Gencon tournament.. Playing metamates first round.

By orclrob, in 1. AGoT General Discussion

Posted at

Deathjester26 said:

lol... funny thing is I think I might have been around for one of the rulings by Nate. ~I was just keeping it a secret from you rings cool.gif

I really don't care which ruling we go with. In the past, we've always followed the "power is a stat of the Character" rule. I don't have a problem with Nate's ruling either. It seems to make more sense to me, but ktom's ruling (having precedence in the past) might be around for a specific (perhaps no longer an issue) reason.

Either one is fine by me, as long as it's official.

In my game against Deathjester, this ruling was very important. We both were playing Martell, and early in the game, DJ played Summoning Season. I figured we could both go get the Red Viper, but I expected that I would have the character advantage (as I was not running a Viper-centric deck), so I didn't get him. Instead, I got Ellaria Sand, expecting DJ to get the Viper, and then to steal the power from DJ's Viper. Had I not specifically asked for a clarification on this issue before the tournament, I'm not sure I would have done the same thing. Ellaria definitely helped slow the game down enough for me to eventually rid the board of his Viper (8 turns later!)

Posted at

Yup, I'm with the folks that see power as a separate entity on this one. We've been playing that way for some time now down here and Nate confirmed rulings that way at GenCon.

Posted at

Yeah I'm totally fine with the ruling going either way, but I was just arguing for precedent in the situation. I hate showing up to a tourney and THEN finding out that the rules are changes. Its why I read the FAQ like every time it comes out to make sure I'm not missing anything big. Fortunately for me none of my dudes had immunity to worry about. Unfortunately none of my characters had immunity. :'(

Posted at

Bounder said:

Hard to argue with Nate on the rules. gui%C3%B1o.gif

Seriously, though, I have reminded Nate of rules and rulings in the past. Gencon 2009, for instance, he was in the middle of ruling that Risen from the Sea could NOT be used to save a 3-STR character from a 3-STR burn effect until I reminded him that the "save" and "then attach" portions of the event's effect happen as part of the same effect resolution and thus the "kill at 0" does not reassert itself between the save and the attaching/STR boost.

I'm not saying that Nate is wrong here or that it doesn't make sense. I am saying it is a new reversal of a traditional ruling that FFG has held since immunity was introduced in the VED block while IF events that moved power from one character to another were still around. It's actually a ruling from Eric. And while I don't disagree with it per se , I find it inconsistent with the ruling that the triggered effect of an immune card cannot be canceled by whatever that card is immune to.