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!
* * * * -

Little and Less



Little and Less

Little and Less



Type: Event House: Neutral
Cost:
Game Text:

You may play this card during any response window.
Response: Until the end of the phase, players cannot play any additional responses. (Cannot be canceled.)
Number: 118 Set: ARotD
Quantity: 3 Illustrator: Regis Moulun
Recent Decks: Asshai Dominance
ShadowsLanni
Holy Hand Grenade
Ours is the Fury - Aggro Knights
deck clan big claim


51 Comments

So the latest on this is that when they say "play responses" they mean from your hand, which I didn't think anybody would assume based on the wording of the card. If that's really the intent, it's... not really very exciting of a card.

http://www.fantasyfl...&efpag=3#744845
Photo
samuellinde
Nov 12 2012 03:39 AM
Surely there must have been some points of confusion regarding this during playtesting? Why wouldn't they add "from hand" to make this even clearer (though I do know that the term "play" in this context implies playing from hand)? Or just change it to "players cannot play any additional response events"? I don't know if there's a precedent for using the term "response events" though. :)
Photo
ShadowcatX2000
Nov 12 2012 03:57 AM
Wow. . . FFG really needs to decide what this card does. . .
Photo
samuellinde
Nov 12 2012 09:47 AM

Wow. . . FFG really needs to decide what this card does. . .


Seems fairly obvious from the quoted email from Damon in the linked FFG forum thread that the intended effect is to prevent cards being played from hand as responses. Good for blocking Red Vengeance (PotS) etc, but won't be the effective weapon against Maesters as most people thought it would be.
I'm so, so relieved about this ruling. Suddenly Greyjoy has a future! Suddenly Martell Mass Reset isn't set to win everything ever for the rest of time! Suddenly there is life again!
Photo
samuellinde
Nov 12 2012 11:14 AM

I'm so, so relieved about this ruling. Suddenly Greyjoy has a future!


What is dead can never die, but rises again harder and stronger! ;)
    • ProfessorWerewolf likes this
does anyone play this card? :D
Not anymore.
Photo
slothgodfather
Nov 12 2012 04:07 PM
It is actually still really useful against aggro decks, since you can use it and stop them from playing any additional targetted kill events.
I mean it is undoubtly a great card, but with these rules complications, and misunderstandings, I cant imagine a single situation where all the players are 100% sure if the card was played right. The game pauses, everyone burrows him/herself into the rules and FAQ, and tries to figure where is the gap. It is most suggested to have an offical printed errata about this card. Now we are depending on unwritten tradition :)
Photo
slothgodfather
Nov 12 2012 05:00 PM
I agree, but at least in the thread that discusses it, it has been confirmed by 2 sources that it does in fact only limited responses played from hand:

"You play cards from your hand that covers all "using, triggering, activating" etc. common words that might be associated with the act. Cards are played or put into play. This term only ever refers to a card that originates from your hand.""

So it will stop any reponse cards from being played from hand, which is typically just events, but does include things like Khal Drogo (Core) also.

My question is that since Bloodrider (MotA) is a put-into-play effect, does it still count against not being able to "play" any responses.

"This term only ever refers to a card that originates from your hand."


Then they need to clean up instances in the FAQ where "play" is used interchangeably with "trigger," "initiate," "activate," etc.
I agree that this card was assumed to do more than it does, but once I saw the ruling and re-read the card, it made sense to me. Typically, when the word "play" is used on a card it means "from hand."

Do you have an example where this isn't the case (with regards to card text - not FAQ explanations of game play or mechanics)? I'm honestly curious, not trying to prove you wrong or anything.
Photo
ShadowcatX2000
Nov 13 2012 07:03 PM

I agree that this card was assumed to do more than it does, but once I saw the ruling and re-read the card, it made sense to me. Typically, when the word "play" is used on a card it means "from hand."

Do you have an example where this isn't the case (with regards to card text - not FAQ explanations of game play or mechanics)? I'm honestly curious, not trying to prove you wrong or anything.


It wasn't actually assumed to do it, Damon Stone said that it stopped all responses. FFG just backtracked after that. (I'd love to know why that is by the way, what seemed to be a format defining card is now solidly meh. . .)
Photo
slothgodfather
Nov 13 2012 08:43 PM
The quote from Damon's first response was "It prevents that playing (triggering, activating, using) any and all responses."

Ignoring the poor sentance structure, I can see this response as meaning entirely what FFG has additionally confirmed it means because they are still using the word "play" to imply it is a card from hand.
I think I would have rather have it as it was first interpreted. Yes, it was a meta defining card but that was kind of the appeal. Now, its a coaster. Shame.
Photo
slothgodfather
Nov 14 2012 02:34 PM
I still like it actually. It allows you to know you can play any phase or challenges events without the possibility of them being cancelled (short of a few characters that can cancel things). It means I don't necessarily need to run cancels if I'm using this to insure my opponent doesn't get any in the first place.

I agree that this card was assumed to do more than it does, but once I saw the ruling and re-read the card, it made sense to me. Typically, when the word "play" is used on a card it means "from hand."

Do you have an example where this isn't the case (with regards to card text - not FAQ explanations of game play or mechanics)? I'm honestly curious, not trying to prove you wrong or anything.



No, and I'm not trying to prove you wrong either, I'm just frustrated by ambiguities and trying my level best to scrape the n00b off my boots. A brief keyword search for the word "played" in the card text doesn't come up with any examples. But if we really really want "played" to only mean "from hand," then there's the instances from the FAQ I cited before that I think would benefit from better templating:

I'm TO'ing this weekend, so I'm trying to get all my pedantic questions dealt with in advance. See FAQ section 4.4 where "played" clearly means from your hand. On the other hand, when describing player actions on page 15, it says "It is during these stages that players may play/trigger most card effects as well as play cards from their hands." So the implication there is that "play from your hand" is one specified instance of what the verb can mean.

Also, page 17, on Responses: After any passive abilities triggered as a result of the action or save/cancel response are resolved, players may now play normal responses in clockwise order."
Nobody imagines that to mean only in-hand effects.


I'd suggest these wording changes:

"It is during these stages that players may play cards from their hands or trigger existing card effects"

"After any passive abilities activated as a result of the action or save/cancel response are resolved, players may now use normal responses in clockwise order."

That would remove ambiguous uses of the verb "play."
No argument there. Their use of the word "play" in that particular situation is misleading for sure.

I do still really like this card. If you're facing a lot of Martell or Stark, this can be very helpful against cards like Red Vengeance (PotS) or No Quarter (TBC). There are a number of other effects from hand that can be pesky and troublesome and if you know you can play this card, then you've got some insurance.
And then there was silence. Actually the card is in for some time. What is you experience with it?

I guess the problem of that card is that you don't shut down the opponent's card (like cancels). If he can't trigger his no quarter, he may trigger it in the next round. If you don't hit the Red Vengeance with your intrigue claim, you still have to fear it in the next challenge. So I guess most useful thing is to avoid saves. For instance if you are the first player and you opponent has choosen his two targets for a military claim two challenge and you are sure, that he will save both of them you can play little and less and kill both of them. The nice thing is you can stop all types of saves (duplicates, events, locations) - which is awesome against GJ decks to wipe them out with a valar. All other purposes are just a "nice to have" feature and are not worth for giving any event slots to that event (in my opinion).

The nice thing is you can stop all types of saves (duplicates, events, locations) - which is awesome against GJ decks to wipe them out with a valar.

No you can't, the wording of the card was clarified to confirm that it was only meant to stop you playing responses from your hand. So save/cancel effects that are already in play are unaffected.
Uh. Then that card is totally useless. :D
Its still not useless. Its a meta call. If you truly fear Stark Murder then this card will assist you in that match up.

It still has its uses but nowhere near as knee-trembling bust as its original interpretation.
If you are fearing Stark Murder some Paper Shields (or any other event cancels) would be the better option, don't they? I mean of course the paper shield can be cancelled again, but I guess it is a little bit specific to include cards against Murder decks with effects to cancel your cancels...
It's a solid (though definitely unspectacular) card for decks that rely on forcing through challenges for non-response effects and keywords. The main benefactor here as far as I can tell would be Baratheon getting through challenges to pick up Renown without having to worry about A Lannister Pays His Debts (Core), Misinformation (TWH), Burning on the Sand (RotO) and the like. It could also be useful in Stark Kill decks I guess, although there's very few "from hand" saves that see play and in that case I'd probably rather use Paper Shield (QoD) to draw out the save and cancel it than just temporarily prevent them from using it, so in that case it's basically only preventing Red Vengeance (PotS) that it's useful for, and I'd generally rather use Brienne of Tarth (PotS) so that it doesn't hurt my own response events, such as No Quarter (TBC), Die by the Sword (LoW) and The Price of War (KotS) (and also prevents saves altready in play).