As in the subject...

1- Does gold penalty counts during set up phase?

2- Gold on Core Set Tywin http://tzumainn.com/agot/cards/card.php?card_id=3757

Does count for Dominance? Does go away in the Taxation phase? Not sure about it, even if wording refers to "spend" and nothing more.

And a side note, little bit OT: Vigilant seems a little bit powerful...I played a game against Feiry followers + Lightbringer and it was weird.

Is that the strongest keyword? I think so, right now. Does it need a corridge? (i think it's not well balanced with other house-keywords.

Thanks :-)

1. Yes, gold penalties also count during the setup phase. But you can´t choose to pay a gold penalty in the setup phase which is important for cards like Mance Rayder, Roving Pillagers (both Winter Edition).

2. The Core set rules addition defines that gold which is left in your gold pool will count as power in the dominance phase. The gol don Tywinn is not your gold pool and Tywinn´s ability doesn´t advice you to treat the gold as if it were in your gold pool, but only allows to spent it like it would have been in your gold pool. Summary: the gold tokens on Tywinn don´t count as additional strnegth for the dominance phase.

Personally i think ambush is the best keyword and vigilant a close second. But oh well, than you go and play against a Stark deck and Arya (5KE) starts to repeatedly kill your charachters and you think stalwart ist the best keyword, or your lose a game against Greyjoy because Asha did 3 unopposed challenges in one round, or you lost to Lanni because all power was stored on Castamere etc.

So yes, i think the keywords are in some way well balanced.

2. The Taxation phase also only clears out gold in your gold pool, so any gold on Tywin stays during the Taxation phase.

Old Ben: I would say that you have to take the whole environment into consideration when you rate keywords. I do agree that within the environment of an individual game, you might think that Stalwart is best (but I'd argue against Stalwart being good as opposed to Arya being good) or whatever, but in today's total game environment, I'd say that Vigilant is better than Ambush. Vigilant has always been a bear of an ability balanced by high-cost and low STR. The "standard" environment punishes that a lot more than the LCG environment, so I think it tended to be overlooked. The LCG environment also has fairly sparse choices for influence (and no 5KE Dragons), making Ambush a little harder to really get going. So in the LCG-only environment, I think Vigilant has the edge over Ambush, although I'd probably still take Ambush in the "standard" environment.

Thanks guys...:-)

I do think, as I said, that Vigilant is right now very impressive...

As Ktom said (right IMHO), Ambush has not a great impact in a format where influence is not that improved.

Maybe, things will change, but believe me, Old Ben...A Vigilant Char with an ever saving Lightbringer (vigilant itself) in LCG is pretty annoying.

I've to say that in that particular game we were testing a Standard Bara against a Standard Lanni...I lost 2 games in 5 total games (I was playing Lanni) and both times Fiery Followers + Lightbringer made the difference.

RE vigiliant:

I think it is a good keyword, but i do not think it is overpowered in and of it self. When you combo it with renown or power grab is when it gets sick, but i do not see power grab being as strong in the LCG format as it is in standard right now. Sure a vigiliant Robert would get close to power grab, but that is the only thing i see.

Yes, fiery followers is a nice card, but by itself it does not do too much other then stand back up. It has 2 STR so it should not be winning too many challenges on its own and requires much support (yeah 3x of them might get a little silly, but that is 12 gold, all houses have some sick stuff for 12 gold).

here are some house solutions for the combo that seems to be giving you problems. Targ: mad kings legacy, pop that attachment right off. Stark: high claim, high claim, and more high claim. Lanni : kneel those suckers that don't have vigilant first.

I agree with you Ktom. The rating of course depends on the format you choose to play. And due to the format change and the latest desicions about rotation the whole keyword ratio was turned upside down.

Besides the lack of quality cards in the LCG format with the house specific keywords(like Arya for Stark, Castamere for Lanni), there is also the problem of the sheer quantity.There were plenty usable vigilant cards in the first chapter pack cycle and the core set, but not much very helpful infamy cards. I can´t think of a card with the infamy keyword in the chapter packs which i really would like to play because of the infamy keyword, e.g. Jaime (CS) is a good charachter, but the infamy keyword is more or less senseless without other correspondending cards like the talons clansmen.

So it can be said, that the lCG format is at the moment undeveloped and is lacking some important synergies, other examples can be easily found just like Mance Rayder´s gametext which allows to steal kingdom locations. There are only three kingdom locations left in the format and these locations lower the cost of cards which are underrepresented.

Another one....

I reveal Valar Morghulis...My opponent reveals a Plot that copies the "when revealed" effect of my Valar...

I have in play a Char with something attached to save him from being killed...Can I save it? I mean...It's killed by Valar....I save him...But then, another Valar effect takes place...I ruled that the character died...Was I right?

Something similar happened in another moment...I played a Plot that had the "military battle" trait...My oppo played Rule By Decree (that forces the player with the most cards to discard cards down to four). I had an event with response "after you reveal a military card kill something..."...He won initiative and decided to go first...Do I have the option to play my response or do I have to discard first?

This question comes from a point: When multiple passive effects take place, they're considered to happen "simultanously"...So, do players have the option to play response "even if" plot effects happen in the same framework?

Thanks a lot, and sorry if I was not clear.

Cheers

Wow. Lots of good questions.

1. Valar Morghulis, Good for the Gander and saves:

In the case where Good for the Gander copies the "kill all characters" effect of Valar, players now have two separate killing effects to deal with. That means you will need two separate saves (one for each). Dodging the bullet does not necessarily mean you won't get stabbed, so to speak. So you were indeed correct; the one save just won't cut it.

2. Resolution order of passive effects and other instances of the "when can I play my Response" syndrome (oaky, I'm being melodramatic...):

All "when revealed" plot effects must be resolved completely before any player has the opportunity to use a Response (other than a save or a cancel) to ANYTHING that any of the plots do. The basic timing of everything in this game looks like this:

I. Initiate the action (in this case, all players reveal their plots): players pay the costs and choose the targets for their effects as appropriate

II. Save/Cancel Interrupt opportunity (Responses that use the words "save" or "cancel" are the only true interrupts in the game)

III. Resolve the action (in this case, the plots officially become each player's revealed plot)

IV. Passive Effects: anything that happens automatically as a result of the action initiated in "I" takes place. (in this case, "when revealed" plot text is resolved - technically at the same time but realistically in the order CHOSEN by the First Player)

V. Response Effects: this is the first opportunity to use Response effects that do NOT use the word "save" or "cancel" for ANYTHING that happened in steps I-IV. All Response opportunities remain open "in parallel," so it is legal to play Responses in any order

It is a little different from other games, but once you get that basic framework down, it is pretty easy to plug things in and figure out the various situations.

ktom said:

Thanks a lot...Ktompedia!!! :-)

I understood the actions mechanic (I am a CoC player and it's similar)...The problem was with Plots, that in some cases can give some ruling troubles. For some reason, was difficult for me to rule them treating them as other action windows.

Now everything's clear, my friend!

Thanks for being so precise and detailed. I really enjoy your explenations.

More to come... :-)

Other weird questions...maybe stupid, but they're real game situations I ruled in my way and absolutely not sure about them.

sorry if I continously write down questions, but I'm playtesting some decks and I'm going to train some noobs like me, so...

I'll write: matter, example, my ruling. Please, even if I use the correct ruling in some cases, try to write a little explanation, to compare my ruling reasons with yours.

I usually try to make constructive questions, hoping to be useful even for pretty experienced players.

If they're just stupid, forgive me...IF ABLE :-)

1- Core Set Bran Stark...Funny guy.

Example: I reveal Blockade, lowering the oppo's plot income to 0. Then, I choose to trigger Bran's ability and reveal a new plot card. Does Blockad still work? Or simply vanishes?

My ruling: Blockade effect vanishes.

2- Doesn't kneel to attack or defend...but What if?

Core Set's Jaime Lannister does not kneel to attack or defend during MIlitary challenges.

Example: Jaime is declared as an attacker by my oppo. I blank its text, to get rid of the "deadly" keyword. Does it kneel? Or just "stands" cause he's already been declared?

My ruling: Jaime stands.

3- Core Set's Sansa Stark...Wanna draw?

Sansa Stark has the response: "after a player plays an attachment on Sansa Stark, that player may draw a card."

Now...I usually rule (as Core set rules/Faq do) that just the controller of a card can trigger its responses/triggered ability (if the text does not say the opposite).

In Call of Cthulhu I was "trained" in this way: when you control a card with "Response: do something", you can CHOOSE to trigger it or not....

So, the question is: If I control Sansa Stark, does my opponent gain the option to draw a card after he plays an attachment on her?

My ruling: never happened...No idea, right now.

4- Castellan of the rock...Another funny guy.

Does the nice Castellan triggers his own response when it comes into play?

My ruling: no.

More to come...

Any phase: Kneel DB_Cooper to make a question to an opponent. If that opponent knows the answer, claim 15 powers for your house.

In other words...thanks :-)

DB_Cooper said:

I'm fuzzy on plot phase timing, I'm not sure if blockade's effect goeas away with it or not as it is not a when revealed, but more a passive. I'm pretty sure it goes away as would noble's gaining cannot be killed if power pf blood goes away or is blanked. So i think you are right here, but someone else would have to give a more definate yes or no.

DB_Cooper said:

Once declared he has already passed the check of particpating in a challenge, where he does not have ot kneel, so he would in indeed stay standing.

DB_Cooper said:

Nope, just like Coc only the controller of the card gets to trigger the response (unles the card says otherwise like King Rahger in the CoA chapter packs)

DB_Cooper said:

Sure you can. He is a lannister card that just came into play and there is a response window to him being played and therefore you can trigger his response.

Hope this makes sense.

Lars said:

At first, thanks a lot :-)

About Sansa...I trust you, man...But I'm not sure for a reason...Sansa reads: "after a player plays...may draw a card...". Why just they did not write "after you play....draw a card"? Why should I let my oppo draw a card?

It's weird.

Or at least, unclear.

Or...I'm just stoned :-)

1. Bran & Plots.

- Like any other card with a constant effect, plots with constant effects only apply when they are revealed (the "in-play" state of a plot card). So yes, revealing Blockade and then using Bran to swap plots does not leave your opponent with 0 plot gold in Marshaling. (Although it could be a good play if you need to 4 initiative when determining First Player, then a better plot effect for the rest of the round.)

3. Sansa

- You're both totally correct that only Sansa's controller can trigger the effect. You're also correct that in a Joust (one-on-one) game, it may as well be "Response: After you play an attachment on Sansa Stark, draw a card." But what you may not be thinking of is the strategic and negotiation benefits in a Melee (multiplayer) game. "Hey, Stark player. I'll play this Shadow's Blessing card on your Sansa, giving her +2 STR, if you let me draw a card. Then we can both go after that stinkin' Targ player."

ktom said:

Great example, my friend :-)

And in this point of view, I feel like Sansa's better than I thought.

:-) Thanks

ktom said:

same for power of blood? or does power of blood need to be out?

also, would forgetton plans have no affect on blockade then, but it does on power of blood?

I guess in short i'm asking if there is a difference from one plots constant effect against another's....

No. There is no difference. If a plot is a constant effect, then it has to be the revealed plot in order for its effect to be active.

- So Power of Blood needs to be the revealed plot in order for Nobles to be CBK. Otherwise, you'd reveal it once and the Nobles would be CBK for the rest of the game.

- If Forgotten Plans is out, it blanks all other plots (outside of the Plot phase), so any constant effect like Blockade or Power of Blood would be "turned off."

Out of curiosity, any reason to think that constant effect plots like Power of Blood and Blockade would behave differently?

just trying to keep everything straight. I think i misread your explanation a little (missed the not in 'does not leave' I blame the new boards ;P)

Here I am.

Captain Groleo (Core Set T105)

"After an opponent plays or reveals on attachment, claim 1 power for your house",

What does it mean "reveals"? During last night Core set Game, the Lannister player played a card that forced us to reveal our hands...Can I claim power for this effect, or the "reveal" stipulation on Groleo is referred to "revealed from top of the deck" or something?

Thanks-

Well, that's something that should be easy to answer but could end up being a little complicated.

For the most part, "revealing" an attachment would involve an effect that says you have to show a card to an opponent. So something happened like the Stark player using Winterfell Kennels to search their deck for Nymeria (a Direwolf that happens to be an attachment), you could trigger Groleo because part of the search effect is to "reveal" the card to everyone. That's the easy part; "reveals" means that a card effect told one player to show a card that would normally be hidden to another.

The complicated part is specifically in relation to Call Their Bluff (the card I'm assuming the Lannister player used to make everyone reveal their hands). That effect says to reveal your HAND. Since your "hand" is different from the individual cards in your hand (for example, if you have no cards in hand, you still have a "hand"), revealing your hand is not actually the same thing as revealing the individual cards. So even if there is an attachment card in the hand that was revealed, you didn't actually reveal the attachment (which Groleo would need in order to Respond) - you revealed your hand. So revealing your hand as a whole will not give Groleo the opportunity to Respond, even if there are attachment cards in it.

Perfect, as usual.k

Thanks.

:-)

Hey...

1- Rhaegar Targaryen, F82

The errata says that "all phases are considered to end". What does it mean in game terms? Can I play reponses to end of the phases? What's the matter with this errata?

2- MORIBUND

Ok. I'm slow minded.

But as it reads in the faq i cannot find a simple way to explain it.

Can someone give me a couple of good and realistic examples with some explanations and depth in the matter?

Thanks, guys.

1. Rhaegar:

There is a general rule that says players cannot play Responses during the end-of-phase timing window. I know it sounds weird, but it really does make a lot of things easier (for example, Response effects that last until the end of the phase...). So no, you cannot Respond to the phases ending.

What the errata does is that it cleans up a couple of weird possibilities. Say that you play one of the Epic Battle events in the Plot phase. It stays by your revealed plot until the end of the Epic phase it creates this round, right? Well, then during the Challenge phase, Rhaegar dies and he ends the current round before we ever get to the Epic phase. So the Epic phase that the event created never happens because we skip right over it, but because it never happens, it never ends. Since it never ends, does the card just stay up there by your plot forever? The errata covers that. Since all the remaining phases in the round are considered to end, the "at the end of the Epic phase" effect to discard the event takes place and it is put in the discard pile.

Perhaps an easier thing to see is Forever Burning, which gives a character -1 STR until the end of the phase, right? Well, if Rhaegar dies and ends the round immediately, you never technically went through the end of the phase. So does that character keep the -1 STR forever? The errata covers that by making sure you end all the phases remaining in the round.

2. Moribund:

Moribund can be kind of tricky. In order to understand it, you have to understand the basic steps of an action window:

I. Initiate

II. Save/Cancel

III. Resolve

IV. Passive

V. Response

VI. End

In a nutshell, "moribund" means that any card that is in-play and made to leave play anywhere in Steps I - V stays on the table until Step VI. That means that you can use the card as part of anything between when it is forced from play and Step IV with the exception of anything that would make it leave play a second time. It's the equivalent of "on the way out, I..." in other games. Here are some examples:

1. I am playing Lannister. I lose a military challenge and choose my (standing) Cersei's Attendant for claim. That happens in Step III. Instead of being put in the dead pile immediately, she becomes "moribund" and stays on the table through Steps IV and V. So, when Step V rolls around and I want to Respond to losing the challenge with ALPHD by kneeling a Lannister character, I can kneel the same Attendant I chose for claim to pay the cost of the event. She's still on the table after all! Note that this whole "moribund" thing is also the reason she can use her OWN Response! You can only use the abilities on characters that are in play unless the specifically say otherwise. She does not, so if you removed her from play and put her in the dead pile in Step III, she wouldn't be able to use her "after she is killed" effect in Step V. Then, at Step VI, I remove the (now kneeling) Attendant from play and put her in the dead pile.

2. Okay, let's say that I'm playing Baratheon and you're playing Lannister. You do a power challenge with Bronn (3-STR, Deadly). I decide to defend with Edric Storm, Renly and Ser Axell. I end up winning by 4, but I have to kill one of my characters because of your Deadly. I choose Edric. He dies there in Step IV (when Deadly is resolved) and becomes "moribund," staying on the table. I've got a lot of Responses to play here! I stand Ser Axell, I use Support of the Kingdom to take your Crossroads and I play a Seductive Promise to take control of Qyburn's Informers. For all of this, Edric is still on the table. When all the Responses are done and we get to Step VI, I put him into the dead pile.

But do you notice the one Response that I don't use? Edric's own. I can't use THAT Response while he is moribund because part of the cost is discarding him from play. If I discard him from play, he's supposed to become moribund until the end of the action window (even if you are removed from play as part of a cost instead of part of an effect). He's already dead (though moribund) from Deadly, though, and he cannot become moribund a second time. So I cannot pay his "discard" cost because he's already dead.

Hope that helps clarify a little. Essentially, "moribund" is the technical process that allows for "on the way out" Responses. Note that there are no "on the way out" Challenges:, Marshaling: or other non-Response actions because you will ALWAYS reach a Step VI (and remove the moribund card from the table) before you get a chance to use a non-Response effect.

Thanks ktom, as usual. :-)

The moribund thing was difficult to deal with for me, for some reasons i don't really know.

Now I got the point and I'll experiment it in playtesting.

Thanks a lot.

Sorry, Ktom, I understand the response except for one thing. Edric's power could only be used when you attack, but you were the defender in that example. The reasoning is still clear but I just want to make sure that Edric's power could not be used anyway, right?

Hurdoc said:

You are absolutely correct. I overlooked the fact that Edric's Response can only be used on attack. It wouldn't have been legal to use him in the scenario I created anyway because I was defending. I was so into making the point about "moribund" cards not being able to be killed/discarded a second time that I didn't get the play restrictions correct.

The point still remains, even though the example is bad.