That being said, average card rules text can be a bit absurd on cards like Call of the Three-Eyed Crow.
While I'm entirely behind you on your hatred for that card, I don't know if anyone can claim that's "average card rules text", given it's probably the most often cited example of a templating disaster (I'd say King's Landing Dromon is another).
Edited by -Istaril
That being said, average card rules text can be a bit absurd on cards like Call of the Three-Eyed Crow.
While I'm entirely behind you on your hatred for that card, I don't know if anyone can claim that's "average card rules text", given it's probably the most often cited example of a templating disaster (I'd say King's Landing Dromon is another).
Thank The Seven that card is not "average card rules text!"
I don't understand why there isn't a timing pamphlet included somewhere. It'd make discussions of timing so much easier. Don't remember the timing? Whip out the little pamphlet instead of THE WHOLE FAQ OMG WHEER IS IT M BRAIN HURTZZZZZZZ.
I wouldn't mind seeing the the whole timing section printed separately, but I've definitely seen people whip out card-size prints of faq pages 21-23 in tournaments.
What's so confusing about Call of the Three-Eyed Crow? Seems straightforward to me.
What's so confusing about Call of the Three-Eyed Crow? Seems straightforward to me.
Its interaction with timing/framework rules is pretty bonkers. While its intended effect is fairly straightforward, the technical resolution of it is disgusting.
Here is the original discussion with a lot of anger:
http://www.agotcards.org/talkboard/v/1153
Here is a thread with a few concise answers about it:
Put the framework on the back on the house card. Or as a separate card.
Not only that but incoperate "Then" into it. Fix card text so it clearly shows "Cost", "Requirements/Response", "Action Window (they do this already)", "Effect", and "Then".
Example: You Murdered Her Children
Response: After you lose a challenge as the defender.
Cost: Kneel 2 Influence.
Choose: An attacking character in play.
Then: Discard chosen character from play.
Then: Search the deck and hand of that character's controller for any number of copies of that character and discard them.
Then: Shuffle the deck.
1. You know this is a response, and what it responds to.
2. You pay the cost.
3. Then the response window to your response resolves.
4. You execute each 'then' effect in order, stopping if the effect is unable to happen.
5. The action window for the response closes, and the parent continues.
Edited by bloodycelt
What's so confusing about Call of the Three-Eyed Crow? Seems straightforward to me.
Its interaction with timing/framework rules is pretty bonkers. While its intended effect is fairly straightforward, the technical resolution of it is disgusting.
Here is the original discussion with a lot of anger:
http://www.agotcards.org/talkboard/v/1153
Here is a thread with a few concise answers about it:
The first link doesn't work there for me, not sure why.
The second one...I mean, I guess I get why it is confusing but I totally understood how it would be played. It comes down to an understanding of moribund, I guess. It doesn't really confuse me that much, has moribund been made more clear BECAUSE of that card, which is why I understand it as a new player perfectly fine?
It comes down to an understanding of moribund, I guess. It doesn't really confuse me that much, has moribund been made more clear BECAUSE of that card, which is why I understand it as a new player perfectly fine?
Actually, no. It's the other way around. Not to be a jerk here, but you understand the card "perfectly fine" as a new player because you don't understand moribund. In order for the card to work as written, you had to break the rules for moribund that existed at the time.
The intent of the card is, indeed, perfectly clear; something dies and you put it back into play, knelt. If you just do that, the card seems fine. But if you try to explain how that happens within the timing structure of the game, you can't do it without ignoring or breaking a number of rules. FFG had to change the rules in order to make the card work within the structure of the game - as opposed to the intuition of the players. It actually made moribund MORE confusing, not less.
THAT'S what people are objecting to with that card. Cards take precedence over the rules, but they still need to fit within the basic timing framework of the game. If you print a card that doesn't work until you rewrite the rules, it means that there's either something wrong with the rules, or something wrong with the way cards are designed and tested.
Okay, maybe I don't understand moribund. Because it really does seem just fine. You play the card in response to a card being killed (which for intents of responses means it's been killed and therefore moved to your dead pile.) So then its taken from your dead pile into play, and therefore doesn't leave play in step 6 since it is no longer considered dead.
So then its taken from your dead pile into play, and therefore doesn't leave play in step 6 since it is no longer considered dead.
Ah, but that's the problem. Part of the moribund rules is that once a card becomes "moribund," it cannot be made "un-moribund" before it is physically removed from play in Step 6.
You cannot remove a card from the moribund state at all. In fact, once a card becomes moribund, effects that would remove it from play a second time cannot be applied to it at all. This is the reason you cannot kill Meera Reed for claim (making her "moribund:dead") and then trigger her ability to return her to Shadows (making her "moribund:shadows") - thereby "undoing" the kill. The only thing you can do is change the moribund state with a card that specifically allows you to do this (this requires a replacement effect, typical using the word "instead").
So, under your description above, the character never actually becomes "un-moribund" when Cot3EC returns it to play, so during Step 6, it is physically placed in the dead pile anyway. The outcome of your analysis makes perfect sense, but you have to break the rule about it being impossible to remove a card from the moribund state in order to make work.
The only way for Cot3EC to work would have been for it to change "moribund:dead" to "moribund:return to play(knelt)". But at the time, such a moribund state didn't exist. In fact, it was completely against the rules and definition of "moribund," which is a transitional state for a card that starts in-play and ends out-of-play - not a card that starts in-play and ends in-play. Even then, though, Cot3EC was not worded as a replacement effect, so should have been as impossible as returning Meera to Shadows after she has been killed for claim. Again, making a "moribund:dead" character "moribund:return to play" required you to ignore the rules and definitions of moribund.
To solve this problem, FFG added an entry in the FAQ that defined "return to play" effects like Cot3EC as both a replacement effect and a moribund state. The card now works the way it always appeared to, but you don't have to break any rules to do it (because they effectively created an exception to the rules).
the problem with the framework to people is it isnt the same as magic. to me it is actually more straight forward if haven't played magic before but if you are use to magic then it will seem complex because it is different.
Ah thanks for the explanation. You're right then, it kinda does not make sense.
That's because their rule books and FAQs are better written - largely because FFG has learned from their mistakes.
True. In the rulebook moribund isn't even mentioned. I only became aware of the concept because I checked the rule forums and had trouble explaining it to my gaming group since I probably didn't understand perfectly.
If you compare this with netrunner where most card/rule disputes could be resolved by looking at the (superb) flow chart.
Only recently we found out:
- if you support someone with a title and you defend in his stead you are considered the defender for effects like plot, renown, ... .
- That a save from a duplicate is a triggered response you can cancel
- That you use the redirect of Crown Regent after the attacker has declared his participating characters an stealth ( we played like this in the beginning but for one year we thought you had to redirect after declaring type and opponent but before choosing participating characters )
Edited by Mig el PigOnly recently we found out:
- if you support someone with a title and you defend in his stead you are considered the defender for effects like plot, renown, ... .
- That a save from a duplicate is a triggered response you can cancel
- That you use the redirect of Crown Regent after the attacker has declared his participating characters an stealth ( we played like this in the beginning but for one year we thought you had to redirect after declaring type and opponent but before choosing participating characters )
Um... all of those are actually in the Core Set rules:
- "If your characters defend a challenge in support of another player, you are considered the winner (or loser, depending on the results) of the challenge" (p. 16).
- "If one of your unique cards is about to be killed, discarded from play, or returned to your hand or deck, as a triggered 'Response:' effect (see later), you may discard an attached duplicate to save the unique card from being killed, discarded, or returned to your hand or deck." (p. 19).
- "After a player initiates a challenge and declares a target and attackers..." (p. 18).
( NOTE: It sounds like you may still be doing that incorrectly. The redirect comes before the attacker gets to assign stealth. It happens during the "declare challenge" framework action window on the flow chart; stealth is assigned in the "declare defenders" framework action window. )
This is part of the problem for AGoT's rules documents, I think. People miss things like this all the time. A lot more information is in the Core Rule book than people seem to realize. It's just that the full implication of some of the rules can't be understood until you've played a few games and run into the problems, but by then, people think they have progressed beyond the Core Rules and don't go back to look at them.
Only recently we found out:
- if you support someone with a title and you defend in his stead you are considered the defender for effects like plot, renown, ... .
- That a save from a duplicate is a triggered response you can cancel
- That you use the redirect of Crown Regent after the attacker has declared his participating characters an stealth ( we played like this in the beginning but for one year we thought you had to redirect after declaring type and opponent but before choosing participating characters )
Um... all of those are actually in the Core Set rules:
...
Yea. It's amazing how much content is both in the core set rules and isn't in the core set rules at the same time.
I honestly wish they would do away with the FAQ as it is now and go the MtG route and have the condensed rulebook and the complete rulebook (of which the FAQ would be a section). That way people wouldn't check the FAQ and not find something simply because it's in the core rules (a different document). It's a minor gripe, but would help smooth the confusion of where to check.
As far as why I said "average card text" about 3EC... your guess is as good as mine. <.<
My 2 cents to discussion. Mark Rosewater (head designer of Magic, has been working on design of Magic for last 18 years) wrote an article in 2011 about the problem that Magic had about 6-7 years ago. It was dying under the burden of its own card pool and complexity of the rules: outflux of old players leaving the game stayed the same, but new players started to avoid the game. The article discusses the solution WotC chose.
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/172
Bottom line: What WotC found was that game became too complex to get into and board states became unnecessarily complex as well. They chose to streamline card designs (less words, less mechanics), revamp the rules (rewrite the whole rules from scratch, remove a few things from the game completely, such as mana burn and damage on the stack).
****... Is that why his handle is Marro? LoL So simple.
Edit: Those 10 design principle articles are excellent.
Edited by mdc273Just a note: there is no useless maester in the core set. He can kneel to save himself from MIL claim or Valar. This is very useful in the Core environment.
The biggest flaw by far in the existing HBO-themed card game product is that it is a two-player game. The most singularly defining quality of AGoT is the fact that it was designed with multiplayer gaming in mind. The box should have come with Baratheon and Targaryen decks for a total of four distinct, playable decks, or should have been followed-up on with a second two-player box featuring those two. While I feel that the LCG should remain focused on the series' literary form, just as the LotR LCG has no affiliation with the New Line Cinema films directed by Peter Jackson, having a taste of the multiplayer intrigues the game zan offer would have been a slick way for LCG fans to introduce the game to fellow gamers who watch the show.
o.0 While Agot has multiplayer rules, and cards directed to it, I wouldn't say it was designed with multiplayer in mind. The original CCG was oriented for 1 vs. 1. Multiplayer didn't even get heavily addressed until right before the transition to LCG.
You want a good multiplayer game try L5R or Jyhad.
Jyhad, definitely. L5R, though? I do hope you're kidding.