I did not find any post about this.. i may have missed it though.

What happen if I have infamy characters in play, playing this agenda, and I have to put some power on my house.

I can't put them on my house, i MUST put them on a brotherhood character. But may I choose to put the power on an infamy character instead.

More to the point, i only have an infamy character in play that win power, may i put it on him ? or does the agenda say NO, only on bro characters..?

This is not as clear as it seems to me.

Infamy and the agenda are both replacement passive effects.

So the 1st player will decide wich one to apply first.

The 2nd one will be applied unsuccessfully.

Not quite.

Say that the First Player says "the Agenda goes first." You put the power on a Brotherhood character. At this point, Infamy doesn't even apply because you are not putting power on your House. So it's not that the second one is unsuccessful, the restrictions for it doesn't even apply. Similarly, if Infamy goes first, the Brotherhood Agenda doesn't even apply - still not the same thing as being unsuccessful. So successfully resolving one of these makes it so that the other should not be initiated, let alone resolved. That's not the same as a mutually exclusive conflict where successfully resolving one makes it impossible to resolve the other, even though all the play restrictions say you should be initiating it.

But there is one more scenario here: say that the First Player says "Infamy goes first" and the player decides not to put the power on the character and put it on the House instead. That's perfectly legal when resolving Infamy. At this point, the Agenda would kick in, forcing you to put the power on a Brotherhood character. So not only does the second one happen, it is successful! Again, this illustrates that there is no real conflict between the two effects because there is a situation where they can both be resolved successfully.

And that's what it comes down to: the First Player only decides the order when effects are in conflict. SInce there is at least one way to resolve the effects that satisfies both without creating a conflict, that's the way you resolve it. So Infamy will always "go first" because no matter how Infamy comes out, the Agenda will either get a chance to resolve or never be initiated. The end result is that you will always have the chance to put power you claim or move to your House on a card with Infamy before being required to put it on a Brotherhood character.

This is similar to an old situation where there are two effects on the table. One says "You must declare 2 attackers in order to initiate a challenge." The other says "Each player cannot declare more than 1 attacker or defender in each challenge." One effect requires you to declare at least 2, the other requires you to declare no more than 1. But the First Player does not get to choose the order in which these apply because there is a way to satisfy both of them - declare 0 characters.

Thanks a lot Ktom

So this make the Lannister Brotherhood/infamy more playable, right ?!

(assuming that new infamy characters will be available some time )

Kordovan said:

ktom said:

That would be nicer not to play this agenda.

But the lack of infamy characters is the issue. I tryied it w/o the agenda and... won the game with 15points on my house card!!! I have seen no DI, no heads, no Jaime, just one of my 3 vendors. And ended with putting POW points on my house.

Maybe i should try this again, just to be sure