Here is a little talk we are having on the French forum.

Ser Balon Swann has the following ability :

• You may declare Ser Balon Swann as the defender of an intrigue challenge against you even if he is already kneeling.

The question is to know wether it is allowed or not to declare him as a defender in an intrigue challenge if he has lost his intrigue icon for some reason.

This card text could be compared to the old Nightwatch Agenda from VE edition :

• You need 5 additional power to win the game. Night's Watch characters you control may be declared as attackers or defenders during military
  and power challenges.

And also with The Fox's Teeth :

• While The Fox's Teeth is attacking, knelt characters may be declared as defenders.

Some says for being able to defend without icon, the Balon card text should be :

"You may declare Ser Balon Swann as the defender of an intrigue challenge against you even if he is already kneeling AND DOESNT HAVE THE INTRIGUE ICON ."

However, how come that the old Nightwatch agenda doesn't say "Night's Watch characters you control may be declared as attackers or defenders during military and power challenges EVEN IF THEY DOESNT HAVE THE APPROPRIATE ICON "?. Is it that its wording was bad?

The Fox's Teeth and Balon card text both modify the rules by saying your character can be declared although he is knelt. But it does not say wether it also bypasses the rules that say you need the appropriate icon.

And the Nightwatch agenda does not bypass it either. So it would then be a useless Agenda, which I think it was not designed for. This would lead me to think when a card text modifies the condition your character must fullfill to be declared as defender or as attacker, it implies your character does not need to have the appropriate icon.

But this would mean characters don't need to have the appropriate icon to defend against The Fox's Teeth, which is not the way we play this card in our meta (but that would just make him a little less powerfull).

All in all, my guess is that the Nightwatch agenda had a bad wording and should precise "even if they doesn't have the appropriate icon" so it would change the rules only about being able to be declared as defender or attacker if you have the appropriate icon. If not, I can't know wether Nightwatchs should be able to be declared in a challenge if they are knelt and they have no icon, or if the Nightwatch agenda is totally useless.

Could you declare a random character without an Intrigue icon as a defender during an Intrigue challenge? No, right? Ser Balon Swann allows you to declare him even if he's kneeling but nothing else. All other restrictions must be met.

It's not an issue about wording (which may be confusing in your example), it's about meeting the rules. You have to meet all the restrictions unless the card text says otherwise, which is why Night's Watch characters may be declared even if they don't have the corresponding icons. A character must have the corresponding icon and has to be standing in order to be declared as an attacker or defender unless its card text (or a different source's) says you can declare it even if it's kneeling/doesn't have the icons or whatever.

My point was if you say that, the Nightwatch agenda is useless since it does not bypass any restriction. That agenda does NOT say "even if they don't have the correspondig icon".

As I read the Balon Swann card text, it could also bypass the icon restriction by saying that you can declare him as a defender during intrigue challenge.

And the "even he is already knelt" would just be a bonus for when he is knelt.

Yeah, I see your point. It would be easier to understand if its text was worded like Greatjon Umber's, even if it's not exactly the same. Anyway, Ser Balon Swann doesn't allow you to ignore the icon restriction unless its text says so.

If the text was worded like Greatjon, Ser Balon could actually get into the challenge even without icon, just as Greatjon can.

Balon's wording looks like the Nightwatch agenda that DO bypass all those restrictions. How is it clear that his text doesnt but the agenda would?

And if the agenda bypass the icon restriction, how do we know it doesnt also bypass the kneeling one?

Actually, what I meant was that the NW's Agenda should be easier to understand if it were worded like the Greatjon.

Ser Balon is just fine as it is.

Yeah except Geatjon can get into the challenge even if he has been bypassed by stealth and that he can get into a challenge after the defenders have been declared, and also in melee games in a challenge that was not initiated against you.

Greatjon was different from that Agenda too, but I think we agree that Agenda is not clear. The agenda is not "hard to understand" but misworded, in my opinion. And Ser Balon would be just fine as it is then.

Yeah, that's why I said they're not exactly the same. In fact, that "even if they don't have the corresponding icons" addition seems to be the best option.

There may be a "historical" explanation to that miswording, though. I don't know...

eloooooooi said:

Without reading all the details in your entire exchange, this is pretty much the correct answer. Let's make sure it is being applied properly.

Yes, the basic requirements for being declared as an attacker or defender are "standing" and "appropriate icon." The old Night's Watch agenda contradicted the basic requirement of "appropriate icon" - but not the basic requirement of "standing" - by specifying that the characters could be declared in military and power challenges. That is, by specifying the challenge type, the icon requirement is contradicted.

Think of it this way: the Agenda simply said that your Night's Watch characters could be declared as attackers and defender during military and power challenges. It never said anything about who could declare them, right? But you never thought your opponent could choose to declare your Night's Watch characters as attackers against you, did you? Or in a Melee game, if Opponent #1 does a military challenge against Opponent #2, you never thought that you could declare your Night's Watch characters as attackers or defenders in that challenge which had nothing to do with you, did you? And why not? Because the Agenda did not contradict the basic rules of the game that say "only the attacking or defending player may declare characters that they control as participants in the challenge." If a card does not specifically counter a rule of the game, you follow the rule of the game.

By saying knelt characters can be declared, cards like Fox's Teeth contradict the "standing" requirement, but since there is no challenge type specified, "appropriate icon" is not contradicted and must be met. So with Fox's Teeth, the character must be knelt and have the appropriate icon in order to be declared.

Balon Swann specifies both kneeling and a challenge type (intrigue). So like Fox's Teeth, he contradicts "standing" and like the old Agenda, he contradicts "appropriate icon." If he is kneeling, Balon Swann can be declared as a defender in an intrigue challenge whether he has the icon or not.

So let's bullet point this to make sure everyone is on the same page:

> "Standing" and "Appropriate Icon" are two separate requirements for challenge participation.
> They must be directly contradicted separately
> By specifying challenge type, but not kneeling state, the Agenda contradicts one
> By specifying kneeling state, but not challenge type, Fox's Teeth contradicts the other
> By specifying BOTH challenge type and kneeling state, Balon Swann contradicts both
> Any requirement not contradicted must be met

This makes sense to me, thanks ktom.

I also had a question about Sansa Stark's Response that says "You may draw one card" but does not contradict any requirement. Shouldn't the text be : "You may choose to draw one card"? Or more likely the word "may" contradicts the basic rule that you cannot draw, just for this one card.

About Ser Balon Swann, what would be his card text if the designers had not wanted him to be able to defend Intrigue without icon?

"Ser Balon Swann can defend Intrigue challenge, even if kneeling, but he must have the appropriate icon" ?

Bolzano said:

This may be a non-native English speaking thing, but honestly, I'm not following this question at all.

Sansa's ability, if triggered, lets the person who just played an attachment on her draw a card. There is no basic rule being contradicted at all. The basic rules of the game provide times when players draw. There is no basic rule that says "you cannot draw." There is a difference between "do X now" - which is what most card effect, including Sansa's, do - and "temporarily suspend the rules that prevent you from doing X."

The "may" in Sansa's ability simply means the person who played the attachment doesn't have to draw if they don't want to. If Sansa's controller played the attachment, it's a pointless repeat of the fact that the Response is a triggered effect. But if some other player controlled the attachment, they are not forced to draw by Sansa's controller if they don't want to.

The idea of "rule contradiction" is not the best way to interpret all card effects. Most of them are simply instructions on what to do rather than some modification of standing rules.

Bolzano said:

Probably more like "You may declare Ser Balon Swann as the defender of an intrigue challenge against you in which he is eligible , even if he is already kneeling." (Comparable to, say, Coldhands.)

About Sansa what I wanted to compare was those 2 effects :

1) You may draw a card.

2) You may declare X as attacker or defender during a challenge.

And the point was that 1) does modify the rules but 2) does not. And I was not sure why although it obviously works like this

Usually draw effects just says "Draw X cards" instead of "You may draw X cards".

Bolzano said:

It's the other way around. 1) does not modify any rules, but 2) does. This has more to do with the way the rules are written. There are no rules for "how to draw a card." There are only times in the game for how to do it. But there are very specific rules for how to declare an attacker during a challenge, including what "declare," "attacker," "defender" and "during a challenge" mean.

So the difference here has more to do with the rules, not the effects. You can't contradict a rule that hasn't been written.

Bolzano said:

Usually, draw effects only apply to the person who triggers the effect, so the simple fact that it is a triggered effect takes care of the "may." (You can always choose not to trigger it.) But Sansa's effect can allow people other than her controller to draw cards - so the "may" there stops one player from forcing another to do something.

ktom said:

I was thinking since it is not written that you can draw, then you cannot. Just the same way you cannot do stuff unless it is specified you can.

Bolzano said:

I see where you're coming from on that, but I think that the overall "unless it says you can, you can't" principle of the game would lead to a general rule of "only draw when you're told to" instead of one that says "you cannot draw - except when an effect contradicts this rule."

Sansa's effect would actually follows that rule (by telling you to draw). This interpretation just seems easier to me. Most abilities and effects follow general rules rather than contradicting them, I think.

Wow, I would never have read it that way. Thanks for the detailed explanation!

I agree "only draw when you're told to" makes sense instead of "you cannot draw - except when an effect contradicts this rule.".

One funny thing about Sansa

Sansa says :

1) You may draw one card.

The rules says :

2) You may draw a to a maximum of three additional in the course of a single round.

...1) Allows you to actually draw the card but 2) doesnt.

The word "may" seems not to have the same meaning in those 2 sentences, the only reason being we assume the more logical ruling is the right one. I actually already played other games where the rules says the same as 2) but I can choose wether I draw 1, 2 or 3 cards (with drawbacks if I draw many cards).

Bolzano said:

You left out an important part of the rules. They don't say "You may draw to a maximum of three additional in the course of a single round." The say "Each player may also (through effects and modifiers) draw up to a maximum of three additional cards in the course of a single round." That bit about "through effects and modifiers" is the difference you are looking for.

Essentially, you are not considering context. Sansa is a triggered effect that is used during an individual game, so her ability more or less says "You are allowed to draw 1 card right now if you want." There is an immediate time context to her ability, or at least to the use of it. But the rules are general guidelines without that immediate time context. They more or less say "By using card effects during a game, you are allowed to draw a total of 1, 2 or 3 additional cards if you want, but no more." The rules really do say that you can choose whether to draw 1, 2 or 3 cards over the course of a round, but the "through effects and modifiers" bit that you left out indicates how that choice is made during a game.

In both cases, the word "may" means the same thing: "you are allowed to, if you so choose." But English is a language that relies quite a bit on context. The meaning of a sentence is usually more than the sum of the definitions of the individual words. "May" is not even the pivotal word in either of those sentences.

Thanks for all your answers, very clear as usual

I have a question about this discussion on icons in order to participate in a challenge:

The location The Wall says: Challenges: Put 1 Night's Watch character into play from your hand, knelt as a defender, during any challenge declared against you. (Limit once per challenge.) Return that character to your hand at the end of the phase if it is still in play.

1) If I am running only "the Builders" agenda (all night's watch have the power icon" can I use The Wall to make a night's watch character participate in a military or intrigue challenge? Reading to the discussion above I would think yes...

2) Can I bypass some restriction like Balon Greyjoy or Stannis Baratheon or Wex Pyke (in their text is written that I cannot declare defenders, but with The Wall I am not declaring anything. So can I use The Wall to oppose a challenge with a night's watch if Stannis is participating in that challenge and I control no lords character? I think yes, but some friends of mine are not convinced...

3) This is about Geatjon Umber: is it true that he can participate in a mil or pow challenge even if he is stealthed by the attacker? I think it depends on the definition of stealth, but I cannot find it...

1. Yes, even if the character has no icons at all. The Wall specifies that you can put the character knelt as a defender during any challenge declared against you.

2. Yes, you are not declaring characters so those cards do not apply to The Wall.

3. Yes and no. He cannot defend once he's been stealthed but he can join the challenge before Stealth is applied during the second action window of the challenges phase. This way you can use his response to defend before your opponent uses Stealth and at least have him participating.

3. eloooooooi is right. I remembered wrong the stealth definition that prevents you from defending and not just from being declared as a defender.

ok, thanks!

About finding a wording that would have not allowed Ser Balon Swann to be declared as a defender during INT challenge :

ktom said:

In my opinion, this wording would allow him to defend without icon since as you said it contradicts the rules by mentionning the Intrigue challenge.

As far as I can see, in which he is eligible is useless, just as it is useless on Coldhands, since "You may declare" or "You must declare" does not allow you any way to contradict any rule, then he must be eligible anyway.

However, I think :

"During INT challenge initiated against you, Ser Balon Swann can be declared as a defender even if he is knelt" would fit.

The Green Hatchling from the same chapter pack as Ser Balon has a similar wording for getting its INT icon during challenge. This way the INT icon is part of the restrictions for the ability to be initiated and not part of the effect itself.