Well, dear Fishwiskers, we have been waiting for that!

Well, dear Fishwiskers, we have been waiting for that!

I guess you could synergize with Wraiths, Alanis to really card choke your opponent.

I guess you could synergize with Wraiths, Alanis to really card choke your opponent.

This works surprisingly well, I'm doing pretty good with it so far!

I guess you could synergize with Wraiths, Alanis to really card choke your opponent.

Oh yeah I didnt even incluce wraiths, thx for the tip ^^

But how does it actually interact with wraiths? I guess the Agenda triggers first? So the minimum stays 2?

I faced Nights Watch with White Tree out doing exactly that. Got out of the choke but just couldn't get through their defenses by then.

I just had one that had White Tree, Craven, Milk, Meager Contribution and Famine on the first turn. I just conceded and left the game. :/ Nightswatch has jumped up with that Agenda...

But how does it actually interact with wraiths? I guess the Agenda triggers first? So the minimum stays 2?

When Wraiths is involved, the minimum is always 2. There is no "trigger order" because you always start from scratch, combining all modifiers together. Effectively, since all applicable modifiers are considered to be applied simultaneously - no matter the order in which they became applicable - Wraiths always makes the minimum 2. There is no way to apply Wraiths and its minimum, and then reduce the reserve value further.

ktom, but what if my other card effects reduce the opponent's reserve to 1? e.g. my opponent flips A Feast for Crows, and I have the Wraiths, Winter agenda, Alannys Greyjoy, plus one other effect that gives him -1 reserve - would his reserve be 1 or 2?

It seems strange that just because all modifiers apply at the same time, one of them would hard-cap the others

The lowest reserve value is 1. Although the lowest I've gotten is 3 with Alanis, Wraiths and WinterKings.

It seems strange that just because all modifiers apply at the same time, one of them would hard-cap the others

Remember that the calculation for your opponent's reserve will be:

4 (base; aFfC) - 1 (Agenda) - 2 (Wraiths) (minimum of 2) - 1 (Alannys) = 1 (minimum of 2) = 2

In order to get to 1, the calculation would have to be:

4 (base; aFfC) - 1 (Agenda) = 3 - 2 (Wraiths) (minimum of 2) = 1 (minimum of 2) = 2 - 1 (Alannys) = 1

that is, you would have to apply each modifier separately to the last calculated value, which we know from the RRG is not the way modifiers are handled.

If it was, why couldn't this same situation yield:

4 (base; aFfC) - 2 (Wraiths) (minimum of 2) = 2 (minimum of 2) = 2 - 1 (Alannys) = 1 - 1 (Agenda) = 0?

I agree it can seem strange that the "minimum" from one modifier hard-caps the overall effect of all the others when combined, but it is the outcome. Essentially, it is because the minimum is placed on the resultant, overall effective value of the thing being modified, not on the application of that one modifier.

Remember that the calculation for your opponent's reserve will be:

 

4 (base; aFfC) - 1 (Agenda) - 2 (Wraiths) (minimum of 2) - 1 (Alannys) = 1 (minimum of 2) = 2

 

In order to get to 1, the calculation would have to be:

 

4 (base; aFfC) - 1 (Agenda) = 3 - 2 (Wraiths) (minimum of 2) = 1 (minimum of 2) = 2 - 1 (Alannys) = 1

 

that is, you would have to apply each modifier separately to the last calculated value, which we know from the RRG is not the way modifiers are handled.

 

If it was, why couldn't this same situation yield:

 

4 (base; aFfC) - 2 (Wraiths) (minimum of 2) = 2 (minimum of 2) = 2 - 1 (Alannys) = 1 - 1 (Agenda) = 0?

 

 

I agree it can seem strange that the "minimum" from one modifier hard-caps the overall effect of all the others when combined, but it is the outcome. Essentially, it is because the minimum is placed on the resultant, overall effective value of the thing being modified, not on the application of that one modifier.

I don't think that this is entirely correct? And can you tell me where exatly in the RRF you read that all reserve value modifiers are applied at the same time,... In fact, under "Plot Value Modifiers" it clearly states (only) that all modifiers are "cumulative in their effect". The question is more about at which moment the modifier happens... Wraiths effect (as well as the one from KoW) happens immediately when the plot comes in play, Alanny's effect happens only in step 1.3 II. (or in Marshal Phase if you play her only afterwards) - ok, given that you haven't been first player already... ^^

.

The Modifiers section on page 13 of the rules reference has three pertinent pieces:

• Any time a new modifier is applied (or removed), the entire quantity is recalculated from the start, considering the unmodified base value and all active modifiers.
• The calculation of a value should treat all modifiers as being applied simultaneously. However, while performing the calculation, all additive and subtractive modifiers should be calculated before doubling and/or halving modifiers are calculated.
• When a value is “set” to a specific number, the set modifier overrides all non-set modifiers (including any new non-set modifiers that are added during the duration of the set value). If multiple set modifiers are in conflict, the most recently applied set modifier takes precedence.

This backs up everything ktom said.

Edit: I suppose the 3rd bullet point isn't actually relevant to this.

...is there a way to delete posts?

The second bullet point specifically says they apply simultaneously.

The Modifiers section on page 13 of the rules reference has three pertinent pieces:

• Any time a new modifier is applied (or removed), the entire quantity is recalculated from the start, considering the unmodified base value and all active modifiers.
• The calculation of a value should treat all modifiers as being applied simultaneously. However, while performing the calculation, all additive and subtractive modifiers should be calculated before doubling and/or halving modifiers are calculated.
• When a value is “set” to a specific number, the set modifier overrides all non-set modifiers (including any new non-set modifiers that are added during the duration of the set value). If multiple set modifiers are in conflict, the most recently applied set modifier takes precedence.

This backs up everything ktom said.

Edit: I suppose the 3rd bullet point isn't actually relevant to this.

Y ok thx for the clarification... so that means there is no ways to go under 2 as long as wraiths is in play... hmhm.

I don't know all of the cards, but if there was one that halved the reserve value or set it to a specific lower value then I think it could go under 2 even with Wraiths in play.

I don't know all of the cards, but if there was one that halved the reserve value or set it to a specific lower value then I think it could go under 2 even with Wraiths in play.

That's a lovely point. However, I'd have to disagree at first blush:

Wraiths applies an additive/subtractive modifier (-2), and a 'cap' on what the reserve can reach

We know from Ktom's answer above that it isn't a cap on what the reserve can reach FROM Wraiths, it's a cap on what the reserve can reach from modifiers in general (while Wraiths is affecting it). Your scenario would have to assume that it served as a cap only to additive/subtractive modifiers - and that's an inference we don't have anything to support. It seems more consistent to assume that it applies its own global minimum for modifiers in general than to assume it only applies to additive modifiers. 

In fact, as the additive modifiers are calculated BEFORE multiplicative modifiers, you could even argue that this places the "min of 2" cap before you apply multiplicative modifiers. I don't think that's the best reasoning, because I read this as 'it doesn't actually matter what order you apply them, the min of 2 cap will apply.

I would agree with istaril's reasoning that, since the minimum is placed on the overall value of the reserve rather than on the value that can be reached from specifically applying Wraiths. So, even after halving/doubling modifiers are applied, a minimum of 2 would need to be maintained.

That said, I think that a "set" modifier trying to make the reserve something less than 2 would override the "minimum of 2" limit since "set" modifiers specifically override all other non-set modifiers. Effectively, I see you going though the calculation for the reserve value - including the "minimum of 2" limitation - and then setting the end result to whatever the "set" modifier says.

I see this as consistent with things like icons and keywords being treated as "0" or "1" - or STR not being treated as any value less than 0 - no matter how the math works out.