Setup Keyword

[FATMOUSE 0]

The rules say in step 6 of Game Setup:

You may not place attachments during this step unless they include the “Setup” keyword in their game text; your setup must also include valid targets for such attachments.

Does a Setup attachment need to go on one of those valid targets or can it go on another (presumably) valid target (i.e. an opponent's character)?  Can I play a character and Apprentice Collar in setup, only to put the Collar on an opponent's character instead?

Additionally, the rules define the Setup keyword as:

Cards with the “Setup” keyword may be played during step 5 of the Game Setup.

1. Should it be referring to step 6 - Place setup cards - and not step 5 - Draw your setup hand?
2. I thought cards weren't "played" during setup, or is that simply for the purpose of not being able to trigger effects when cards are revealed? The FAQ also makes used the term "played" during setup -- (4.2) Duplicates: Playing a duplicate is not considered to be playing an attachment. Duplicates may not be played during setup.

 

[Saturnine 47]

"[...]  your setup must also include valid targets for such attachments."

[ktom 598]

And since there is no moment between revealing your setup cards and then attaching the attachments, you cannot say "OK, we have both flipped over all our cards, and now I'm looking around to see which character to put Apprentice collar on." You effectively flip Apprentice Collar over already attached - and you have no idea what your opponent may have available, so it better be revealed attached to a character you do "know" about - your own.

It's essentially the same reason "Non-Maester, Apprentice Collar, Copper Link" is not a legal setup hand. You'd need Apprentice Collar to be on the non-Maester before Copper Link becomes legal, and there is no "before" in setup. In order to put a setup attachment on an opponent's character, you'd need the setup characters to be revealed before the setup attachments, and there is no "before" in setup.

 

As for the other stuff - are you seriously asking if 5 instead of 6 is not a typo/mistake? Really?

And as for the "playing" wording/description - there is a difference between the general, generic use of the term "play" to indicate you do something with a card in your hand and the specific, game-defined use of the word "play" such that by the game rules, an "after you play..." Response opportunity is created. It is no different than saying that something happens in the game that "triggers" a passive effect. The general, generic use of the term "triggered" does not make that passive effect a "triggered effect" by game-definition.

Depending on how picky you want to be, taking the card out of your hand and putting it face-down on the table during setup is "playing" a card, just like paying 2 gold in Marshaling and putting a card face-down in Shadows is considered to be "playing" a card - despite the fact that nothing is actually put "in play" at that point. However, when you flip those face-down cards over during the "reveal" step, there is no way that this can be considered "playing a card" by the definitions of the game. The two-step process ("place" and "reveal") doesn't give you an opportunity to Respond to "playing" a card. So honestly, whether you consider the "place" step as "playing" by game-definition or generic usage doesn't matter in the end.

[FATMOUSE 0]

So Setup attachments are attached during placement and not after cards are revealed, right?

ktom said:

 

are you seriously asking if 5 instead of 6 is not a typo/mistake? Really?

 

 

No, I'm not seriously asking if it isn't a typo, I'm seriously asking if it is a typo since it doesn't make sense.

ktom said:

 

The two-step process ("place" and "reveal") doesn't give you an opportunity to Respond to "playing" a card. So honestly, whether you consider the "place" step as "playing" by game-definition or generic usage doesn't matter in the end.

 

I agree it doesn't for the purposes of triggering effects and taking actions, but how about for Alliance?

 

[ktom 598]

FATMOUSE said:

No, I'm not seriously asking if it isn't a typo, I'm seriously asking if it is a typo since it doesn't make sense.

That's what I'm getting at. Since there is no way it could make sense as 5, it's kinda open and shut.

 

FATMOUSE said:

I agree it doesn't for the purposes of triggering effects and taking actions, but how about for Alliance?

No. Not for Alliance, either. Even if you consider that part of setup as "playing," when you "play" those cards during the "placement" part of Setup, the House identity of those cards are hidden information. You cannot act on hidden information. Playing Tyrion into Shadows doesn't let you trigger Castellen of the Rock, right?

[FATMOUSE 0]

ktom said:

 

FATMOUSE said:

I agree it doesn't for the purposes of triggering effects and taking actions, but how about for Alliance?

No. Not for Alliance, either. Even if you consider that part of setup as "playing," when you "play" those cards during the "placement" part of Setup, the House identity of those cards are hidden information. You cannot act on hidden information. Playing Tyrion into Shadows doesn't let you trigger Castellen of the Rock, right?

 

 

 

To clarify -- I'm not suggesting Alliance allows you trigger effects; I'm questioning if the gold penalty reduction is in fact applied to OOH cards on Setup since they are "played" (even though you can't trigger effects from them).  I think we all got that, but I just want to be certain.

So if the card's House identity is "hidden" then how can we apply OOH cost on setup in the first place? (Other than saying the rules say so) 

[ktom 598]

FATMOUSE said:

To clarify -- I'm not suggesting Alliance allows you trigger effects; I'm questioning if the gold penalty reduction is in fact applied to OOH cards on Setup since they are "played" (even though you can't trigger effects from them).  I think we all got that, but I just want to be certain.

Yes, of course I got that. But how does the Agenda effect interact with the hidden information since it doesn't specifically say it does? There is no reduction of the gold penalty.

FATMOUSE said:

So if the card's House identity is "hidden" then how can we apply OOH cost on setup in the first place? (Other than saying the rules say so) 

Isn't the fact that the rules say so reason enough? Technically, the gold penalty applied to OOH cards during setup is not the same OOH gold penalty as the one applied in Marshaling. It is imposed by the rules for setup rather than the rules for Marshaling - although the rules for Marshaling are referenced as clarification of how the setup gold penalty works.