A few questions

[alpha5099 71]

ktom said:

alpha5099 said:

But the losing player of a Power challenge might not have any power on their house card, or the losing player of an Intrigue challenge might not have any cards in their hand. Being able to satisfy the normal claim effects is not a requirement.

Keep in mind that it goes the other way, too. The defending player could count 0 STR in a military challenge, even though they have characters on the board, for a couple of reasons. For example (and this is not an exhaustive list):

 

1. A card effect could lower their defending character's STR to 0 after they have been declared
2. The defending player could have no standing characters with military icons available to declare as defenders
3. The defending player might choose not to declare any defending characters, even though he has legal characters available to declare

In all of those situations, the defender counts 0 STR in the military challenge, so the attackers gets the bonus power AND the defender has to kill a character in play that they control for losing the military challenge.

 

So you see, there is no connection between the "prize" you get for winning a challenge and the bonus power you get if the defender counts 0 STR. One is not compensation for the other: they are two entirely separate things.

Oh, certainly I understand that. It just seemed that the no defenders situation was a major sticking point for Gunslinger, as then there's no one to kill for military claim. It seemed like he wasn't considering that there could be no power to move or cards to discard for claim in the other challenges. Unopposed is more than just a consolation prize, which seemed to be how he was envisioning it.

[ktom 598]

alpha5099 said:

Unopposed is more than just a consolation prize, which seemed to be how he was envisioning it.

Yeah, I got that. I was illustrating the other side of the story to flesh out the fact that they are unrelated, not to point out a problem with the side you illustrated.

[alpha5099 71]

ktom said:

alpha5099 said:

Unopposed is more than just a consolation prize, which seemed to be how he was envisioning it.

Yeah, I got that. I was illustrating the other side of the story to flesh out the fact that they are unrelated, not to point out a problem with the side you illustrated.

 

No worries, I realized that after I replied. You're just so **** thorough, it's intimidating sometimes to have you pop up after answering a question. "Well, actually..." 

[schrecklich 0]

 Perhaps Gunslinger's problem is that he thought that military claim had to be satisfied by a character participating in the challenge rather than by any character the defending player controls?

[Serazu 50]

A few question for the rules gurus:

I 've noticed somewhere that a character can have more than one Stealth ability on him. A possible case I guess is when he was already stealthy and Lost Oasis is used on him. I 've read that this can prove to be important in cases where one Stealth ability is lost on him (i.e. via CS Arya's ability), where the second Stealth kicks in, so the character remains stealthy.

My questions:

1. Can the same be possible for other abilities, such as Deadly, Renown, Initimidate etc.? I guess so.

2. In those cases, apart from the obvious benefit of having a "spare" Deadly, Renown, etc, is there any other benefit here? Does a second Stealth for instance, allow for an extra opposing character to be bypassed, does a second Renown add an additional power token on the character and so on? From the way I see it, such shouldn't be the case. A character is just stealthy, renowned, intimidating etc. no matter how many of those abilities are sported on his text. So, extra Stealth shouldn't allow you to bypass an additional opponent, extra Deadly shouldn't be added to count who has the more Deadly characters in the challenge, extra Renown shouldn't net an additional power and so on. Keywords such as Intimidate, Vengeful and Vigilance cause no questions due to their mechanic, Stealth, Deadly and Renown though may cause questions because of the nature of their function.

[Saturnine 47]

Serazu said:

1. Can the same be possible for other abilities, such as Deadly, Renown, Initimidate etc.? I guess so.

2. In those cases, apart from the obvious benefit of having a "spare" Deadly, Renown, etc, is there any other benefit here? Does a second Stealth for instance, allow for an extra opposing character to be bypassed, does a second Renown add an additional power token on the character and so on? From the way I see it, such shouldn't be the case. A character is just stealthy, renowned, intimidating etc. no matter how many of those abilities are sported on his text. So, extra Stealth shouldn't allow you to bypass an additional opponent, extra Deadly shouldn't be added to count who has the more Deadly characters in the challenge, extra Renown shouldn't net an additional power and so on. Keywords such as Intimidate, Vengeful and Vigilance cause no questions due to their mechanic, Stealth, Deadly and Renown though may cause questions because of the nature of their function.

 

1. Yes. Pretty much any card characteristic (traits, icons, keywords, crests) is handled in this fashion. Whenever you need to check a characteristic for a mechanic or effect, you check the ink on the card, then add any modifiers (positive or negative) and apply the end result.

2. If you look at how the rules for keywords are worded, it is always checked how many characters have that keyword, not how many instances of that keyword are spread among the characters. So a keyword is either present on a character or not. "Spare" ones have no bearing on the effect.

[Serazu 50]

Thought so. Thanks.

By the way, I 've sent the question to the DT concerning the Screamer, they ignored me though.

[Serazu 50]

Three instances that came up during a yesterday's game and how we dealt with them:

1. During set up, I played Khal Drogo's Tent (as a location at that point). Then, during the marshaling phase, the issue whether the gold granted by the card should have been added to my income came up. We ruled that, since by the time income was counted, the card was already in play, the extra gold was counted. Did we do things correctly?

2. We simultaneously revealed the Counting Favors plot. Since the draw cup during each round equals 2 (draw phase) + up to 3 cards, we ruled that, at that point, each of us had to draw 3 cards and then, at the draw phase, we would draw the usual 2 cards; so, no 5 cards drawn during the plot phase, but 3 at plot and 2 at draw. Correct?

3. An attachments was, well, ...attached on one of my opponent's characters. Then, that particular character was picked to satisfy military claim. Then, my opponent responded with Retreat and saved her. The character was returned to my opponent's card and the attachment was discarded. Nothing strange here. The question: In the hypothetical example that my opponent responded by saving that character, but also kept her into play, what would happen to the attachment? My view? Since the save response happens at step 2 of the framework action, before the action resolution that is, then the character isn't killed and the attachment stays on him. Correct?

 

 

[Ratatoskr 34]

1) Sure. Everything correct there.

2) That's right. The draw cap pertains to "extra cards, drawn in excess of the two framework draw cards". The rules for the draw cap do not say "more than five cards", they say "no more than three extra cards".

3) Correct.

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

3. An attachments was, well, ...attached on one of my opponent's characters. Then, that particular character was picked to satisfy military claim. Then, my opponent responded with Retreat and saved her. The character was returned to my opponent's card and the attachment was discarded. Nothing strange here. The question: In the hypothetical example that my opponent responded by saving that character, but also kept her into play, what would happen to the attachment? My view? Since the save response happens at step 2 of the framework action, before the action resolution that is, then the character isn't killed and the attachment stays on him. Correct?

Let's just clear up some terminology here.

Retreat does not actually save anyone. It isn't like, say, CS-Viserys who saves, then returns to hand. What retreat does is say that after a character is killed, you put it into your hand instead of into the dead pile. That's a very important distinction for things like Responses - you get to Respond to a character being killed here, not a character being saved.

As you point out, a save is different. With a save, the character never actually dies (whereas with Retreat, the character has to actually, completely, and totally die first). Since it never actually dies, there is no reason to remove any attachments from it. Consider how different Nymeria or Lightbringer (both attachments that save the attached character from being killed) would be if they were effectively one-time-use cards because all attachments were discarded from characters that were saved.

[Serazu 50]

I was looking at Ellaria Sand today and I began wondering: If I lose a challenge, would it be possible to use her response ability again and again till I 've stolen every single power token from any character on the board? I hope not and by the time her first response is resolved, the opportunity has passed, lest that character becomes extremely powerful.

[-Istaril 157]

 The rules are quite explicit there; you can only use a response once per trigger. In this case, the trigger is "losing a challenge", and since you only did that once...

Ellaria is not the most broken of effects if the rules allowed you to trigger multiple responses per trigger!

[Serazu 50]

Thank the Lord for that. I do not dare to imagine what would happen if a response wasn't permitted only once per trigger.

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

Thank the Lord for that. I do not dare to imagine what would happen if a response wasn't permitted only once per trigger.

I'd refer you to CS-Robb Stark.

[Serazu 50]

A question:

I have Ruby of R'hllor attached on one of my holy Asshais, as well as Altar of Fire in play and a claim 1 plot revealed. My ultimate goal is to win an intrigue challenge and, by combining the attachment's and the location's effects, not only to force my opponent to discard two cards, but to draw two cards myself as well.

Can I do that? From what I understand concerning timing, I cannot and the best case scenario for me would be to force my opponent to discard two cards, while I draw just one. Specifically and in order:

1. I win intrigue challenge (fourth framework action, step 1 in the challenges phase).

2. Opponent discards a card at random (fourth framework action window, step 2 in the challenges phase).

3. Vigilant ability on Ruby is triggered (passive effect "triggered due to any of the proceeding framework events", according to the FAQ under “Timing Structure and Flowcharts, nr. 6, step E). The Ruby stands, if it was knelt.

4. Altar of Fire's response kicks in. Opponent discards a card (response effect, according to the FAQ under “Timing Structure and Flowcharts, nr. 6, step F).

5. Ruby's response kicks in. It kneels and I draw a card (response effect, according to the FAQ under “Timing Structure and Flowcharts, nr. 6, step F).

OR

4. Ruby's response kicks in. It kneels and I draw a card (response effect, according to the FAQ under “Timing Structure and Flowcharts, nr. 6, step F).

5. Altar of Fire's response kicks in. Opponent discards a card (response effect, according to the FAQ under “Timing Structure and Flowcharts, nr. 6, step F).

(It's up to me to choose when to trigger the Ruby's response. In the first case, it responded to either the usual framework discarding or the Altar’s discarding effect, while in the second one, it responded to the usual framework discarding)

Now, my opponent is two cards short, I have an extra card in hand and my Asshai, the Ruby and the Altar all knelt.

Bottom line: I forced my opponent to discard twice and I drew once. I couldn't hope for more. Am I correct?

A second question:

Concerning the Ruby’s ability, even if my opponent discarded two cards, let’s say due to plot’s double claim, I ‘d still draw only one card, correct? Otherwise, the wording would be something like “draw a card for each card discarded”, etc.

A third question:

If a character has stealth, can he bypass opponents with immunity to character abilities? I guess not, since stealth targets characters, so those immune cannot be targeted.

A fourth question:

Would the answer to the above change, if the stealth ability was given to a character through another source, i.e. Lost Oasis? I guess not, since no matter how he got it, the stealth is now a character’s ability, right?

 

[schrecklich 0]

 First and second questions:

you've got everything right regarding timing and card wording.  It always puzzles me when they put Vigilant on Baratheon attachments like this (Lightbringer is another example).  It is rare that you actually get to stand the attachment for any effect.  Typically, it is already standing or there are no further chances to kneel the attachment when Vigilant kicks.  Vigilant does matter sometimes though (especially if you have some way of discarding cards outside of the Intrigue challenge).

Third and fourth questions:

Keywords are not character abilities.  This fact is discussed in this thread.

[ktom 598]

A little more detail on the "2 discards, 1 draw" with Ruby of R'hllor:

1. Each card discarded creates its own "after a card is discarded" Response opportunity. That's why you cannot kneel the Ruby once and draw a card for each card discarded (say in a 2-claim intrigue challenge); you have to kneel the Ruby once for each card discarded.
2. You are correct that the timing on Vigilant does not allow you to stand after triggering its Response in an intrigue challenge because passives always come before Responses.
3. Your scenario is the best you can hope for on the single challenge - unless you can find an applicable Response that would stand the attachment.

 

[Serazu 50]

An issue concerning the Dragonpit and the timing of the STR reduction:

The critical time when an opponent's character has his STR reduced is when he enters play and Dragonpit is already there, applying its ability. In cases when the pit entered play after the opponent's character, then the crucial time is when it started applying its effect. From then on, as long as the pit remains in play and applies its ability, the reduction is always on for that character. No doubt about it.

A question now:

If during play the Dragonpit is forced to suspend its effect (i.e. if I have no cards in Shadows), then the -1 STR to opponent's character is eradicated. If, later on, the pit manages to re-apply its effect, then the crucial time when the opponent's character has his STR reduced anew is the time of the re-application of the pit's effect. For instance, in the above example, the time when I have once more a card in Shadows. Correct?

[ktom 598]

What exactly are you trying to do? WHY are you trying to distill the application of the STR reduction so specifically?

[Serazu 50]

Lots of reasons, Meereenese Brothel and Pyrophobia being two of them.

[ktom 598]

So what you really war to know is when a character's STR is reduced. 

A character's STR is reduced when a new - X STR modifier is added in to a STR check. Or, perhaps more precisely, when a -X STR modifier that wasn't part of the last STR check is applied. 

That means that If a card stops being applied (and the -X STR goes away) but the. becomes applicable again, a "new" modifier is applied to the character - because it was not part of the "last" STR check. 

[Serazu 50]

So, I was correct in my assumption. Thanks man.

[Serazu 50]

A few more questions:

1. CS Brienne is immune to opponent's character abilities. This means than she can be saved during MIL challenges if opponent has Bitter Crone in play. Contrarily, if somehow Brienne's controller has Bitter Crone in play, she cannot. Right?

2. I control Aggo and my opponent attaches Motley on him.

a. I declare him as attacker and, upon winning a MIL challenge, decide to use his Response. I have to pay 2 gold to my opponent. Right?

b. I pay no gold to my opponent for him being Deadly, since this is a keyword and not an ability. Right?

c. If Jhogo had a passive ability on his text box, I still wouldn't pay any gold to my opponent for its activation, since Motley demands payment whenever I decide to trigger an ability, not when an ability is triggered no matter what. Right?

3. From the FAQ:

(3.37) Unique Cards Entering Play from the Dead Pile
When putting a unique card into play from your dead pile, that copy of the card does not prevent itself from entering play. Multiple copies of a unique card will prevent one another from entering play from your dead pile, unless those copies would all enter play simultaneously.

a. Is there a case when the above may be put into practice? I can imagine an instant when Character X is in play and a copy of his into his controller's dead pile (he had a duplicate on him which was later discarded and an opponent used Visenya's Hill to put it into the dead pile, for instance), but is there an effect which would put into play a unique card and that specific card already has a copy in the dead pile which prevents it from entering play?

b. Cards such as Maegi's Promise are not affected by the above ruling, since they don't return cards into play but into their owners' hand, right?

c. Concerning Retreat, it's not affected either since not only returns a card in hand, but prevents a card from going into the dead pile in the first place, right?

4. The "save" effect helps a card avoid dying, discarding and returning to hand (unless it specifically protects vs. some of the above, such as in the case of Bodyguard). So, since Asha cannot be saved, this means that she cannot avoid any of the aforementioned three instances. Correct?

[Serazu 50]

Never mind about 3.a. Narrow Escape is a case that crossed my mind later on.

So, in the Narrow Escape case, if character X was killed in that phase, but there was already a copy of him to his owner's dead pile, does that mean that Narrow Escape cannot help him for his long-dead copy prevents him from returning to play?

[Maester_LUke 0]

Serazu said:

Never mind about 3.a. Narrow Escape is a case that crossed my mind later on.

So, in the Narrow Escape case, if character X was killed in that phase, but there was already a copy of him to his owner's dead pile, does that mean that Narrow Escape cannot help him for his long-dead copy prevents him from returning to play?

There's really no interaction between NE and 3.37 because only that "more recent copy" actually left play this phase.  The definition of uniques and their interaction with the dead pile is what prevents NE from working in that case.  If a character with a duplicate had died (cannot be saved) earlier in the phase, the duplicate would have gone to the discard pile.  Your opponent would likely have to use something like Visenya's Hill to put a copy of a unique directly into your dead pile (or from the CCG days, the old Bastard of Bolton) since it's generally tricky to have a unique character in play while also having a copy of the same in your dead pile.

The main reason for that FAQ entry was Rhaenys' Hill, this was one of the few cases where you would put multiple copies of the same character into play from your deadpile... not counting the difficulty of getting multiple copies there in the first place.