42 replies to this topic

[scantrell24]

I reveal Calm Over Westeros and choose military claim. My opponent declares a military challenge with a 1 claim plot. If I use Vengeance for Elia, what is the claim value my opponent must fulfil?

 

Interrupt: When claim is applied for a challenge in which you are the defending player, choose an opponent. That player must satisfy the normal claim effect instead of you as if he or she were the defending player.

 

When Revealed: Name a challenge type. Until you reveal a new plot card, reduce the claim value on the attacking player's revealed plot card by 1 during challenges of that type in which you are the defending player.

[SlappyWhite]

You are still the defending player, claim should be reduced.

[mnBroncos]

Yep claim is reduced it is exact same as first edition with loyalty money can buy. 

[scantrell24]

Thanks guys.

[scantrell24]

It's been pointed out that ktom ruled otherwise in another thread. So...

[ktom]

Yeah, are you guys sure about this?

 

VfE specifically says to resolve claim as if the person chosen for VfE was the defending player. So since you are no longer considered the "defending player" for purposes of resolving claim, and Calm only works when you are the "defending player," Calm doesn't work any more for the purposes of resolving claim.

 

Note that in 1.0, the text on Loyalty Money Can Buy was "...while that opponent is attacking you." That's not the same as Calm and "...in which you are the defending player." With VfE, the attacking player is attacking you, but the target of the event is treated as the defending player. So the outcome of VfE/Calm is different from the outcome of Red Vengeance/Loyalty in 1.0.

[mplain]

I'd say that the attacker having to satify claim "as if he were the defender" does not necessarily make you stop being the defender.

 

Although having both players count as defending seems weird...

[ktom]

VfE doesn't change the challenge itself so that it was declared against a different player.

 

Rather, while satisfying claim, all references to the "defending player" mean the target of the event instead of the player against whom the challenge was declared. Since, in the OPs scenario, "defending player" on Calm would not reference the player who is the target of the event, it would not be applied while satisfying claim.

 

Effectively, VfE "modifies" who is treated as the "defending player" while satisfying claim. If it helps, consider the original defender the "printed defending player" and the target of VfE as the modified "defending player." As an analogy for what is happening and why cards like Calm potentially change their application while satisfying claim, it works pretty well.

 

This, btw, is why the RV/Loyalty thing in 1.0 had a different outcome. The "...while that opponent is attacking you" text effectively kept its "defender" reference on the "printed" defender rather than the modified defender.

[mplain]

So after I play Vengeance, my opponent cannot respond with Vengeance of his own, right? He is not considered to be defending until he actually has to satisfy claim?

 

So the game allows one player to be treated as the attacker and the defender at the same time, but doesn't allow two players to be treated as defenders simultaneously?

[ktom]

Please re-read the above. VfE does not "turn the attacker into the defender." It changes all references to "defending player" while satisfying claim to the target of the event (commonly, but not necessarily, the attacker since the person playing VfE can choose anyone in a Melee game) rather than to the original defending player.

 

We know this because the text on VfE specifically calls out, "That player must satisfy the normal claim effect instead of you as if he or she were the defending player." As a replacement effect, this means that when claim resolves, the target player replaces you as the "defending player." The target player is treated as the defending player when claim is satisfied (i.e., the claim effect resolves), but it does not transform the target player into the defender of the challenge. 

 

Honestly, applying your Calm while VfE has me satisfying claim is the situation alluded to above where there are two people acting as "defending player" at the same time.

 

Also, since it's a substitution while claim being resolved, instead of a transformation of player identity in general, the target of VfE will not be able to play his own VfE to deflect the substitution back to the original defender. He is only treated as the defending player when claim is actively resolving - which is after interrupts are triggered.

 

Note also that all of this happens long after the winner/loser of the challenge is determined, so the original defending player (who presumably played VfE) will have already played all of their "after you lose a challenge as the defending player" Reactions.

[mplain]

So basicaly

  "must satisfy the normal claim effect instead of you as if he or she were the defending player"

equals

  "must satisfy the normal claim effect as if he or she were the defending player, instead of you"

correct?

 

Only one player can be the considered as the defending player at any given time? 

[ktom]

I'd phrase it as "only one player may be treated as the defending player at a given time," but yes.

 

 

For those of you from 1.0 saying, "But that's not how Red Vengeance worked at all!", keep in mind that RV was not a replacement effect. It actually canceled claim. The "other player satisfies claim" was a "then" effect of the cancel, not a replacement of how claim eventually resolved. It had to be that way because there were no Interrupts in 1.0, and this sort of effect has to interrupt claim resolution.

[mplain]

Word of Nate:

 

Hello Nate! 

Could you please clear this up for us: 

I have Calm over Westeros set for military. My opponent wins a military challenge against me, and I play Vengeance of Elia. Does Calm still reduce his plot's claim value? Or am I no longer the defending player, and so it ceases to apply? 

Vangeance of Elia says that another player must satisfy claim "as if he were the defending player". Does that actually make him the defending player? Does it make me stop being the defending player? 

It would be weird to have both players count as defending, however I could see it this way: I am still the defending player, but today the attacker has to satisfy claim (as if he were the defender). 

If Vengeance does indeed turn the attacker into the defender (and makes me stop being the defender), when exactly does it happen? Immediately after Vengeance resolves? or only when all interrupts have been played and claim has to be satisfied? In other words, can the attacker-turned-defender play his own Vengeance now? 

Thanks Nate!

 

Hello,

 

Vengeance treats the player satisfying claim as if he or she were the defending player (and the only defending player, because of the word “the") at the precise moment that claim is satisfied.

 

At that moment, in your example, the modification provided by Calm Over Westeros does not affect the attacking player’s plot card, as the original defending player (i.e., the player who has Calm Over Westeros revealed) is not being treated as the defending player — the target of Vengeance for Elia is considered the defending player.

Nate French

Senior LCG Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

 

tl;dr Nate confirmed ktom's ruling

[Bomb]

So... what is the scope of becoming the defending player here?  Just for claim effect purposes or for all purposes of being the defending player for the tiny amount of time that claim is being resolved?

 

If it's just claim effect purposes, isn't the effect of claim just the consequences and wouldn't be applicable to any other effects that involve being the defending player?  Effects affecting the claim value isn't the same as claim consequence, so I'm kind of just being the devil's advocate here.

[Bomb]

So, based on Nate's ruling, would the attacking player be hit by all constant effects that only hit defending players(inside that tiny amount of time that claim is resolved)?  It could matter for cards that kill characters when their STR hits 0.

[mplain]

Would need a specific example for that.

[actionjohnny]

Wait, I'm confused.

Scenario in question is: Attacker has Calm up, MIL chosen. Defender has VfE. Attacker initiates a MIL challenge. Original Defender plays VfE. Attacker now becomes the defending player for the purpose of claim resolution. Since he was not attacked, and is not the attacker himself anymore, Calm doesn't work and he now has to resolve the claim against himself.

 

Is that correct? My head hurts.

[mplain]

Wait, I'm confused.

Scenario in question is: Attacker has Calm up, MIL chosen. Defender has VfE. Attacker initiates a MIL challenge. Original Defender plays VfE. Attacker now becomes the defending player for the purpose of claim resolution. Since he was not attacked, and is not the attacker himself anymore, Calm doesn't work and he now has to resolve the claim against himself.

 

Is that correct? My head hurts.

 

The original attacker is still the attacker, but also the defender (for when claim is resolved), so Calm applies and he hits himself for 0 hp.

[actionjohnny]

Okay. So Calm works if the person with Calm is the attacker and gets hit with VfE, which makes sense. 

[mplain]

Calm over Westeros reduces claim only when its controller has to satisfy it.