Do cards with multiple houses end up paying the gold penalty when you play them as one of the houses they belong to? By a literal interpretation of the rules, it would seem to be the case since you pay the penalty whenever you play a card "affiliated with a different House", and multi-house cards are "considered to be affiliated with two or more Houses".

If the card has the symbol of the House you are playing (your House card), you are not paying the gold penalty for it, even if it has several House symbols.

delor said:

Depends on how you look at it. With a dual (or multiple) House card, you are affiliated with more than one House. So to truly answer the question, you have to determine whether the affiliation with your House takes precedence over the affiliation with a different House. Since, by printing, a dual card is as much (for example) Lannister as it is Stark, which affiliation is the most important when you play the card?

Well, if we're going to interpret the rules "literally," they say:

"If, during marshalling, you wish to play a character,
location, or attachment that is affiliated with
a different House, the gold cost to play that card
is increased by 2. This is called the gold penalty,
and it is the price that must be paid for playing
characters that are not loyal to your House."

So the first sentence (which you seem to quote in your question) talks about straight affiliation. But the second sentence, which actually defines the gold penalty, puts it in terms of loyalty. And a dual House card is loyal to your House, even though it also has different affiliations.

Because the gold penalty is defined in terms of "loyalty" instead of "different affiliation," the rule of thumb is that the presence of your House affiliation outweighs any other consideration and you would not pay the gold penalty.

(The detailed reason for why fabest's answer is correct.)

Yes, but "loyalty" is not defined in the rules, and what houses a card is affiliated with is. For that reason, you cannot use the second sentance to judge how the rules should be interpreted. (and appears to me to be fluff describing the thematic reason for the gold penalty) And, really, if you want to argue based upon the second sentance is anyone really going to claim that Jaqen H'ghar is loyal to any particular house, much less all of them?

I'm pretty sure that you and fabest are correct about the intent of the author of the rules and that's how I'm planning to play it too unless convinced otherwise. However, it seems to me that the written rules indicate the opposite is true. I was quite surprised not to see that question in the FAQs- fodder for the next version?

delor said:

Why does it seem the opposite is true? If you just want to deal with "affiliation" instead of "loyalty" (which, even as fluff, seems pretty easily defined as "an affiliation that matches your House card"), we can do that. Affiliation is defined, in the rules and the FAQ, by the shield icon on the card. The card is affiliated with a House if that shield is on the card. You pay the gold penalty when the card is "affiliated with a different House." So paying the gold penalty essentially identifies the card as one that is not affiliated with the House someone is playing, doesn't it? But we know from the definition of affiliation that the presence of the matching shield means that the card is certainly affiliated with your House. In short, by the definition of affiliation in the FAQ, all you need is for that shield to be present in order for the card to be affiliated with your House. Affiliation with a second House does not undo the affiliation to the first, so the card is not considered to be affiliated with a "different" House on the basis of "dual citizenship."

Said another way, is a child in a different family from its maternal grandparents because it is also related to the paternal grandparents?

Now, I'm not saying that the FAQ couldn't just come out and say all this a little more plainly, but the question is ultimately answered in the existing rules and FAQ. Granted, there is some interpretation necessary, but to say that the gold penalty should be paid of a dual House card is to emphasize the different affiliation over the matching one while the FAQ definition of affiliation emphasizes the match. If the Stark shield is there, the card is Stark (by definition) and a Stark player would not pay a penalty (perhaps by interpretation, but still valid).

ktom said:

Exactly. So, a card with multiple shields is affiliated with multiple houses. Therefore, no matter what house you're with it has to be affiliated with a different house as well as your house.

ktom said:

Ah, this is your mistake. The rules say "that is affiliated with a different House", not "that is not affiliated with your house". The two statements are not logically equivalent.

Fine. Pure and simple then. The new Littlefinger has both a Stark shield and a Lannister shield. So, is it considered a Stark card?

Delo, before ktom wraps this up, pretty much every issue with a card's affiliation and checks on them has already been covered. ktom is trying to explain to you the way in which this particular rule plays out. You should certainly question him to better understand the ruling, but there is zero point in questioning the rule or challenging ktom in it. He is correct in how this is dealt with. Nate will not be changing this rule.