Hey everyone

Myself and a couple of friends had our first proper game of AGoT yesterday. Needless to say, we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves! We've all had experience with quite a number of CCGs before, so once we'd worked out the timings and nuances it was great strategic and tactical fun.

However, one question did turn up!

Greatjon Umber's ability states that you may kneel him to have him participate in the current challenge. Fine enough so far...

But it raised this question thusly: I, Player 1, have initiated an attack against Player 2. After Player 2 has declared defenders, Player 3 then jumps Greatjon Umber on board. We then proceeded to have an argument about what the term 'participate' actually implies. My view was that Greatjon is participating as a member of my forces, so therefor only my claim should be relevant.

However Player 3 asserts that he's participating in the challenge between Myself and player 2, and not only that he's on the winning side. Therefor his claim should also be taken into account.

I'm fairly certain I'm correct in the matter, since otherwise it'd simply be over powered. That and I need ammunition to level at Player 3 from the community, or else I'll never be able to convince him otherwise!

Either way, many thanks for your help - Chrome

Chromatism said:

Greatjon can essentially add 3 points to the challenge STR of the attacker or defender. In a Melee situation like the one you describe, Greatjon's controller is not risking anything personally by jumping him into a challenge between two other players - other than the fact that the character is knelt and no longer available. Note that Greatjon's controller is not able to directly benefit by jumping into a challenge between two other players, either. The Stark player is not the winner (or loser) of the challenge and therefore cannot trigger effects or claim power that require winning (or losing) a challenge as part of the play restrictions.

It comes down to the basic structure of challenges in this game. Player 1 challenges Player 2. Therefore, Player 1 is the attacking player and Player 2 is the defending player. The challenge is specifically between the two of them, and only one of them can win (or lose) the challenge. To resolve the challenge, you add up the effective STR (and any bonuses) of all characters designated as "attacking" and compare it to the total STR of all character designated as "defending." Note that this doesn't say anything about who controls the characters - only whether they are designated as "attacking" or defending." The side with the highest STR wins the challenge. If the "attacking" side is higher, the attacking player wins and the losing defending player has to resolve the claim effect. If the "defending" side is higher, the defending player wins and there are no claim effects.

The rules do not say that each player totals the STR of their participating characters and compares them against the total STR of each other player with participating characters. There are only two sides to the challenge - attacking and defending.

Said another way, you could not win the challenge against Player 3 because you did not initiate a challenge against him. And if you did not win a challenge against him, there is no reason for him to resolve the challenge result and claim effect applied when someone loses a challenge.

The part I'm not getting about your scenario is why Greatjon was jumped into the challenge in the first place. You were saying that your claim should be applied to Player 3, but not to Player 2? Why is this? Did Player 2 have enough STR in the challenge to win without the 3-STR added to the defending side by Greatjon? If so, what you need to tell Player 3 is that he cannot "win" the challenge and reap a benefit by jumping Greatjon in any more than he can "lose" and accrue a penalty. If the defender didn't need Greatjon's 3-STR to win, there was no point to jumping him in. On the other hand, if Player 2 did need the 3-STR to win, why would you say your claim applied to Player 3 and not to Player 2?

Bottom line: there is only 1 winner and 1 loser to a challenge (assuming it resolves and isn't a tie - in those cases, there is no winner and no loser). The only 2 players that can win or lose the challenge are the player who initiated the challenge and the player against who the challenge was initiated. There are some situations (like Greatjon) where someone other than those 2 players could control a character that is participating as an attacker or a defender, but the controller of such a character cannot win or lose the challenge, and therefore neither risks nor benefits anything related to winning or losing the challenge (e.g., no claim effects, no Renown, no "after you win a challenge" effects, etc.).

About the only risk to jumping Greatjon into a challenge between 2 other people is Deadly. If the defender loses a challenge and the attacker had more participating characters with the Deadly keyword, that losing player must choose and kill a participating defending character. Note that this doesn't say "a participating defending character controlled by the defender ." So if Greatjon tries to help defend and fails in a "Deadly" challenge, the defending player could legally return the favor by killing Greatjon instead of one of his own characters.

Ah! I see. Many thanks for that detailed reply there.

But, and through no fault of your own, I've managed to make myself misunderstood

I'm Player 1 and I was initiating the attack against Player 2. Player 3, who isn't involved in this challenge, jumps in Greatjon Umber to bolster the strength of my forces to beat down player 2.

So by your words, that means that even though Player 3 jumps in Greatjon and participates him, since the challenge was initiated between myself (player 1) and player 2, its only my claim that matters in the event that I win?

And yes I'd noticed that 'deadly' thing before. I'll have to make that happen at some point...

Chromatism said:

Sorry. I don't know what's wrong with me today. I read that totally backwards and thought he was jumping in on the defending side and that claim was trying to be applied to him , either instead of or in addition to the defending player.

But yes, you have applied the information correctly. Player 3 did not win the challenge, nor is he the attacking player. He cannot be either because he did not initiate the challenge. The rules say that when a player loses a challenge as the defender, they have to kill characters, discard cards or move power to the attacker's House card equal to the claim number on the attacker's plot card. So Player 3's claim number is meaningless in this resolution. Just as he does not face risks or benefits himself, he does not increase or decrease the risks or benefits the attacking and defending player face.

Many thanks mate! Just the answer I was looking for

And no worries, it happens to the best of us Cheers!

Just to avoid more confusion in this topic (ktom must be sleepy or something ):

ktom said:

In case of tie attacker wins.

ktom said:

Deadly is independent of challenge result.

Rogue30 said:

Just to avoid more confusion in this topic (ktom must be sleepy or something ):

Yup. I am totally off today.

Apparently my limit is one point and no details today. I'll see you all tomorrow....