Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
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!
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!
0
Quill & Tankard Regulars - Issue 33
Jan 24 2014 06:15 AM |
CardGameDB
in Game of Thrones
Small Council Quill & Tankard Regulars Ire JCWamma Ratatoskr WWDrakey
The Raven’s MessageThe Raven’s Message exclusively reveals and discusses an up-and-coming, either mechanically or rules-wise interesting, card. The cards are from future products, and have been obtained directly via raven from the Archmaesters at the (FFG) Citadel.
The first raven to bring news of Conquest and Defiance has arrived at the Quill & Tankard Inn. We got our beer-stained hands on quite a special House Stark event, with the new Prized keyword. Show of Force, House Stark only with Prized 2. It is a Response: with the text: Play after you win a Military challenge as the defender. Immediately after the resolution of the current challenge, a Military challenge is initiated against the losing opponent with you as the attacking player and your currently defending characters as your only attacking characters.
Now, the first and most important thing here is the new keyword: Prized. To really discuss that, one needs a definition for Prized. The best we’ve got so far is a scan of the rules excerpt:
That should help us out a bit here already. Most importantly for our new event will be the twin facts that I) if it is canceled the opponents will still claim power for Prized and II) it says each opponent. Now, that means that playing this in Melee can be far too risky - as by doing that you will place 4-6 new power tokens on the table and there is still the risk that the event itself will be cancelled. Not a very promising prospect, and it’s highly likely that most of the Prized cards (except maybe those with strong power-gain/global Control and just ‘Prized 1’) will be untenable in the whole Melee-format, kind of similar to many of the cards in the Champions Cycle being directly made for Melee instead of Joust.
So, with that in mind, we’ll have to turn our sights to the lists, and see how Show of Force fits there. When one thinks of House Stark, multiple military Challenges and power gain in Joust it’s invariably via the Siege of Winterfell Agenda. Now, that really does feel like the natural home for this event, since it feeds both of the ways for you to gain power (military challenges and stealing power via claim), while letting you maximize the board impact of your characters. That said, it’s good to see that Siege of Winterfell is getting a bit of a boost with the new cards, as the wording of the Prized keyword makes it completely unable to gain power from any Prized cards that your opponent plays… unless it would happen during a Military challenge due to, say, claim or subsequently triggered kill/discard effects.
As any Response: effect, Show of Force is played after the Challenge winner is determined, claim is settled and passive effects have taken effect. As far as we can deduce from the wording, the event creates a new Challenge directly after the challenge resolution Framework Action Window is ended, going through the normal declare attackers Framework Action Window, but instead of the attacker choosing which characters to attack with, the previous defenders are automatically declared as attackers, with the card text overriding the need for the attackers to be standing to be eligible.
So, what happens if you defended with a character that does not kneel to defend, like King Robb’s Host or Ser Rodrik Cassel? Well, for the Host this is quite clear, it does not kneel to attack or defend, so it doesn’t kneel for this Challenge either. How about good ole’ Cassel? Looking at the text, it does not directly contradict the kneeling of attackers, so our gut interpretation would be that Cassel does indeed kneel for the attack here. How about if you’ve defended the Challenge with a House Tully Septon armed with a Rusted Sword? That one should be quite clear as well, since Cannot is absolute, leaving your Septon’s uncharacteristical thirst for blood unsated.
Any other tricky cases? Well, what happens if you try to trigger this during the Epic Phase? The fact is, you can’t, or at least it won’t do you any good, since the Epic Battles specify that players may only initiate a single challenge, making it impossible to add extra challenges by any card effect.
Now, the genuinely tricky sides of the card arise with that new challenge. Here’s a few questions we are still scratching our heads with at the Quill and Tankard:
1. Is the new challenge actually declared, with respect to effects like Euron Crow’s Eye?
2. When does the Challenge fizzle if you won as a defender with Feigned Retreat, or lost your only defender to Deadly?
3. How will those two situations interact?
4. Last, but not least: Why would you ever play the event in either case 2 or 3?
Chime in with your opinions on the card, or those rules questions, in the comments below!
Beware the Sphinx - The Red Wedding
Beware the Sphinx is a series of articles concentrating on important cards with several peculiar, complex or unintuitive interactions. An emphasis is kept on both new and competitively relevant cards. Remember, the Sphinx is the riddle, not the riddler.
The Red Wedding (PotS) (TRW from now on) is one of the cards most worthy of getting the Beware the Sphinx treatment in the entire card pool. Although it has been around for quite a while, it continues to confuse players. The FFG rules board has no less than 19 (!) threads with "Red Wedding" in their title. Today, we will take a look at the various situations that can come up.
Q: Do I have to choose Lord and Lady characters I own for TRW, or can I also choose my opponent’s characters?
A: Since the card text doesn’t specify whose characters you can choose, any player’s characters are free game.
Q: What happens if there’s only Lords and no Ladies (or vice versa) in play when TRW is flipped?
A: If you don’t choose exactly two characters, one Lord and one Lady, the part after the “Then†won’t resolve. The phrase “the other†indicates that there is a target requirement for “1 of those characters†to be one of two characters chosen during the first part of the effect.
For more detailed explanations by ktom see this thread.
Q: But the card text says “if ableâ€! If the effect won’t resolve if I don’t choose exactly one Lord and one Lady, why is the “if able†even there?
A: To be honest, no one really knows. It is entirely redundant for all practical purposes. In this post, ktom offers a possible explanation.
Q: What if there’s a character that has both the Lord and Lady trait? Can it be chosen as both the required Lord and Lady?
A: No. TRW requires two different characters. See e.g. here for another ktom explanation.
Q: If the character chosen for being killed is saved, the other character still claims 2 power, right?
A: Right. If TRW was worded "Then, the other claims 2 power", the power claiming would be dependent on successfully killing the first character. The way it is, saving the first character doesn't impede the power claiming.
Q: What happens if there are Lord and Lady characters in play that cannot be killed (e.g. there is The Power of Blood (Core) revealed, and some or all of the characters in question have the Noble crest)?
A: Ah, now things are starting to get interesting. Let’s go a bit deeper into this.
What’s important to grasp when resolving TRW is that there are two different instances when targets are chosen. First, the opponent to the left chooses two characters, one with the Lord trait, and one with the Lady trait. Those are the only restrictions. Whether these characters can even die or not is immaterial at this point. But after the opponent to the left has chosen the two characters, the player who flipped TRW makes another target choice: He chooses one of the two previously chosen characters to be killed. Now, at this step, it matters a great deal whether the chosen characters can actually be killed.
If both of the chosen characters cannot be killed, the player who flipped TRW cannot choose one of them to be killed. Since there is no character chosen to be killed, there can be no “other†character to claim the 2 power. In that case, TRW has no effect on either character.
If one of the two characters chosen by the opponent to the left can be killed, but the other cannot, the player who flipped TRW must choose the character that can actually be killed for the kill effect, since characters that cannot be killed cannot be chosen as a target for a kill effect. The other character claims the 2 power.
Q: What if one of the two characters chosen by the opponent to the left cannot claim power (say it has been a target of Shireen Baratheon (FtC)’s ability)?
A: Note that the character that is to claim the 2 power is not a chosen target of the effect - only the character to be killed is. Therefore it is immaterial if one of the two characters cannot claim power. The only important thing is that the character that is chosen to be killed can actually be killed. If the character that should claim the 2 power cannot claim power, it just doesn’t. The other character dies normally.
Q: What happens if TRW and Valar Morghulis (Core) are revealed at the same time?
A: What happens depends on which plot resolves first (First Player’s choice).
If TRW resolves first, things are easy. The player to the left of the TRW player chooses one Lord and one Lady character. Then the TRW player chooses and kills one of those, the other claims 2 power. Only it won’t be around to enjoy them for long, because right afterwards, Valar hits. The character chosen to die for TRW is already moribund:dead pile, and so is not killed a second time for Valar (small consolation!). The character that claimed the 2 power is now killed.
If the First Player decides that Valar resolves first, all characters in play are killed. When TRW resolves afterwards, the opponent to the left chooses a Lord and a Lady. That they’re already moribund:dead doesn’t matter here. But since they are moribund, none of them can be chosen to be killed by the TRW player, and since there is no character chosen to be killed, there can be no “other†character to claim the 2 power. Note that characters that are saved from Valar's kill effect are not moribund (that's basically what a save does - it prevents a character from becoming moribund) and can therefore be chosen for TRW's kill effect.
Q: What happens if two players reveal TRW at the same time?
A: Come on, I’m sure you can answer this question yourself by now. But anyway, here goes:
- The First Player decides the order in which the two TRWs resolve.
- The first TRW resolves. The player to the left chooses one Lord and one Lady. The player who flipped the first TRW chooses one of the two to be killed. That character goes moribund:dead. The other claims 2 power.
- Then the second TRW resolves. The player to the left chooses one Lord and one Lady. If the moribund character is among the two chosen characters, he cannot be chosen to be killed again by the second TRW, so the player who flipped the second TRW must choose the non-moribund chosen character to be killed. The moribund character claims the 2 power.
Q: All understood, but how about this:
Player A has Eddard Stark (TTotH) in play.
Player B has nor Lords or Ladies in play
Player C has Ser Jaime Lannister (Core) with a duplicate and a Bodyguard (Core) in play.
Player D has Stannis Baratheon (VM) with a duplicate and Shireen Baratheon (FtC) (whom he has used pre-plot on Ser Jaime, for whatever reason) in play.
Player A flips The Red Wedding (PotS)
Player B flips The Red Wedding (PotS)
Player C flips Valar Morghulis (Core)
Player D flips The Power of Blood (Core)
What happens?
A: We go out for a drink at the Inn, that’s what! You guys have fun figuring all this out on your own!
The thing is, depending on how many Lords and Ladies are in play, who controls them, and which of them can or cannot be killed, it can be somewhat involved to resolve TRW with an optimal result for yourself. But with all the answers above, players should be able to figure out pretty much any situation by themselves, just by calmly going forward one step at a time and keeping the aforementioned rules in mind.
Anyway, outta the door gang - our Poet Laureate is buying and those tables don’t wait for no-one!
If you’re interested, here are some threads about TRW that deal with some of the aforementioned issues in more detail:
http://community.fan...ves/?hl=wedding
http://community.fan...ing/?hl=wedding
http://community.fan...ood/?hl=wedding
http://community.fan...ing/?hl=wedding
http://community.fan...ing/?hl=wedding
http://community.fan...arp/?hl=wedding
http://community.fan...ing/?hl=wedding
http://community.fan...ing/?hl=wedding
Antti Korventausta (WWDrakey) is a self-proclaimed Finnish AGoT philosopher and nitpicker, who also used to practice Quantum Mechanics, but found that it paled to AGoT in both interest and complexity. As a Stahleck regular and judge, he sometimes has oddly vivid dreams of understanding portions of the game. In AGoT, he'll play anything as long as it's suitably twisted... often ending up with something that has horns on it.
Helmut Hohberger (Ratatoskr) started playing AGoT in September 2010 and has never looked back (although his wife has, longingly). As a German, he loves rules - and I mean *loves* 'em. Try triggering a Response at the end of a phase on his watch, and he'll probably invade your country. He has actually read the FAQ, and was made a judge at Stahleck 2011 and at various other events. He sometimes answers rules questions on boardgamegeek and the FFG rules board. Some of his answers haven't even been contradicted, corrected or expanded upon by ktom - there is no higher accolade for a rules board morlock.
Every Maester needs a Raven on his shoulder. As a Finn, Iiro Jalonen (Ire) got pulled under the waves by Krakens years ago, and has never looked back. A self-inflicted Shagga and active member of the global AGoT community, he has always strived to know the rules of the game, in order to make them do ridiculous things.
James Waumsley (JCWamma) started playing Thrones in January 2012. Although he’s not got many links on his collar just yet, he’s a fiendishly competitive player who delights in making sure the rules are upheld, so that his opponents have no excuses (or in practice, so that he has no excuses himself).
- emptyrepublic and istaril like this
31 Comments
Personally, I read this slightly differently. It seems like the event bypasses the framework action window where you declare characters. This plays off point #1 regarding Euron. If the event bypasses that framework action window then Euron would not function and characters wouldn't kneel.
Also, the text says "as your only attackers". Does that disqualify naval attackers or other characters that can come in outside of the normal framework window? My gut says yes, but FFG rulings have been odd in the past so who knows.
It is amazing though, and am looking forward to smashy smashy fun times out of Stark.
That interpretation is also very much possible, since the effect has a whole new type of templating without any previous effects to draw parallels from.
We based our interpretation on two things, one being the fact that usually if something is not directly contradicted by card text, it happens according to the rules and two, the fact that the FAQ structure for the challenge initiation Framework Action Window has two steps:
1. Active Player declares challenge type and opponent
2. Active Player kneels attacking characters
Notice that the first one of the Framework Actions is directly contradicted by the card text, but the second one is not, and kneeling the attackers is not actually a cost of declaring them, just a separate action in the challenge initiation FAW. So, we're basically only assuming that the first action gets skipped and the challenge resumes normal behaviour from there, also allowing for Responses to Challenge initiation (redirection etc.). A classic example on a card that directly contradicts the kneel attacking characters Framework Action would be The Fox's Teeth (TWot5K).
A: Eddard claims 2 power and Jaime dies.
B: No one claims power and Jaime dies.
C: Jaime survives and no one claims power.
D: Stannis claims 2 power and Jaime dies (if D needs only 2 power, Shireen claiming them is good, too).
It's difficult to predict how the players will act, because we don't know how much power they have, which, barring initiative bonuses, will also determine who chooses the first player. My guess is that, in the end, no one claims power and Jaime survives, because no one wants to give their opponents power and C can ensure Jaime survives by not choosing him for B's The Red Wedding.
I'd say my gut shot reaction to it is that you don't have to kneel your characters to go into the new challenge. I can see the reasoning behind both ways, but why would FFG print a Prized event that works only with non-kneeling defenders?
(I mean, there have been some dogs of cards in the past, but this one would be ridiculous)
As to your question regarding Feigned Retreat, I might win the challenge via event and redeclare via this event in order to make use of my Deadly keywords. Surely, though, any type of challenge win (due to strength or cancel) counts as a challenge win at the end of the day.
2) I think the "as your only attacking" is a description of the initiation, not a play restriction that would prevent further (eg naval) characters from participating.
3) I believe this is the first time a challenge is initiated without being declared, but it seems quite clear that there'd be no interaction with Euron.
4) The challenge would fizzle as soon as there are no participating attackers; it would be initiated by Show of Force, and then end. The specific timing is tricky, but I would propose that it be in step VI of the pseudo-framework iniitated by show of force (allowing for passives and responses to initation of challenges, which there aren't). At this point, the distinction is entirely academic.
I think this card's careful wording *works*, I just think it sets a few odd precedents that are bound to raise a bunch of questions.
I hadn't considered your point about Siege of Winterfell and how the Prized keyword really weakens the agenda. The more popular Prized cards become in joust, the less effective SoW will become since that power generally can't be claimed. This makes me sad and a little angry.
Well, actually, the way I see it, having to kneel the attackers would not actually make it only work with non-kneeling defenders, just not also allow them to become non-kneeling attackers on top. So, basically standing defenders would get knelt on the attack, but knelt defenders would still be able to become attackers.
But indeed, it's such an unprecedented card, that I can easily see this swinging in any direction.
Well that's the one bugging me, the pseudo-framework one. What premise are we using to decide that the *whole* original FAW was removed, and not just the first action? And if we're using that premise, why are we creating a new "empty" pseudo-FAW there to allow challenge initiation triggers? I would see this as either completely removing the FAW (which messes with all of those passives/responses related to this) or just removing the parts it directly contradicts, which would leave the second action there.
But yeah, I need to stress that my guess isn't any better here than anyone else's, and it should be interesting to see how this pans out.
I admit that scenario seems a bit contradictory to me--if a character can't kneel to declare a challenge regularly, can it? No, of course not. So then what in the text of the card indicates that it can bypass that restriction but also indicates that other cards can't? It would seem cleaner to understand this event as bypassing steps 1 and 2, IMO.
I also have to disagree with Istaril. It seems to me that "only attacking characters" precludes naval attackers being added, but I think this is somewhat more up in the air.
This card is the perfect Q&TR spoiler.
You play Martell. You have a Ten Towers Longship (can't recall if its Greyjoy only, so the idea may fall apart here!)) and it has this event stored.
You then use it to have a failed Mil challenge, which allows you to stand your Spiteful Bastard(s).
If that exact example doesn't work - basically you might do it if you have a positive effect that triggers off a failed challenge.
Edit that wouldn't work as you don't lose the challenge, it just fizzles. Nvm.
Ok, let me get deeper into this. See, the "cost" of kneeling an attacker is not actually the same thing as the eligibility check (which is kind of like a play restriction in many ways). Here's a thread of Ktom talking about the matter. And here's another one.
Now, the way I'm seeing this is, that the event directly contradicts the normal check for eligibility (overriding the fact that knelt characters cannot be declared as attackers by forcing your choice on the attackers), thus allowing the characters to be declared as attackers despite being knelt. Kind of like how Shagga Son of Dolf (DB) and Ser Balon Swann (TWH) work, in a way. They directly contradict that rule, but still have to be knelt when you defend with them and they're standing, right? Now, nothing in the card text seems to directly contradict the "cost" portion. There is no mention of not needing to kneel to attack, like you would get with, say The Red Viper (PotS) directly contradicting it... and still you cannot declare the Viper to attack if he is knelt, even if he does not kneel to attack. A good example of the two very different elements right there.
The other major option I can see is that the event completely bypasses the normal FAW of challenge declaration (if you skip both of the actions, why would the FAW be there anymore?), adding the characters into the challenge simply by virtue of it's card effect, Catelyn Stark (LoW):ing them in, if you will. So, after the challenge resolution FAW closes, we're simply in the first Player Action window of the new challenge, with the ex-defenders as attackers and there is no opportunity for the usual Responses: or passives related to challenge initiation. So, basically no "pseudo FAW" there. And... The more I think this aloud, the more I can see this actually being a very reasonable conclusion.
I guess my main issue is that I'm not seeing how you could have the unknelt attackers and a possibility for responding to the challenge being initiated. But that might just be some kind of subconscious feeling of it sounding like wanting to "have your cake and eat it too" (wanting the card be as good as possible, while also retaining all of the usually available response/passive options), but that can just be my pessimistic nature talking!
Indeed!
I don't believe we have seen any card yet that initiates challenges for players. We've seen several that allows a player the option of a challenge or an additional challenge, but none that does the work of initiating a challenge for you.
Therefore, with this event, you don't do anything except play the event. The event picks the opponent, the challenge type, and the attackers for you. One could argue that this is all done inside the FWAW that has players declare challenges, attackers, challenge type, etc... but even if that is true, you won't be triggering any normal responses because it's the event doing the initiating and not the player. This also means that you don't kneel any standing defenders to attack because the event has already told you how attackers were determined.
4) It makes no difference because the challenge will fizzle immediately after the first challenge resolves because there won't be any participating characters.
Sounds reasonable to me.
~ Now someone needs to send this question to FFG, and we can prepare ourselves Monty Python -style for something completely different.
Well maybe not v. Siege but you'll see someone attack a Stark and lose just to trigger deadly in some cases and get a card knelt. Which raises the question . . . Does deadly go off after Show of Force? (i.e. The Stark card lost to deadly gets to attack first before exiting for deadly?)
Show of Force is played after the Starks WIN the challenge as the Defender. So the attacker is knelt when the Starks counterattack