Several questions to be clarified

[Uncle Joker 0]

1. Does Burned and Pillaged still affect KoTHH decks?

I saw a lot of US people said that it doesn't at all. But the email Game Harbor(Chinese Agent for FFG) received from FFG is as below.

Hello Li,
"Gold producing," "income providing," and "income bonus" do refer to positive modifiers on cards.
Negative modifiers do not qualify as any of the terms listed above.
Hope that helps.

So I am quite confused.

 

2. About Burning Bridge, 

I saw Dennis Harrison said that he got confirmed by KTOM that "on" means printed on. 

But the email FFG sent to Game Harbor is as below.

"Since it does not say "printed," Burning Bridges refers to all triggered abilities, gained abilities included. Gained abilities are still considered "on" the card, they are just not "printed" on the card."

Upon on the FFG's email, I will treat as No dup-save, no gain abilities trigger.

 

Maybe you guys will say that FFG may need to Voice correctly not by email but by FAQ something.

The latest email is about Little and Less, I think the final solution is follow the email not follow what we heard.

[Uncle Joker 0]

 More questions.

3. Is discard a Character duplicate to save from leaving play be treated as a character ability?

4. Lose all trait and add one Trait, what will happen if these two attachment attach to a same character?

5. Can I kneel a maester with Valyrian Steel Link to draw(not real draw, but only for kneel the maester to trigger other response), but I already reached my draw cap?
I think it can, since if i have 3+ chains on that maester, it could kneel him to draw two cards, but if I have draw 2 additional cards in this round, I still may kneel him to draw one, that is similar.
But I think if Stannis Baratheon(KotS) is in play, I can not kneel the Maester for draw outside draw phase.
Similar question, can I discard Dornish Paramour from play to trigger Parting blow if i have reach my draw cap?

[Uncle Joker 0]

 6. What will happen if a character has two "enslave" attached which are owned by different players?

Let's say, A has a character Tommen Baratheon, then B play Enslave on him, then control him, then A Play a Enslave to Tommen again. What will happen?

[ktom 598]

Uncle Joker said:

1. Does Burned and Pillaged still affect KoTHH decks?

I saw a lot of US people said that it doesn't at all. But the email Game Harbor(Chinese Agent for FFG) received from FFG is as below.

Hello Li,
"Gold producing," "income providing," and "income bonus" do refer to positive modifiers on cards.
Negative modifiers do not qualify as any of the terms listed above.
Hope that helps.

So I am quite confused.

This is a contradictory ruling from what everyone in the US has been told/understood about income modifiers. All modifiers, whether positive or negative, are treated the same. As such, when the location of a person playing KotHH "gains" a negative income modifier, the agenda's restriction against gold bonuses applies, preventing the negative modifier as much as it would a positive modifier.

Uncle Joker said:

2. About Burning Bridge, 

I saw Dennis Harrison said that he got confirmed by KTOM that "on" means printed on. 

But the email FFG sent to Game Harbor is as below.

"Since it does not say "printed," Burning Bridges refers to all triggered abilities, gained abilities included. Gained abilities are still considered "on" the card, they are just not "printed" on the card."

Upon on the FFG's email, I will treat as No dup-save, no gain abilities trigger.

Dennis didn't have that confirmed by me - he had that confirmed by Nate French, the lead designer/developer. It doesn't get much more official than that. The correct way to play Burning Bridges is that it only prevents effects that are printed "on" the cards in play. It does not stop gained abilities, including dupes.

Who was the author of that email? Sounds like you got a lot of bad information from someone who didn't check their answers before sending them. Both of those rulings directly contradict other rulings FFG has given consistently to those questions in the past.

[ktom 598]

Uncle Joker said:

3. Is discard a Character duplicate to save from leaving play be treated as a character ability?

Yes. The FAQ specifically states that using a dupe is treated as a gained character ability. Otherwise, unique characters who are immune to triggered effects could not be saved with dupes.

Uncle Joker said:

4. Lose all trait and add one Trait, what will happen if these two attachment attach to a same character?

"Lose all traits" means "lose one instance of each trait." It is still only "- 1" for any individual trait. As such, a "+ 1" for that specific trait would cancel out the loss of that individual trait.

Uncle Joker said:

5. Can I kneel a maester with Valyrian Steel Link to draw(not real draw, but only for kneel the maester to trigger other response), but I already reached my draw cap?
I think it can, since if i have 3+ chains on that maester, it could kneel him to draw two cards, but if I have draw 2 additional cards in this round, I still may kneel him to draw one, that is similar.
But I think if Stannis Baratheon(KotS) is in play, I can not kneel the Maester for draw outside draw phase.
Similar question, can I discard Dornish Paramour from play to trigger Parting blow if i have reach my draw cap?

Because cards are always drawn one-at-a-time, the draw cap stops you from drawing more than the total of three extra cards at resolution, not at initiation. So you are allowed to trigger "draw" effects - then not draw any cards - if you have already reached the draw cap.

[ktom 598]

Uncle Joker said:

 6. What will happen if a character has two "enslave" attached which are owned by different players?

Let's say, A has a character Tommen Baratheon, then B play Enslave on him, then control him, then A Play a Enslave to Tommen again. What will happen?

(3.26) Duration of Control Change
Unless otherwise stated (for example, with a
specified duration), the change of control is
permanent until the card that switched sides
leaves play or control of the card switches
again via a card effect.

 

So whomever played the last "take control" effect gets control. It's one of the very few times in the game when the order in which attachments are played makes a difference.

Note that if "Enslave" #2 is discarded, control reverts to the controller of "Enslave" #1, not the original controller (unless "Enslave" #1 has also been discarded).

 

[Uncle Joker 0]

ktom said:

 

Uncle Joker said:

4. Lose all trait and add one Trait, what will happen if these two attachment attach to a same character?

"Lose all traits" means "lose one instance of each trait." It is still only "- 1" for any individual trait. As such, a "+ 1" for that specific trait would cancel out the loss of that individual trait.

 

 

About lose all trait, Game harbor has asked FFG twice about it.

Here is the question:

The first one is about "Condemned", in "Trail by Combat", F96

Rule Text: Attached character loses all Traits and immunities. If you win dominance, kill attached character.
Question is if a character with printed Maester trait is attached by both Condemned" and "Apprentice Collar", is he still a Maester? The underlying question is that if the amount of a trait matters? In this example, does this character has two Maester traits and lose only one Maester by 'Condemned'? You know the amount of challenge icons matters, so what about traits?

Here is the answer:

"Loses all traits" is a constant effect. No additional traits regardless of how they are added will change the fact that when you apply Condemned's constant effect it wipes out all current traits. No trait manipulation of any variety is possible.

 

So, there is difference between FFG's email and Forum again.

Those email were sent by FFG's John, I don't know if u know him or not.

I can't say he is wrong since it has been proved at least once he is right on the case of "Little and Less".

But if it is ok, please try to contact him for the difference on question (1/2/4) which including KotHH and B&P, Burning Bridge and Lose all trait.

There is no more question on 3/5/6, thank you for that clarify.

We are going to have Chinese National Championship this weekend, and may attend more OCTGN tournaments later with US/EU guys, so I wish we can settle down the rule problems quickly.

[ktom 598]

Uncle Joker said:

Those email were sent by FFG's John, I don't know if u know him or not.

I can't say he is wrong since it has been proved at least once he is right on the case of "Little and Less".

I do not know who this is. It's hard to put much stock in the logic of "he was right once, so he might be right again" considering that he was also wrong more than once. Doesn't that mean he could be wrong again?

What you might want to do is send the questions directly to Nate and/or Damon at FFG. They are the recognized authorities on the game at FFG, and the ultimate sources of these particular rulings on the discussion boards.

[Uncle Joker 0]

ktom said:

Uncle Joker said:

Those email were sent by FFG's John, I don't know if u know him or not.

 

I can't say he is wrong since it has been proved at least once he is right on the case of "Little and Less".

I do not know who this is. It's hard to put much stock in the logic of "he was right once, so he might be right again" considering that he was also wrong more than once. Doesn't that mean he could be wrong again?

 

What you might want to do is send the questions directly to Nate and/or Damon at FFG. They are the recognized authorities on the game at FFG, and the ultimate sources of these particular rulings on the discussion boards.

 

I would love to do that if you can share their email address with me, thanks.

[Khudzlin 734]

Uncle Joker said:

I would love to do that if you can share their email address with me, thanks.

The "Rules Question" link at the bottom of the page is the way to go. All the questions I've sent through it have been answered by Damon Stone.

[Bomb 66]

Uncle Joker said:

 

Maybe you guys will say that FFG may need to Voice correctly not by email but by FAQ something.

The latest email is about Little and Less, I think the final solution is follow the email not follow what we heard.

 

 

I literally posted in this forum my exact question to FFG and the exact email reply I received from Damon regarding Little and Less.  Everyone formulated their own interpretation of his reply however I don't believe anyone disputed the community interpretation.  It was not what we "heard" but instead, what was a misinterpreted reply.  After snowfox disputed what we thought on that thread, Damon seemed to immediately follow up with me in an email and rephrased his answer with more clarity, which ended up being what snowfox had claimed.

From my understanding, the community answers with past rulings as well as with responses directly from FFG using the "Rules Questions" link at the bottom of the forum page.  If FFG reverses old rulings, it's to many player's surprise.

 

[Uncle Joker 0]

After confirmed with Damon Stone, here are some updates.

1) B&P can affect locations under KotHH agenda.

2) Burning Bridge, "on" means "printed on".

3) Lose all trait, means lose all forever, not once.

 

[radiskull 39]

Uncle Joker said:

After confirmed with Damon Stone, here are some updates.

1) B&P can affect locations under KotHH agenda.

2) Burning Bridge, "on" means "printed on".

3) Lose all trait, means lose all forever, not once.

Would you mind posting the actual text of both your question and FFG's response, particularly to (1) and (3)?

[orion_kurnous 0]

i believed that damon said when you lose all you lose one of each…..

[radiskull 39]

That's why I asked for the text of the question and the text of the response - the information being advanced here is counter to what other people have already been told, including ktom.

[Uncle Joker 0]

 

(1) Negative modifiers are not gold bonuses but are gold penalties. Knights of the Hollow Hill reads, "Other cards you control do not provide a gold bonus." This would only prevent cards that have a gold coin with a + before the number or variable. It does not prevent or protect you from Burned and Pillaged.

 

(3) I would assume that Ktom is thinking of "Lose each trait" when he said it means "loses one instance of each trait." The word each does signify that every single trait on the card at the time would be lost. All however means all traits now and future. It is a constant effect making each new trait acquired by the card in question to be lost.

[radiskull 39]

Thanks!  I'll let some other brilliant minds discuss the implications.

[orion_kurnous 0]

i hope this clarification wil be put in the next faq

[Francisco G. 0]

this makes the "combo" burn and pillage+ support of the kingdom not usable

[Totalgit 3]

This also means that "Burned and Pillaged" will still reduce the gold of an opponent if the plot  'Rains of Autumn'  'Characters,locations,and attachments do not provide income bonuses this round."  is used?

Since B&P is a gold penalty..

The ruling the USA people used before would have been that B&P is still gold income just negative hence on a Rains turn they wouldnt count?

[Totalgit 3]

Have the bolded words below been added to the core set rules?

Income Bonuses and Penalties
Some cards (mostly locations) have a large gold
coin marked with a value of +X or -X in their
rules text. These cards modify the income value
on your revealed plot card, even when kneeling.

Its just seemed odd to me that income mentioned penalties and initiative doesnt.

[Bomb 66]

If this is indeed the ruling, then does that mean Rhaegar's Harp basically removes the ability of removing any traits from the attached character?

Text:

"Attached character gains all Traits."

[Bomb 66]

Bomb said:

If this is indeed the ruling, then does that mean Rhaegar's Harp basically removes the ability of removing any traits from the attached character?

Text:

"Attached character gains all Traits."

Unless of course it faces the counter of Condemned…

Text:

"Attached character loses all Traits and immunities. If you win dominance, kill attached character."

I presume they'd cancel each other out and leave behind the original Traits on the character like before, but the question remains the same.

[Saturnine 47]

Uncle Joker said:

(3) I would assume that Ktom is thinking of "Lose each trait" when he said it means "loses one instance of each trait."

That seems like an odd statement to me, because I can't recall any "lose each trait" effects in the card pool that ktom could have referenced there.

[tarkin84 0]

So… what's the final word on this? Thanks in advance.