Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Sacrifice vs Kill

- - - - -

Best Answer istaril , 14 July 2015 - 07:18 PM

I think this is one of those situations where you've read the rule correctly, but you're not quite sure about it because it either seems too powerful, or not what you expect. The entry in the RR is very explicit - and there's a reason it's called "Sacrifice" (because unlike a regular discard, it can't be saved from, etc). 

 

Here is the relevant text from the RR:
 

Sacrifice

When a player is instructed to sacrifice a card, that

player must choose a card in play that he or she

controls and that matches the requirements of the

sacrifice, and place it in his or her discard pile.

xxIf the chosen card does not leave play, the sacrifice

is not considered to have been made.

xxSacrificing a card does not satisfy any other means

(such as “kill” or “discard”) of a card leaving play.

xxA sacrificed card cannot be saved.

 

However, I think you may find it quite helpful to keep in mind that Bran, when he was "discarded" to interrupt an event in the books, was very much "in the discard pile". He wasn't dead, but nobody knew if he'd come back (would you draw another copy?). The same can be said for Jorah - once his betrayal became evident, he wasn't killed - he was just discarded - sent away. We don't know for sure if he'll come back to Dany's side. 

 

In the case of both Bran and Jorah, I strongly expect I'll be running multiple copies in their respective decks.

Go to the full post »


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
Jensen22

Jensen22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 375 posts

In the Learn to Play guide on page 6 under the heading "Discard and Dead piles" it references sacrificed cards going to the discard pile. I guess the word sacrifice leads me to think of killing something, which is probably the source of my confusion. So if you ever sacrifice a unique character for something you would then be able to play another copy of it later in the game? Bran Stark, and Jorah Mormont are the first two to come to mind. Both of which seem like excellent choices to run more than 1 of in a deck, especially with the sacrificed cards headed to discard.



#2
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1741 posts
✓  Best Answer

I think this is one of those situations where you've read the rule correctly, but you're not quite sure about it because it either seems too powerful, or not what you expect. The entry in the RR is very explicit - and there's a reason it's called "Sacrifice" (because unlike a regular discard, it can't be saved from, etc). 

 

Here is the relevant text from the RR:
 

Sacrifice

When a player is instructed to sacrifice a card, that

player must choose a card in play that he or she

controls and that matches the requirements of the

sacrifice, and place it in his or her discard pile.

xxIf the chosen card does not leave play, the sacrifice

is not considered to have been made.

xxSacrificing a card does not satisfy any other means

(such as “kill” or “discard”) of a card leaving play.

xxA sacrificed card cannot be saved.

 

However, I think you may find it quite helpful to keep in mind that Bran, when he was "discarded" to interrupt an event in the books, was very much "in the discard pile". He wasn't dead, but nobody knew if he'd come back (would you draw another copy?). The same can be said for Jorah - once his betrayal became evident, he wasn't killed - he was just discarded - sent away. We don't know for sure if he'll come back to Dany's side. 

 

In the case of both Bran and Jorah, I strongly expect I'll be running multiple copies in their respective decks.


  • alpha5099, emptyrepublic, Jensen22 and 1 other like this

#3
Jensen22

Jensen22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Thanks Alex.



#4
alpha5099

alpha5099

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts

However, I think you may find it quite helpful to keep in mind that Bran, when he was "discarded" to interrupt an event in the books, was very much "in the discard pile". He wasn't dead, but nobody knew if he'd come back (would you draw another copy?). The same can be said for Jorah - once his betrayal became evident, he wasn't killed - he was just discarded - sent away. We don't know for sure if he'll come back to Dany's side. 

 

Gotta love it when there's a Nedly explanation for the rules as well.


  • theamazingmrg and sergioxba like this

#5
RobbyStark

RobbyStark

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 900 posts

 

However, I think you may find it quite helpful to keep in mind that Bran, when he was "discarded" to interrupt an event in the books, was very much "in the discard pile". He wasn't dead, but nobody knew if he'd come back (would you draw another copy?). The same can be said for Jorah - once his betrayal became evident, he wasn't killed - he was just discarded - sent away. We don't know for sure if he'll come back to Dany's side. 

 

from now on every rule needs an official in-universe explanations. the golden rule shall be changed to:

 

when two rules conflict, whichever is more canon to the books takes precedent.


  • JCWamma, langsion and keekohmygod like this

#6
ScionMattly

ScionMattly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1281 posts

Rules involving actual cannons have highest precedent.



#7
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

Rules involving actual cannons have highest precedent.

 

"Last argument of kings."


  • Ratatoskr likes this

#8
ScionMattly

ScionMattly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1281 posts

"I wonder if I can canonize a child..."