, physical piece of cardboard, not by the title. So if you have multiple copies of a card, each independently resolves to give the bonus. The valid bonuses then adds together and are applied to the card.

ctr2yellowbird said:

MrDudeguy said:

 

Burning on the Sands:

"Response: If an opponent would win a challenge against you, cancel the determination of the challenge winner. No one wins the challenge."

I know that you can't play any cads referring to "defending a challenge" if the challenge is unopposed (since there is no defender), but would this card be able to cancel the challenge outcome of an unopposed challenge? And if so, would it cancel the power bonus claimed for unopposed challenges?

 

Yes and Yes.

You may be missing something here. If you do not declare defenders, you would not be able to use effects that say "after you declare defenders" or "choose a defending character." You would, however, be able to use effects that say "while you are defending" or "while you are the defending player." Whether you commit character to the challenge or not, you, the player, are still the defending player - after all, you are probably going to lose the challenge and have to settle claim, right? So don't go overboard on what you "can't" do if you choose not to declare defending characters in a challenge initiated against you.

Also note that playing Burning in the Sands has nothing to do with you being a defender or having defending characters in the challenge. If you get to challenge resolution, and the count is about to come up against you, you can use the event to interrupt this determination of the winner - and say that no one wins the challenge. Has nothing to do with whether you are an attacking or defending player at that point - only that challenge resolution will not come up in your favor.

And, since in order to get the bonus for "unopposed," the attacker has to actually win the challenge, the attacker cannot claim the unopposed power. It's not canceled, though. They just are not eligible to claim it because they didn't win the challenge. Same result, different reason (which could be important).

ctr2yellowbird said:

MrDudeguy said:

 

Finaly, I have a question regarding the "Sand Snake" characters. I think I know the answer, but just in case... Some of the sand snake characters buff each other by giving them icons and/or keyword abilities (i.e. All Sand Snake characters you control get an Intrigue icon and stealth). If they already have an intrigue icon, do they still recieve stealth? I guess this boils down to other buffs as well, as from attachments or events. If a character already has one part of the buff, can it still recieve the second part?

 

 

Yes.

There is so much more than "yes" here....

Note that if you have a Sand Snake character out that already has a printed intrigue icon and you play the Sand Snake character that says "Sand Snakes gain an intrigue icon and Stealth," that other Sand Snake gains both the intrigue icon and Stealth. She will have 2 intrigue icons. (Or, if she had Stealth printed or from some other effect, she'll have "double stealth.") She doesn't get any real benefit from having the intrigue icon twice, but she does get it. So it's not like "she still gets the second part of the buff;" she gets the whole buff.

Now, this isn't important during an intrigue challenge or when you bypass characters with stealth. The "double" stats doesn't let her use them any differently. Where it is important is if your opponent throws out some sort of "character loses an intrigue icon" or "character loses stealth" effect. That's because with 2 intrigue icons, this Sand Snake can lose one when your opponent takes one away and still have the extra to "use."

So don't think of buffs like this as "still get half" sort of thing. They get the whole thing - even if there isn't a practical impact on what they can do. It may come in handy if there are further manipulations of icons/keywords.

 

 

[Skowza 9]

ktom said:

Some additional detail is probably in order.

There is so much more than "yes" here....

There is, but others do it so much better than me!

[MrDudeguy 10]

Awesome, very helpful. I especially enjoyed the breakdowns, ktom. You seem to be an invaluable tool on these forums. (Not that anyone else isn't... I'm just saying I see him all the time...)

[xqg5009 0]

ktom said:

Burning on the Sands:

"Response: If an opponent would win a challenge against you, cancel the determination of the challenge winner. No one wins the challenge."

 

Also note that playing Burning in the Sands has nothing to do with you being a defender or having defending characters in the challenge. If you get to challenge resolution, and the count is about to come up against you, you can use the event to interrupt this determination of the winner - and say that no one wins the challenge. Has nothing to do with whether you are an attacking or defending player at that point - only that challenge resolution will not come up in your favor.

 

ehhh, ktom, i think you might make a mistake over here. The response says: if an opponent would win a challenge agaisnt YOU, cancel......, which means you can only cancel the challenge agaisnt you as a defender. Not that you can interrupt any determination of the winner. Hope i am wrong, cuz i also play Martell, that would make this event card much more powerful, lol

 

[ktom 598]

xqg5009 said:

ehhh, ktom, i think you might make a mistake over here. The response says: if an opponent would win a challenge agaisnt YOU, cancel......, which means you can only cancel the challenge agaisnt you as a defender. 

So... if you attack me with 3 STR and I defend with 4 STR, I'm not about to win a challenge "against you"? What am I about to win, then?

 

[the1andonlime 0]

 I think it's a matter of interpretation.

It can be read as "win...against you" (which is what I understand it to be as well), or
"win...challenge against you" which would require you to have been challenged (ergo, defending).

I think, going by the way card text in the game is generally phrased, ktom's explanation seems the most feasible.

Hope this helps.

[Saturnine 47]

What are you winning if you're not winning a challenge? A challenge is a challenge, no matter if you're defending or attacking -- one wins, one loses. As ktom pointed out, if I win a challenge as the defender... I'm certainly not winning it "with" you.

[Winged_Human 0]

I believe what they are trying to determine is if you can use Burning sands if you defend a challenge against a player you support as allowed by the titles during a Melee game.

 

I would say "Yes" that you would be able to use burning sands effectivly in this instance, but I could be wrong.

 

Also, During a Melee game I believe the correct interpretiation of the text on this card would prevent you from using it if player A attacked any other player than yourself and you did not support the defending player.

 

 

[ktom 598]

Winged_Human said:

I believe what they are trying to determine is if you can use Burning sands if you defend a challenge against a player you support as allowed by the titles during a Melee game.

That's not what the discussion is about. It is about whether or not you could use Burning in the Sand if you were going to lose the challenge as an attacker. 

Whether or not Burning in the Sand applies in a "Supports" situation is answered pretty clearly in the rules when it says you become the winner or loser of the challenge. So of course it would apply.

Winged_Human said:

Also, During a Melee game I believe the correct interpretiation of the text on this card would prevent you from using it if player A attacked any other player than yourself and you did not support the defending player.

Yes, this is pretty clear from the rules since no one could ever be about to win a challenge against you if you are neither the attacker nor the defender. Only the attacker or defender can win (or lose) a challenge.

[the1andonlime 0]

Saturnine said:

What are you winning if you're not winning a challenge? A challenge is a challenge, no matter if you're defending or attacking -- one wins, one loses. As ktom pointed out, if I win a challenge as the defender... I'm certainly not winning it "with" you.

Not disputing the ruling on the card, but from my understanding, "winning against you" is not quite the same as "winning a challenge against you".

"Wining against you" will simply require me to win when opposing you regardless of who initiated the challenge.

"A challenge against you" is a challenge I initiated against you. If you had initiated the challenge instead, it is a challenge against me. If I won the latter, you would not have won "a challenge against you", but would instead have defended "a challenge against you", although if I won in both scenarios, I would have "won against you".

[Saturnine 47]

 You are interpreting the language in a more complicated way than is necessary. It is "win (a challenge)[optional] against you." If the card text would want you to be able to execute it as a defender only, it would explicitly say so. There is nothing explicit (or even implicit) about the wording "win a challenge against." You are saying it implies "challenge initiated against you" which is not the case.

[ktom 598]

the1andonlime said:

"A challenge against you" is a challenge I initiated against you. If you had initiated the challenge instead, it is a challenge against me. If I won the latter, you would not have won "a challenge against you", but would instead have defended "a challenge against you", although if I won in both scenarios, I would have "won against you".

Your interpretation here is at odds with the common interpretation of the Fury plots, which also say "if you win a (type) challenge against an opponent with (appropriate House card)...". I have never heard of anyone thinking that, assuming the House restrictions are met, the controller of the Fury plot would not get the benefit of the plot if they won on defense, as well as on attack.

I understand what you are getting at here, but the interpretation you suggest requires the assumption of the word "declared" or "initiated" before the "against you" part of the text. Common interpretation of all cards in this game is to never assume words that aren't actually printed on the card. This is supported by the many cards that specify "declared against you" or "initiated" against you" when the direction of the conflict matters. 

Without specific card text indicating a particular direction for the attacker/defender relationship in the "against you" wording, it would be inconsistent with the way cards are usually read in this game to assume that the direction of the conflict matters. Hence, the interpretation that Sands applies whether you are about to lose on attack or defense.

[Skowza 9]

the1andonlime said:

 

 Not disputing the ruling on the card, but from my understanding, "winning against you" is not quite the same as "winning a challenge against you".

 

"Wining against you" will simply require me to win when opposing you regardless of who initiated the challenge.

"A challenge against you" is a challenge I initiated against you. If you had initiated the challenge instead, it is a challenge against me. If I won the latter, you would not have won "a challenge against you", but would instead have defended "a challenge against you", although if I won in both scenarios, I would have "won against you".

Lol, ktom posted about 3 secs before me and probably explained it way better than I could of, so I'll cut out a bunch of my post and just say the best example I can think of to dispute your argument is Guard at Riverrun.  By your logic, you could draw cards off of Guard at Riverrun if you had lost a military challenge as the attacker but won any initiated against you by an opponent since it states "if no opponent has won a M challenge against you."  Is this how you have been using Guard at Riverrun? 

[Mathias Fricot 0]

About 6 months ago I made a thread about this with Guard at Riverrun, and yes, losing on attack will count for him. The same way you can use burning on attack. Its two people in a challenge against one another. Think of it that way.

So ya, go ahead and use Burning on the offensive, but if your not doing it on a claim 2 military challenge with FoW out, with OOH Aegon's Blade attached to a pit viper that also has a Dornish Chariot and a Bronze Shield, I will be frowning at you.

[the1andonlime 0]

Skowza said:

Is this how you have been using Guard at Riverrun?

I know how it works. I said

the1andonlime said:

I think, going by the way card text in the game is generally phrased, ktom's explanation seems the most feasible.

and

the1andonlime said:

Not disputing the ruling on the card...

 

My original answer was to ktom to try to explain how the OP might have interpreted the card text, which led to his question (i.e. a direct answer to

ktom said:

So... if you attack me with 3 STR and I defend with 4 STR, I'm not about to win a challenge "against you"? What am I about to win, then?

)

 

I think if we are all here to try our best to answer rules questions, we will have to try to understand where the questions are coming from. No?

[the1andonlime 0]

Saturnine said:

You are interpreting the language in a more complicated way than is necessary. It is "win (a challenge)[optional] against you." If the card text would want you to be able to execute it as a defender only, it would explicitly say so. There is nothing explicit (or even implicit) about the wording "win a challenge against." You are saying it implies "challenge initiated against you" which is not the case.

No, I don't think that is an over complicated interpretation of the language. It is just an interpretation that is different from the common format of language use in the game.

Language wise, both interpretations are correct (where you place your emphasis will determine how you read the sentence), but like I keep saying, I know the "won against you" interpretation is the correct one from a game rules point of view.

[ktom 598]

the1andonlime said:

No, I don't think that is an over complicated interpretation of the language. It is just an interpretation that is different from the common format of language use in the game.

Which, I think, is ultimately where we're getting off track here. Given that many words have multiple meanings, both overt and nuanced, the language alone almost never gives full meaning. You have to look at the context in which the language is being used. So while I think everyone can agree that there may be other reasonable interpretations of the words, I think everyone can also agree that within the context of the game, there is really only one reasonable interpretation.

That's ultimately what this question is about: the proper context the game puts on the interpretation of this card. If you're new to the game, it might not be immediately clear.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

the1andonlime said:

Saturnine said:

 

You are interpreting the language in a more complicated way than is necessary. It is "win (a challenge)[optional] against you." If the card text would want you to be able to execute it as a defender only, it would explicitly say so. There is nothing explicit (or even implicit) about the wording "win a challenge against." You are saying it implies "challenge initiated against you" which is not the case.

 

No, I don't think that is an over complicated interpretation of the language. It is just an interpretation that is different from the common format of language use in the game.

Language wise, both interpretations are correct (where you place your emphasis will determine how you read the sentence), but like I keep saying, I know the "won against you" interpretation is the correct one from a game rules point of view.

For clarification of anyone reading this, "won against you" just means you lost, and has no bearing on being the attacker or defender with respect to the game mechanics.

Its like when someone uses a good old fashioned scurvy on Eddard Stark and you say "im going to respond to that with a frozen solid" when it becomes your opportunity to marshall and get rid of that scurvy. Yes, you responded to it by webster's definition, but in game terms you didn't respond, you used a player action. The two don't always go hand in hand.

I have a lot of trouble with this stuff on a regular basis. Maybe its because i'm Canadian and say zed not zee.

 

[MrDudeguy 10]

Honestly, I wanted to use it a defensive measure in a deck that is lacking in Military STR. I was hoping I could attack all-out after winning initiative and use Burning on the Sands to keep from losing characters

However, I love that this discussion has branched out to include so many other rules and implications that would pre-empt me asking about them later as they arise. You guys all rock