A few questions

[Slothgodfather 270]

I figured I'd take a stab at it but that does make sense, thanks for the correction.  

[Serazu 50]

And what about A City Besieged and City of Soldiers? Can I evade their harmful effects by avoiding to discard a location of mine in the first case and kill a character of mine if I 'm the only one with characters in play? In the ACB case I 'm almost positive I cannot avoid discarding a location of mine if one is in play due to the "if able" wording, but what about the CoS case? The "choose" baffles me. Do I treat it as the Dissension with an ally of mine, but without any Refugee in play, so I have to kill my character?

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

And what about A City Besieged and City of Soldiers? Can I evade their harmful effects by avoiding to discard a location of mine in the first case and kill a character of mine if I 'm the only one with characters in play? In the ACB case I 'm almost positive I cannot avoid discarding a location of mine if one is in play due to the "if able" wording, but what about the CoS case? The "choose" baffles me. Do I treat it as the Dissension with an ally of mine, but without any Refugee in play, so I have to kill my character?

A City Besieged: "When revealed, choose and discard from play 1 location with printed cost X or lower controlled by each player, if able. X is the number of city plots in your used pile."

So, If a player (including you) controls a location with printed STR X or lower, you have to choose it, then discard it. If a player does not have such a location, you have nothing to choose for that player. If a player has multiple such locations, you may pick among all eligible locations for that player. There is nothing in the language of this card that suggests you can skip over an eligible location in any way - short of there being another eligible location controlled by the same player that you can choose in its place.

 

City of Soldiers: "When revealed,choose and kill a character with STR X or lower. X is the number of City plot cards in your used pile."

So, the person who reveals the plot has to choose and kill any of the eligible characters available. There is nothing in the language of this card that suggests you can skip over an eligible character just because you control it - short of there being another eligible character controlled by someone else.

 

I'm really not sure how "choose up to 2 Refugees means I can choose 0 of the available Refugees" on Dissension could ever be generalized to choosing 0 of the available targets for cards that do not have the "up to" language?

[Serazu 50]

The Dissension example was there for the instance "if-you-are-the-only-one-to-control-an-ally-too-bad-for-you-you-lose it", which is the same in the CoS instance if you are the only one to control a character. It has nothing to do with the Refugees.

[ktom 598]

 

Ok. Then I guess I'm just not clear on the what confusion led to the question. 

[Serazu 50]

Nevermind. What's important is that both plots can hurt you, if not timed correctly.

[livingEND 4]

"A few questions" is the name of a >250-posts thread?

        L

           O

                L

[J_Roel 7]

Wow, you come off as very rude and arrogant, or maybe I'm reading too much into your tone on here… A one word answer to my question, telling ktom that he's correct when he generally seems to have a better grasp of the rules than anyone on here (with the exception of the people who actually write the cards), and this post. The thread is called that because Serazu had a few questions when he created the thread. He then proceeded to use the same thread every time he had a new question, instead of creating a new "a couple of questions" thread.

[livingEND 4]

J_Roel said:

(1) Wow, you come off as very rude and arrogant,

(2) or maybe I'm reading too much into your tone on here…

(3) A one word answer to my question,

(4) telling ktom that he's correct

(5) when he generally seems to have a better grasp of the rules than anyone on here (with the exception of the people who actually write the cards),

(6) and this post.

(7) The thread is called that because Serazu had a few questions when he created the thread. He then proceeded to use the same thread every time he had a new question, instead of creating a new "a couple of questions" thread.

 

Let me answer your questions in chronological order.

(1) I am deeply sorry, that wasn't my intention.

(2) Nope, you are absolutely correct. My behavior was wrong.

(3) My rules knowledge was insufficient to reply with a full sentence. Nevertheless I wanted to help, thus my incomplete answer.

(4) Sorry, my English is really bad. Sometimes I create negative connotations without even noticing it. I didn't want to sound bad mannered or impolite.

(5) This game wouldn't be the same without his help. Chapeau!

(6) Actually I just wanted to express my astonishment.

(7) Didn't figure that one out, thanks for the clarification!

 

 

[Saturnine 47]

J_Roel said:

. . . when he generally seems to have a better grasp of the rules than anyone on here (with the exception of the people who actually write the cards) . . .

 

With all the templating hiccups we've seen,  it feels as though he has a better grasp on the rules than even the people designing the cards.

[Serazu 50]

@ J_Roel: Thanks man.

@ livingEND: Not that I need to justify my threads to people without anything constructive to contribute, but it's much preferable to have all my questions and the replies to them on a single thread than searching here and there. You should do that too; it might change your life. Or your attitude.

[livingEND 4]

Serazu said:

You should do that too; it might change your life. Or your attitude.

 

I'm interested in how exactly organizing your questions did change your life. Could I learn more, please?

 

Furthermore, why do you think my first post was meant offensive? 

Wouldn't you smirk, if you saw a book at your local library that had 1600 pages and was called "Small Compendium of Lutheran Theology"?

 

Tyvm in advance for your answers.

[Serazu 50]

Never mind. Since you claim you weren't sarcastic just for the sake of being sarcastic, then there is really no use in going on with this.

[livingEND 4]

Thanks for the detailed answer.

Hopefully the financial crisis doesn't prevent our meeting at Stahleck.

[Serazu 50]

1. Obara Sand:

The tournament rules mention that "Before each game begins, and before any setup cards are revealed, a player may, for any reason, re-shuffle his or her opening hand into his or her deck, pass the deck back to his or her opponent for additional shuffling or cutting, and draw a new setup hand from the same deck. This may only be performed once per game." There is mention of  "a new setup hand" with no specific mention to numbers. Does this mean that, even if I remove Obara for an additional mulligan, thus having six hands in hand, I still draw seven cards?

2. Dragon Skull vs. He Calls it Thinking:

A matter came up yesterday, concerning those two: I revealed DS out of the Shadows by paying the rest of its cost. My opponent used HCiT to cancel its response. What should have happended to DS? Should I have put it in my discard pile or back in Shadows? I remember instances where CS Khal's or KoW Catelyn's ability is cancelled and the card stays in hand as if it never entered play. Is the same case here? We ultimately decided to put the Skull into my discard pile, thinking that it wasn't its entrance into play that it was cancelled (this was done by paying the 1 extra gold), but the response which attaches it to a character. So the Skull was already in play when its ability was cancelled and shouldn't be treated as it never left the Shadows. Were we correct?

[livingEND 4]

Serazu said:

(1) Does this mean that, even if I remove Obara for an additional mulligan, thus having six hands in hand, I still draw seven cards?

2. What should have happended to DS?

(1) You pretty much answered your own question. Yes, you draw seven new cards.

(2) Well, what does Dragon Skull say?

      "Response: After Dragon Skull comes out of shadows […]"

That means that Dragon Skull is already in play when you trigger its response. So it will be discarded if it isn't legally attached to a card.

[Serazu 50]

Ok, I was correct then. Thank you.

[Calepin 0]

Hi !

 

Here's the question : I use winter is coming. Is it possible for another player to use Bones of a child to counter my effect and when ?

 

Thank you !

 

[Totalgit 3]

The person could discard "Bones of a Child" right after your "Winter is Coming" is resolved.

Theres 3 player actions during the challenge phase where it'd be possible to play both BoAC and WiC. Right before the declare challenge type and opponent, after attacker has kneeled characters for it and after defender has kneeled defenders, after that theres no more time.

Bones of a child isnt a save/cancel so it cant cancel the effect of WiC but after you have played it, he has a chance to take a player action and can discard BoaC then.

Hope thats right.

 

[Serazu 50]

1. An opponent controls a STR 2 character. I use Incinerate on it for -3 STR. Opponent reacts with Risen from the Sea on it. Is the character saved? I guess not,  because its STR will still be (2 - 3 + 1 =) 0, so the Incinerate's effect will kick in again.

2. An opponent controls a STR 2 character. I use Incinerate on it for -3 STR. Opponent uses Moqorro's effect on it. Is the character saved? I guess so,  because its STR will now be (2 - 3 + 2 =) 1, enough to keep him away from Incinerate's effect.

3. An opponent controls a STR 2 character. I use Incinerate on it for -4 STR. Opponent uses Moqorro's effect on it. Is the character saved? I guess not,  because its STR will still be (2 - 4 + 2 =) 0, so the Incinerate's effect will kick in again.

Correct?

[ktom 598]

Correct on all counts. It is as simple as the math.

Please note that in #1 and #3, your opponent is not allowed to even trigger those save effects since they will not remove the Incinerated character from the terminal effect.

[Serazu 50]

Very useful that. Thank you.

[Serazu 50]

Player A has the Dragonpit in play, applying its effect, and Pyrophobia in hand. He also has a card in Shadows. Player B has the KL Tyrion in Shadows. Player B is the first player.

 

Player B reveals Tyrion out of Shadows, intending to give him +2 str, courtesy of its Response. Player A wants to use Pyrophobia on Tyrion to bounce him.

 

Which of the two happens first? Tyrion's Response triggers when a card comes out of Shadows. The Dragonpit's effect applies when a character enters play. Pyrophobia's Response triggers at that time. The Pit creates a Passive (Constant more likely) effect and Passives (Constants, too) come before Responses. In our case, when Tyrion comes out of Shadows, the Pit is the one to apply its effect before Tyrion buffs. The time Tyrion has its str reduced to 2 though is the trigger player A wanted to play his Pyrophobia. So, if I got this correctly, poor Tyrion never had the chance to use its Response and is bounced by Pyro. Then, player A reveals his own card out of the Shadows as normal. The only thing player B managed to do at this instance was just revealing Tyrion out of the S. Not much else.

 

Correct?

Edited October 28, 2013 by Serazu

[Khudzlin 734]

Very nearly. Dragonpit's effect is constant (which means it gets applied even before passive effects have a chance to be initiated). The first opportunity to respond to a card coming out of shadow belongs to the next player in turn order, like for player actions (in this case, this is Dragonpit's controller). So Tyrion becomes moribund->hand, which means his controller can still use his response, but it doesn't change the fact he's going to end up in his controller's hand.

 

Note that what matters is Tyrion's strength at the time Pyrophobia's response is triggered (as well as the fact that a STR penalty was successfully applied).

[Serazu 50]

The first opportunity to respond to a card coming out of shadow belongs to the next player in turn order, like for player actions (in this case, this is Dragonpit's controller).

 

Wait. Are you saying that Pyrophobia is played firstly, because, since the trigger happens simultaneously (Tyrion comes out of the Shadows, thus both his Response and the Pit's effect --> Pyrophobia come to the fore), the next player has the first response per the rules and not because the Pit's effect comes firstly, since it's a constant effect?

 

Edit: Besides, playing cards out of Shadows isn't a framework action? In framework actions, the first player gets the first Response, not the next player.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Serazu