Have we seen this wording before? I am wondering whether it means "each player can use this effect only 1 time per game," or "each player can have 1 copy of Favor of the Valar in play at a time," or something else. If it's meant to be "limit 1 per deck" I assume they would have written that specifically, as that is what they do for side quests.

Have we seen this wording before? I am wondering whether it means "each player can use this effect only 1 time per game," or "each player can have 1 copy of Favor of the Valar in play at a time," or something else. If it's meant to be "limit 1 per deck" I assume they would have written that specifically, as that is what they do for side quests.

I think it means neither.

I always interpreted it as an in game limitation. I think it means each person can only have 1 of these attached to his threat dial at any given time.

I think you could have 3 in your deck, attach it to your threat dial, use it, then attach another.

In a 4 player game, there could be 4 of these in play, so long as they were all attached to a different player's threat dial.

Who puts them in play is irrelevant. For example, in a 3 player game, all 3 of these could come from one player and be in play simultaneously so long as he attached them to each of the player's threat dials.

However, I am not sure because the benefit of having more than one attached to the same threat dial is fairly minimal (the only benefit is to protect against attachment discarding).

It is a attachment limitation like "Limit 1 per character or hero" .. but now it's for a players thread dial so you can only have one of these attachments on your thread dial at a time.

It is a attachment limitation like "Limit 1 per character or hero" .. but now it's for a players thread dial so you can only have one of these attachments on your thread dial at a time.

Yes, this is what I think too...but for the sake of argument, why would you ever want more than one of these on the same threat dial? It does almost nothing.

Also, couldn't they have just said "Limit 1 per threat dial"?

Actually, that's probably about right. The card using two different wordings and it could be fixed if the intent was what JanB said:

Option 1: Attach to a player's threat dial. Limit one per threat dial; or

Option 2: Attach to a player. Limit one per player.

Personally, I vote for option two because I want to see people attach cards to themselves

I think the reason they didn't use either of these two wordings is because they ran out of space on the card.

The Limit per se is not needed as the effect of the Card is forced.

Even if you had FotV 3 times attached, 2 would be wasted when you reach thread elimination as they dont substract threat but set it to a static number.

I guess they chose to spell *Player* cause the thread dial is somewhat abstract for the game regarding interaction with cards and effects. So it is more clear that the Player is controlling the attachment and can control only 1 at any given time. Remember that there is (as far as i know) no official Statement in the rulebook that you *control* your thread dial like you do with your cards on the board.

In multiplayer you could ask who has control over FotV if you attach it to another Players thread dial (if it would spell Thread dial instead of Player) which would lead to the possibility of attaching more than 1 to the same dial. Confusing is it not

My vote for Limit one 'in game' per player's dial

I guess it's one per dial, per player so that nobody could attach 3 of those to their dial and reduce their threat by 15 in one turn.

The way it is worded Lecitadin it would not actually matter if you had more than 1 equipped, as it sets the threat to a certain number relevant to your max. If you had 3 of these they would all simply set your threat to 5 below your max each time, leaving you at 5 below your max.

It was very well worded. I think the cap on how many per player is not really relevant to it's own function, but more to another function such as attachment destruction. If a card said destroy 1 attachment and increase your threat by it's cost, and you were 2 away from elimination but this is your only attachment (you can't have 2) then you're hosted lol. Very specific, and perhaps not even relevant to the game at all... but more of future proofing.

It also dodges the awkward timing question of whether, once you've resolved one "If you would do X, do Y instead", you can activate another "If you would do X, do Z instead". After all, once we've done Y instead of X we're not doing X any more so...

YOu know NathanH - that answers another question someone had about this card... It says "Reduce your threat to 5 below your threat elimination level," which sounds odd as if you've gained over 5 threat at once you might not be reducing it as it is "instead" of the gain...

If it were not worded as "reduce" though then effects that trigger when you raise your threat could be triggered off of this replacement. Even though you are reducing your threat to a higher number, it still counts as a reduction.

The way it is worded Lecitadin it would not actually matter if you had more than 1 equipped, as it sets the threat to a certain number relevant to your max. If you had 3 of these they would all simply set your threat to 5 below your max each time, leaving you at 5 below your max.

True! Thanks for the heads-up!