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!
* * * * *

Nymeria Sand



  • Type: Character
  • Faction: Martell
  • Cost: 5
  • Icons:
  • Strength: 4
  • Bastard. Sand Snake.
  • Challenges Action: Choose an opponent’s character. Until the end of the phase, that character loses a challenge icon of your choice, and each Sand Snake character you control gains that challenge icon. (Limit once per phase.)
  • Quantity:
  • Number: 35
  • Illustrator: Smirtouille
Want to build a deck using this card? Check out the A Game of Thrones 2nd Edition Deck Builder!
Recent Decks Using This Card:


45 Comments

Photo
PatrickHaynes
Jan 26 2016 05:23 AM

One of the top five best characters in the game. In one way or another she will change the meta.

    • JoeFromCincinnati and xchan like this
Photo
nikotinlaus
Jan 26 2016 08:48 AM

She is really really good. The only thing that bothers me that as a paranoid player, I will often give her the int icon just to make her immune to tears of lys...

But you also make the person you targeted vulnerable to Tears, so can't complain

    • EarlofBronze and JoeFromCincinnati like this
Photo
JoeFromCincinnati
Jan 26 2016 12:05 PM

She'll be doing a lot of heavy lifting in the intrigue game, that's for sure.

 

Say goodbye to your otherwise invincible Tywin. Cuz he's about to go the way of Jon Arryn :).

I'll take those military icons Ser Jaime Lannister, Drogo and Balon, thank you. :) Although, other Sand Snakes already have mil icon, so it's better with int or pow.

    • JoeFromCincinnati likes this

Whatever she steals is a +. Reducing some characters number of challenges (Asha - Randill), or making them vulnerable to ToL. Pure Beast of a woman

    • JoeFromCincinnati likes this
Photo
nikotinlaus
Jan 26 2016 01:34 PM

What is especially interesting about her is that she gives a huge swing in a challenge type of your choice. Try winning an int challenge against her when Game of Thrones is in play for example... could be quite tricky.

    • Bronze likes this

A question in terme of rulling : did your opponent must call what challenges he wants to run before choosing his attackers, and can we have a challenges action at this moment ?

Photo
daviduk2000
Feb 02 2016 12:45 AM
In the RRG you to initiate a challenge you declare the type of challenge and all he participants. There is no action window till after the attackers are declared. There is an action window however at the very beginning of the challenges phase. This will be a card where you have to state wether you want to use challenges action. Instead of waiting for our oolong to start calculating a challenge the taking the icon away.
What happens if you Treachery her? Can you just trigger her again?

It is once per phase, so in theory you could trigger her again in another phase, but with the current card pool that would be pointless (i.e. you can't currently initiate challenges outside of the challenge phase).

 

Edit: Forget that. It says Challenges Action, so no you can't.

Photo
SlappyWhite
Feb 05 2016 10:42 PM

What happens if you Treachery her? Can you just trigger her again?

 

No once per phase limit is reached the action itself is not canceled just the effect.

Photo
FedericoFasullo
Feb 06 2016 06:46 PM

But!

 

You can make your opponent bounce her with The things I do for love and then put her back in to the field with Arianne and then trigger Nymeria another time :D

Photo
LarpyHagermeister
Feb 06 2016 06:51 PM
Can she take anote icon that does not exist?
Question, had this come up at a Store Championship this weekend. There was a group of Players saying she could take icons from a character even if they don't have them. Example: she could take an int icon from Ned Stark even tho he doesn't have one. Is this true?

Yes. Even though players may refer to her "stealing" an icon, the text on the card clearly states that she isn't actually "stealing" anything. She (and possibly other Sand Snakes) is "gaining" an icon and another character is "losing" an icon. The chosen character doesn't actually need to have the icon for Nymeria to be able to gain it.

Points to keep in mind:

1. The application of a new modifier is considered a successful change in game state, even if there is no corresponding change in the effective stat of the card.

2. Nymeria's ability does not specify that the chosen target actually has to have the chosen icon type.

3. There is no "then," so the Sand Snakes' gain takes place not matter whether there is a change in the target character's effective icon status or not.

So no, the target character does not have to have the chosen icon in order for the Sand Snakes to gain it.

 

It really is a misnomer to think of this as "stealing" the icon.

    • FedericoFasullo likes this

She would probably need "gains an icon that was lost in this way" for it to really require the icon to literally be lost.

Photo
Terraforcer
Feb 09 2016 05:07 AM

I have to disagree with the above ruling based on the wording of the card and the rules reference.  As per the rules reference on pages 4, 20, and 21.

 

Page 4 states " 'Choose' : The word "Choose" indicates that one or more targets must be chosen in order to resolve an ability.  Related: Target"

 

Pg 20 states " 'Target' The term "Choose" indicates that a target must be chosen in order for an ability to resolve.  The player resolving the effect must choose a game element (usually a card) that meets the targeting requirements of the ability.  ... If an ability requires the choosing of a target (or targets), and there is no valid target (or not enough valid targets), then the ability cannot be initiated.  This initiation check is made at the same time as the ability's play restrictions are checked."

 

Nymeria states 

  • Challenges Action: Choose an opponent’s character. Until the end of the phase, that character loses a challenge icon of your choice, and each Sand Snake character you control gains that challenge icon. (Limit once per phase.)

 

The second part states that the "character loses a challenge icon of your Choice", thus a target must be declared.  If the target character does not have a icon from which to choose then the second part of the ability fails.  I think that this interpretation follows both the rules as Intended and the rules as written fairly clearly.  If I am missing something please let me know.

Photo
theamazingmrg
Feb 09 2016 03:25 PM

I do find it a really counter-intuitive ruling that Nymeria can choose an icon that a card doesn't have.  

Photo
PatrickHaynes
Feb 09 2016 04:08 PM

I have to disagree with the above ruling based on the wording of the card and the rules reference.  As per the rules reference on pages 4, 20, and 21.

 

Page 4 states " 'Choose' : The word "Choose" indicates that one or more targets must be chosen in order to resolve an ability.  Related: Target"

 

Pg 20 states " 'Target' The term "Choose" indicates that a target must be chosen in order for an ability to resolve.  The player resolving the effect must choose a game element (usually a card) that meets the targeting requirements of the ability.  ... If an ability requires the choosing of a target (or targets), and there is no valid target (or not enough valid targets), then the ability cannot be initiated.  This initiation check is made at the same time as the ability's play restrictions are checked."

 

Nymeria states 

  • Challenges Action: Choose an opponent’s character. Until the end of the phase, that character loses a challenge icon of your choice, and each Sand Snake character you control gains that challenge icon. (Limit once per phase.)

 

The second part states that the "character loses a challenge icon of your Choice", thus a target must be declared.  If the target character does not have a icon from which to choose then the second part of the ability fails.  I think that this interpretation follows both the rules as Intended and the rules as written fairly clearly.  If I am missing something please let me know.

You are correct that you must Choose a valid target. However the only specifications for that target are that it is an opponents character. Because the card reads "Choose an opponents character." and there is a full stop there, those are the only requirements for the target. The second part of the card states that that character loses an icon of your choice, now that second part does not say "Choose an icon that character has" it merely states that the character loses and icon of your choice. So regardless of whether or not that character currently has that icon, they will lose one instance of it. Then as a follow up effect, all Sandsnakes gain that icon regardless of whether or not the original character had it. 

What it comes down to is whether "icon of your choice" equates to being a target. If it is a target (which is not at all clear, see below), it is the icon that is being chosen - and therefore the icon that is the target. Nymeria would essentially have 2 targets. You cannot graft the target requirements for target #2 (the icon) onto the target requirements for target #1 (the character).

 

Further, it is arguable whether "icon of your choice" actually designates a target of the ability. "Choose" and "choice" are not the same thing. But more than that, look at Edric Dayne ("Action: Pay 1 gold to give Edric Dayne a challenge icon of your choice until the end of the phase.") He doesn't have any printed icons. If "icon of your choice" designates that the icon is a targeting requirement, doesn't that mean Edric's ability can only give him icons he has already acquired by other means? 

I'll add my voice; there's no reason to assume "of your choice" indicates a target. The RR is very specific; the word "choose" (rather than the act of choosing) indicates a target. We know there are MANY cards that require a choice be made. Take, for example, Tears of Lys: you place a poison token on a character, and you have a choice about which character it is placed on. That choice is made without meeting the technical definition of "target", and therefore don't actually target the 'chosen' character.

 

There are many examples of cases where a specific word has been attributed specific meaning in the RRG; "cannot" is another, "would", etc. May not, do not, will not (etc) could all appear on cards, but they'll never mean the same thing as "cannot".

    • kizerman86 likes this
Photo
Terraforcer
Feb 09 2016 09:38 PM

Further, it is arguable whether "icon of your choice" actually designates a target of the ability. "Choose" and "choice" are not the same thing. But more than that, look at Edric Dayne ("Action: Pay 1 gold to give Edric Dayne a challenge icon of your choice until the end of the phase.") He doesn't have any printed icons. If "icon of your choice" designates that the icon is a targeting requirement, doesn't that mean Edric's ability can only give him icons he has already acquired by other means? 

Actually this is an interesting point.  

 

I do have one extra point to bring up though in regards to those who say that "if" this is the way the card was intended.  I have heard that the icon that the character would remain lost if they were to gain it again in a later turn but that goes against what it says under Modifiers.

 

x 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.

x A quantity cannot be reduced so that it functions with a value below zero: a card cannot have “negative” icons, STR, traits, cost, or keywords. Negative modifiers in excess of a value’s current quantity can be applied, but, after all active modifiers have been applied, any resultant value below zero is treated as zero.

 

I do think that the card still requires a official FAQ; I feel that obtaining an icon from a character who does not have one, Which is how I believe that this card was intended to be uses, goes against how the rules were originally intended.  

I'm not seeing how applying negative modifiers goes against the rules for modifiers.

 

Treating any resultant value below zero as zero is NOT the same as "setting" the value to 0 and doesn't invoke the "set" rules. The fact that the word "set" is in quotations means that a game term is being defined, and therefore the word "set" has to be invoked before that rule applies.

- Note that overriding all non-set modifiers is not the same as invalidating or otherwise not applying them. You would still determine the value by taking the base value and adding in all applicable modifiers. It's just that the result is then "set" to the specified value, no matter what the outcome of the math happens to be.

- What you have quoted here still works on the basic modifier rule that, at all times, the effective value of a characteristic is equal to its base (usually printed) value plus all applicable modifiers. So modifiers can be applied whether they change the effective value or not because they impact the determination of the effective value "at all times" it is applicable.

- It's also worth noting that the rule is not that the value of a quantity cannot be negative - it is that a quantity cannot function as a value less than 0. That is a big difference. So the rule is not "you cannot give a character negative icons." The rule is "if a character has "negative icons" for a particular challenge icon, it works the same as a character with none of that challenge icon." 

    • kizerman86 likes this