What is the printed Strength of the Pirates of Orkmont ? 0 because X=0 when undetermined or the gold value of your opponent plot card ?

Faq said

"Paying Costs
(3.1) The Letter X
Unless specified by a preceding card, card
effect, or granted player choice, the letter "X"
is always equal to 0."

But this is talking about the value of X, not the printed value. On the french forum, we're betting on 0, but we're not sure. anyone to confirm ?

The printed value is treated as 0. This was always a huge vulnerability to Sister of Fire.

Sister of Fire was our example to say that it was 0 but it is only an example and an old one. Is the quote I did of the Faq the only thing that is to consider to rule this or is there a ruling we haven't seen ?

Finish out that particular FAQ entry:

"Further, any card with no
cost of a specified type is assumed to have a
cost of 0 for purposes of determining how that
card interacts with triggered effects that need
to count its cost."

That discussion on cost sets the precedent for how to handle comparisons to card characteristics that do not exist on particular cards.

So X is assumed to be 0 when it is not specifically defined, both by the definition of X you quoted earlier and by this entry that says when a card is missing a particular characteristic, the value of that characteristic is assumed to be 0 for the purpose of determining how effects interacting with that characteristic resolve. "X" is meaningless as a printed STR, so it is assumed to be 0 for things that look for a value of printed STR.

Well, this FAQ entry only talk about printed cost but it seems logical to do the same with printed strength. Updating the FAQ about this could be a good thing.

Arthur Lannister said:

Well, the FAQ only talks about the word "choose" being necessary to define a card as the target of an event effect or a character ability, but we pretty freely extend the definition to attachments, locations and plots.

Obviously, being clearer is a good thing, but the clear ruling for cost is a pretty good guideline for dealing with STR in the meantime. It's a reliable (and reasonable) precedent, even if it isn't a codified rule.

I agree with this. That wasn't the point.

There are more and more AGoT players around the world and the tournaments become bigger. The competitivity increase and some players are very precises with rules and when your are an official referee it is sometimes difficult to explain to those players that "Ok, the Faq doesn't say anything about characters abilities that target, but that's all the same". If I came there on the american board to ask this question, it was because some players disagree with the oldest players opinion and wanted an "official" ruling (= Your opinion or Nate's).

It could be great to correct all those little things in the FAQ (when we saw them) to have an official document that regroup all these rulings and not to have to bother you or Nate with those questions. That was what I was meaning.

So, to put it in situational terms, venomous blades can always kill one of the pirates of orkmont. Am I right?

Yes, ktom said the printed strength is treated as 0 and that is certainly less than or equal to 2.

Arthur Lannister said:

To be more precise, I think this IS talking about the value of the printed value AND about the value of X

Following is how to determine the value of printed value :

a) What is the printed value of this card ? It is the letter X (wether a gold value can be determined or not)

b) What is the value of the printed value ( ie letter X) ? The FAQ entry says the value of X is 0 so the value of ( X = printed value) is 0.

Example :

My opponent reveals a plot with a gold value of 5.

- Printed STR value of the pirates = "X" = 0

- STR value of the pirates = highest gold value on each opponent's plot card = 5

My opponent has no plot card revealed.

- Printed STR value of the pirates = "X" = 0

- STR value of the pirates = highest gold value on each opponent's plot card = undetermined = not specified by a preceding card, card effect, or granted player choix = 0

So, I think there is no need of the next entry that is only about costs to determine the printed STR value of those pirates. Also, I see no reason to extend that entry to STR.

Bolzano said:

Or is that Printed STR = 5? Probably so since the pirate ability says so.

Hmmmm...

Pirates of Orkmont (4) STR (X) Military Power
[Greyjoy Character] Ironborn. Mercenary. Intimidate. No attachments.
X is the highest gold value on an opponent's revealed plot card

Venomous Blade (s0) Shadows
[Martell Attachment] Weapon. House Martell only.
After Venomous Blade comes out of Shadows, attach it to a character you control. Then, choose and kill and opponent's character with printed STR 2 or less.
Response: After you lose a challenge, Venomous Blade goes into Shadows.

I differentiate between "printed strength" and just plain "strength".

When something says "printed strength," I look directly at what is printed on the "shield" on the card and ignore everything else that might be on the card including attachments, effects, etc.

When something says "strength" (and doesn't say "printed strength"), that's when I include all the possible modifiers.

So the Pirates of Orkmont, in my humble opinion, always has a printed strength of zero. (ie, "x" is not a positive number until you factor in an effect)

I agree with you Stormtower, except when my opponent has a plot revealed. As you said his printed STR is X but I think we should still apply the character ability to X.

As you said this character's ability does not define his STR but his printed STR.

If X was the character STR and not his printed STR, then we would not be able to modify his STR by playing STR modifiers since a continuous effect would make it X anyway.

Maybe ktom will clarify, I have a doubt that there is any need to extend the FAQ entry about costs to STR here.

Bolzano said:

Bolzano said:

Bolzano said:

As a quite new player to this LCG, it still eludes me why you consider X not to be defined, as the card explicitly says that "X is the highest gold value on an opponent's revealed plot card", so if an opponent has a plot revealed X is defined. And X value could be considered to be this base STR card, as nothing in rules or FAQ really defines "base STR".

I hope something will be written in the FAQ to make things clear and explicit for all players.

Already in the FAQ

(3.1) The Letter X
Unless specified by a preceding card, card
effect, or granted player choice, the letter "X"
is always equal to 0. Further, any card with no
cost of a specified type is assumed to have a
cost of 0 for purposes of determining how that
card interacts with triggered effects that need
to count its cost.

Toqtamish said:

Wait... so is that FAQ effectively saying that the "card effect" of the Pirates of Orkmont would give X a value?

As far as I understood ktom's explanation, the Pirate of Orkmont effect modifies his base STR and NOT his printed STR.

So his printed STR, the inked "X" (which would be different from the variable letter X defined in the FAQ), is never defined as an integer. That's how this article of the FAQ apply, extending it from costs to STR (replace cost by STR in the article).

However, I'm still confused about the reason why the pirate's effect doest NOT apply to the printed STR but only to base STR. Even if it is X, I thought their effect would modify not only the base STR but also the printed STR value.

@Toqtamish :

The full FAQ entry starts with:

"Card Effects and Abilities
Paying Costs
(3.1) The Letter X
Unless specified by a preceding card, card
effect, or granted player choice, the letter "X"
is always equal to 0. Further, any card with no
cost of a specified type is assumed to have a
cost of 0 for purposes of determining how that
card interacts with triggered effects that need
to count its cost."

So it is not clear if it applies to other things than plain cost calculation...

Moreover it is also difficult to understant why printed STR and base STR are different .... this is not mentionned in the rules nor the FAQ .. as far as I know base STR and printed STR are not really defined in the rules nor the FAQ .. are they ?

@malo

I know what the full entry is, I cut off a couple words, excuse me.

As for the rest, I'm gonna let ktom handle this one I think.

Before we get into the whole "why isn't printed X defined by the text," let me just point out that the concept of Base STR is in the Legacy FAQ under the entry for Ten Towers Battlements. It is the STR of a character before any modifiers are applied - which does not include definition of variables. As part of a card-specific errata, it was not transferred cleanly in to the LCG FAQ, although it may need to be. The term is later used - in both Legacy and LCG FAQs - during the examples of how to handle "conflicting" lasting effects. So defining X on the Pirates is part of determining Base STR, but not part of its modified STR. And, as we shall discuss, not part of its printed STR, either.

OK. Well, I won't bother quoting the FAQ entry on "The Letter X" in the "Paying Costs" section. It is obviously not helping anyone (especially since the thread started that way). I'll try to get into this, but it is likely to get long and involved. So we'll start with:

The short answer is this: "Printed" anything cannot be changed in any way. Cost is the easiest example (the printed cost of Edmure's Host is always 6 and doesn't change with the number of House Tully characters you control, or if you happen to be playing it OOH), but there are others. Things that blank the "printed text box" (and they all do, by FAQ definition) does not remove gained abilities, even gained text. If something affects characters with the printed Night's Watch trait, removing the trait with Old Nan does not block it. If an effect refers to a character with the printed power icon, it still applies to Eddard Stark, even if Orphan of the Greenblood has him sitting on the sidelines, unable to be declared as attacker or defender in any challenges.

We're all on board with this idea so far, right? When you are refering to something in its printed state, we are talking about the ink on (or absent from) the cards. There can be no modification through card effect. Otherwise, there would not need to be a distinction between "STR" and "printed STR."

Let's look at a much easier example first. Take a the Reinforcement events, which enter play as characters when their effects are triggered. Their "printed STR" is obviously missing because there is no ink on the card that gives you a value for its printed STR. You have to rely on a lasting effect to define its STR, but that effect doesn't actually put ink on the card. Its only STR comes from modification - so its printed STR is treated as 0, even though its STR is treated as 3 or 4 (unmodified by other STR manipulation effects). There is no doubt that Venomous Blade takes out a whole Reinforcement Army. This is all pretty clear, right? The definition of the card's STR does not count as the definition of its printed STR.

Now, that is a much more clear cut example than Pirates of Orkmont because the effect defining the STR actually says "with STR 3/4" instead of "with printed STR 3/4." The Pirates are more confusing because when Venomous Blade goes looking for its printed STR, it finds a big-old "X," not an empty space. And the relevant text isn't saying "the Pirates have STR X," it is saying "X is the same thing as...." So when we look at the only guidance we have for how to deal with the letter X (in the cost explanation, which the truly literal-minded folks will insist doesn't tell us anything about STR, but in the absence of any other guidelines, what else should we look at?), we are told to treat it as 0 unless specified by some other effect

[EDIT] - I accidentally hit "Publish." This next part may look new to some folks but was always intended to be included....

So the question is whether or not the effect that defines X (the Pirates own text) should be included in a check for printed STR.

On the face of it, it seems that it should. Venomous Blade looks at Pirates, sees the X, looks at this FAQ entry to see what it should do with the X and is told that it might have been specified by a preceeding card or effect - and if not, treat it as 0. (If, for example, Fortifed Position was someone's revealed plot, the question of what X should be becomes pretty easy.) So the critical point becomes whether or not the Pirate's text ("X is the highest gold value on an opponent's revealed plot card") is applied here. Essentially, we have a variable (X) and need to know how to define it.

For that, I'd refer you to the entry in the FAQ for defining variables. It reads (Note: I did not include the part of the entry for triggered and passive abilities because it does not apply):

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

So, the constant effect defining X is always checking and updating X when it is necessary. In the case of the Pirates, X is not defined when plots are revealed and stays that way until a new plot is revealed. Rather, it is checked and defined whenever some card or game effect needs to know what the Pirates' STR is. That means X must be defined as part of checking the play restictions and target requirements for resolving Venomous Blade. Since Venomous Blade is specifically looking at printed STR, the only effects that can be put into that check are ones that specifically modify printed STR. As we discussed above, nothing modifies printed anything. As such, the "X is..." effect cannot be applied to a specific check for printed STR because it does not specifically modify printed STR. The ink on the card remains "X," which we know from the FAQ entry should be treated as 0 in the absence of anything that defines it.

It boils down to this: the specific purpose of looking for printed STR - which is the STR characteristic of the card in its "natural," unmodified state - is not covered by the general definition of X represented by the card text. A card like Venomous Blade, that looks only for a printed characteristic, ignores any and all modifiers - and the text defining X counts as a modification of the printed characteristic. In fact, I cannot think of a single example where a printed X is defined by another card effect.

That's a pretty well thought-out reasoning!

Thanks for taking the time to explain all of that.

Now ... if only people will accept that answer, and if we can get that into the FAQ somehow...