Dreadfort +Winterfell Castle + Bolton Refugee

[Bolzano2 0]

FFG says this will be adressed in the next FAQ, maybe differently, and that this ruling should be used until then.

 

Note that in the game we have two different wording "entering play" and "play" :

"Banner for the Dragon
Gold (2) STR (2) Military Power
[Targaryen Character]
Bannerman.
House Targaryen only.
Response: After a character with ambush enters play, attach Banner for the Dragon to that character, if able. (Counts as a Banner attachment with the text: 'Any Phase: Discard Banner for the Dragon from play to return attached character to its owner's hand.')"

All agree that entering play includes the situation when a character has been put into play whereas playing do not. But there might be a timing difference too, since a character enters play in Step 3) but is played in Step 1). When is the Response opportunity opened : Step 1), Step 3) or Step 4)?

It is more confusing than I first thought.
 

[ktom 598]

Bolzano said:

But there might be a timing difference too, since a character enters play in Step 3) but is played in Step 1). When is the Response opportunity opened : Step 1), Step 3) or Step 4)?

It is more confusing than I first thought.

Definitely more confusing, but I think for a different reason. 

The difference between Step 1 & Step 3 for being played/entering play is fairly academic. Remember that Step 1 & Step 3 are essentially the same thing (the initiation and resolution of the exact same action), just separated in the flow chart so we know where to play saves and cancels. Ultimately, I don't think there is an appreciable difference between "enters play" and "comes into play."

Then again, the example of events feeds into this a bit, too. Events are "played" as part of their cost in Step 1, but they do not enter the moribund state until the effect resolves in Step 3. 

 

On the issue at hand, I think the real issue is whether the characteristic of a response opportunity changes along with the characteristics of a character. The issue of when the character is modified is certainly part of that, but when the modification happens doesn't matter particularly much if the response opportunity does not change along with those modifications (for Dreadfort, anyway).

[Bomb 66]

I just want to point out that I don't follow as to why this was ruled by Nate differently here than how it was addressed in the FAQ.  I presume what is in the FAQ was decided to be less confusing?

[dcdennis 39]

Bomb said:

I just want to point out that I don't follow as to why this was ruled by Nate differently here than how it was addressed in the FAQ.  I presume what is in the FAQ was decided to be less confusing?

 

Or, there's the whole, "he's a human" angle. Perhaps he just made a mistake when going through the logic last time

[ktom 598]

dh098017 said:

Bomb said:

 

I just want to point out that I don't follow as to why this was ruled by Nate differently here than how it was addressed in the FAQ.  I presume what is in the FAQ was decided to be less confusing?

 

 

 

Or, there's the whole, "he's a human" angle. Perhaps he just made a mistake when going through the logic last time

I think it's more likely that he made the ruling thinking primarily about the question being asked, but updated the FAQ upon reflection on all similar situations and the way they have been ruled in the past. That idea may be supported by the fact that the clarification in the FAQ is consistent with the historical rulings. To many of us old-timers, the ruling Nate gave for this thread was the inconsistency, not yesterday's FAQ.

[sWhiteboy 18]

ktom said:

dh098017 said:

Bomb said:

 

 

I just want to point out that I don't follow as to why this was ruled by Nate differently here than how it was addressed in the FAQ.  I presume what is in the FAQ was decided to be less confusing?

 

 

 

Or, there's the whole, "he's a human" angle. Perhaps he just made a mistake when going through the logic last time

I think it's more likely that he made the ruling thinking primarily about the question being asked, but updated the FAQ upon reflection on all similar situations and the way they have been ruled in the past. That idea may be supported by the fact that the clarification in the FAQ is consistent with the historical rulings. To many of us old-timers, the ruling Nate gave for this thread was the inconsistency, not yesterday's FAQ.

 

I feel like this happens with many of the questions that people ask Nate.  They want an answer and Nate wants to give one, but neither person takes time to think about ALL the possible things that could happen from that one answer.  I know that I recently saw a Nate answer that contradicted itself within the same answer.  Nate is just a man...I'm assuming a busy man.

[Bolzano2 0]

Nate said to use his ruling until next FAQ (this 3.2) update where it would be adressed.

[Bolzano2 0]

The fact that conditions for triggering a response are checked once when it is triggered has now be clarified in the FAQ, creates the following (new) situation : the order in which we trigger our Responses do matter, and Response opportunities can even be closed before Step 6) (although the FAQ says otherwise).

In other words, checking responses play restrictions once when triggered, and closing response opportunities only at Step 6), are two things that cannot be true at the same time.

One example of this situation :

For instance, let's say I have in my hand :

King Robb's Companion.
Text:
Army Renown. No attachments. During the marshalling phase,you may pay any amount of King Robb's Companions' cost by kneeling that amount of influence.

I also have the CCG card Incognito, Attachment cost 0:
Text:
Condition Attached character loses all Traits and immunities.

I also have in play an Advisor to the Crown with Pale Steel Link (the one that puts into play an attachment or Character Response when attached character is knelt). My Maester also has all other Links.

Let's say I have another Army (Winterfell Reserves) in play and I know that my Lannister opponent has the event "A House divided" in his hand. But I do not want to loose one of my Army. My opponent is a carefull guy and skip his first opportunity to Respond with A House Divided, wanting to know which Army I will boost with Steel Link and Black Iron Link before putting it back on the top of my deck. However, I just remove the Army trait from my Northern Cavalry Flank by attaching Incognito to it from my hand by triggering the Pale Steel Link.

And so my opponent can no longer play his Response, whereas just 1 opportunity ago, he could. So a Response opportunity has just closed in the middle of Step 5), in contradiction with the FAQ that says :

"These opportunities (or "gates") stay open until Step 6, when the action finally ends and the action window closes."

When asked to FFG, Nate confirmed that the last FAQ clarification should be applied, and that in fact some Responses opportunities could be closed.

[ktom 598]

I must be missing something, but how are you getting Incognito onto "No Attachment" Armies?

And it's not like you needed to go to all the trouble to come up with this example. We've been discussing the fact that using a "put into play" effect on Hatchling, which becomes a dupe as soon as it is put into play, makes it pretty difficult to Respond to the character coming into play.

Anyway, how is this "the Response gate closes" any different from not being able to save the same character twice? If I play Valar, you cannot kneel all your Clansmen to save Tyrion - just one. You put this out there like it is some kind of crisis and wasn't true before the ruling in the FAQ, but it's been happening in the game for years. I fail to see the problem that as situations and conditions on the board change, there may be some Responses that you waited too long to play.

[Bolzano2 0]

To attach it to the army, the No attachment keyword can be removed - but anyway I meant to attach it to Winterfell Reserves that do not have this keyword.

Your example with the Hatchling illustrates the same thing, right.

For Tyrion, I cannot kneel all the clansmen because he dies once, so his Response has a single trigger - so I think it is not related to this topic. But the fact that it is not possible to trigger 2 different saves on 1 dying character is - but why not save 1 guy twice? It could even be usefull in some way.

What I'm trying to say, is just that while I'm completly ok with this, it seems like breaking a written rule, to make an implicit one consistent. Or maybe I should just read it this way : opportunities stay open until Step 6), if not otherwise closed.

[ktom 598]

Bolzano said:

Or maybe I should just read it this way : opportunities stay open until Step 6), if not otherwise closed.

Probably the better way to go, considering that every other rule in the game is "unless otherwise specified," too.

[Slothgodfather 270]

This has been a pretty interesting read.  It does seem to make sense though that the Dreadfort Response "gate" is ONLY opened when it's response text is met.  It is not 2 conditions checked at 2 different times, such as 

1: character enters play

2: [later during response window] check characters STR

or even 1 set of conditions only checked during the "response" action window.   The only time this particular response gate can be opened is when both conditions of the response text are met at the moment of play.  At the moment of play, a refugee is STR 2.  So there is no gate opened since a Bolton character of STR 3 or greater was not played.  But immediately entering play, he is STR 3.  While the +1 is a constant effect, it does not affect him until he is played. 

As I understand it, the gate is opened if the response text criteria is met, but you still have to wait until the proper "responses" window in the framework action to trigger those effects.

In regards to the hatchlings and Threat from the North example mentioned earlier in this thread, if TftN plot is revealed, and someone brings the White Hatchling out of shadows, I'm assuming from your earlier posts that the plot constant takes effect immediately after the hatchling is brought into play, therefore reducing it's strength by 1 and killing it.  It becomes moribund but because of it's passive text it would still be attached to Viserion as a dupe before leaving play.   Then, even though it is now a duplicate it was already in a moribund state and is still removed from play.  Did I follow that correctly? 

I am assuming this is because the hatchling must first be in play before it can be attached to Viserion, but once it enters play it is killed because of the plot.

 

[Bolzano2 0]

Don't forget that while TftN -1 STR effect is constant, the discard (not kill) effect is a passive. So the first player should decide which effect will apply first : discard the character or attach it as a dupe. I didn't get through all the Hatchling thread, but I think you are right saying that, in the case the TftN passive is applied first, the card becomes moribund - and that changing its type from character to dupe do not make this effect wear off.