Alliance (Agenda)

[lahomen 0]

 Text of Alliance Plot: "Before drawing your setup hand, name a House. Ignore the out-of-House gold penalty to play cards from that House. The House card of each opponent without a Treaty agenda gains: 'Marshalling: Kneel this card to (choose 1): draw 1 card or take 2 gold from the treasury to your gold pool.'"

Text of Treaty with the Isles: "Ignore the out of House gold penalty on all cards. Each opponent without a Treaty agenda needs 5 fewer power (to a minimum of 10) to win the game."

The text on these two agendas re: gold penalties is different.  Is there any significance to the different wording?

[oshi2 0]

Alliance only applies on "playing" cards, thus the gold penalty still applies during setup.
As far as i know this is the only advantage the other treaties have over Alliance. 

[the1andonlime 0]

Alliance does not reduce the gold penalty during setup. The Treaty with the [Place] Agendas do.

That is the only significant difference with regards to the gold penalty.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

I think Alliance (Agenda) should apply to Setup. This is why.

From the Core Rules (Page 9):

6. Place setup cards

The first player places his setup cards first, followed

by other players in clockwise order. When

placing your setup cards, you may place up to 5

gold worth of characters and/or location cards

from your hand facedown in front of you. 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. You may only place

one card with the “Limited” keyword during this

step and you may not place duplicates of unique

cards (see page 15). Cards affiliated with a different

House (than the House you are playing)

cost 2 additional gold to play (this is called a

gold penalty, see page 11). After all players have

placed their setup cards in front of them, all the

cards are simultaneously revealed.

Emphasis on the “to play”

Now, the text of Alliace:

Before drawing your setup hand, name a House. Ignore the out-of-House gold penalty to play cards from that House.

 

Seems pretty clear that it works to me

 

The problem I think you might be basing this conclusion on: we have a card effect (from our Agenda) saying we ignore the out-of-House gold penalty to play cards from a house of our choosing. This would make us able to play an Island Refugee out of Stark in the setup phase for zero gold.

The problem from the FAQ:

(2.1) Card Effects in Setup

Cards revealed during setup do not trigger card

effects. This includes cards that contain the

text "When put into play" or "When played

from your hand." No actions may be taken

during the setup phase.

What I think is that cards we play and subsequently reveal during setup are still ignoring the OOH penalty because of Alliance. Why? Because they are not triggering the agenda’s ability (see Siege of Winterfell). From the FAQ:

(3.6) Triggered Effects

Any effect that a player chooses to execute is

considered a "triggered effect." Thus any effect

that begins with a "Phase:" or "Response:"

is a triggered effect. Also note that playing

an event card is thus considered a triggered

effect. A "triggered ability" is a triggered effect

printed on a card already in play.

Alliance provides a constant ability – “Ignore the out-of-House gold penalty to play cards from that House.” Seems pretty constant. Like the newest King Renly. From the FAQ:

(3.10) Card Ability Types

Card abilities are divided into three types.

These types are:

Triggered Abilities: Any ability on a card in

play that begins with "Phase:" or "Response:"

is a triggered ability. These abilities are optional,

and must be triggered by the player controlling

the card at the appropriate time for their

effect(s) to occur. An example of a triggered

ability is the Dominance: effect on Cersei

Lannister (CORE L39).

Passive Abilities: Passive abilities must initiate

when applicable. These abilities are identified

by their card text, which indicates when

the ability initiates. Passive abilities are not

affected by cards that prevent or cancel triggered

effects or abilities. An example of a passive

ability is the ability of Knight of Flowers

(CORE B147).

Constant Abilities: Constant abilities are

those that are continuously affecting the game

state. Because there is no point of initiation,

they cannot be canceled. Examples of constant

abilities include the ability of Winter Castle

 

(CORE S25).

 

[Mathias Fricot 0]

 I apologize for the formatting. This forum isn't the easiest thing to use.

[ktom 598]

It doesn't work. Even FFG has looked and the language and said "hmm, maybe we should think about changing that."

"Playing" the card during setup is playing hidden information. Other than "Limited" and "OOH," which are specified, the fact that it is hidden information means that it doesn't apply/isn't considered. The fact that the "to play" part of Alliance does not apply to setup is the same reason "reduce the cost of the next Lannister character you play" cannot be applied to a Shadow card, really.

Setup is essentially a 2-step process: "playing" face down, hidden information, and revealing cards that have already been played. Since neither the rules nor the card text say that the elimination of the OOH penalty can be applied to the hidden cards, it doesn't.

 

[Mathias Fricot 0]

This seems a little paradoxial to me. You can't "ignore the out of house penalty to play cards from that house" from Alliance, but you can "ignore the out of house penalty on all greyjoy cards" or "stark cards" or "martell cards" on the treaty with X agendas. Unless these also don't apply in setup, because they are checking OOH state during setup in the same way.

The rules create an OOH penalty on playing cards in setup. The agenda says that you ignore that penalty. ktom you said "Other than 'LImited' and 'OOH' - thats what we are looking at. We are looking at OOH. The setup phase has a way of recognizing if it is OOH, since you have to pay more gold. This agenda looks at the same thing, and says ignore it.

 

[Saturnine 47]

 I think the fact that the Neutral house card agenda differentiates between playing and placing during Setup tells you everything you need to know.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

the neutral house is providing a distinction that the rules or FAQ do not. if i looked at milk after just using the core set i might think that traits cannot be blanked, and then use frozen moat improperly. i'd rather not base my conclusion on the text of another card.

[Saturnine 47]

Mathias Fricot said:

the neutral house is providing a distinction that the rules or FAQ do not. if i looked at milk after just using the core set i might think that traits cannot be blanked, and then use frozen moat improperly. i'd rather not base my conclusion on the text of another card.

 

That's exactly the wrong conclusion, it seems to me. As Milk's text specifies that traits are not blanked, then that would mean that they would usually be included in the text box (even if I didn't know it to be true from the FAQ).

[Mathias Fricot 0]

I know its wrong. That is why I used it as an example. I was providing a situation where it would be wrong to base the workings of one card off the text of another card. There was an intense discussion before the errata of War of Five Kings for just this reason. If you based how Epic Battles worked off the text of other epic battles (specifically WoFK), they would have had the ability to make multiple challenges within an Epic Phase. Obviously this is wrong, since WoFK was changed to have the wording of the other Epic Battles and no longer say "an additional."

So, when I look at whether or not Alliance will work in setup I have a few things to consider:
1) The Core Rulebook: It implies (based on the relevant excerpts I posted) that Alliance should work in setup.
2) The FAQ: I don't see anything here that would stop it's ability from being active
3) What we "know"
 3a) We know the other Treaties work during the Setup Phase, and they have near identical (I might go as far as to say functionally identical) wording. Maybe they don't work in the setup phase either, since I can't find a reason they would work in setup and Alliance would not.
 3b) We know the Neutral House Card distinguishes between "place during setup" and "play," which is not there in the FAQ or Core Rulebook.
 3c) We know it "shouldn't work in setup because everyone says it shouldn't."
 

What is the stronger argument?

[Saturnine 47]

So you're using an example of wrong logical reasoning to tell us that one shouldn't apply correct logical reasoning when interpreting cards. Don't get me wrong, I get your idea that one needs to be careful not to only look at card texts when trying to figure out how things work, and I agree. But your example argument is not very good. 

 The FAQ tells us exactly what it means to "play" a card (FAQ 4.4). Playing or placing (whichever you want to call it) is functionally different, because it does not fit the description of "playing" a card in the FAQ.

So the subtle difference in the wording between the Alliance and the Treaty agendas makes all the difference.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

I'm using an example of wrong logical reasoning to tell you that you should not apply logical reasoning to every situation and expect it to be correct. My example is completely suitable, because it happened. I am not telling you not to use logical reasoning when interpreting cards, I am telling you not to expect it to work out every time. Just because everybody lies, doesn't mean everybody lies all the time, Dr. House said that.

Your saying that a card is not "played" in setup because FAQ 4.4 says cards are played in marshalling, and put into play in other phases by other abilities. I don't need to be educated on the difference between playing and putting into play, I'm completely competent in understanding why Varamyr Sixskins doesn't let Balerion trigger his ability, or the use of LoW Catelyn Stark. The issue isn't about hidden information either. The issue is whether a not a card is "placed," "put into play" or "played" during setup.

I'm saying the OOH cost should be ignored because the Core Rules say the OOH cost on a card "played" and since we have always applied the OOH cost in setup, the card must be played. And thus the agenda should work.

Saturnine your telling me that since 4.4 does not include the Setup Phase the cards cannot be "played" during setup (they are "put into play" or "placed") so the agenda does not work because it only ignores the OOH penalty when "playing" cards of the house you chose.

Even if I conceded this point, fine. Because if you read in the core rules about he gold penalty for out of house cards, it only applies to cards you play. Not to cards you "put into play" like core Drogo or LoW Catelyn. And it doesn't say it applies to cards you "place," because after all if your right we are either "placing" or "putting into play" cards in setup, not playing them. So... wouldn't that mean the OOH gold penalty shouldn't apply in setup even if your not running the Alliance agenda?

 

In the explanation of setup (my earlier post) it only refers to the gold penalty on cards you play. Your right, it doesn't actually say you play cards in the setup phase, that is what I was basing my conclusion on. In the middle of the paragraph it could say "direwolves go grrrrr" and be about as applicable to the setup.  

"Cards affiliated with a different House (than the House you are playing) cost 2 additional gold to play (this is called a gold penalty, see page 11)."

 

Core rules on marshalling...

 

If, during marshalling, you wish to play a character,

location, or attachment that is affiliated with

a different House, the gold cost to play that card

is increased by 2. This is called the gold penalty,

and it is the price that must be paid for playing

characters that are not loyal to your House. You

pay no gold penalty when playing neutral cards.

 

 

[Mathias Fricot 0]

Cliffs:

In trying to prove you should apply Alliance in the setup phase, I found that the penalty I wanted Alliance to ignore doesn't even apply in that phase because you are "placing" cards in setup - not "playing" them, to which the gold penalty specifically says it applies, both on page 9 and page 12 of the core rulebook, and enhanced by FAQ4.4 saying cards are only "played" in marshalling, not setup.

stillwinning?

[Saturnine 47]

Mathias Fricot said:

So... wouldn't that mean the OOH gold penalty shouldn't apply in setup even if your not running the Alliance agenda?

 

No, because the rules specifically tell you keep in mind the gold penalty on OOH cards when you are placing your 5 gold worth of cards. It's not telling you that you are 'playing' the OOH cards in setup and therefore the gold penalty applies, it tells you when OOH cards are played, there's a penalty - please also apply this in setup.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

actually, it doesnt. midway through a paragraph about placing cards for setup, it says you pay 2 more gold for OOH when you play cards. boom. roasted. sorry bro, you can't have it both ways. 

[the1andonlime 0]

Saturnine said:

Mathias Fricot said:

 

So... wouldn't that mean the OOH gold penalty shouldn't apply in setup even if your not running the Alliance agenda?

 

 

 

No, because the rules specifically tell you keep in mind the gold penalty on OOH cards when you are placing your 5 gold worth of cards. It's not telling you that you are 'playing' the OOH cards in setup and therefore the gold penalty applies, it tells you when OOH cards are played, there's a penalty - please also apply this in setup.

Having read all the relevant texts quote here, I actually have to agree with Mathias.

If you can drop everything you "know" about the game, read the texts that are printed, you can see too that there is an inconsistency in the rules that needs to be addressed officially. As much as he is an extremely respected member of this forum, ktom's answers are as official as anyone else's here.

[ktom 598]

the1andonlime said:

As much as he is an extremely respected member of this forum, ktom's answers are as official as anyone else's here.

And he has never claimed otherwise.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

I don't think he meant you imply anything more ktom; I think what he meant was that after a while we start to take your word as official because at the end of the day your the most helpful person on here.

[the1andonlime 0]

Mathias Fricot said:

I don't think he meant you imply anything more ktom; I think what he meant was that after a while we start to take your word as official because at the end of the day your the most helpful person on here.

Yes. Exactly what I mean. No offense intended.

[ktom 598]

None taken. I was agreeing with you. My explanations are not official, no matter how many nice things people say about them.

 

[Saturnine 47]

Paraphrasing Nate's reply:

The rules on page 9 specifically apply the gold penalty during setup. The agenda as it is printed does not apply to setup. However, they are reviewing the wording and might be addressing it in a future FAQ.

[alexfrombeyondthewall 0]

Mathias's E-Peen: +10pts

[Mathias Fricot 0]

As a preface, the greatest part about this thread: I actually run my "alliance" deck using Treaty with the Isles. I brought this up for the sake of a friend's Martell/Targ summer hybrid.

 

Saturnine said:

The rules on page 9 specifically apply the gold penalty during setup. The agenda as it is printed does not apply to setup. However, they are reviewing the wording and might be addressing it in a future FAQ.

 

I get it Saturnine. The game was intended to have the gold penalty apply during setup. In light of that, there is absolutely no way you can convince me that the rules as written "specifically apply" the out of house penalty in the setup phase. I appreciate "specifically," it is a fine choice of diction. Sortof implies I should be aware of this fact because it is so clear, and specific. Odd, isn't it, that If you gave someone the rulebook/FAQ and you said "be a judge" they would come to the unbiased conclusion I did? Honestly, outside of the "this is the way we do it, so this is the way its done" mentality you seem to be approaching this situation with there is nothing in the rules or anywhere else that you have presented to convince me otherwise. I am opinionated, sure, but I am also reasonable. I no longer think the Alliance agenda should apply in setup. If you want cards to be considered to be "played" in setup, then both the OOH penalty and the Alliance agenda should apply to "playing" those cards. If you want cards to be "placed" in setup, then neither the OOH penalty or the Alliance agenda should apply because your not "playing" a card. The rules as written, in the most recent FAQ and the core rulebook lay that out pretty clearly. Although unintentionally.

Now, here at the end of all things, Nate says the OOH penalty will apply in setup. So it does. Thats the trump card, isn't it? The all powerful big swinging man piece of "I'm right your wrong" meat. So I hereby acknowledge that at any Regional or "World" or "National" event during the setup phase the OOH penalty will apply and the Alliance agenda won't because thats the ruling you got from Nate. So say we all. Now that I am done with that, I'm going to keep playing with Alliance working in setup and the OOH penalty applying in setup because I think thats how both cards were intended. I accept that Nate's opinion is the way it is, but if I was playing in a tournament and I got a ruling like this, I would sweep and ask for my money back. Sounds a little extreme, right? Well that depends - why is there rules clarification on an issue that doesn't need rules clarification? Why is this ruling contradictory to what rules I am given to build my deck and play the game around? This is a non-issue, you just didn't like the way it worked out.

Designer intent fell apart in the setup phase*. I hope every player reads this next passage because it might be something we should all think about. The way the rules rattle around in Nate's (and what I can imagine to look like xavier's) head is the way the game works, right? I say wrong. It is the way the game is intended to work; there isn't a perfect match to the rules as they are written and the way the rules were imagined. There never can be and there never will be. People make a big deal about "designer intent" and "the way a card should work" if there is a problem. We see that happen form time to time. FAQs and erratas will mend the gaps as they appear, and I have a feeling this topic will eventually be addressed in one of them. Until then, the rules we have written in front of us are the rules we play with because we are not privy to Nate's thoughts. I'm not trying to knock on him, I love this game and I play it often, I think he does an incredible job. I also think he is human, and in this case wrong, not that my opinion matters. It isn't an issue of rules application, its an issue of rules intension. I also think that sometimes everyone needs to take a step back and ask whether or not the ruling being given is based on the way the rules are written, or the way the rules were intended. To me, this is one of those times.

*I should make a tshirt that says that

[KhalBrogo 13]

I too agree with Matthias. The rules as written is ambiguous as to whether or not the alliance agenda will apply during the setup phase.

If I were forced to make a ruling (which I do not have the authority to do) it would be this:

Setup cards are either (1) placed or (2) put into shadows. Setup cards are not "played". The gold cost of cards that are placed are what it would normally cost "to play" the card. "To play" including OOH penalties. The gold cost to put a card into shadows is what it would normally cost to do so (2 gold).

The relevant portion of Alliance reads: Before drawing your setup hand, name a House. Ignore the out-of-House gold penalty to play cards from that House.

Because the wording of Alliance affects the cost "to play" cards and the OOH only applies to setup because they apply to the cost "to play" cards, The OOH penalty should not apply during setup regarding Alliance.

 

To try and simplify I what I believe is Matthias's point, I'll use variables.

A = cost "to play"

B = cost "to place" during setup

In terms of gold costs for setup B = A

In other words, B is dependent on A.

Because Alliance changes a condition of A, B is likewise changed.

 

I believe the intent of Alliance was to apply specifically to setup because it specifically says before drawing your setup hand rather than something like "at the start of the game." 

 

Sorry if that was confusing.