All well and good, but at the same time, a 4-cost, 2-STR neutral character that no one ever played pretty much shut down the use of Treaty decks at one time in history. It was really the same thing: the threat existed and the risk was too high even if the likelihood of it was pretty slim. In a parallel situation, one "cannot be saved" discard plot had everyone rethinking the relative value of 2-STR characters for more than 2 years.

Sometimes, it is the threat or perception of a situation rather than the likelihood of it actually happening that changes the environment. Sometimes it blows over (MwNK; first turn Threat of Winter in Stark decks), sometimes it doesn't. We'll see which way this goes - and what FFG decides to do about it, preemptively or otherwise.

Does the game even need some sort of crazy combo like what we're describing? If we look back at Winter Edition days, I remeber there was a deck that used either Narrow Escape or some other similar effect card and WED Viserys to claim oddles of power and win, and Viserys got the "Limit 4 per phase" errata to control it. Now, with 2 Motley Crewman and playing a Raiding Fleet, if I chose to activate the response, my opponent gets hit for 10 cards. Let's say six are characters. If he plays Narrow Escape, I hope I have a cancel that I can use (To Be a Kraken with a Knelt character or Seasick and my opponent has no influence) or I discard my hand, losing all my other options for the turn. The Risk-Reward ratio for a raid deck gets even lower with this type "save," and makes it so that I would never want to run a massive discard effect unless I have to ability to prevent my opponent from getting free characters. Running the smaller raiding cards might work, as there is less risk, but is that going to be the best Greyjoy strategy. And, as we are starting to see effects that trigger off of card discard, raiding is finally starting to move into more than an annoyance into what could prove to be a game changer. Narrow Escape ruled this way will provide a counter-balance to raid effects, but it can become such a coutner-balance as to render it too dangerous to use. And until some sort of raid win condition occurs (say, a new card that let's you win or claim power for each card a character cannot draw from their deck) raid decks will likely not be the ones we see at tournaments.

And against my own argument, Raid decks are very, very annoying - especially in melee - and this might control that.

There is another event cancel option that only requires you to have one gold left around- The Hand's Judgement.

Also, I don't recall, at the time of Black Walder, how many ways were there to cancel him? Or First Snow of Winter?

Deck:

Val x 3, Narrow escape x3, Pyre of False Gods x 1-3, as many "Renown" characters as you like.

Summoning season x1, 6 other plot cards (

Turn 1:

Summon Val, play Val, use her ability until bored

When deck depleted play Narrow Escape

Attack

Win

Laerthes said:

Val draws cards, so she may do that only 3 per turn.

your revealing AND drawing with Val, so i believe it is limited by the draw cap of 3. So in if you have Dolorous Ed in play your max goes from 3 to 9. Unless your opponent is using the new Stannis, then you cant use Val at all.

right, i didnt realize about the drawing cap

I'm running Narrow Escape as a way to fend off the Valars in melee. People don't like discarding their hand. Even if they do to cancel it, their hand was just discarded - Its a win / win.

FATMOUSE said:

Narrow Escape returns in play all characters discarded or killed this phase.

The difference between characters discarded from play or from your deck/hand is that out-of-play characters are NOT characters but cards with the type "characters". On every card that refers to a out-of-play character, it's written "a character card" and never "a character". Every time a card refers to a character that is actually in play, it always says "a character" and never says "a character card". The game wording makes a clear difference between an actual character and a character card.

Since Narrow Escape brings back "characters" and not "character cards", those discared from your hand or deck will NOT come back.

Examples where the wording says "character/attachment card" and does not just use the wording "character" or "attachment":

Aegon's Hill (3)
[Targaryen Location]
King's Landing.

Challenges: Kneel Aegon's Hill to look at an opponent's hand. You may choose one character card in that hand and place it in its owner's dead pile.

Visenya's Hill (1)
[Targaryen Location]
King's Landing.

Any Phase: Kneel Visenya's Hill to choose 1 character card in any discard pile, and move that card to its owner's dead pile.

River Raid River Raid
[Greyjoy Event]

House Greyjoy only.
Response: After a character card is discarded from an opponent's deck, put that card into play under your control. At the end of the phase, return that character to its owner's discard pile.

Merchant Spy (1) STR (1) Intrigue
[Targaryen Character]
Ally.

Challenges: Kneel Merchant Spy and move 1 gold from your gold pool to an opponent's gold pool to look at that player's hand. Then, you may give that opponent an additional 1 gold to choose and discard an attachment card from his or her hand.

Hmmm, that's a very good point, Bolzano. I'm actually inclined to agree with you (more so than not, despite my original stance), but I'm concerned with why all search effects don't use "character card" and simply use the term "character" (i.e. The Herads); especially because they don't come into play and never become "characters." An example of a search effect that does use the term "card" is A Time for Ravens.

Bolzano said:

Nonsense.

Rogue30 said:

Elaborate? I understand where you are coming from, but there does seem to be some distinction between a "character" and "character card" in the FAQ and the use of those terms on cards themselves. Do you think this distinction is non-existent? Does it not apply? Et cetera. If so, why or why not?

It's not nonsense; it just is not particularly persuasive.

It is essentially the "weak argument" I presented at the beginning of the thread, just citing the "character card" language. I stayed away from that part of the argument because of the inconsistency that FATMOUSE points out.

Here are the issues with the argument that that Narrow Escape does not put cards discarded from deck or hand into play:

1. The game most certainly does not always refer to "character-type" cards that are not in play as "character cards." FATMOUSE mentions the Heralds, who say to search for a "character" (not a character card). But there is also Retreat and Regroup, which refers to returning "characters" from your discard pile to your hand. Or all the reducing locations that say to lower the cost to play your next "character" (shouldn't that be "character card" since they card is not in play yet?). Or Die for Your King, which refers to King of Queen characters in your discard pile. But before you say "but none of those return a character to play," don't forget this card:

To Be a Dragon
Play only if you have at least 1 Power Struggle plot card in your used pile.
Challenges: Stand a (TARG) character you control to put a (TARG) character with a printed cost of 3 or lower into play from your dead pile.

Before Narrow Escape, did you ever assume or conclude that the character returned to play from the dead pile had to have been killed in the same phase that you played the event? So as you can see, saying that the game template conventions limit the characters Narrow Escape can put into play to those that were killed or discarded from play doesn't really hold up.

2. But let's say that it did. When does that "character" that was killed or discarded stop being a "character" and start being a "character card"? The same phase? The same round? We need to know because of things like Missing Recruit and Winter Reserves. Do these "events made characters" come back out of the discard pile when Narrow Escape is played? And if they do, what happens if I kill one of your Reinforcement event-made-character cards during the Marshaling phase? Wouldn't it mean that you could not get it back with Pyre of the False Gods until next round?

3. You would also need to extend this reasoning to all other card types. How would doing so affect the following card, for example:

Lady Daenerys's Chambers
Response: After you play a (TARG) character, return an attachment with printed cost equal to or lower than that character from your discard pile to your hand.

Wouldn't the "if it says 'character' it means 'from play,' but if it says 'character card' it means not from play" reasoning mean that the only attachments this could retrieve were ones that were discarded from play the exact same phase that I played the character I am Responding to?

So all in all, the language of Narrow Escape limiting it to putting characters into play that also left play that same phase based on the use of the term "character" instead of "character card" is pretty unconvincing. It creates too many inconsistencies when extended to other situations. That's not to say the reasoning behind this - that a character card that was never in play that phase does not meet the "conceptual definition" of the term 'character' on Narrow Escape - is nonsense or totally off base, just that it cannot be defended by the wording of Narrow Escape in comparison to cards like Visenya's Hill or Merchant Spy because the same comparison breaks down when you look at cards like Lady Daenerys's Chambers or Retreat and Regroup.

Yeah, you pretty much sum up why I wasn't fully committed to Bolzano's argument, ktom. The game's use of character and character card is indeed used interchangeably too often for there to be an actual distinction between the two terms, despite the foundations for such a distinction being present. The foundations are there, which is why I was inclined to agree, but upon examination they clearly have never been built on. Perhaps for good reason, the idea of a card being a "character card" and/or "character" could cause a lot of confusion amongst newer players.

FATMOUSE said:

FATMOUSE said:

Bolzano said:

ktom explained already, but if the above is simply a lie, then any conclusions based on it is nonsense.

6 agenda + Val + Edd = 9 cards a Marshalling phase.

If Narrow Escape is worked for every charactor card in death/discard pile, that trick will be too powerful to control.

So it is not possible.....

Uncle Joker said:

I mean, I think The Red Viper with Taste for Blood is too powerful. Is it not possible?

~Well, didn't they errata TRV to have his power blanked and stolen?

I didn't search enough and ktom's example are good about ou-of-play cards called "characters" and not "character cards".

I don't know what's the designers reasoning about this "card" wording but its pointless anyway since its not consistent.

I've never been up against The Red Viper (PotS) with Taste for Blood attached, but what is so special about that combination? To me, TRV seems a solid card on its own, and Taste For Blood would be a good attachment for almost any character, particularly the Blackfish or Thoros. Is there a hidden interaction or is it just the 4Str trip logo renown noble immune to events and character abilities that doesn't kneel to attack and gains power when he loses a challenge? When I say it like that, ya. It draws attention... distraction coefficient 1.0.

It's more an example of how the line between "too powerful" and "too annoying" can be blurry.