Castle Battlements

Nice attempt at trying to bolster Stark defense decks. Hopefully Stark can get some more help in that department other than an attachment.

Until we get a errata, this card doesn't protect locations, right? The Attachment makes the Location immune to card effects which includes the Attachment's effect. This results in an endless loop of having immunity and not having immunity, and the final call will be that the Location ends up without immunity.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The AGOT community really need to give it a break, this is the same probelm as with the Knight of the Hollow Hill agenda.

Give it a break? As in... not play by the rules of the game?

In that case!

"Your guys cannot defend against my Dragon, cuz they don't have arrows and he's *flying*!"

"Roarr!"

Sorry about that.

To be serious: Some sensible TOs/judges would probably judge the card to work, despite it being badly worded... but it's good that these kinds of faults are discussed openly, so that:
1) players know in advance that more literal TOs might rule it not to grant immunity
2) we can get an official fix to the matter, ASAP
3) gives us something to grumble about, while waiting for our next fix of new cards

I agree that wording is important, but FFG has been making a number of mistakes recently with regards to releasing cards with errors that cause rules problems. I don't know what their vetting process is... but, it needs work. As worded, literally, this card is useless. No way they intended that.

As worded, literally, this card is useless. No way they intended that.

And normally some would argue that we can't know what their intent is, but I would have to agree that they clearly didn't intend for this to be a completely broken brand NEW card...

Maybe they should do a "pre-showing" of all new card effects, and just let the community show how broken they are before someone ever finalized that inDesign file for printing...

Give it a break? As in... not play by the rules of the game?

In that case!

"Your guys cannot defend against my Dragon, cuz they don't have arrows and he's *flying*!"

Like Decathexis said. This isn't about making up rules (Flying? WTF....). It's simply arguing intent and pointing out the obsessive rules lawyering that goes on. While I'm not saying the rules aren't important, I'm saying in some cases such as this obviously broken card the intent should be argued over the letter of the law. There is a nice big world in the grey areas of life, you should visit sometime.

Wrong. If this attachment isn't meant to grant immunity, why is it printed on the card? If the text does nothing, why did they bother putting it on? This isn't the case of Sorrowful Man though, AGOT players really need cut back on the nitpicking. If any TO ruled that this doesn't grant immunity or that Cotter Pyke isn't an Ironborn, then perhaps they aren't suited for the role.

All they have to do is errata it to "Attached location is immune to all other non-plot effects".to clarify any ambiguitiies.

Like Decathexis said. This isn't about making up rules (Flying? WTF....). It's simply arguing intent and pointing out the obsessive rules lawyering that goes on. While I'm not saying the rules aren't important, I'm saying in some cases such as this obviously broken card the intent should be argued over the letter of the law. There is a nice big world in the grey areas of life, you should visit sometime.

I do apologize if my comment ended up sounding negative for some reason. I was merely trying to humorously comment on the fact, that it is hard to define the line, where rules lawyering and overall common sense should meet.

Okay, there's several points that need to be made here, so let's first state the obvious:

1. Exact rules discussions of this sort relate to organized play, not how people should play casually. Of course, you can freely use your common sense, make house rules and the like in such a situation. Organized play and casual play are a whole different ballgame.
2. For competitive play, people need to know before they come and arrive to a Tourney, how problematic (or multi-interpretational) cards will be handled. Only this allows a level playing field for all contestants (both those arriving from other countries, and those constantly playing with the TO in question).
3. To be able to verify these kind of interpretations for a card from the TO beforehand, the player needs to be made AWARE of the possibility of conflicting interpretations existing. That is why this kind of information needs to be spread.
4. For us to have a global community around the game (with all the cool stats etc.) we would really need to be playing the same game, everywhere.
5. The fact that these kind of situations arise in the first place, and are allowed to fester for several months, is not the fault of the people interpreting the rules.

Now, the kind of errors we've been seen lately are of two different types:
Class 1: Spelling errors (Wilding, onborn)
Class 2: Suspected errors in card ability wording (Sorrowful Man, Castle Battlements)

In principle, it is easier to use common sense to handle errors of Class 1, at least if the 'new' trait can be cleanly interpreted to mean another existing trait in the environment. Now, if you were a TO: How would you interpret a new Rhaegar Targaryen, with the trait: Knig.

King or Knight? Both are possible spelling errors. Both will have a LARGE effect on the game.

When a TO decides that a 'Wilding' is indeed a 'Wildling', he is changing the rules of the game using his own judgement. Pure and simple. In the case of an unambiguous spelling error, this can usually be done. However, I can understand why TOs would be reluctant in doing this... and they really have no obligation to do so.

Class 1 is the EASY one to interpret using common sense (or in this case: adaptive parsing to take into account human errors from the side of the card designers). Class 2 is the hard one. And, sadly, I think that in 99.9% cases, these shouldn't be touched by TOs.

Castle Battlements is quite close to that remaining 0.1%, since it has one ability (of several) that does NOTHING WHATSOEVER in it's current form - just a piece of dead text. Now, the text on Sorrowful Man is completely different, since it does something, but just not what many people think would be intuitive of the card flavor.

For the record: I'm one of those people that would rule Castle Battlements to grant immunity, simply because it doesn't make a shred of sense as it is worded.

To explain my note on flying: Stealth on dragons is probably meant to indicate that they can outmaneuver enemies by flying, right? Stealth doesn't work on stealth, by the rules. Now Shadowcat has stealth too. How the *beep* can that tiny kitty stop my dragon from flying over it by skulking between trees?

Does this explain the card's wording? Is Castle Battlements (VD)' 'Attached location is immune to non-plot card effects.' ability passive? From the FAQ:

(3.18) Timing of Immunity
Immunity is only considered when a triggered effect (or a passive ability) first resolves. A card cannot gain immunity to a triggered effect (or a passive ability) with a lasting duration once that effect has first resolved.

That's right Lee, also this:

"(3.19) Scope of Immunity
Immunity only protects a card itself. Peripheral entities attached to or associated with a card, such as attachments......can still be affected by cards of the type to which that card is immune, as long as the affecting cards do not target the immune card."

Since the card giving immunity is targeting the card that is now immune it won't (shouldn't) be affected.

@LeeMurdock: Sadly, the timing of immunity portion does not help here, since the ability is constant, not passive.

For the difference, think about:
- After you win a challenge, attached character gains deadly until the end of the phase. (passive)
- Attached character gains stealth. (constant)
The first one has a clear initiation point (after you win a challenge) and end point (end of the phase). The second one is *constantly* giving the character stealth. FAQ page 2 has a definition of constant and passive abilities.

While it's true, that immunity for passives is only checked when the effect initiates, the same does not hold for constant effects, the very next paragraph in the text (page 8 in the FAQ):


Constant abilities are constantly affecting a
card, and immunity from a constant ability
can be acquired at any time and cut off that
ability's effect.


@Atticus: Unfortunately the Scope of Immunity portion does nothing to help us here either, since it is talking about what is protected by immunity instead of what immunity protects from. Although... it's quite klunkily worded. Mainly it's saying that if a card (say, Bear Island) has Immunity to card effects, then attachments (Castle Battlements) on it are NOT immune to card effects. So, you could blank Castle Battlements using Frozen Solid (LoW).

Now, the part that really SHOULD be making the card work is on the same page:


(3.17) Self-Immunity
A card with immunity is not immune to its own abilities.

This is the clause that is in the FAQ to try and make sure that immunities don't go being silly on us. However, in the design of Castle Battlements, it was probably missed that the immunity is coming from an ability on another card (not the same card itself) and thus this one does not help.

With the example of "Knig", I think that is one place where there is no room for interpretation without an errata. It's a clever example of a time where we can't assume what the error was. Wilding is one example where if there is no such thing in the book or other cards in the game, then there is room for interpretating that it is meant to spell Wildling(these are types of examples I believe are 95% clear to 95% of the community). Without enough certainty, you should not make presumptions.

Unless you are knee deep in knowing the rules and FAQ, and you do not visit these community type sites and forums that often, then you could be going to tournaments without realizing that the Castle Battlements is in itself a self-defeating card and does nothing per the rules. If this is done without an errata, and the TO says the card does nothing based on the immunity rules, then that can unreasonably damage that players deck. It's one of those things where it's not entirely obvious enough to trigger the need to investigate and inquire about it.

There is a level of common sense and expectation on how cards work, and common sense says that no card would be printed with text that is intended to make it impossible to be used.

At least this still works

While you are the defending player, non-unique characters lose stealth and deadly

.

Have found this card to be very useful in a recent Stark defense build. Saved my butt a number of times from Vipers Bannerman, Ghost of Winterfell, Bronns Hirelings, etc. Certainly vulnerable to attachment hate and perhaps more powerful cards could fill the slots, but I have been satisfied with the results and will keep it in my deck for now!