I have a dout about Blockade and the cards that provide +1 or +2 gold such as Lannisport Weaponsmith or Goldroad.

If we look at the section of the rules where it is explained the +1 gold we read:

Some cards (mostly locations) have a large gold
coin marked with a value of +X or -X in their
rules text. These cards modify the income value
on your revealed plot card, even when kneeling.

If this cards modify the income value of the plot card, and are not an income value by itself, they don't give any income when someone has revealed a Blockade. Or do they?

Here in my area the income of the +1 is counted, so maybe we are doing it in the wrong way.

As i see it, blockade put a 0 in the gold income of your revealed plot card. So the +X/-X is all the gold you will have during that round.

Blockade only affects the gold income printed on your opponent's plot cards. All other sources of income (locations, characters) still provide income.

That's the main difference with Rains of Autumn if I'm not mistaken.

I don't see why it has to be the printed income. The word "printed" is not written anywhere, as it is in other cards such as Venomous Blade.

As I understand them both are two constant effects that modify the state of the plot income constantly, so really I don't understand why the +1 should prevail over the "income 0". I think we have a conflict between constant effects.

The answer comes in the rules for how income is actually counted:

Whenever any characteristic is modified by multiple lasting effect, you combine all of the modifiers and apply them at the same time. You thus get a single result. You do not apply them in any sort of sequence. For example:

Lannisport Weaponsmith has a printed STR of 1. An opponent plays Poison Wine on him for -2STR. 1 - 2 = -1STR. But STR can never be less than 0, so the effective STR of the character is now considered to be 0. Then I use Sweet Cersei to give it +1 STR. Do I start from its current STR and/or result of the last STR check to get 0 + 1 = 1? Or do I start from scratch and say 1 - 2 + 1 = 0? Big difference, right? Well, according to the rules, we start from scratch and put all the modifiers together. That makes the STR 1 - 2 + 1 = 0.

Counting income is the same way. When you check your income by putting all modifiers in at the same time. So all the "+1 gold" from locations need to be added into the check at the same time as the plot text reducing the income on the revealed plot to 0. That means the count is X (revealed value) - X (plot text taking the revealed value to 0) + 1 (from your Goldroad) = 1.

In order for Blockade to reduce the final income value to 0, wiping out all of your location bonuses as well, the plot would have to modify income after all other income modifiers. Since the rules say that all effects modifying an characteristic are put in at the same time, the plot effect is added into the income count at the same time as the bonuses, and is therefore coming in too early to wipe out the result of adding them in.

You can actually see this in the rules for counting income (pg. 12 of the Core Rule book):

"On your turn in the marshalling phase, you
must first determine your income by adding the
income on your revealed plot card to any income
bonuses provided by cards in play that you control.
Then, take that number of gold tokens from
the Treasury, and place them near your House
card. This is your gold pool."

This pretty well says you get income by starting with your revealed plot income, then adding in your bonuses. The instructions on Blockade to lower the revealed plot income to 0 therefore kick in before the bonuses become part of the income count.

Thanks for such an elaborate answer Ktom!

What I really wanted to know was if everybody was aplying Blockade in the same way. An apparently we do.

I am really not 100% convinced with the explanation gived by the FAQ about the lasting effects that provide increases or decreases in this case. If we read the FAQ they say that "The order in which the lasting effects take place is irrelevant: the net sum result of all lasting effects is applied to the character" (they are talking about force increases).

Here the order of factors change the product, so we can not apply this.

The other option given by the FAQ is "if any time two or more lasting effects create an endless loop that can not succesfully resolve itself, resolve the loop as if neither lasting effect were ocurring". This has little sense here since Blockade will act as a Rule by Decree.

I don't really know if the effect of Blockade is considered as an "income bonus", because page 7 of the rules seems to define "income bonus" by the picture of the gold coin. I copy paste:

Income Bonuses and Penalties
Some cards (mostly locations) have a large gold
coin marked with a value of +X or -X in their
rules text. These cards modify the income value
on your revealed plot card, even when kneeling.

However, if everybody plays this way I will not discuss more. I'm quite happy with ktom answer, not 100% convinced, but maybe 95%.

matamagos said:

I would agree that Blockade should not be considered and "income bonus" or even an "income penalty." However, it is certainly an income modifier. The idea being that all modifiers are applied once and that "all bonuses are modifiers, but not all modifiers are bonuses." The rule for applying lasting effects is one of applying modifiers, not just bonuses.

The problem, in my opinion, is that the "net sum" is not clear here. This lasting effects affect at the same time the income value, but they also affect it constantly.

from the FAQ:

Constant Abilities : Constant abilities are those that are continuously affecting the game state. Because there is no point of initiation.

Definition of Variables : Constant Abilities will constantly check and (if necessary) update the definition of count of their variables.

If the effect of Blockade checks the income value constantly it will always apply the reduction if it is not 0. This is why I doubt my 5% and I think we have here a conflict between lasting effects and an endless loop.

from the rules:

Phase 3: Marshalling

(...)

On your turn in the marshalling phase, you must first determine your income by adding the income on your revealed plot card to any income bonuses provided by cards in play that you control.

And maybe the income bonuses are not constant abilities but passive abilities that initiate when we check our income in the marshalling phase. In this way Blockade, as a constant effect, will really apply after the income bonuses.

However, as I have said, I agree with you in 95% and will play it as everybody. And I thank you for discussing my question. Now I know that we were playing this plot as everybody else.

matamagos said:

What I understand when reading that paragraph: Income = Income_plot_card + Income_bonuses

In order to do that sum you must determine your Income_plot_card and your Income_bonuses first. Blockade affects to your Income_plot_card variable only, reducing it to 0. That leaves the Income_bonuses untouched and, thus, Income = Income_bonuses.

That's my opinion.

I kind of doubt as Matamagos, though I have always played blockade as you.

I'll take Ktom's example with Poisoned wine and Cersei. The Lannisport Weaponsmith first gets min(0;1 - 2) = 0 FOR.

The opponent's income is min (0; plot income - plot income) = 0

The Lannisport Weaponsmith gets +1 STR, making it min (0; 1+1 - 2) = 0.

The opponent counts his income bonuses. The constant effect of Blockade is still on, making his total income on the plot card

= min (0; printed plot income + income bonuses - plot income ).

We all agree that depending on the order in which you apply the Blockade effect the result will be either 0 or income bonuses

And as stated by Ktom this order doesn't exist, because all modifiers are applied at the same time. Blockade modifier doesn't have the same value wether you compute it before or after adding income bonuses, but there can't be after or before because it's supposed to be counted at the exact same time.

... so I don't know how to resolve Blockade constant effectand income bonus constant effect conflict.

Well, I'd just be repeating ktom to explain the way the rules read to me. I don't see anything ambiguous about blockade blanking the printed income before the bonuses. The bonuses can't be blanked until they are applied and they have to be applied at the same time as blockade so blockade doesn't blank them.

We agree Blockade doesn't blank anything.

It reduces the income to 0 though. If you add your bonuses before counting blockade you get your income bonuses, which modify your plot card income value.

If you count blockade after adding your income bonuses, blockade reduces the sum to zero. This is because the gold bonuses modify your plot card income value which is then reduced to 0.

How do you know which order to apply? Especially as Ktom said there is no such thing as any order because those modifiers are constant effects.

OK. Let's look at this in excruciating detail.

Gold bonuses on locations, characters, etc. We know from the rules that these modify the income value on the plot card because that is what the rules say when defining them. However, that does not mean that they change the value that is referred to when something says "the income value on your revealed plot card," or even simply "your income." How do I know this? By looking at how the rules and how the FAQ defines, handles and specifies similar characteristic counts. To begin with, take initiative. The rules say:

"Some cards have large copper diamonds with a
+X value in their rules text. These cards raise the
initiative value on your revealed plot, even when
kneeling."

Pretty much word for word what it says about gold bonuses, right? But then it goes on to say:

"Your total initiative is the sum of your
revealed plot card’s initiative value and all initiative
bonuses provided by cards you control."

Makes sense, right? When someone asks "what is your initiative?" the answer includes all applicable bonuses. But the rules do not say this for income! That means when someone says "what is your income?" the bonuses are not applied out of hand. If my plot is Song of Summer and someone asks "what is the income on your revealed plot card" during, say, the Taxation phase, the answer is 5, not "well, the plot is 5, but I have 3 +1 gold locations, so the answer is 8." This is because the rules do not define your total income at all times as including all gold bonuses - the way that it does for influence. And it's also worth noting that in the definition for "total initiative," "your revealed plot card's initiative" and "all initiative bonuses" are distinctly different factors, despite the fact that the definition of the initiative bonus holds the same implication that the bonuses would count when looking at "revealed plot card's initiative" that the income bonus definition does.

That's the most clear-cut demonstration of the fact that income is not constantly modified by its bonuses when the value is referenced. There is also a parallel in treating text boxes as blank (even when a card simply says "treat as blank," only printed text - rather than gained text or abilities - are lost).

The only part of the rules that apply the gold bonuses to anything is the instructions for how to count income during the Marshaling phase. This is a single check of the income value, plus all applicable bonuses and modifiers. Because it is a single check, all applicable modifiers have to be added in at the same time . When you do a check or count for any value or characteristic, you do not run it as "base + first modifier = resultA, resultA + second modifier - result B," and so on until there are no more modifiers to apply. Instead, you follow the formula "base + (all applicable modifiers) = result." You have to combine all the applicable modifiers and apply that result. That should be very clear from the rules and FAQ for lasting effects (and continuing effects are lasting effects whose duration is "while this card is in play").

So the reasoning of "if you add in Blockade before the bonuses, you get your bonuses, but if you add in Blockade after the bonuses, you get 0" is not really applicable to the way income is counted. You have to take Blockade and combine it with all the other applicable modifiers in order to factor it into the single check for income. Since it is an applicable modifier, it must be added into this check for income, and the only value available for Blockade's "reduce to 0" effect to counter at that point is the base (or printed) income value. If you wait until all the other bonuses are added, then have the plot reassert itself, you end up with the following:

Income = X (printed base income) [ - Y (Blockade's reduction of the revealed plot income value to 0, where Y=X) + Z (one Z for each income bonus)] = Z - Y (Blockade's reassertion of itself to reduce plot income to 0, this time where Y=Z) = 0.

That is illegal according to the rules because you have added the Blockade modifier into the count twice.

It is important to note here that I never actually said "there is no such thing as order to modifiers." What I said was that "all modifiers have to be combined and applied at the same time ." So ultimately, the order in which the various lasting/continuing effects were put into play does not matter because they are all put into a characteristic check at the same time.

So it comes down to this: because the rules do not define "income" as being the total at all times of the revealed plot income plus all income bonuses - the way it does for influence - the only time income modifiers, continuous effects or not, matter are during the actual income count. The actual income count, which is a one-time specific game effect initiated as part of a framework action window, is a characteristic check like any other. That means that the Blockade reduction and the income bonuses are applied simultaneously - when the only reference for the "reduce to 0" value of the plot is the opponent's printed income value. To further reduce the result of that check to 0 would apply the effect of Blockade twice, which you cannot do.

Hopefully, I have illustrated that the reason Blockade does not "continuously reduce" income to 0 - despite being a continuous effect - is because counting income doesn't work that way in the game mechanics. But as has been pointed out before, the full explanation is probably less important than the fact that "you get your income bonuses against Blockade" is the way that everyone (trust me, it is 99.99% of the community, not 95%) plays it.

I think that the main problem people have been having is with the distinction that gold modifiers modify the income value on the plot card (when counting the total income), but do not change "the income value on your revealed plot card". So basically they've been thinking that the equation goes:

Income = (Income Value of Plot Card) + Modifiers[blockade]

but, with

(Income Value of Plot Card) = (Printed Income Value on Plot Card) + (Modifiers to Income Value of Plot Card)[gold modifiers]

and are thinking that the gold modifier and blockade are sort of affecting different things. This is NOT the case, the modifiers are actually affecting the same thing, and hence the equation is just:

Income = (Printed Income Value of Plot Card) + Modifiers

And thus blockade doesn't end up affecting the gold modifiers from other sources. This just as a further layman's explanation of the very good explanation ktom gave:

ktom said:

Looking at it deeper just reiterates the basic english meaning of what's written on the card.

Income on the plot card is reduced to 0. It doesn't reduce the income on any other cards - like gold road, crossroads, etc. It's like pulling a plot card with 0 gold listed.