So, so good. 

I'm not very good with them, but Martell is quickly becoming one of the most interesting Houses to me so far. 

Now all we need is this version of The Red Viper to raise the claim on opponents plot.

Now all we need is this version of The Red Viper to raise the claim on opponents plot.

I loved that version.  He was so much fun to use!

What does mean "normal" ? If the claim effect was 3 discard after an intrigue challenge boosted by cirsey and a 2 plot value, does the opponent must discard 3 cards or just 1 (the normal claim)

He would discard 3. He would not, however, be able to resolve a card ability instead of resolving the claim (like http://www.cardgamed...i-maz-duur-r425 )

Normal claim for an intrigue challenge is basically how you do intrigue claim by the core game rules:

Intrigue Claim (pg 11 of the RRG)

"When a player loses an intrigue challenge as the defending player, that player must discard a number of random cards from his or her hand equal to the claim value on the attacking player’s revealed plot card."

and this includes any modification to that claim value(like with Cersei Lannister raising claim by 1).

Claim or Claim Value (pg. 4 of the RRG)

"The claim value on a player’s revealed plot card (which incorporates all relevant claim modifiers) determines the potency of each challenge that player initiates if he or she wins the challenge."

Does that include trail by combat?

My interpretation of playing Vengeance for Elia and Trial by combat in the same framework window is:

Apply military claim during intrigue challenge to an opponent chosen by Martell player, no matter who played their event first.

My interpretation of playing Vengeance for Elia and Trial by combat in the same framework window is:

Apply military claim during intrigue challenge to an opponent chosen by Martell player, no matter who played their event first.

Nope.

Only the last event takes effect.

Thank you very much for the explanation. Loud and clear.

That doesn't feel right. If Vengeance is played first, Martell changes who satisfies claim, Trial changes type of claim. Other way around, I'm not sure.

I'm waiting for Ktom ex machina.

It's not a question of whether it feels right - it's a question of whether the rules support it.

Both effects are replacement effects (as denoted by the instead). 

It doesn't matter that one is changing the opponent, the other the type, etc. They're still taking one thing (how claim is applied) and replacing it with a new way to resolve claim. They all share the same triggering condition (when claim is applied). Whichever was used last completely overwrites the previous one.
 

http://www.cardgamed...eance-for-elia/

When there are substitution effect of claim (like Seastone chair) you can play Vengeance for Elia? I think not is correct?

When there are substitution effect of claim (like Seastone chair) you can play Vengeance for Elia? I think not is correct?

You can play substitution effects. They overwrite each other, so the last one played is the one that will be applied.

Not sure if I'm understanding this correctly. Does it cancel the claim against the defender by having the attacker fulfilling it? Or do we apply the claims to both of the players?

The FAQ got me confused because it said this card essentially nullifies power challenge because the claim applies to both of the attacking and defending players.

Not sure if I'm understanding this correctly. Does it cancel the claim against the defender by having the attacker fulfilling it? Or do we apply the claims to both of the players?

 

The FAQ got me confused because it said this card essentially nullifies power challenge because the claim applies to both of the attacking and defending players.

Only the attacker resolves claim. The deal with power challenges is this:

MIL attacks and wins. Defender has to resolve claim (kills). Vengeance. Now attacker has to resolve claim (kills).

INT attacks and wins. Defender has to resolve claim (discards). Vengeance. Now attacker has to resolve claim (discards).

POW attacks and wins. Defender has to resolve claim (giving power to the attacker). Vengeance. Now attacker has to resolve claim (giving power to the attacker).

So in a power challenge with vengeance, the attacker gives their own power to themselves. Vengeance doesn't change the defending player to the attacking player to reverse it fully.

I play Martell but my opponent controls Sunspear (after Euron Greyjoy pillaged and stole it!)

Sunspear

Reaction: After you lose a challenge as the defending player, kneel Sunspear to raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 1 during challenges of this same type until the end of the phase.

 

As the first player, I win A MIL challenge after which he kneels Sunspear to raison the claim value of his plot card to two for his MIL challenge to come this phase. 

His turn comes and he wins a MIL challenge against me. I play Vengance for Elia instead of suffering two kills. 

Vengance For Elia

Interrupt: When claim is applied for a challenge in which you are the defending player, choose an opponent. That player must satisfy the normal claim effect instead of you as if he or she were the defending player.

 

Will he need to apply 2 kills ? 

I would think so, but I am confused with the wording "normal" claim... Would "normal claim" mean the "non-modified" claim which is one in that case ?

"Normal claim" means killing a character for military claim, discarding a card from hand at random for intrigue claim, and taking power for power claim. Modifying the claim value does not make it "not normal".

Vengeance for Elia says that your opponent must suffer claim instead of you. If the attacker's claim value is 2, he now has to kill 2 characters.

[triple post]