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!

Search Articles

* * * * *

Quill & Tankard Regulars

Small Council Quill & Tankard Regulars Ratatoskr WWDrakey Ire

Quill & Tankard Regulars - Issue 1

Welcome to the first issue of Quill & Tankard Regulars, a unique AGOT column concentrating on that most obscure of subjects: the rules of the game. We'll be covering a wide variety of topics from actual gameplay examples and the newest rulings from the FFG Rules Forum to individual cards with particularly complex behaviour and interactions.

Our content will be organized through various segments, so that everyone can find topics relevant to their interests. We will also be analyzing new cards as they come out, so that players can more quickly understand both what they do and why they do it.

So, grab a tankard, find a cozy place to sit, and let us commence.

Citadel Custom - Plots, Chapter 1

Citadel Custom is a set of articles presenting game mechanics through illustrated gameplay examples. It is aimed at all players from initiates to self-proclaimed Archmaesters. Each article will consist of a short recap of the relevant rules, followed by a detailed example with a more or less complex starting situation.

One of the unique aspects of AGoT is the Plot phase, which largely contributes to giving the game its characteristic flavor of difficult choices and trying to outwit your opponent. Since the plot phase is also the very first phase in each and every AGoT game, it is only fitting to start off our first Citadel Custom with it. If you consider your knowledge of the rules in question impeccable, feel free to proceed directly into the example.

Rules Recap

Plot Phase: Structure

FRAMEWORK ACTION
1. Plot Phase Begins

PLAYER ACTIONS

FRAMEWORK ACTION
1. Choose and reveal plots.
2. Initiative is counted.
3. Higher initiative player appoints "First Player".
Passive "When revealed" plot effects resolve, in order determined by First Player.

PLAYER ACTIONS

FRAMEWORK ACTION
1. Plot Phase Ends

Resolving a Framework Action

Each Framework Action consists of one or more Framework Events. A Framework Action is resolved so that each Framework Event is resolved in turn, and they all go through a cycle of:
- Framework Event initiates (Step 1)
- Save/Cancel responses to the framework event (Step 2)
- Framework Event resolves (Step 3)

Next, when all of the Framework Events have resolved, all passive effects initiated by anything that has happened during the Framework Action up to this point are resolved (Step 4). In a case of conflicting passives, the first player decides the order in which they resolve. Note that passive effects are not triggered, and are not optional even though they can allow player choice, for example via a 'may' clause.

Finally, players are allowed to trigger any Response: effects that have their play restrictions met by anything that has happened during the Framework Action window up to this point, including passives (Step 5). The responses are played in order, starting with the first player, until all players have consecutively passed. Then, the Framework Action ends and moribund cards leave play (Step 6).

Moribund

When a card is removed from play during any action window, it enters a state known as Moribund. Effectively the card remains on the table until the end of the action window in question, and leaves play at the end of the action window. This happens regardless of the type of effect removing it from play (killing, discarding, returning to hand or shadows etc.). For moribund cards we will use a shorthand of moribund:destination, to note where the card will go after the action window ends. A card already in moribund cannot be removed from play a second time, but can otherwise interact with the game
normally.

When Revealed Plot Effects

When Revealed plot effects are passive effects that have a special status, in that they are resolved (in Step 4) before regular passives resolve. As usual for conflicting passive effects, the First Player decides the order in which they resolve.

NOTE: There is a slight discrepancy (just a technicality that does not have any effect) in the official FFG FAQ regarding When Revealed effects between entry §2.2 on page 7 and the flowchart for the Plot Phase on page 19. Conversation on the topic can be found here. We have decided to go with Ktom's interpretation, since it also helps in understanding how plots revealed outside of the Framework Action (such as by
Citadel Law (MotA)) are resolved.

Starting Situation

Imagine a heated battle between a Greyjoy and a Baratheon player. Tentacles rising from the deep to claim red acolytes, towns getting sacked, knights and mariners being slaughtered in equal amounts. The usual stuff. It's now Turn 4, and the Baratheon player has played two consecutive turns of The Power of Blood (Core) and managed to obtain quite a nice board position and a comfortable lead in power. However, the Greyjoy player has wisely withheld his Valar Morghulis (Core) and plans to bring down the infamous Fat Bob, once and for all.

[lightbox='quill-CC_Plots1_1.jpg']tn_quill-CC_Plots1_1.jpg[/lightbox]

Image 1: The starting situation for our plot phase example.

Greyjoy Player

Locations: Iron Island Fiefdoms (KotS), Sunset Sea (Core), Frostfang Peaks (TWH), River Blockade (RoR)
Characters: Maester Wendamyr (KotS), Asha Greyjoy (WLL) (2 power)
Attachments: Burned and Pillaged (FtC) (On a Bay of Ice (KotS))
Hand: Seasick (KotS), Baelor Blacktyde (TIoR)

Baratheon Player

Locations: 2x Bay of Ice (KotS)
Characters: Maester Lomys (CbtC), Robert Baratheon (Core) (8 power), 2x Royal Entourage (TTotH)

Hand: House Tyrell Guard (Core), Narrow Escape (KotStorm)

First Player: GJ

Gameplay Resolution

Pre-plot Actions: The plot phase starts, and players quickly move to the first player action window. The Greyjoy player has the first opportunity to play a player action and elects to pass. The Baratheon player suspects an incoming Valar Morghulis (Core) from the Greyjoy player and elects to trigger Maester Lomys (CbtC)' ability to protect the power on Robert Baratheon (Core). He first pays the costs for the action by kneeling Maester Lomys (CbtC) and discarding one power from Robert Baratheon (Core). Then it is the time for Save/Cancel responses. Our Greyjoy player is having none of that, and decides to cancel the action using Seasick (KotS). The action is cancelled, Lomys is left knelt and Robert has one less power. Both players then consecutively pass on playing any more player actions.

Framework Event 1: The first Framework Event is choosing and revealing plot cards. With no save/cancel responses to this Framework Event, the players move forward. Predictably our Greyjoy player reveals Valar Morghulis (Core), while our Baratheon player chooses Search and Detain (HtS).

Framework Event 2: The second Framework Event is counting initiative. The Greyjoy player will be counting 0 initiative, while the Baratheon player will have 5+2(from Bay of Ice)-1(from Burned and Pillaged)=6 initiative. Since the Greyjoy player does not have an Ahead of the Tide (WotN) handy to cancel the initiative count, the players count initiative normally.

Framework Event 3: In the next Framework Event our Baratheon player nominates himself as 'First Player' (FP), and since there are no save/cancel Responses to play here from either player, the players move onwards.

When Revealed Passive Abilities: Now, that all of the Framework Events have been resolved, the players move to Step 4 and start resolving the "When Revealed" effects from their revealed plot cards. Since the Baratheon player is FP, he chooses his own Search and Detain (HtS) to resolve first. He has to choose one of his own cards (without attachments) to return to hand, and chooses to return Robert Baratheon (Core). Robert now enters the moribund state with the destination "hand" (moribund:hand), but will stay on the table until the end of the Framework Action. Next, the "When Revealed" effect of Valar Morghulis (Core) is resolved. All characters on the table are scheduled to be killed - except one: Robert!

Now, this is important, so bear with us. Why is Robert not killed by Valar? Because he is already moribund, and the FAQ tells us (page 16) that a moribund character cannot be removed from the game again.

Now, after Valar's kill effect has initiated, and it has been determined which characters are affected by it, but before it resolves, players have the chance to trigger save/cancel responses. We're in a Framework Action Window, so the First Player has the first chance to do so. Since our Baratheon player has no applicable Responses, he passes. The Greyjoy player uses Wendamyr's own save response to save him from being killed. She first kneels Wendamyr for the cost, then resolves the save effect entirely. Since she happens to have 2 Influence handy, she decides to resolve the optional "Then"-effect, and stands Wendamyr. Next, she kneels Wendamyr again to save Asha.

Now the effect resolves. All characters that were affected by Valar and haven't been saved are killed. That is: the two Royal Entourages and Lomys. They are now in a moribund:dead state, but remain on the table for the duration of the framework action.

Regular Passive Abilities: Now that all of the When Revealed passives have been resolved, the players finally resolve any regular passive effects. There are two relevant passive effects on the table, two copies of Bay of Ice (KotS). In a case of a conflicting passives, the FP would decide the order in which they happen. However, since both of the effects have the same outcome in this situation, the FP just nonchalantly picks one Bay of Ice (KotS) to trigger first. The effect has the winner of the initiative count (the Baratheon player) kneel all cards named 'Bay of Ice', then draw a card. Since this is a passive effect, it is not affected by the River Blockade (RoR) on the table. The Baratheon player proceeds to grin happily, as he draws into a Parting Blow (PotS). Next, the passive on the second Bay of Ice (KotS) is resolved. However, since the first portion of the ability (kneel all cards named Bay of Ice) does not happen succesfully, the portion after the 'then' word does not happen either, and effectively nothing happens.

Responses: Next the players move onto Step 5, playing normal Response: effects (i.e. not saves or cancels). The Baratheon player has the first opportunity to play a response, and he elects to use the Parting Blow (PotS) that he just drew. Since the requirements for the event are met, and his opponent cannot cancel it, he chooses to kneel Asha Greyjoy (WLL) and draws another card, this time another copy of Robert Baratheon (Core). Next it's the Greyjoy players turn to play a response, and she remembers to trigger her Frostfang Peaks (TWH). Again, there are no cancels and the Peaks discard a Seat of Power (WotN) from the top of the Baratheon player's deck. Our Greyjoy player sighs in relief, since this would have allowed the Baratheon player to get Robert Baratheon back into the game. The Baratheon player then elects to play another response, this time from his House Tyrell Guard (Core), putting it into play. Neither player has any more responses to play, so they both pass consecutively.

[lightbox='quill-CC_Plots1_2.jpg']tn_quill-CC_Plots1_2.jpg[/lightbox]

Image 2: The situation on the table after all of the responses have been played.

End of Framework Action: This means that the players proceed to Step 6 of the Framework action, and move all moribund cards to their destinations. The Baratheon player returns Robert Baratheon (Core) to his hand and puts the three moribund:dead characters into his dead pile.

[lightbox='quill-CC_Plots1_3.jpg']tn_quill-CC_Plots1_3.jpg[/lightbox]

Image 3: The situation on the table after the end of the Framework Action.

Post-plot actions: Now that the Framework Action is finally over, there is the second plot phase Player Action window. Our Baratheon player has the first opportunity to play an action or pass... and he decides to play Narrow Escape (KotStorm). This would cause Maester Lomys (CbtC) and the two Royal Entourage (TTotH)s to come back into play, standing. The Greyjoy player looks at the lone Baelor Blacktyde (TIoR) in her hand and decides to discard it (per the Narrow Escape (KotStorm) effect) to cancel that. Neither player has any more actions to play, so the players both pass and end the plot phase.

Will the Baratheon player draw a Narrow Sea (Core) or Seat of Power (WotN) to play Robert, or will the GJ player's chokehold prove strong enough?

Dear Archmaester

Dear Archmaester collects interesting, unusual and unexpected rulings from the FFG Rules forum.

Q: Dear Archmaester,
what happens when Threat from the North (PotS) and Valar Morghulis (Core) are flipped at the same time? All STR 0 characters are discarded immediately due to TftN and thus aren't affected by Valar, right? Right?

A: Wrong. The STR reduction imposed by Threat from the North (PotS) is a constant effect and is applied once the plot is revealed. The "discard at 0" condition, however, resolves as a passive effect. Since When Revealed effects (like the one on Valar) resolve before regular passives do, the kill effect from Valar comes before the discard effect from TftN. See this thread for more details.

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.
  • mischraum, OrangeDragon, Zaidkw and 5 others like this


49 Comments

Photo
slothgodfather
Jun 15 2012 07:01 PM

Sorry if it is silly question, but who plays the first action? How is this elected? (I mean before plot revealing)


Also, first player remains first player until the next normal plot framework. So during round 2, whoever was first player during round 1 is still first player until the normal plot action where plots are chosen, revealed and a new first player is chosen.
mmmm....could you guys put theese articles also in pdf for download????
@FranciscoG: Hmm. Interesting question. I can definitely see that these could be a useful asset for downloading and printing.

I'll ask around, and see if this would be doable.
similarly to the threat vs valar question, what happens if Threat from the North (PotS) is the active plot and I use Magister Illyrio (VM) on a 2 str char, the char is killed or gets discarded?
NOTE: This answer was missing the fact that ALL burn works through two effects. This was verified in the FFG Rules Board here. If you're reading this, skip to the end of the comments.

Okay, let's think this through. Illyrio's effect is a Response, the discard portion from Threat from the North is a passive (that will initiate from Illyrio's response, if the character drops to 0 STR).

Now, if you look at the timing (directly from the FAQ):

For every response, players must go through
these steps before the response is fully
executed:
1) Initiate response
2) Save/cancel responses (only for the
preceding response)
3) Execute response
4) Resolve passive abilities triggered
by the response, etc.

Okay, so Illyrio's ability will take effect in Step 3, whereas Threat from the North would happen in Step 4 (when the card is already moribund:dead from Illyrio). As we saw before, a card cannot be removed from the game a second time, so the character just dies.

Now, if you had a Threat from the North (PotS) and played a Flame-Kissed (Core), then you would have two passives trying to remove a card from the game at the same time. There's a separate entry in the FAQ regarding simultaneous but conflcting entry into moribund, but in short: First Player decides.
thanks
Question, when I reveal the plot Called to Court (ODG)
And put into play Ser Arys Oakheart (PotS)
from my hand, can I chose to discard an ally on my opponents board, or is said opponent first enabled to remove said ally with the second part of called to court, and moribund it back to hand?
Cause if I discard it first with Ser Arys, they cant moribund it again.
@alexbrew: Well, Ser Arys' Response happens in Step 5 of the Framework action, whereas the whole When Revealed effect for Called to Court resolves in the beginning of Step 4. Thus the target Ally would be moribund:hand long before you could make him moribund:discard.

On the bright side, you can put Arys into play and choose him to become moribund:hand... and still be able to trigger his response, before he actually returns to your hand in Step 6. In effect, the "Courtier Arys" combo works best when your opponent is running several Ally or Mercenary characters.
Thank you, it was a bit too good to be true, but this trick will satisfy my needs :)
Fantastic article. I have been waiting for something like this for a long time. I consider Agot to be one of the most complicated table top games I have ever played. I will definitely benefit from "walkthroughs" like these especially since my playgroup is small and does not have access to more experienced players. Another great resource for Card Game DB. Thank you guys a lot!

Okay, let's think this through. Illyrio's effect is a Response, the discard portion from Threat from the North is a passive (that will initiate from Illyrio's response, if the character drops to 0 STR).

Now, if you look at the timing (directly from the FAQ):


For every response, players must go through
these steps before the response is fully
executed:
1) Initiate response
2) Save/cancel responses (only for the
preceding response)
3) Execute response
4) Resolve passive abilities triggered
by the response, etc.

Okay, so Illyrio's ability will take effect in Step 3, whereas Threat from the North would happen in Step 4 (when the card is already moribund:dead from Illyrio). As we saw before, a card cannot be removed from the game a second time, so the character just dies.

Sorry, I don't quite follow this. Let me try to explain why.
Both Magister Illyrio (VM) and Threat from the North (PotS) have very similar wording in that they create a constant STR reduction with a passive kill (or discard) condition. According to the link referenced when dissecting the Valar vs Threat situation, the discard effect from Threat is a standard passive, and is not resolved when Threat's effect is first executed (in the "when revealed" passive window). Following the same logic, shouldn't Illyrio's kill effect wait until step 4 of that response window (meaning it would be up to the first player to decide kill vs discard) instead of resolving directly when the response is executed (step 3)? Conversely, if Illyrio's kill effect resolves in step 3 of the response window, shouldn't Threat's discard effect happen when Threat is executed (as a "when revealed" passive)?
I guess I just don't see the difference.
Not sure I'm making any sense...
NOTE: This answer was missing the information that ALL burn works through two effects, with the terminal being handled as a passive. Skip to the end for comments or check the Rules Board entry here.

Like you can see in the thread in question, the reason that Threat from the East (and other similar passive/constant burn effects) are resolved as partly constant and passive is to allow a save opportunity from them. (This is due to the fact that you cannot play save responses to a constant effect initiating, which is how the effects in question are actually worded.)

Now, Illyrio's effect is quite different in this regard, since it is actually a portion of a triggered effect... and thus allows for a save opportunity automatically. And usually the *whole* triggered effect is executed in its entirety before any passives come into play, instead of the triggered effect somehow creating a new passive effect that is resolved in Step 4.

Then again, I have been known to be wrong also, so I can't be 100% sure of this. Especially, since I don't have a concrete ruling to point to. Other similar examples would be Incinerate and Aegon's Legacy... but a quick search for those didn't reveal any relevant discussion on the Rules Board.

If you feel doubt about my interpretation, I suggest you ask this over at the Rules Board. Would be glad to argue it over there as well. :)
Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately, I don't have an FFG account, and I don't think I'll create one just for this purpose.

Like you can see in the thread in question, the reason that Threat from the East (and other similar passive/constant burn effects) are resolved as partly constant and passive is to allow a save opportunity from them. (This is due to the fact that you cannot play save responses to a constant effect initiating, which is how the effects in question are actually worded.)

Now, Illyrio's effect is quite different in this regard, since it is actually a portion of a triggered effect... and thus allows for a save opportunity automatically. And usually the *whole* triggered effect is executed in its entirety before any passives come into play, instead of the triggered effect somehow creating a new passive effect that is resolved in Step 4.

I still don't think they should be any different. Apart from the fact that Threat starts out as a (when revealed) passive, and Illyrio as a triggered Response, their wording is almost identical, and both responses and passives ("when revealed" or standard) have automatic save opportunites. It's clear that both of these effects create a constant/passive pair. The question is whether the terminal effects are also checked immediately. Actually, I would have thought that they are, so I think your interpretation that Illyrio's kill is first checked in step 3 of the response window is quite reasonable. But then I would also expect Threat's discard to be checked along with the rest of the "When revealed" passive, instead of as a separate passive effect later (that is, I would have thought Valar vs Threat was up to FP).
Then again, I've only seen ktom be wrong about one single ruling on the boards, so I guess he's right about that too...
what's the story behind ktom btw? does he work for FFG? if he doesn't, how does he have all that knowledge from the game and it is pretty impressive that he answers all rules questions in the ffg forum
Okay, I posted the question up myself: here

One thing to keep in mind is that Threat from the North (PotS) is NOT a When Revealed passive effect, if you read it's text. I've understood that When Revealed passives are rules-wise only tied to the passive having the text 'when revealed', not to any actual revealing of a plot card. Compare to, say, Bungled Orders (OSaS) which also has a non-When Revealed passive effect... Threat's passive portion just happens to have it's requirements met after the plot has been revealed.

Mostly the text reads like a constant effect, to be honest. Anyway, it could never be up to the FP, since Valar is a When Revealed and Threat is not.

Okay, I posted the question up myself: here

One thing to keep in mind is that Threat from the North (PotS) is NOT a When Revealed passive effect, if you read it's text.

Aha! Now I see where I went wrong. I somehow (don't know why, never read it that way before) hallucinated and read Threat as having the "When revealed:" text. But obviously it doesn't and yes, obviously it's a constant (with an accompanying lasting passive). My mistake. That makes the timing on Threat vs Valar a lot clearer.
Thanks for posting the question on FFG though, at least now we'll get confirmation on Illyrio's timing (now I'm totally with you it's probably step 3).
Ok, if I understand ktom's answer correctly, the terminal part of the effect is always a completely separate passive effect, and therefore not resolved immediately when the triggered effect is executed, but as a passive triggered by it (so, step 4). Is this correct?
He also says it doesn't matter much, but I can see the specific case of Illyrio vs Threat happening quite frequently.
Looks like I was right in doubting myself... Ktom explained this in the FFG thread.

It's exactly like you thought, the terminal portion has to be a created passive, since there would have to be information about whether the burn is succesful in the save/cancel opportunity otherwise. Effectively, all burn works by having two different portions, with the terminal being a passive.

Thus, with Illyrio and Threat from the North, FP decides.

Good question and an interesting end result. :)
bottom line, first player decides if the target gets killed or discarded
In that instance, is it possible to save from the "kill" effect so that you get hit with the "discard" effect instead (or vice-versa, I guess)?
don't think so since in order to be able to save it from the kill effect means you would have to increase its strength as well and thus it wouldn't have 0 strength anymore for the discard effect. And viceversa it wouldn't work because threat of the north discards can't be saved
I have attempted to argue that idea as well JCWamma and it's still a fail. The save does not remove the terminal effect and thus cannot be attempted.
Photo
mathiasfricot
Dec 14 2012 05:38 PM
Question: Doesn't the FP decide the order of multiple resolutions... which would include the saves/cancels on each character? They all enter moribund at the same time, but their order has to be decided. So couldn't the Baratheon player (FP) choose to resolve Asha's Save/Cancel before Wendymere's (and stop Wendymere from saving two characters)?
Hello Mathias, how have you been?

The First Player decides the order in which passive effects resolve, if there's a conflict. Saves/cancels are responses though. The FP doesn't decide the order of responses. The chance to trigger a response goes clockwise around the table - starting with the FP (in a Framework Action Window) or, in the case of a Player Action, with the player sitting to the left of the player who triggered the effect.