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

- - - - -

Forging The Chain - Rules Blowouts

Small Council Forging The Chain TinyGrimes

Welcome to another edition of Forging the Chain. This week I am going to discuss one of the most annoying aspects of the game, the dreaded rules blowout. Nothing is worse than having a plan cooked up that is destroyed not by the superior play of your opponent, but by your own lack of knowledge of a rule. What makes this worse is that this will be a common occurrence throughout your first hundred games or so. Moreover, even after you have quite a bit of experience with the game some rule will still jump up and bite you when you least expect it.

As usual, I will start with an example from my own experience. The other day I was playing Stark against a maester deck. It was winter and I decided to bring Meera out to blank my opponent's two maesters so they could not grab any chains. Now if you've followed this column you know I have extensive experience playing maesters. However, what I was still unaware of is that with the errata to The Maester's Path, a maester can still grab the Apprentice Collar even if blanked of their traits. This is the case because the agenda now reads "printed" maester and Meera, though amazing, is not able to scrub the ink off of the physical card. I was stunned. I placed 2nd and 3rd in regionals and made the top 16 at Gencon all with maester decks and didn't know that rule. My mind started racing back through all my games. How many had I lost because I didn't grab my Apprentice Collar because I thought my maester was unable to pull chains. Needless to say I was very frustrated. However, it was a meaningless game on OCTGN and now I know the rule. So in the end the rules blowout was great because I learned a valuable piece of information.

Here's the silver lining to the rules blowout problem. When these rules blowouts happen in non tournament games, you should actually be happy. The only way to improve is to learn and learning all the little aspects of anything is what makes you great at it. However, you must file away these tidbits and learn from them. The only thing more annoying than losing to a rules blowout once is losing to the same one again! This is one of the main reasons I suggest playing a ton of games with a deck before taking it to a tournament. You will hopefully encounter the most common rules issues before you get to the event. When playing Martell and Stark this advice is especially important because you have to learn all of the issues surrounding Meera Reed and The Red Viper. What all is the Viper immune to. What can cancel Meera? I remember in one of my early days having this great plan that if I blocked with the Riverrun Guard his strength would go up and then come down. This would trigger the Hound who would leave play and I could then bring Meera back into shadows and then blank a 2nd card with her. Then I could jump Catelyn into play and Meera would go into shadows when Catelyn went back to my hand. I built my deck around these idea and was stunned to find out that Riverrun Guard does not have his strength reduced and therefore the Hound does not go back to your hand. Also, since jumping Catelyn goes back to your hand as an end of phase action you cannot trigger Meera there as well. These rules blowouts are crazy annoying the first time, but then you adjust, learn, and move on.

The most frustrating situation is when two players disagree over rules interpretations. This happens all too frequently on OCTGN and leads to many heated arguments. So here is a general tip. If you play in a tiny meta, you probably don't know the rules well. I'm sure you think you know them well, but until you start playing against a larger group of players you need to be aware that the interpretations your group has decided upon are often incorrect. Second, if someone says they travel to play in tournaments around the country or world, they probably know the rules well. Of course this is not always the case as illustrated above by my own recent rules blowout, but generally speaking it holds true.

So to illustrate I will provide a few rules clashes I have had on OCTGN over the last few months. To begin let me state that being a jerk online is no more acceptable than it is in person. While OCTGN may seem like a limitless and nameless community, it is not. For example, I have a list of individuals I simply will not play against. This list is not based on their skill, but rather their demeanor. I realize rules issues can be annoying, but they are not an excuse to abandon all notions of civility. Ok my ethics rant is complete, now onto some examples.

The most recent rules issue came over the Sellsword Deserter who states that if a character has the ally or refugee trait it is -1 strength. I tried to attack with the Deserter and my opponent pointed out that the character has 0 strength since he is an ally and refugee. I noted that card states "or." At this point for the next 3 minutes or so he would type out "both ally and refugee" in response to everything I typed. I think he was finally swayed by me linking him the AGOT cards entry which contains this exact discussion. Did he provide a profuse apology for letting his frustration get the best of him? Of course not. He simply said, "oh you might be right." As I would tell my daughter, this behavior is not okay.

In another game I played Fear of Winter turn 1 and my opponent played City of Lies which states that you can put 2 shadows cards into shadows from hand. When I pointed out to him that Fear of Winter only allowed one card to be played total for his turn, he said LOL. Then he proceeded to type LOL to every response I made. Finally, after linking him the AGOT cards page he was still unconvinced, but said fine we can play by your rules or some such nonsense. Again, this type of behavior is not okay.

There are a number of other examples I could provide of people behaving poorly regarding rules issues, but that's not the point of this article. The point is, try to take these annoying rules blowouts in stride and as part of your learning curve. They will happen; it's just a matter of what you do with them. Do you let them put you on tilt and cause you to treat your opponent poorly or do you grow from your experiences? You know how I feel because as always, until next time keep improving!


Tiny Grimes recently migrated over to AGOT, in January 2012. Although he has not played the game long, Tiny spends far too much of his time playing and thinking about the game. He has played in four tournaments, placing first in a 15 person local event, 2nd in the 2012 Pasadena Regional (32 players), and 3rd in the first regional of the 2012 season (32 person event - Kingdom Con), and 10th at Gencon 2012.
  • Ratatoskr, darknoj, Shenanigans and 2 others like this


32 Comments

Photo
ShadowcatX2000
Sep 13 2012 03:42 PM
First, I greatly disagree with your statement: "Second, if someone says they travel to play in tournaments around the country or world, they probably know the rules well." I can say I'm the bloody king of England, that doesn't make it so. A player shouldn't be expected to just take someone else's word just because that person claims to be more experienced.

As to the rest, yes, its a good idea to know the rules of the game.
    • MasonThornberg likes this
My point is that if someone invests enough time in the game to travel around the world playing in events they probably have a deep understanding of the rules. Therefore, this is probably an individual who can teach you a lot about the rules rather than someone you should be arguing with. I remember when I started everyone claimed to know the rules, but most did not. When I ran into people on OCTGN like Staton who clearly had invested a lot in the game, I listened closely to them, absorbed rules blowouts, and learned a ton.
I think ShadowcatX2000's point though is that just because they say they play in tournaments doesn't necessarily mean they actually do.
Agotcards is a great resource for settling issues. However it would be nice if there was a side section for card rulings. Especially on some controversial and complicated timing issues (like Meera), there is often a long discussion back and forth and some incorrect information. Then of course everything changes when cards get errata.
Photo
Shenanigans
Sep 13 2012 05:11 PM
Excellent article Tiny. I especially like your point about playing in a small meta. My closest (geographically and personally) gaming buddies and I have found that while we love FFG games, they seem to lend themselves to newer players being a bit off on rules interpretations.

I have to admit that I sometimes tend to get a bit lazy on rules issues, mainly because Ktom is in my meta, and usually it's easier to ask him than to try and figure it out ourselves. He absolutely loooooves this. ;)

Agotcards is a great resource for settling issues.

I'll have to disagree. The only great resource for settling issues is the FFG rules board. The more casual nature of the place in combination with the technical limitations and the lack of ktom make agotcards a decidedly subpar place to settle complex rules issues. If you ask a fairly common and straightforward question, you'll probably get a correct answer. But you'll also get wrong answers on agotcards frequently, and sometimes they're not even corrected. That's my impression at least; it might've gotten better.

That's not a slight to agotcards, I like the place, but it's not the best place for rules information.
    • Staton, Kennon, jackmerridew and 3 others like this
I use FFG's forums exclusively for rules issues, not so much because I don't know the answers, but so that I have a topic to link my opponents to where the rules on a particular issue are clearly explained in case the issue arises again. I find that when an issue arises, explaining the rules to someone yourself rarely does any good; it is much more effective to simply provide a link to a topic where ktom undeniably states that they are wrong.

My policy is that if someone brings up an issue which I'm legitimately unsure on, I'll just shrug it off and let it go their way without arguing. It's not worth arguing over it on a random OCTGN game; I'd rather just get on with the game, and if I lose because of it, oh well, nothing was at stake, and I just look it up afterwards so I'll know next time.

But then you do have some guys like the ones Tiny references here, who are just flat out wrong and refuse to see that this is the case. The worst was when some guy tried to tell me that Blood of the First Men is banned. He even quoted the "bannished list" as being "compelled by the rock, jaqen h'ghar, blood of the first men," as he said, "right there in faq 3.3." In a situation like that, I just told the guy that he was crazy, left, and made a mental note to avoid him.
Photo
ShadowcatX2000
Sep 13 2012 07:13 PM

I think ShadowcatX2000's point though is that just because they say they play in tournaments doesn't necessarily mean they actually do.


Indeed. But beyond that, any fool with means can travel and play in tournaments, if someone wants me to defer to them on knowledge of the rules, they'll have to demonstrate such knowledge, empty bragging will do them no good. As to playing in tournaments, that's all well and good, I've probably played in a dozen or more, but that doesn't mean I'm good with the rules, indeed I still consider myself new to the game and very likely will for another 6 months to a year.

But on the actual topic of the article, providing evidence to back up one's claims is a good thing. I'd rather be directed to FFG's rule's board rather than AGOTcards, but anything to at least show that there's been a bit of research into the topic would be enough to sway me, at least until I could do my own. (Of course, I've never played online, yet, so this is all moot for me.)
The difference for me between the boards and AGOT cards is that I'm not going to take a ton of time during a game to try to find a ruling on the FFG boards. However, AGOT cards is usually very quick and easy. To be really really honest it's gotten to the point where during random games on OCTGN I'm just looking to test something in a fairly quick low key game. Therefore, if someone is going to argue a simple rule with me I'm quite likely to move onto a different g opponent who knows the rules. Games in which many rules are in dispute just aren't fun for me. Especially since, as noted above, the one who doesn't know the rule often becomes belligerent quite quickly.

As far as tournament players not knowing the rules is concerned, if someone travels to tournaments and has been playing the game for years, 95 times out of 100 they know the rules quite well. Listen to them, you will learn a great deal, trust me. As I keep preaching in these articles, OCTGN games are for learning much more than they are about winning. Any chance you get to learn from someone better than you is an opportunity you should be happy to take. The only reason my learning curve has been quick is because I have listened intently to any good player willing to share his/her wisdom.
    • WarrenC likes this
Photo
accountdeleted
Sep 13 2012 09:14 PM
Haha, me playing Stark maesters inspired an article over here? Lol'd.

And as always, nice read!
Was that against you Living? If so thanks for the lesson! It was a good one to learn. Meera Reed is one of those cards you need to log a few hundred games with to fully understand all her interactions.
"As far as tournament players not knowing the rules is concerned, if someone travels to tournaments and has been playing the game for years, 95 times out of 100 they know the rules quite well. Listen to them, you will learn a great deal, trust me."

That may be true, but I think the very simple concept you are repeatedly failing to grasp is that simply because someone says something, it does not actually mean it is true. Anyone can claim to have played in any number of tournaments, and you are actually telling new players that they should listen to anyone and everyone who makes such a claim as if they were spouting the gospel itself.
I think it's interesting that people are so concerned about their OCTGN games that they are worried that people will lie to them concerning their experience in order to horn swaggle them into believing their ruling. I suppose it is possible that this would happen, but I haven't seen it nor can i really imagine someone doing that. OCTGN games are just a fun, lowkey place to improve. People are not out to get you on OCTGN.
    • Staton and Archrono like this
Photo
Deathjester26
Sep 13 2012 10:40 PM
Sounds like there's no reason to rush back to playing again on OCTGN :unsure:
Well fortunately the scenarios described in this article are not the norm. Come back to OCTGN we need all the good players we can get!
Yeahhh... Even after playing for over a year regularly, I still run into... things. For example the subtle difference between "playing" a card and a card coming into play.
(To be clear, I know the difference.) ;)

But seriously, the flow charts are a little tricky to figure out. (An example being when you kneel the painted table.) I believe you need to do it before a response (or another action) is declared in order to cancel it, my opponent was unsure. After looking at the action window it looks like I was correct.
The people I play with are cool, so it wasn't a big deal, but with a game like this it was bound to happen.

On a slightly related note, does a plot's when revealed count as a triggered effect? Cause that would make the table sooo much more useful. (We've been playing that it can't effect plots.)
Triggered effects should just be those with bold text to preface the text. To that end, there's only one plot that I know of with a triggered effect.

However, what I was still unaware of is that with the errata to The Maester's Path, a maester can still grab the Apprentice Collar even if blanked of their traits. This is the case because the agenda now reads "printed" maester and Meera, though amazing, is not able to scrub the ink off of the physical card.


Ehm, that doesn't make sense, can you link proof of this please?
What doesn't make sense about it? The errata to The Maester's Path says you can move a link off the agenda onto a card with the printed Maester trait. Meera doesn't stop the card from having the printed Maester trait, and Apprentice Collar (unlike all the other links) can go on any card. Ergo, the Collar can go on a printed maester, even if Meera's blanked their textbox.
meera says treat the card as if its text box was blank, with this I imagine a card with no text for that phase. What stops you from putting one of the other links then?
Card has printed maester trait but is not a maester? still doesn't make sense to me.

meera says treat the card as if its text box was blank, with this I imagine a card with no text for that phase. What stops you from putting one of the other links then?

The difference is that the other links all have the restriction "Maester character only".

Card has printed maester trait but is not a maester? still doesn't make sense to me.

A character has the printed Maester trait, but doesn't currently have the Maester trait because of a card effect.
A character has printed STR 3, but has currently a STR of 0 because of a card effect.
Same thing.
Printed = ink on the card, nothing else.
    • Reager likes this
Ok that cleared it up, this is what I get for not playing an agot game in a while... forgetting simple rules like this one

Ok that cleared it up, this is what I get for not playing an agot game in a while... forgetting simple rules like this one


Count yourself lucky. If I'd run the world, what you'd get for not playing an agot game in a while would be 30 lashes with a bullwhip.
    • tibs3688 likes this
hang on a mo,
can someone just clear this up for me?
Doesnt City of lies take precendent over fear of winter because:
a) its a when revealed
b ) because the initiative is higer anyway?

and in any case it says "put into shadows"...

where as fear of winter says "cannot play or put into play" (putting into shadows from city of lies isnt considered playing)

i dont think the errata for "fear of winter" really covers the clash with "city of lies"?
http://www.fantasyfl...=4&efidt=336139

ktom lays down the law on the matter there :P.