Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Francisco G.

Bad template?: Kngsguard Agenda (The White Book)

Recommended Posts

"If you control at least 1 Kngsguard character, claim 1 power for your House each time you successfully defend a challenge.

Each time you lose a challenge as the attacker, kneel a standing Kingsguard character you control or discard 1 power from your house"

 

So how do you guys play it? I've always played it that if you win as defender you claim 1 power (having a kingsguard)

 

But having a second look, wouldn't you claim the power if you declare defenders….."succesfully defend"…..especially since the second paragraph says "Each time you lose a challenge as the attacker" and the first one doesn't say "claim 1 power for your house each time you win a challenge as the defender"

 

Just wondering…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. 

My assumption (and everyone I've played) has always been that "successfully defend" referred to winning on the defense. That said, this is the *only* example of any card that refers to the word "successfully". The core rules say that if you win a challenge as the defender, you are considered to have "successfully stopped the challenge against your house", which isn't the same thing.

Given that there's specific requirement to be considered "defending", and you can fail at that requirement (Core rules: "Your opponent must declare at least 1 defending character in order to be considered defending against a challenge.") by not declaring a defender, there's a reasonable case to be made that by declaring a defender you have "successfully defended". 

I strongly suspect this was not the designer intent… but given how unplayable the agenda is, it'd be an interesting way to play it. Doing so would cause some odd interactions with naval, which raises a question of the timing - the most logical would be to award a power as a passive after the determine winner framework action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats exactly what i meant!!! It's clearly not the intention but when this appeared there was less problems with templates and changing of rulings…. it could go either way and it would be very funny….and maybe strong??

 

….btw, i reread this because of naval since it's easier to defend without stealth now if you can naval big strength chars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules link it!

As a TO - Traditional intepretation is currently winning a challenge as the defender.

As a rules lawyer - TAKE MY MONEY!!! Oh wait… That meme makes no sense here…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...