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!
* * * * -

Sweet Donnel Hill



  • Type: Character
  • Faction: The Night's Watch
  • Cost: 2
  • Icons: Intrigue
  • Strength: 2
  • Bastard. Steward.
  • No attachments except Weapon.
    While Sweet Donnel Hill is defending, each attacking character loses all keywords.
  • The slender blond steward they called Sweet Donnel had laid a shaft just off the bull's eye at fifty yards.
  • Quantity: 3
  • Number: 31
  • Illustrator: Ryan Valle
Want to build a deck using this card? Check out the A Game of Thrones 2nd Edition Deck Builder!
Recent Decks Using This Card:
No decks currently use this card.


10 Comments

Photo
DayneGirlYouLookFine
Nov 25 2016 04:02 PM
So I'm in a bit of a quarrel with a bud of mine. If a character were to gain Renown or any other keyword through an effect.. i.e. Jaime or Chella with 3 ear tokens.. If they were to attack and I defend with Sweet Donnel, would they lose the keywords that they gained?

Yep. Donnel doesn't say "printed", so you lose all keywords, both printed and gained, and even if you have multiple instances of the same keyword. Literally ALL keywords.

    • DayneGirlYouLookFine likes this
Photo
daviduk2000
Dec 04 2016 12:43 AM
There was a card in conquest (dead game) FFG made had the same ability and I believe it was ruled that it actually only removed 1 instance of each keyword. So if you had renown then given renown somehow it only got rid of one. So I'm not 100% convinced
Photo
daviduk2000
Dec 04 2016 12:47 AM
This is the rulingon squiggoth brute from conquest. "It removes exactly 1 instance of all keywords, irrespective of whether or not the unit had it at the beginning of the combat phase. Effectively, all keywords are treated as a modifier to which the Squiggoth applies "-1" to, meaning that should a unit acquire 2 instances of a keyword (such as a Ranged unit benefiting from a Preemptive Barrage) it would effectively lose 1 instance of the keyword, resulting in 1 instance remaining."

It's worth noting that not only is this the way "loses/gains all keywords" is handled in Conquest, it is also the way "loses/gains all keywords" was handled in AGoT 1.0.

 

The terminology "loses/gains all instances of <whatever keyword>" is what would be used if the single loses/gains effect is to "overpower" all other modifying effects. Otherwise, "all keywords" refers to a single instance of each keyword that exists in the game - not all instances necessary to ensure that the card will never/always have a functioning keyword.

 

Of course, FFG could rule differently for AGoT 2.0, but they have been pretty consistent about this across most games.

Huh. I remember asking Nate about it, and he said that "lose all keywords" means "lose all instances of all keywords", and if they wanted you to lose only one instance of each keyword, they'd say "lose each keyword".

But I cannot find that conversation in any logs. I guess I'll have to ask Nate again.
    • FedericoFasullo likes this

ktom is right, I was wrong (memory glitch i guess =_= )

 

“All keywords” means “one instance of each keyword”.
 

Hello Nate!

Somehow I remember asking you this, but I cannot find any logs, so I guess I'll have to ask again:

Sweet Donnel Hill
While Sweet Donnel Hill is defending, each attacking character loses all keywords.


Does 'all keywords' mean 'all instances of all keywords', or 'one instance of each keyword'?

So that if an atacking character has two instances of renown, will he lose both?

I think I remember you saying that if you wanted it to mean 'lose one instance of each keyword', you'd word it as 'lose each keyword'. Might be my mind playing tricks on me though...

Thanks Nate!

 

I’m trying to recall when I made such a ruling, but I don’t have any record of it.
 
In first edition and in Conquest we treated “all keywords” as “one instance of each keyword.”
 
I think it’s best to remain consistent with that interpretation here.
 
So that, if a character has stealth, loses all keywords, and is gaining stealth, it is
at +1 stealth (1 for printed, -1 for loses all, and +1 for the gain).
 
Thanks!
 
Nate

    • jumbles likes this

If a character bypass one of mine using stealth, and then I defend with Sweet Donnel Hill, can I also defend with my bypassed character?

No. Two reasons:

1. If the attacking character loses stealth, it does not retroactively "un-bypass" the defending character. Once a character is bypassed by stealth, it cannot be declared as a defender in that challenge, period. The attacker does not need to keep stealth (or remain in play, etc.) in order for stealth to keep working.

2. All defenders are declared at the same time. So even if #1 was not true, defending with SDH wouldn't help because by the time he is declared as a defender (so that the attacking characters lose their keywords), it would be too late to declare additional defenders, "retroactively un-bypassed" or not.

    • Cloud likes this
Photo
FedericoFasullo
Dec 16 2016 03:56 PM

"the name of the keyword stealth is misleading, it should be called "deceive" or "distraction""

 

~mplain

 

cannot agree more

    • Cloud likes this