The Blood-Crazed Scramer reads:

..you may declare 1 additional (MIL) challenge (to a maximum of 2)...

Does this mean that I can declare 2 military challanges total, or two additional military challanges from the normal one (up to three with a normal plot and up to 4 with Storm of Swords or After the Mummer's Ford )?

Since we know that "to a minimum of 10" on the Treaty Agendas incorporates every effect that lowers the power you need to win, not just the Agenda's -5, and that you are unable to go below needing 10 power to win, it seems pretty safe to say that it is "to a maximum of 2 total military challenges." You wouldn't be able to combo the Screamers with Storm of Swords, etc. for challenge after challenge after challenge.

This is a newb question, but I'm a newb so that's ok... am I correct in stating that you would be able to combo Screamer with something like Battle of Ruby Ford? Or does the the "single challenge" restrict Screamer's ability?
Battle of Ruby Ford: Plot: After the dominance phase this round, there is an epic phase during which each player may initiate a single challenge with a claim value of 2.

Skowza said:

I admit that I don't know why the word "single" is used, but I believe you can use Screamer during epic phase.

This card is very poorly written though - maximum of 2 per phase or per turn?

Rogue30 said:

Let's say this another way. When you look at the flow chart for the Challenges Phase in the FAQ, there is a line going from the "resolve challenge" framework action window back up to the pre-challenge player action window that says "Active Player's Next Challenge Opportunity." This indicates in the timing flow of the game that you keep cycling from the "resolve challenge" to the "player action" window until the Active Player does not initiate a challenge in the "declare challenge" framework action window. (It is also what lets you take Player Actions between challenges.) By using the word "single," the Epic Phase essentially takes out this arrow. So after the First Player initiates (or not) his "single" challenge, the game moves directly to the "next active player" framework window. The use of the word "single" means there is only one "declare challenge" framework action window per player. So it doesn't matter how many challenges your card effects say you can do, the timing window where you actually initiate them only comes around once.

The exception to this would be "Shadow Politics," since it says you initiate the challenge as a player action (so it doesn't actually need an "initiate challenge" framework window).

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

Oh, I was talking about Screamer's ability - "If you have won a single M challenge" seems unnecessary, because of limit.

ktom said:

Yeah, I forgot the discussion about these. I was looking at War of Five Kings.

I dont have the framework breakdown in front of me so I could be completely wrong here. But doesnt War of Five Kings say that "...there is an epic phase in which each player may initiate an additional challenge..." unlike the other epic battles that say "...there is an epic phase in which each player may initiate a single X challenge..."

So War of Five Kings isn't putting in a single framework for a single challenge, its putting in an additional one. This would lead me to conclude that blood-crazed screamer can also act in the epic phase, assuming a military challenge was already victorious.

I understand what your saying ktom about the word "single" preventing you from doing more than one. But if two Stark players play Whispering Wood in the same turn can't they make two each? I look at it as the Epic Battle giving the opportunity to initiate another challenge, and if that challenge is military and if it is successful AND THEN if Blood-Crazed Screamer is in play it will allow for an additional challenge in the epic phase. Card abilities change normal gameplay, they let us do things 'outside the rules' in a specific way. Why shouldn't Blood-Crazed Screamer do this?

I think the Blood-Crazed Screamers use of the word "single" makes the ability only usable after you win one military challenge. So if you have won two in a phase already then you can't declare a third, since it has put "a maximum of two". It keeps it from interacting with Storm of Swords to give three military challenges in one phase.

Mathias Fricot said:

Each epic event creates separate phase.

Mathias Fricot said:

So what's the point using "single" word? It's redundant, because of limit restriction.

Having the word single will give you an additional military challenge after your first successful military challenge as the attacker that phase. If you have storm of swords revealed and make a military challenge against me and I win, good on me. If you then succeed on your second military challenge, Blood-Crazed Screamer will not let you make a third. If you don't have storm of swords revealed, lets say you have something like Fury of the Dragon revealed, it will work differently. You win your first military challenge against me, then you get to make a second one . So under normal circumstances where you would only be able to make a single military challenge in a phase, you can now make two if you win the first one . If you could already make two (or more) military challenges in a phase, it does nothing.

Also, about the use of "single" in the epic battle events. The restriction to one challenge per type is in the rules under the Challenges Phase (page 13 of the Core Rules) and reads "During a player's challenges phase, he may initiate one military, one intrigue, and one power challenge, in any order." I think saying that in the epic battles you could only make a "single X challenge" is because this limitation is only in the challenges phase. If you give a player the ability to make challenges in another phase, no other phase has this restriction. So its a way of saying that they can't freely make an infinite number of challenges.

If the event didn't say single and just said that "players can initiate X challenges" problems would arise. I would have my vigilant Fiery Followers and make infinite claim 2 military challenges using Ruby Ford. Why infinite? Because the rules say that in the challenges phase there is a limit of one challenge per type, not in the epic phase. Thats what the rules say. Having the word "single" doesnt mean you cant declare extra challenges with cards like the Screamer, it sets the base limit to a single challenge. Other affects can still increase this through adding additional challenges, the same way the base limit is a single challenge of each type in the challenges phase - and this gets increased through An Empty Thone and other similar effects.

And I just figured out how to bold.

Mathias Fricot said:

So what's the point using "single" word? It's redundant, because of limit restriction.

If it works the way I interpret it, then its redundant. if you removed "single" it would still work the same way.

If you interpret the Epic Battle events use of the word "single" the way ktom was explaining it, then this card should also work in the epic phase. By specifying "single" in the same way (ie lacking the arrow in the framework event) it would add that arrow.

Either way, I think it gives you an extra military challenge in the challenges phase.

A couple things:

1. If you're going to take the word "additional" on War of the Five Kings the same way you would take it on something in the challenge phase, additional to what? What is my first challenge that I then get to initiate an "additional" one?

2. The word "single" on the Epic Battle events limits you to a single challenge and no other challenge adding effects work, pretty much for the reasons I mentioned. Something like the Screamers may change the limitation on how many challenges you would be able to initiate, but they do not add in the timing element that lets you actually initiate them. (That's why Shadow Politics specifically says you can initiate the challenge as a player action - so that you don't have to wait for a framework action that allows you to initiate challenges to come around.) The assumption that by changing the limit on the number of challenges you can initiate, it also gives you the opportunity to initiate them is incorrect. For example, let's say that the Screamer worked for winning a military challenge on attack or defense. I was First Player, and now you are the Active Player. I win a military challenge on defense. Does the "additional challenge" I may now initiate because of the Screamer let me actually initiate it, even though I am not Active Player and never will be again in the challenge phase? No, of course not. I essentially botched the timing of it. Being allowed to initiate an additional challenge is not the same as granting a place in the timing of the game to do so.

BTW: The whole "additional challenges in the Epic phase cannot happen" interpretation is also a ruling by FFG. Feel free to send the question to Damon/Nate if you are unsure.

3. The use of the word "single" in Dothraki Screamers pretty much ensures that you will never be able to use it to have more than 2 challenges. Whether your first additional military challenge comes from the Screamers or from some other effect, the effect will never be applicable after the first challenge. The "maximum of 2" limit therefore locks out all other "additional military challenge" effects, whether from the Screamer or not, the same as the "minimum of 10" limit on the Treaty agendas locks out all other "fewer power to win" effects. In short, the word "single" on the Screamers stops it from activating after any other "additional military challenge" effect while the "maximum of 2" limit stops any other "additional military challenge" effect from applying after it is activated. Covers the fact that the Screamers don't combo with other "extra challenge" effects from both ends.

4. As was mentioned, multiple Epic Battle events do not "stack" into a single phase with multiple challenges. They create 1 Epic Phase each with a single challenge in each one. That's not even interpretation: it's right out of the FAQ.

ktom said:

Do you want to say that Screamer would work differently if the word "single" was not there?

I am going to work backwards.

Firstly, ktom, for point 4 I sincerely apologize. I was under the impression that it would check for a phase, if not present then created a phase, and then to that phase (just created or already in existence) let us make challenges. I was wrong. Each epic battle makes a distinct Epic Phase that follows the cards description. It is in the FAQ, ruling 3.34. I do not have it memorized cover to cover though, so please try not to hold it against me.

Secondly, I completely agree with point 3. Thats how I explained it as well. I don't understand what your talking about though with defending challenges since the card clearly states you need to win as the attacker. Rogue30 was asking about the use of the word "single" in the character ability of the Screamer, which is redundant (in most cases) since it says "to a maximum of 2." If you had won multiple military challenges (ie. a number of challenges that is an element of the natural number set greater than 1) then you cannot trigger its ability anyway, since you can only have a max of 2 military challenges a turn. I think its limit "max of 2" is all it needs. I cant think of when you would be able to abuse it without saying "single" since its "max of 2" will always stop you from making more than 2 challenges of that type. I vote "single" is redundant in the card text of the Screamer. I dont know what every card does though, so I'm not the final say.

For point 2, I was providing an explanation of why they would give the word "single" in Epic Battle events. My explanation being the limit to the number of challenges that can be initiated (to one per type) is strictly applicable to the Challenges Phase, and allowing challenges to take place in other phases would need a similar limit, so it was printed on the card. Clearly unsatisfactory reasoning. Now, since you've contacted FFG about it there is no dispute at all. You can only make one challenge per epic phase, no additional challenges through any effects apply. This I did not find in the FAQ, so thank you for passing on the official ruling. I don't think I need to email Nate(?) about it, but providing me with permission was considerate. In my defense I don't think my logic was that farfetched.

And finally point 1, What then would War of Five Kings do? It says it adds an additional challenge, but like you said, additional to what? The epic phase created by the cards text doesn't lay down a diagram on what framework and player action windows are there, and in what order. The epic phase diagram isn't in the FAQ. If the ability to make challenges through the framework action is inherent in the epic phase (ie. Because its an epic phase, you can make a single challenge of any type and the Epic Battle cards specify what type you are limited to), then War of Five Kings would appear to let you make two challenges (the original and the additional) - But there is the rub. We can't have "additional" challenges in the epic phase (previously established). So it would allow the one challenge, of any type, that is already inherent in the epic phase (if the epic phase always has an inherent framework for making a single challenge). So we get to make a challenge of a type we want. But then why not just say an epic phase is created and these are the alternatives to normal claim? Why say an additional challenge can be made? There is no reason to. Is there even an inherent framework for challenges in the epic phase? If yes, then why say "single" on all the epic battles when no number needs designation? There can be only one (highlander) challenge per phase. If no, then War of Five Kings does nothing? since it can't add an additional challenge to nothing, no challenge gets to be made. Why does it say that? Its not in the FAQ, so I suppose I can email FFG about it, because logical reasoning does have a knack for failing at inopportune times.

The good thing for me is that I don't have any decks running Epic Battles atm, so I don't need to worry at all.

Mathias Fricot said:

Wow, thanks for the feedback. I've forwarded the issue to Nate and asked about the ruling on War of the Five Kings as well.

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

That answer satisfies me. (But still, the card could be written better).

Rogue30 said:

War of Five Kings text has been Errata'd to be the same as the other Epic Battles

Mathias Fricot said:

lol! well said

nothing a good errata cant fix