My group came into Game of Thrones a bit late. We’re catching up with expansions and have acquired the core set, the Greyjoy and Martell sets, and we’ve done the expansions through ravens. (We’ve not yet done shadows or anything newer). So we’re at the point when we’re experimenting with seasons a lot.

In any case, for our meta, it seems like Kraznys mo Nakloz is essentially broken. Yes, he has the summer requirement, and yes, he’s susceptible to Milk of the Poppy and a few other things. But all one need do is plop him down during the challenges phase, play a raven if its not yet summer, and then clear the board of cheap attachments (rusted swords, bodyguards, dragon bites, devious intentions, the list goes on) when the challenges phase begins. This strikes me as an especially powerful mechanic in multiplayer. And what happens if there are two Kraznys out and they’re fighting over a zero-cost attachment? It has essentially led our group to either have to play uber strong winter decks or not play attachments.

In any case, it strikes me that if Compelled by the Rock was banned, a card like Kraznys, which is basically an unlimited Compelled by the Rock for summer decks, ought to be considered for banning, too. So when Ravens came out what was the effect of Kraznys? Not a big deal? Has he been addressed in subsequent expansion sets?

Kraznys is a Character, which instantly makes him vulnerable to all forms of character control, be it resets, targeted kill, or like you mentioned, text box blanking. Furthermore, the whole "play a raven" thing is not necessarily the easiest thing in the world. Sure, if your opponent(s) are not running season (or the carrion bird) it's trivial, but add either of those elements to the mix and it suddenly becomes a little harder to reliably say with certainty that it will be summer when you need to use him.

Furthermore, he has a "limiting factor" on how much he can be used- gold. Sure, he can be used to wreak havoc with cheaper attachments, however early game, 2-3 gold to swap around a few attachments can be a big deal. Late game when gold is a little more free flowing, you as the opponent should probably have more ways on field/in hand to deal with a single annoying character.

Finally, he suffers from the biggest weakness of all- he is unique. That means all you have to do is get him in to your opponents dead pile once and he's *most likely* out of the game for good. The reason why he's nowhere near the same level as "broken" as Compelled by the Rock is simply that CbtR had a) no targeting requirements other then 2 characters 1 attachment (hee hee), 2) no cost, and 3) was completely untelegraphed. Furthermore, it was completely uncounterable except by triggered effect canceling, of which there is magnitudes less of in the game compared to character control.

That being said, just what does happen in a melee with a 0g attachment and 2 players controllig a Kraznys?

EDIT: If you're really having trouble, just try running a few carrion birds instead of going attachment light. Mil+Stealth is always a good combo, and the thing is pretty dirt cheap.

Thanks for the reply and thoughts.

I definitely understand what you're saying in regards to controlling characters, but in my experience you just have to have Kraznys and summer survive from the point at which I plunk him down until the beginning of the challenges phase. That's not hard to do. A mid-game deployment of him can totally wreak havoc on the board, clearing four or five attachments in a single turn and changing the face of the game.

Just out of curiosity, what house do you play? I'm kind of out of the game right now, but it would be a fun exercise to see if I can come up with some good in-house counters to Mr. Kraznys

In our meta we typically play different houses from week to week. In this case I was playing a dragon-based Targ deck with summer (it was a multiplayer game). But Kraznys has a place in almost any house's summer deck if you play in an environment where there are a lot of attachments being played.

You could try playing with less attachments. I'm not a big fan of attachments myself, and usually don't include them at all...

The other thing I need to ask, based on the wording, is whether or not you are looking at the ability correctly:

"Challenges: If it is Summer, choose an opponent's attachment in play. Pay that attachment's printed gold cost to take control of that attachment, and attach it to a card of your choice."

You cannot actually move that attachment if you do not have a legal place to move it to. For example, if you take control of someone's Bodyguard, you do not ignore the "Lord or Lady only" restriction on the attachment. When you move Bodyguard, it must be to another Lord or Lady. If there is not another legal character to move it to, that part of the effect fizzles and the attachment stays where it is. Or if the only other legal characters are controlled by your opponent, the attachment is moved to one of them. Granted you control it now - a huge deal if it has a triggered effect - but it doesn't actually go anywhere.

Kraznys mo Nakloz's ability will almost never result in a discarded attachment (the only situation in which he could is if there is an "attach to an opponent's character" attachment on one of your characters and you take control of it when your opponent or opponents have no characters in play that can take attachments). And in a lot of cases, the attachments you could take control of do not actually have any legal places to move and so stay put. So I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "clear four or five attachments" in a single phase.

ktom (or any other veteran), do you have any suggestions, for the case of two Kraznys and a Winter Cache in play? Is there a historical precedent for handling two freely triggerable abilities that undo each other?

Ktom, what I think he means is that there's no limit to his ability other than gold cost. And printed at that. So it becomes very easy to swipe something like.... 2 Bodyguards, a Taste for Blood, and an Art of Diplomacy with remarkably little investment.

Man... I would steal Banner for the Storm all day long....

schrecklich said:

Seriously though. Wtf happens here?

Staton said:

OK, my first stab at a rules question.

Since Kraznys' ability is to take control of an opponent's attachment, it would seem that your opponent couldn't use his own Kraznys to take control back. After all, it's still his attachment, even if you've taken control of it. You haven't claimed ownership of it, only control. Thus, Kraznys could not be used to bounce an attachment back and forth.

Don't know what the issue would be here. I can only assume the issue is swapping control of a 0 cost attachment (bodyguard works just as well for the example). The loop would cancel, and the attachment would stay where it began.

Example: Staton and I both have a copy of Kraznys. I have Winter Cache on Danerys.

• Staton: I trigger Kraznys to take Winter Cache and put it on Stannis.
• JJ: I trigger my Kraznys and put it back on Danerys.
• Staton: Well, I'll just do it again.
• JJ: So will I.

Back and forth, back and forth, the loop cancels and Dany keeps Winter Cache (or bodyguard or whatever). There is no change in the game state.

JerusalemJones said:

This could be good house rule, but note that these are separate actions. Next action may be discard attachment, kill character etc.

Yes, but any of those actions would break the loop (an infinite loop is described as a series of actions that goes on infinitely). However, with the exception of responses, each player would take turns in the action window. So the loop itself would still exist, and would likely be in the original player's best interest as once a separate non-response action is initiated, the attachment in question would go to my opponent when the infinite loop begins.

Say, for example, in the above example I am playing Stark with Kraznys ooh, and Staton puts Winter Cache on attacking Stannis. Instead of taking the attachment back with my Kraznys, I use Lethal Counterstrike and kill off Stannis. Staton could then attach the Cache to a different character of his, since he now controls it. If I use Kraznys to bring it back, we start the loop over and this time Staton retains control. In fact, he could easily put it on the character of his choice with all the looping taking place, but the end result is still the same - Staton keeps Winter Cache.

Responses would be the only thing that could break into the loop, but I can't think of any that would affect the control/attachment of attachments. Even the Myreneese Brothel triggers off of Entering Play, I believe.

I suppose I am taking two related rules from the FAQ to come up with this answer. The first is the rule on the Infinite Loop:

• (2.7) Infinite Loops
• It is possible, with certain card combinations, to create an "infinite loop" (such has having two cards kneel to stand each other indefinitely). When executing an infinite loop, the resolving player must follow these two steps:
• 1) Clearly display the infinite loop to the opponent (and tournament judge, if the opponent requires it). Thus, the player must display, using all cards involved, one full cycle of the infinite loop.
• 2) State how many times he or she wishes to execute this loop. For example, the player could say "I will now execute this loop seventeen million times." Then resolve the loop that many times instantly. If the execution of this loop causes the player to win the game, the game is over and the executing player wins.
• Infinite loops should never be abused to cause the game to stall.

The second involves lasting effects:

• Lasting Effects Conflict
• Even if not triggered at the same time, multiple Lasting Effects may affect the same card at the same time. For example: a character without the Power icon is affected by two lasting effects. One (such as Slander) removes a Power icon from the character, and one (such as Lordship) adds the Power icon to that character. In this example the two lasting effects cancel each other, and the character is left unchanged. The order in which the lasting effects take place is irrelevant: the net sum result of all lasting effects is applied to the character (the net sum of -1 Power icon and +1 Power icon is 0, thus the character remains unchanged). A character can never have more than one icon of a specified kind.
• Lasting effects that affect other character attributes work in the same fashion. For example, if a character has a base STR of 2, and a lasting effect (such as Forever Burning) lowers that character's STR by 1, and another Lasting Effect (such as Gutter Rat's Cunning gives the character +2 STR, the net sum modifier affecting the character is +1 STR (-1 +2 = +1). Thus, the character has a total STR of 3. If a character's STR is ever lower than 0 after all effects are applied, its STR is rounded up to 0.
• If, at any time, two (or more) lasting effects create an endless loop that cannot successfully resolve itself, resolve the loop as if neither lasting effect were occurring.

This would be a case of the Infinite Loop caused by both players taking a specific action (Kraznys) in sequence, ad infinitum. If nothing would break this loop, it should fall under 2.7 above, proving that a loop exists. The last paragraph of Lasting Effects Conflict (which is actually in this case a Triggered Effects conflict) we would resolve as if neither effect worked. I don't see why this would not be the case, and would rule it so in any event in which I was judging.

As ktom explained in this topic infinite loops are for different things. I think we need new official rule for this (or maybe errata: pay min. 1 gold or something).

I think that's a reasonable ruling. I think you don't need to appeal to the Lasting Effects Conflict ruling to come to the conclusion if you just broaden the infinite loop to include multiple players. When two players control Kraznys, one full iteration of the loop would be player 1 moving the attachment from character A to character B and then player 2 moving the attachment from character B to character A. When player 1 tries to use Kraznys, player 2 could just indicate his desire to always take the same action during his next opportunity. That would demonstrate an infinite loop which the players would then not just sit around performing step by step. Instead they would have to indicate the number of iterations and then move on to the next action. Assuming player 1 had no responses to break the loop, this would mean that the loop would always end with player 2 moving the attachment back to character A. The one thing to watch out for is when the Kraznys activations begin with the attachment on a character different from A and B (or controlled by a different player in melee). That first move would then be different from the rest and not part of the loop.

Rogue30 said:

Well, yes, I will concede your point involving Infinite Loops are currently described in the FAQ. However, the end result in this case is still the same the two actions are being taken sequentially after each other, ad infinitum, creating an Infinite Loop, this time between two players instead of between a single player. The only think that would stop the loop would be the taking of a different action (not in the original controller's best interest), executing a response that could break the loop or somehow managing to move the attachment to a character than would prevent the attachment from being taken control of again. To my knowledge, I don't think the second two currently exist in the game.

So we have proven that the infinite loop exists, and that it creates an effect that cancels each other out. Rather than keep this loop open, the ruling for Lasting Effects Conflict appears to address this issue, with the result I mentioned.

I will email this to Nate, and will post whatever I hear back from him.

Quick response from Nate, and here is what he wrote:

Hi Joe,

This is a good interpretation of existing precedent to come to a conclusion on this topic. To put any doubts aside, I'll make a note to add something along the lines of a "Once per attachment per phase" limit to Kraznys into the next FAQ.

Nate French
Senior Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

Oh good call JJ! I like the reasoning(and I think it is an infinite loop, by taking control of the bodyguard, you are now allowing for the other kraznys to take control of it, so infinite loop) and think this is a good solution. ~Although there goes my idea of stalling out melee games!

JerusalemJones said:

Thanks to Nate for the quick response! and perfect solution.

I think I'm failing to understand something here. This is Kraznys' text:

"Challenges: If it is summer, choose an opponent's attachment in play. Pay that attachment's printed gold cost to take control of that attachment, and attach it to a card of your choice."

I'm still not seeing how you could get an infinite loop out of this. Even if I take control of your attachment, it's still your attachment, not mine. That would mean you could not use Kraznys to get it back, negating the possibility of an infinite loop. Or am I wrong in this? The wording on cards like Seductive Promise and Xaro Xoan Daxos indicate that control does not imply ownership.

What am I missing? I'm sure I'm missing something, since Nate has ruled, I just don't know what it is.

Whenever an effect says something like your attachment or opponent's attachment, it is meaning who control's it. The ownership of a card only comes into play when you return things to hand or deck (and then it always says return to owner's hand), or going to a discard or dead pile.

Ah, thanks. I had assumed that "opponent's" meant "owned by your opponent" since Seductive Promise says specifically you can take control of a character "controlled by your opponent". I figured the different wording was significant. Thanks for the clarification.