Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
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!
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!
The Hand’s Judgment
Submitted
Guest
, -- | Last updated --
|
|
| Want to build a deck using this card? Check out the A Game of Thrones 2nd Edition Deck Builder! | |
Recent Decks Using This Card:
28 Comments
So just to confirm, an event of cost X has a printed cost of zero, right?
Well, there's a technicality that makes "yes" not wholly true (it has a printed cost of X, X is then defined by the RRG...if you want a headache, read every post in this thread) but yes, in short and in practice, this cancels an event with a printed cost of X at no cost, regardless of what was paid for that event. That also means that cancelling a Hand's Judgement with another always costs 0.
If this were true, then there is no distinction between the terms "cost" and "printed cost." If THJ was meant to cost whatever the opponent paid for the event, rather than X- which is defined as zero- it would just say "cost."
I'm not sure why you're responding to that quote here instead of where I posted it, KennyKindrick, but I've since retracted my analysis after having read FFG's official response to the question.
Here is what FFG has to say about the cost of playing The Hand's Judgement to cancel another The Hand's Judgement, courtesy of HOROBOD.
Yes, the "printed cost" of an event with a cost of "X" is 0.
Simply because we were no longer even tangentially discussing Tyrion Lannister.
And when you do you need to remember to be cool about it.
Like "you thought you had me there, did you not", or "have you met my friend, Cancel?".
Without some trash talk opponent can nullify the effect. It is on page 42 of Rules Reference.
It's why I don't really play Things I Do For Love anymore.
You wanna cancel my 1-gold Tears of Lys? Ok sure. That'll be 1 gold thanks.
You wanna cancel my 2-gold Put to the Sword? Not a problem. That'll be 2 gold thanks.
You wanna cancel my 7-gold Things I Do For Love? Wait, we have a special deal on this one. That'll be 0 gold thanks.
Have a nice day.
Yeah, after having my attempt to bounce back The Red Viper cancelled, I seriously hesitate before including Things I Do For Love now.
yes you can cancel "things i do for love" with this as its printed cost is 0.
in the case of cards with a printed cost of X, they're always treated as a printed cost of 0 for cards that interact with them.
Part of me thinks this is why you should use The Things They Do For Love for weenies, rather than big guys. It's a much more difficult choice for the opponent to use a Hand's Judgement to save a Vanguard Lancer than saving Robert Baratheon. If they do waste the card saving a weenie, then you know that's one less to deal with. For very little gold!
if someone has a brain at FFG, they should stipulate in a FAQ that you need to paid the same cost your opponent does with x cost event. Now it just ridiculus and make " Things they do for love" a meh card
Plenty of people at FFG have brains and this was done intentionally. It limits the potential upswing of a very good cards (things I do for love, hand's judgement, possibly other future ones) but it doesn't mean those cards are bad or even "meh". Things I do for love is a fantastic card which you should be spending around 1-3 gold for so it's really not such a tragedy if your opponent blows a Hand's judgement on it. Heck, I'd even play it to intentionally draw out the hand's judgement to clear the way for a crucial tears or treachery if need be.
Also side note, while you should use it on weenies Vanguard lancer is probably not the best choice unless there is a sizable upside to bouncing him.
Very true but it was the first cheap Bara card that sprang to mind!
Yeah, this card is phenomenal. Complaining that someone can cancel your 7 cost bounce for free is just silly; this allows you to you to pull a weenie out of a challenge, strip claim soak before mil claim, put cards in hand before intrigue claim, spend the otherwise 'free' gold you get from Tyrion (if your opponent cancelled it for free, but all that gold was doing was giving you dom), bypass the threat of an Aeron who was about to winning dom, push through a win-by-5 event, win an easy UO...
You don't need to win a challenge to use it, you can use it mid-challenge. It's point and click. It's superb.
Hand of judgment is supposed to be a trade off. when a player play an event, you get the chance to pay the same thing to negate it. So the the more powerful an event is, the hardest is to play it and the hardest it is to negate it.
There is no trade off when you pay 0 when your opponent pay 3, 4 or 5 gold for his event just because the cost is X. That illogic.
It's meant to add appeal to playing the big characters. It also means you it's an added risk to just dole out a ton of gold for Things I do for Love. ALSO it means having a Hand's Judgement in your hand when you play Things I do for Love is added protection from another Hand's Judgement.
This actually adds decision points for playing these cards and I think that is good for the game. They can create powerful events that cost X and their effectiveness can scale with the X cost while making it riskier for paying more.
The trade off is that you used the card. It also means that other houses that don't have the massive gold producing capabilities of lannister can reliable protect from a completely game shifting effect. If you had to pay the amount of gold to cancel it the card then things I do for love would run rampant, Lanni would get their tywin and tyrion gold and bounce with reckless abandon with no fear of their opponent canceling it because no other house can save that much gold.
Except that with Fealty, or Paxter, I could have paid less for my event than the person Hand's Judgement-ing it. Or, conversely, with Paxter, my opponent could have paid less to cancel my put to the sword than I paid to play it. Or if I'm using Things I do for Love on a character who costs X (they don't exist yet, but they might well)..
If they had wanted it to be the gold cost paid, they'd have said that - they specifically refer to the *printed* gold cost. Why assume that's a mistake? That it's "supposed to be a [gold] trade off" as you claim, when the decision about what it was supposed to be was certainly deliberate?
People often lapse into the trap of thinking that because something is unintuitive to them, or because they dislike the symmetry/wording, or because they feel the card ought to work differently, that for some reason that's a failure of the rules or the design. Trouble is, people don't really agree on what they like about the symmetry/wording, what is intuitive, or how they feel a card "ought" to work.
So far, the rules here are extremely clear as to how the card works. Let's take for granted that the card works in the way it should, and work from there when thinking about it.
Wouldn't it need to be "X is that event's cost," not "X is that event's printed cost" for it to truly be a trade off?
Unless your name is Nate French or Michael Hurley, what a card is "supposed to be" is a pretty subjective argument, I think.
Shouldn't the cost -paid- for this card always be 0? Looking at page 10 of the rules reference for what to do when playing a card (I'm starting the numbering at zero because the rules reference doesn't number the first step):
0. Declare intent and show the card
1. Check if the card is restricted from being played
2. Determine the cost to play the card and continue if it can be paid
3. Apply modifiers to the cost
4. Pay the cost (This happens before the effects even attempt to initiate in step 6 below. "X is that event's printed cost" appears as part of the Interrupt ability text. So this ability has no effect yet.)
5. Choose target
6. The card is played, or ability effects attempt to initiate
7. Ability effects complete their initiation and resolve
This would mean that the cost of the card isn't changed to the target's cost until after the cost of X (= 0) has been paid, which would be pointless most of the time. Could someone point out the fault in this logic? I feel like this shouldn't be right.
The answer is simple really: not all text after the colon is the effect of the ability. Sometimes that text is a cost ("do X to do Y"), sometimes it requires you to do something at step 0 (show the card to be used), and sometimes it sets the value of X printed on the card.
If it helps, look at it this way:
When you check the play restrictions in Step #1, you actually have to look at the entire text of the card ability you are initiating in order to determine which are the costs, which are the play restrictions, whether there are limits ("once per phase", etc.), and whether there are references/definitions that are required to properly initiate the card (e.g., a definition for X or the number in parentheses when using the Ambush keyword).
You determine what all of the various elements of the card text are in Step 1, knowing that - as mplain said - just because it comes after the colon doesn't mean it is inactive until Step 7. Since you have determined what all of the various elements are in Step 1, you apply them at the right time during the rest of the initiation steps.
That is why the "X is..." text is active when determining the cost in Step #2 instead of being meaningless by not being active until Step #7.