8 replies to this topic

[uPoHu4Hu9]

Obara's text box states:

"[Traits]

Obara Sand may be declared as a defender during Power challenges in which you are the defending player, even while kneeling."

 

I'm pretty certain this means she is eligible to be declared as a defender in Power challenges even though she doesn't have a Power icon, and that she doesn't need to be standing, but since English isn't my first language, I can't be 100% sure whether she needs the icon or not. Does the punctuation (", even while") ensure that the first and second part are separate effects (the second being a "bonus" to the first)?

And in another thread, it was suggested that if Obara was Stealth-ed, this would stop the player from declaring her as a defender; If I had to guess, I'd say that is because the "not eligible" effect of Stealth trumps Obara's ability (to "be eligible"), but I couldn't find it in the rules. Would this be explained via the "Cannot" entry in the RRG?

 

Thank you!

[ktom]

Best Answer

There are two requirements that a character must meet in order to be declared as an attacker or defender:

1. Have the appropriate challenge icon.

2. Be standing when the player declared them.

 

The first part of Obara's ability, "Obara Sand may be declared as a defender during [Power] challenges in which you are the defending player..." provides a direct exception to #1, letting you declare her as a defender in a POW challenge initiated against you whether she has the icon or not.

 

Based just on this, though, she would still need to satisfy #2 and have to be standing in order to be declared. But the second part of her ability, "...even while kneeling," provides a direct exception to #2, allowing her to be declared as a defender in these challenges whether she is standing or kneeling.

 

 

The thing to recognize, though, is that even though Obara's ability provides exceptions to the requirements a character must usually meet in order to be declared as a defender, she still must actually be declared​. (Compare this to Jon Snow, for example, whose ability doesn't "declare" him as an attacker - he is simply considered to be one.)

 

That's why Stealth works against Obara. Stealth puts an absolute bar on being declared as a defender, whether the character meets the normal requirements or not. Obara's ability makes it easier for her to "pass" when checking #1 and #2, but Stealth says, "I don't care if you passed; you can't be declared." So stealth trumps Obara. (Although you are correct that this would probably be clearer is stealth said, "that character cannot be declared as a defender.")

[uPoHu4Hu9]

Thanks, ktom! I feel Obara's ability could have been worded better, but anyways, can't wait to try her out in a Bara/Martell build

[Grimwalker]

I'm pretty happy with the way she is worded. I don't think it could be worded better.

[uPoHu4Hu9]

Well, I could argue that "Obara Sand may be declared as a defender during [Power] challenges in which you are the defending player" has no direct relation to the first requirement (to have the appropriate icon); just this part could mean she bypasses both requirements, and thus it would have been better to have the second part ("even while kneeling") in brackets, just to confirm the second requirement is also bypassed.

The thing is this - with the wording as it is, even if Obara had a Power icon, you wouldn't have to change the ability in any way - it would just mean she doesn't need to be standing (because the icon isn't brought up at all); if that is the case, then why would it have a different meaning when she doesn't have the icon?

[Grimwalker]

Because if she had the icon, then she could attack in Power challenges.

 

If her ability was worded exactly as is and she did have a Power icon, then you'd get into confusing situations as to whether she could or could not be declared as a defender if her power icon was blanked by something like Confinement or Maester Caleotte.

As it stands, the wording of her ability clearly outlines what she is able to do: She is eligible to be declared as a defender during Power challenges. And this is where perhaps the language barrier comes in, the comma in front of "even while knelt" indicates that's it's a Dependent clause. The main body of the sentence is treated as a self-contained unit, and as you said, the second clause comes as a bonus.

It's worded perfectly for what it does.

[uPoHu4Hu9]

Because if she had the icon, then she could attack in Power challenges.

 

If her ability was worded exactly as is and she did have a Power icon, then you'd get into confusing situations as to whether she could or could not be declared as a defender if her power icon was blanked by something like Confinement or Maester Caleotte.[...]

 

I understand what her having a Power icon would entail, I just wanted to point out how her ability might be interpreted differently if that were the case.

 

 

[...]And this is where perhaps the language barrier comes in, the comma in front of "even while knelt" indicates that's it's a Dependent clause. The main body of the sentence is treated as a self-contained unit, and as you said, the second clause comes as a bonus.[...]

 

That is what I wanted to confirm, thank you.

[uPoHu4Hu9]

[...]Obara's ability makes it easier for her to "pass" when checking #1 and #2, but Stealth says, "I don't care if you passed; you can't be declared." So stealth trumps Obara. (Although you are correct that this would probably be clearer is stealth said, "that character cannot be declared as a defender.")

 

Saw this today and just wanted to leave it here - liquidmetal pointed out the entry for Stealth in the Learn to Play guide (regarding Ghost's ability):

 

"Stealth: When this character is declared as an attacker, you may choose a character without stealth controlled by the defending player. That character cannot be declared as a defender for this challenge."

 

So, it was there, just not where we were looking

[ktom]

Unfortunately, that doesn't always work because of the following from the RRG (The Golden Rules - p. 2):

 

"If the text of this Rules Reference directly contradicts the text of the Learn to Play book, the text of the Rules Reference takes precedence."

 

 

So contradictory wording in the LTP does not take precedence over wording on the same subject in the RRG, even if the LTP is clearer (like the wording in this case, "cannot..." being clearer than "is not eligible to...").

That said, in this particular case, the two entries are not actually contradictory and so can be taken as clarifications of each other.