"Choose a character. Until the end of the phase that character gains deadly. Then attach you writ small...."

Is 'then' referring to 'choose' or 'until'?

IOW can I make a card +2 strength with the boon during the challenge phase or do I make the attachment after challenges are resolved?

You can attach it directly - the "then" refers to if the previous section successfully resolved (creating the lasting effect that gives the character deadly, with a duration "until the end of the phase"), not the full expiry of the effect. As long as a character gained deadly, you then attach the Boon.

When "then" appears in an effect, everything that comes before the "then" must happen successfully before anything after it can take place.

However, what is after the "then" will take place immediately after the successful resolution of what comes before. There is no "delayed reaction" in attaching the card as a Boon once a target character gains Deadly.

If you choose a character that already has Deadly for this, is the pre-Then part considered successful? In other words, does gaining another instance of an existing property (like a keyword, trait or icon) count as gaining that property?

If the answer to the questions above is 'no', it would mean that you cannot play I'm You Writ Small on a character that already has Deadly, because, as per the new FAQ 3.6, no part of the effect can resolve successfully. For the same reason, you couldn't play Vigilant Stag on a character that already has Vigilant, or Dragon Support on a character that already has Melee.

If the answer is 'yes', you could play these cards under those circumstances. Would that also mean that gaining another instance of an existing property would count as a change of property for the purposes of new FAQ 3.47, which would allow you to initiate "after a card gains a trait/keyword/icon" type responses/passives in such a case? That last part is purely academic, admittedly, because I don't think there are such responses/passives (at least I can't think of any).

Or is it rather the other way round, and 3.47 actually corroborates the interpretation that the answer should be 'no'? It ostensibly deals only with the play restrictions for passives and responses, but might it be argued that it in fact sets a precedence for player actions too?

The sentence "A character can never have more than one icon of a specified kind" (FAQ page 17, under "Multiple Lasting Effects") seems to indicate that gaining another instance of an existing property does *not* count as gaining that property - assuming that keywords and traits are treated the same as icons, which I don't see a reason not to.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

"Aughhhhhhhhh"

But seriously, hey...at tourneys, does the judge (or whatever he's called) ever go, "Oh, wow. Uhm...wow. Let me think." And the whole thing come to a stop?

I think an interesting way of dealing with that would be to have the players and the judge vote. You'd think the players would just vote for whatever benefits themselves, but not nessecerily. When I'm pondering stuff, I just want to get it right.

Edit:And I love watching the videos and seeing experienced players miss stuff, and the commentators say things like "Don't ask me questions like that." (No sarcasm)

Sorry, didn't mean to scare you

Yeah, of course judges do have to stop at think about situations are presented to them at times. And because they are under pressure to make a decision, and they are only human, sometimes they even get a call wrong. It's how it is.

Generally, though, this game is not as hard as it might seem, or as some people make it out to be. It's just that some hairy situations can come up at the fringes. That's what ktom is for.

As for the voting thing, I've not seen that done in this game. Players will try to figure out situations by themselves, but once a judge is called, he should make a binding decision. IMO, a judge should not leave the resolution of an issue to the players once he is called.

Players should not take part in judging decisions beyond providing the facts to the judge(s). Also, I'd very much like an answer to that question... players have been asking me whether Hotah's Axe can kill a character with no icons to start with.

Good point about Hotah's Axe, Khudzlin.

I see a difference between gaining an already present property, and losing a property that was not there to begin with. In my mind there is no doubt that a "lose a property" effect cannot be successful if the property was not there to begin with. The card had zero instances of the property before the effect, and it has zero instances after the effect. There is no change in game state. I would rule that Hotah's Axe cannot be used on a character with no icons, on the grounds of the new FAQ 3.6. No part of the effect can resolve successfully. The icon loss part cannot be successful, ergo the pre-then part has not resolved completely, ergo the post-then part cannot happen (even if the play restriction of the post-then part is fulfilled from the start).

My doubt is more about gaining a present property. I can see that going both ways. On the one hand, you can argue that having an icon or a trait or a keyword is a binary state - you either have it, or you don't. On the other hand, gaining an already present icon, trait or keyword *does* alter the game state - if a subsequent effect removes that property, it does make a difference if the affected card has one or two "instances" of the property, i.e. if there is an additional active effect granting that property or not.

OK. This is a long explanation, so please bear with me. (Or ignore it if it's not that important to you.)

I see a difference between gaining an already present property, and losing a property that was not there to begin with. In my mind there is no doubt that a "lose a property" effect cannot be successful if the property was not there to begin with. The card had zero instances of the property before the effect, and it has zero instances after the effect. There is no change in game state.

I don't think that's entirely true, Rat. Let's say you have a character with no printed MIL icon. Some effect makes it "lose" a MIL icon. It is true that there is no change in its effective icons (you either have the icon or you don't), but before the "lose a MIL icon" effect was applied, a single "gain a MIL icon" effect would have resulted in the character having the icon. Now, after the "lose a MIL icon" effect, it's going to take 2 separate "gain a MIL icon" effects to change its effective icon status. So because of the application of the new modifier , there has been a change in the "game state," even though there hasn't been a change in the effective icon status of the character.

So, when an effect causes the "gain" or "loss" of an icon, keyword, STR, etc., all it's really doing is applying a new modifier to the card(s) in question. Therefore, the success or failure of that gains/loses effect is determined by whether or not the modifier is actually applied -- not the effective change that results from the modified calculation.

Since you can successfully apply a modifier without changing the effective characteristic, the "gains deadly" part of You Writ Small would be considered successful, even if the target already has deadly, and the "loses an icon" part of Hotah's Axe would be considered successful, even if the character had no effective icons to begin with. Since these "apply a new modifier" effects are successful, the "then" parts of their effects can initiate/resolve.

Now, there is the new FAQ entry (3.47), but it doesn't really apply to the original question here. That entry says that in order to satisfy the play restrictions of a passive or response that reacts to a gain or loss of a characteristic (as opposed to actually modifying the characteristic itself), two things have to happen -- an appropriate new modifier has to be applied, and there has to be a corresponding change in the effective characteristic. Shadow Parasite is the prime example here. If a character with 0 STR gets -X STR, the character's effective STR goes from 0 to 0 and the play restrictions of the Parasite's response are not met. It cannot gain X STR. HOWEVER, even though there is nothing for the Parasite to respond to, you cannot ignore the fact that even though the character's STR started and ended at 0, it actually is further "in the hole" STR-wise because of the new -X STR modifier.

So the long and short of all this is to look closely at what the card is trying to do. If it is just trying to apply a modifier, that can be don (successfully) without a change in the effective characteristic. But if it is trying to react to a change in a characteristic, then there has to have been an actual, effective change.

Something tells me that Dale Sams got more than he bargained for.

I am convinced that both situations are equivalent (gaining what is already there and losing what is already not there). What I am not sure of is whether 3.47 is relevant only for purposes of triggering a response or passive effect, or if it is also relevant for determining whether an effect succeeds. While Ktom's argument is persuasive, FFG has not always been logically consistent, so my interrogation remains.

Ha! I did get a lot more than I bargained for.

To be completely honest If the answer starts to get too complicated, I just go 'by feel'

Which doesn't always work. I still can't get over that kill claims (unless otherwise specified) can so easily be blocked by something like:

"Lannisters lose military challenge. Okay, I choose Lords of winter Tyrion to die...and then I kneel that clansman to save him"

There are ways to get around that. Consider also that the Clansman in question lost an opportunity to participate in a challenge by kneeling to save Tyrion.

PS: Surely you mean Lions of the Rock Tyrion.

There is no "delayed reaction" in attaching the card as a Boon once a target character gains Deadly.

Speed Test Scrabble Word Finder Solitaire