Since world "against" is overloaded in RRG, does it mean I can trigger this after my own Characters attack? Look how core's Daenerys is worded.

No, I would not say that you can trigger this after your characters attack. I think the wording of Daenerys was more wordy than it needed to be.

Since world "against" is overloaded in RRG, does it mean I can trigger this after my own Characters attack? Look how core's Daenerys is worded.

 It triggers on 3 or more characters are declared as attacker against you. You can't attack yourself.

This does not Sound like an answer. Not because I disagree with it but because it sounds like your opinion-on the topic.

I' d rather have a dangling question here than anwer that is a Gut feeling. 

The reasons that you can't play this after your characters attack are:

The card requires that the characters are declared as attackers against you.
Framework event 4.2 (RRp28) states that to initiate a challenge the active player:
1. "Announces the opponent against whom the challenge is being initiated" - since it says opponent the active player cannot initiate a challenge against himself
2. "Announces which characters (under his or her control) are being declared as attackers" - so the attacking player cannot declare another player's characters as attackers

RRp3 states:
"During a challenge, the attacking player and the defending player are considered to be taking part in the challenge 'against' each other."
Not really a definition of "against," and it only handles player relationships, nothing about characters' relationships to players; but the intent is clearly that characters participating on your side are not against you.

Unless you or your opponent have some way to allow your opponent to declare your characters as attacking on his side with you as the defender in a challenge, it's not going to work.

I'm not really sure what you meant by "against" being overloaded in RRG. (EDIT: Do you mean it's being used in different ways in the RRG? If so, what way can it be used that supports your interpretation?)

For clarity, I'm assuming the specific text on Daenerys you are referring to is: "each character participating on an opponent’s side in a challenge against you."
I'm assuming you're pointing out that "on an opponent's side" is redundant if "against you" already means it has to be on an opponent's side. From the Rules Reference's entry for "against," unless I'm missing something (and I could be since I don't know why your argument included it), your characters can't be declared against you.

What exactly was your argument for using this card when your characters are declared as attackers?

The argument is––

• Daenerys Targaryen reduces the ST of opposing characters even in challenges in which you are the attacking player.
• Therefore, the term "a challenge against you" must functionally mean any challenge in which you participate, whether as attacker or defender. 

• Therefore, any time 3 or more attackers are declared in a challenge you participate in (regardless of who controls those attackers, since the card doesn't stipulate), the conditions have been met to trigger This Must Be Answered Fiercely!

It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable.

In RRG is special definition for word against:

During a challenge, the attacking player and the defending player are considered to be taking part in the challenge "against" each other.

This is what I mean by overloaded and this is the reason Dany works when Targs attack. If they wrote in RRG that in this game no means yes then it would be so.

• Daenerys works when you are attacking because her card doesn't specify that the opponent is the attacker. This card does.
• This is correct, but doesn't matter because of my response to the first bullet
• The card indirectly stipulates that the opponent declared them (and thus controls them), since the characters have to be against you

 

• Daenerys works when you are attacking because her card doesn't specify that the opponent is the attacker. This card does.

 

Pardon?  Are we reading the same card?  Where is the word 'opponent' written on This Must Be Answered Fiercely?  The word 'specify' means to denote something specifically, which this card certainly does not do with respect to which player must be the attacker (unlike, for example, Calm Over Westeros).

I'm not going to be so obtuse as to say that I do not understand your interpretation––you are interpreting "declared as attackers in a challenge against you" as an explicit reference to the challenge initiation framework you reference in the rules. (Although, note that This Must Be Answered Fiercely does not specify a challenge initiated against you, so you're on shaky ground.)  Gramyotron is just parsing it differently––  (P) ... "declared as attackers" in (Q) "a challenge against you".  P is something that happens in every challenge, Q is any challenge in which you're a participator.   This is at least a thoroughly reasonable interpretation.

I will add that I suspect the designer's intention was to have the card work as you want it to (and I think Gramyotron would agree). However, in this game, that is immaterial. Until we get further clarification (or a better argument against it) Gramyotron's interpretation is at least plausible, and probably the better supported. 

Oooohhh. Now I understand the confusion with "against" and why Daenerys's card text is so relevant. It never occurred to me that it could be the challenge that is against you instead of the attackers that are against you. I think I might agree with you that as written you can use this card as the attacker. But I also think this is a question should be posed to Fantasy Flight Games: https://www.fantasyf.../contact/rules/

I'm not sure what about "declared as attacker against you" you don't understand. Only your opponent can declare attackers against you. You're opponent decalres attackers against you. when you defend, you declare defenders against his challenge. When you defend, you're not declaring attackers against his challenge. You're too focused on the word "against" only when you should be focusing on the whole thing "declare as attacker against you"

I'm not sure what about "declared as attacker against you" you don't understand. 

And I'm not sure where the phrase "declared as attacker against you" even appears.

I read this as "participating [in a challenge] against you" (Deny) vs "declared as attackers [in a challenge] against you" (Fiercely). NOT as "a challenge against you".

I read this as "participating [in a challenge] against you" (Deny) vs "declared as attackers [in a challenge] against you" (Fiercely). NOT as "a challenge against you".

As I've said before, as a player, I'm sure we see eye-to-eye on the intention of the card.  

As for rules-lawyer fappery––If your parsing is correct, what is the utility of the words "in a challenge", then?  "Declared as attackers .... against you" is not a phrase that is coherent with respect to the rules: attackers never have a 'stance' with respect to another player, challenges do. And in a challenge, there are characters participating, some as attackers, some as defenders. But the word 'against' has no interaction with characters. You could assert that this card is the beginning of a new era of templating (and that might even be a good thing) but existing cards do not conform to the idea that characters themselves are ever 'against' anything.
 

So does Core Ed stand after being declared as an attacker? A challenge is initiated, and it's a challenge against you...

In the most rules-lawyery sense, perhaps there is an argument?  Not a good one, though. As I've said, attackers are not 'against you', per se, but challenges are. As jumbles cites above, a challenge being 'initiated against you' is specifically a thing discussed in the rules: During challenge initiation, the active player "announces against whom the challenge is being initiated". 

"Challenge initiated against you" does not lead to "challenge against you". The initiation of a challenge is against a player, but the challenge itself is not.

Characters can participate in a challenge against you, and attackers can be declared in a challenge against you, but this does not mean that the challenge is against you.

Actually I see the RRG speaking of "a challenge resolving against a player".

Still, while on Eddard the subject of the sentence is the challenge (being initiated), the subjects on Deny and Fiercely are characters.

Characters might not be "against a player", but they can be "participating against a player" or "declared as attackers against the player".

The point is that "against" refers to the verb or adjective (initiated, resolving, participating, declared), not a noun (challenge, character).

Characters might not be "against a player", but they can be "participating against a player" or "declared as attackers against the player".

 

The point is that "against" refers to the verb or adjective (initiated, resolving, participating, declared), not a noun (challenge, character).

Mmmm.... As I asked you above, what is the function of the words "in a challenge", then?   If you are correct, why does the card not simply say "...declared as attackers against you" ?   

As I've said, my answer is that challenges are, in fact, against players. Because there are many cards that seem to support this idea. 

Good point. There are many cards that say "declared as an attacker/defender" without specifying "in a challenge".

I've sent the question about Fiercely + Crown Regent to Danny, let's see what he says.

Heheh...  Well, we know what he's going to say...     : P

But this has been fun.

when a player initiates a challenge, he must declare what type of challenge, against whom, and which characters are attacking all at once.
 

The triggering condition for this event is "After 3 or more characters are declared as attackers in a challenge against you"

It's a reaction to the declaration of the details of when a challenge is initiated.
What type of challenge? for this reaction, it's irrelevent.
Against whom? Against you. You defined as the player that played the event.
Which characters are attacking? 3 or more.

Movac, dude... not trying to be pedantic, but do you understand what parsing is?  The sentence in question can be parsed and interpreted in multiple ways, which is why it's ambiguous. These different interpretations are described at length above. 

I will point out that there are actually at least two cards that specifically refer to characters being against players: Crow Killers from Watchers on the Wall, and Myrcella Baratheon from Sands of Dorne. So this wouldn't be the first time that characters are against players, if that is how we are meant to interpret it (which I think it is).

I will point out that there are actually at least two cards that specifically refer to characters being against players: Crow Killers from Watchers on the Wall, and Myrcella Baratheon from Sands of Dorne. So this wouldn't be the first time that characters are against players, if that is how we are meant to interpret it (which I think it is).

Good find. I was actually looking to up the exact same thing and found the exact same 2 cards. Sure it would be nice to write the card text as a deterministic context free language like computer code, but it would feel very unnatural for non computer programmers to read these cards, so they have to try to write the card text as english which is not context free. I see what chriswhite means when he's trying to explain that the adjective "against you" is describing the challenge and not the attackers. I do think that reading the text as english the adjective "against you" is describing the attackers and not the challenge.

I suppose it's a good find and that the definition of the word against should include that details of what's described in section for phase 4.2 that explains about who attackers are declared against.