So, if I have Wildlings and stealth by all their in-play characters, can someone still defend against Orwell the Eagle using the Wall and a NW character? The Eagle is worded so that it doesn't sound like they can defend regardless...

Bonus question: On Frozen Outpost, is the standing a cost? I.e. can you use a second Frozen Outpost on the same character after already standing him using the first one? Same with Toll Gate - if the character is already standing in the challenge, can you Toll Gate him to remove the non-unique?

Thanks!

rings said:

Orwell? "All Wildlings are equal, but some Wildling are more equal that others"?

The way he is worded does indeed seem to imply that if at least 2 characters were not declared as defenders that there can be no "defense" of the challenge. However, if we're going to get very technical, challenge resolution involves the counting of "defending STR" and "opposing the challenge." I mean, if we're going to literally take Orell's text to mean "no defense," does that mean I am no longer the "defending player" if I cannot defend the challenge?

So I think you might be splitting hairs just a bit here. Orell's text is more appropriately applied to the step of declaring defenders. If I do not declare at least 2 defending characters, none of my characters become defending characters through declaration. I can still use other card effects - other than declaring defenders - to give characters the "defending" status. So I could use The Wall as a way around Orell's ability.

Note that I cannot drop one character in with The Wall, and then declare a second character (or declare 1, then drop another in with The Wall). Orell's requirement to declare at least 2 defenders when declaring defenders still holds.

rings said:

Frozen Outpost says "Kneel Frozen Outpost to choose and stand 1 defending character..." Remember that in the "do X to do Y" format, X is the cost. So no, standing the character is not a cost and, since there is no "then," the stand does not need to be successful in order to grant the STR boost. Same reasoning applies to Toll Gate.

Here is is Orwell (I love calling him that...so nerdy):

While Orell the Eagle is attacking, opponents must declare at least 2 defenders in order to defend the challenge.

I can see how that would be in the 'declare defenders' framework...but boy that seems that it would always be 'in effect' since it is a passive. You put a guy into the challenge, isn't that defending, which you can't do? Wouldn't the wording perclude even putting someone in the challenge using the Wall using the 'golden rule'?

Here is Frozen Outpost:

Challenges: Kneel Frozen Outpost to choose and stand 1 defending character. Until the end of the challenge, that character gets +2 STR (+4 STR instead if it is a W character).

I thought the period meant something at one time? Maybe if it then said 'then'? It just sounds like you stand a defending character - then THAT character (if already standing, there isn't that defending character since you never stood him) would get the strength bonus. It sounds like it is targeting a character you stood...which is impossible if they are standing?

Here is Toll Gate:

Challenges: Kneel Toll Gate to choose a non-unique, participating character. Stand that character, and remove it from the challenge.

With the AND verbaige, it would sound more like both things would happen regardless. If already standing, it would be removed...if a cancel to the removal was a card effect, the character woudl still be stood.

~Would be nice to have the same verbaige on all these cards

Thanks again Ktom. My lack of rules knowledge is still in effect, some things never change

rings said:

This may just be untidy templating in the use of "defend," when in reality the limitation is only there to prevent you from declaring _one_ character. Anything that circumvents Orell's limitation on "declaration" is going to invalidate the passive restriction you think exists.

The period never meant anything, at least with regard to Frozen Outpost. It never mandated that you choose a "knelt defending character," and without a "then" there's no requirement for a success to let the second part follow. Toll Gate has no "cost" beyond kneeling the location you get both effects... a stand and a remove.

You comment on verbiage is where I wish AGOT had something akin to the Gatherer, where an accurate list of all card text was available, and cards were kept in a wording consistent with the most current templating. An in-house Tzu-Mainn's if you would, but with included errata.

^^ I'd love to see more consistency in card templating.

I can understand why rings would interpret Orell the way he did. "To defend" for a character means to participate in a challenge on the defending side, a continuous action that lasts through the challenge. Apparently (judging by this card), "to defend" for a player means to declare defending characters, a discrete action that occurs at one point in game time.

schrecklich said:

It's actually gotten a lot better for the LCG.

QUOTE efidm=355780]You put a guy into the challenge, isn't that defending, which you can't do? Wouldn't the wording perclude even putting someone in the challenge using the Wall using the 'golden rule'?

Not necessarily. Since the word "cannot" is not used in Orell's text, he is not absolute. As such, other card effects can over-ride or come out above his. If he said something like "Unless two characters are declared as defenders, a player cannot defend against a challenge in which Orell attacks," then yeah, he'd work more like you are thinking. As is, Orell's wording only precludes declaring fewer than 2 characters as defenders, not making characters "defending characters" altogether. In this case, it is the lack of the word "cannot" that provides for the more in-depth interpretation.