Was there FAQ 1.2 version? If yes, what has changed?

everything in red in 1.3 is what has been added. rarely is stuff changed. 1.2 might have been an internal document, or 1.3 might be mislabeled....doubt we missed anything.

I should probably start a new thread for this, but....

Was there a reason for the errata to the "To be a Stag/Dragon" cards other than the fact that they weren't being played the way the were originally intended to play? Was there some kind of crazy combo or something?

Same goes for the reducer/draw a card in epic phase locations. Other than not really reducing anything just to draw a card in an epic phase, was there some game breaking thing going on here that really merrits making them play contrary to the game rules and the way they are written?

I'm not trying to be moody here, I'm just kinda out of the game and really curious if there was some combo I've completely missed.

All are essentially "you don't get anything free" clarifications. There are no crazy combos or game breakers involved. They are examples of different people reading them different ways, so FFG lays down a clarification for consistency.

No errata for Lion's Gate?

Is it really THAT powerful?

fabest said:

Yeah, I was hoping that it would be errata'd so it couldn't target a House card. The design decision to have it "If it's not Winter" vs "If it's Summer" makes that card, in my opinion, too potent.

potency aside, i think the only problem is that it hits the house card.

Well, "Besieged Shipyard" hits the house card too. Although is not as powerful as "Lion's Gate".

Except "Compelled by the Sea", there is no broken combo (at least with LCG).

the shipyard costs 2 and requires you to do something. Lion's gate is free to play and free to trigger. Where i see the difference is that the SHipyard rewards you for either having a good position or finding a way to win a challenge if you have bad position. Lion's gate (by being able to hit the house card) is just pure stall. It doesn't really help you when you ahead and only stalls the game if you are behind, "Oh, i have zero characters on the board and didn't see you valar coming when i blockaded, but i was able to play 3 0 cost locations, take 3 power off your house card (and if i wanted to be a real ****) 3 more in the standing phase."

Yes, I agree it is powerful, very powerful. But seems to me that FFG wanted it that way (it's hard to believe that they forgot that House card is in play). Or maybe LetsGoRed is right and it is simply a mistake and intented to be winter only?

Rogue30 said:

I can't imagine they wanted it that way. It's way too powerful, and with no drawback (well it doesn't work in winter, big deal). I think they forgot the House card is in play, that would be the only reason.

Rogue, did you already played vs someone with 3 of these 0 gold cost/non unique locations on the table? -3 power per turn, how can you possibly deal with that?

It does appear to be an oversight; probably should have been cleared up in the FAQ and would be easy enough to fix. I'm unsure how often you'd have to deal with three of them, but even one at 0-cost is a bit absurd. Should just be fixed to target non-house card cards in play, or maybe in order for a card to gain a trait, it must first have one. Along the lines of the To Be A and Kingdom fixes.

fabest said:

Look, I'm not saying this is ok. In fact I would be glad if it get errata (I hate Lannisters ). But it is possible to have 3 "Besieged Shipyard" and only 1 win = same effect.

All I'm saying is that is hard to believe that it went through playtesting (FFG have playtesters, right?), but I will be happy if I'm wrong.

Agreed - Lion's Gate really, really needs to be looked at. its been THE big problem card lcoally since last winter for sure.

I'm Ok with the " To be A. .." fixes, though i abused the hell out of both cards under the old rulings. It makes the Stag one veyr hard to justify now, but To Be A Dragon is still plenty strong (I played that oen more for teh recursion than the stand, the opposite of how I played the Baratheon one). Thsi actually came up at the Moot and there was some disagreement about hwo it should be handled. Good to have a ruling.

Rogue30 said:

Funny story. Gencon, 2004, the CCG set for "Valyrian Edition" was released. FFG had blow-ups of some of the VED cards hanging up around their booth in the card hall. One of them was VED-Drogon; one of the first "Cannot be Killed" characters in the game. People were walking up to them and saying "whoa! that's new! there was no CBK in play test!"

Ever since, the rumor in the community has been that FFG can and does change cards between the end of playtesting and the start of the print run. If that's true (and I don't know if it is), it's hard to be certain whether or not the "oversight" that the House Card is in play was ever playtested.

Stag Lord said:

It was definitely a "common sense vs. 'how the rules work'" situation, wasn't it? I stand by the fact that by all written rules, you could use them just for the stand before the ruling.

ktom said:

And since FFG errata'd specific cards, rather than change/clarify any rule, I assume that there's no reason to re-interpret how other cards work.

LetsGoRed said:

Correct. The specific card ruling does not change the definition of "target" or the process/requirements for initiating effects in any general way.

Hello everyone --

Just wanted to let you know that a slightly revised FAQ, v 1.3.1, was uploaded today. The Lion's Gate was on the docket, and was excluded from the final draft for some reason. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Looking forward to GenCon -- hope to see you all there!

Nate

Cool! I'm glad I was wrong

agreed, the eratta to lion's gate is most welcome indeed -- most welcome