Any Phase: Return an Army character you control to your hand to put an Army character with a lower printed STR into play from your hand. At the end of the phase, return that character to your hand if it is still in play.

This event has no target, so I can play it without effect, right? That is, I don't have to put an army character into play, even if I have one in my hand, correct?

Hmmm, it's structured as "Do X to do Y" so I think as part of the effect you have to if you can. I don't think you can even play the event if you can't or don't want to do Y (in this case play an Army from hand). Consider Lion's Gate if there is no non-House card with a power on it, I don't think you're allowed to trigger and kneel it since you can't do Y. This seems like it's part of play restriction, but I could be wrong. You're right that there is no target, so maybe you can play and trigger the event that way

This is not restriction, so you can use Lion's Gate if there is no non-House card with a power on it. The question is, in your example, can I use Lion's Gate and deliberately do not discard 1 power (if there is non-House card with a power on it). I think no, because this is something players can verify - so you must discard that power. In my example this can't be verified, that's why I think I don't have to put that army.

Rogue30 is correct. You are:

1) Allowed to trigger something (assuming all play and target restrictions are met) for an unsuccessful effect, even if you know it will "fizzle" before triggering it.

2) Once triggered, you are not allowed to "ignore" or "refuse" an effect that has been paid for.

3) When an effect interacts with hidden information, you are not required to reveal that information unless specifically instructed to.

What that all boils down to is:

A) You can, indeed, kneel Lion's Gate even if no non-House cards have power on them. Since no play restrictions or targeting requirements have been violated, you can "do X" even if you can't complete "to do Y." The effect will fizzle.

B) You cannot kneel Lion's Gate just to kneel it, refusing to discard power from a no-House card in play when there is one. If you "do X," you must "do Y" if able.

C) You can play Desperate Tactics to return an Army character to your hand, whether you have another Army with lower printed STR in your hand or not. And if you do, you are not required to prove that you do not have such a character in your hand - which means you can get away with "doing X" without "doing Y," even if you have the lower-STR Army in your hand.

~ But isn't the fact that the event can be used as a Targ-style "return an Army character you control to its owner's hand" an obvious mistake that should be immediately overruled by a TO?

ktom said:

~ But isn't the fact that the event can be used as a Targ-style "return an Army character you control to its owner's hand" an obvious mistake that should be immediately overruled by a TO?

No, because it doesn't lead to unlimited power

Good stuff to know.

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

~ But isn't the fact that the event can be used as a Targ-style "return an Army character you control to its owner's hand" an obvious mistake that should be immediately overruled by a TO?

No, because it doesn't lead to unlimited power

Is it like shadows thing though? Don't you need to reveal your hand/cards in shadows at the end?

If you win a game and reveal your cards in shadows, and one is crossroads, but you were keeping it in shadows for things like Baelish or Tunnels, then the TO comes over and it hits the fan.

If I use Call their Bluff and say "Narrow Escape" and then you win the game by using Narrow Escape to prevent a sweep from Valar D saving all your Tullys and win with Riverrun. You didn't discard Narrow Escape. But this is assuming you have to reveal your hand.

I could always just call the TO over to look at your hand too and confirm there is no lower cost army in it.

Call their Bluff requires opponents to reveal their hands. So it's kinda hard to hide the narrow escape, unless you're hiding it up your sleeve .

As for shadows, it's really easy to reveal what you had in shadows at the end of the game.

Most actiaons in the game are created so that you can have some means of checking that your opponent did what he was supposed to do.

Mathias Fricot said:

Or are you suggesting that if someone plays Desperate Tactics but doesn't put an Army into play, they should be required to reveal their hand? I'd disagree with that because it took a rule to create the Shadows "etiquette." And there is no corresponding rule for cards like this.

Mathias Fricot said:

Mathias Fricot said:

Well its not that I want their hand revealed to me in game, the TO just needs to confirm that they don't have a Str 2 army - which is what the other player has told you about their hand (true or not) when they played the event. Your not getting any more information about their hand, just whether or not they are actually using the event properly.

Mathias Fricot said:

Or perhaps more simply: if I have a card that says "stand this character to search your deck for a Knight character and put it into play." Does triggering that effect "tell you" I have a knight in my deck - true or not? Or does it simply tell you I want to stand the character, and now maybe I'll be able to get a knight character out of it, if there are any left in my deck?

I don't see how the effect of a card reveals any hidden information, short of actually saying to reveal something. There is no rule that says the effect has to be successful in order to trigger it, which mean that there is no rule that you have to prove it could not have been successful. Sure, if you get caught in a lie, you're almost certainly going to a stern talking-to about sportsmanship (I hesitate to say that you will automatically be disqualified for that game since "telling lies," or at least being misleading, might actually be encouraged in some cases as part of the metagame - like table talk in Melee games).

But the point here isn't that using Desperate Tactics to return an Army to your hand without putting a lower-STR Army into play is not illegal. It may not be a good play. And it may not be particularly sporting. But it is not against the rules - at least in a technical sense.

The Knight search event has left me wondering...

If I pay a gold to activate Rhaegal ability, and I find no Rhaegals in my deck... Do I get to see my whole deck without shuffing it afterwards?

Jef said:

(1.2) Shuffling After a Search
If a player searches any deck for any reason,
he must shuffle the deck to the satisfaction of
his opponent(s) upon completion of the search.

Yeah you always have to shuffle after a search. It has happened to me with A Time for Ravens plot, where I searched my deck for a raven card only to realize that all raven cards were already played and in my hand.

You just shuffle the deck back and move on .

ktom said:

This I completely disagree with.

What if we are in melee and you use desperate tactics to return King Robb's Host to your hand? Perhaps you fear an upcoming valar, the reason doesn't matter. You don't put any character in play. That tells me that you have no other army characters in your hand, since there are no army characters with a higher gold cost. If you followed the card by what it says, that tells me a lot. So now I'm not going to kneel my Hill to try and get rid of your Men With No King, since there is none in your hand, and I can worry about the Greyjoy's Tarle to your left. Until next turn, when you play Men With No King, and start stealing my neutral characters. How about another situation: Not putting the army character into play will stop be Queen's Knight from bouncing into my hand, which stops me from using Parting Blow. That doesn't kneel Robert Baratheon. And the games done because he hit 15 power.

Maybe its just me, but isn't it just wrong? I mean the community that plays Game of Thrones LCG prides themselves on the way we treat each other. Its competitive at competition, and nurturing everywhere else. My friend was at Days of Ice and Fire and, despite its tournament status, one of his opponents let him do a 'take back' because it was his first big tournament and he was probably a little frazzled. You don't see people killing off Bran Stark with Forever Burning to scream "FOREVER BURNING TO THE FACE!!!$@#$#!!!!" Yes, melee involves making deals and breaking them just as quickly as they were formed, thats part of the game. Just because you not having to reveal your hand gives you the opportunity to not resolve the ability - to cheat, really, since its not a mistake on your part its just consciously choosing not to do it even though you are supposed to - does that mean you should abuse it? I don't mean 'abuse' like running all 6 The North agendas because there was nothing stopping you from dropping cheap 6 Str armies, because its not the same thing. Desperate Tactics puts a little trust in the player to resolve it the way its supposed to. But you are right about one thing ktom; what you do with that trust is up to you.

Mathias Fricot said:

LOL, this freckin cracked me up, I am totally doing this to my friends when we play next time

Mathias Fricot said:

I'm not disagreeing with you on the aspects of sportsmanship, or saying that it isn't just "wrong." And I agree that if you have the cards to play it correctly, you should do so or forever be labeled as both a cheat and a ****** (pardon the language...). The "my opponent tells me" difference has more to do with semantics; you are 100% correct that you have been set-up to assume information (and act on it) that ultimately ends up not to be true. I was just taking the broader view that you would also know there was a chance that you had indeed been set up. That particular "broader view" is even something of a part of the Melee format.

My contention in this thread is simply that, as written, it is legal to return the Army to hand and say "oh well; can't resolve the effect." And unless your TO is willing to police it (and, BTW, I think 99% of them would be), there isn't a lot that can be done other than to watch the subsequent play and call "shenanigans" when necessary. To me, the situation is like pre-errata "To Be a Dragon/Stag." It was perfectly legal to stand a character for cost even when there was not an appropriate character in your dead or discard pile. It sucked that those two cards were therefore so much more versatile than their counterparts in the other 4 Houses, but what could be done? The errata fixed a situation that was "just wrong," but legal. That will probably eventually happen here, too.

Mathias Fricot said:

Mathias did you change your opinion?

ktom said:

Why would be? TO's role is to make rules call not looking at people's hands. Rules say that it is legal and there is no mistake here. Yes, the event itself might be written not as intended, but we don't know that for sure - you cannot know if designers wanted it such way (it's really crappy event btw, so errata will make it totally not interesting). In other games usually there is a rule that if you cannot find proper card, you must prove it to your opponent (i.e. reveal hand or deck). But there is no such rule in AGOT, so making TO to check is silly, because rules must be applicable all the time, not only at the tournament. If you play with your friend and nobody's around how can you check it?

And don't mix two different things here guys. One thing is: I really don't have army in my hand - it's cool, right? The other thing is if you pretend that you don't have it. Is it fairplay? I'm not sure.

Rogue30 said:

No, I didn't. Me not understanding how Rorge worked or using Dragonstone Port over and over is not the same thing as Desperate Tactics. One is understanding cards, the other is a gap in the rules that if broken cannot be confirmed. I understand how Desperate Tactics works. It gets resolved if there is an army in hand that meets the qualifications, if not then it doesn't resolve. If I use Dragonstone Port 80 times in a row pre-errata its not cheating, its douchy, its well within the rules, its pretty Ralph, but I don't consider it cheating. The same way I don't consider infinite combinations cheating. If there is an army in hand that meets the requirements for Desperate Tactics and you don't put it in play, it is cheating. Its a question of confirming that cheating, and to most people if you are not caught cheating then you were not cheating at all. Because the rules don't make you have to confirm that your using it correctly, then you will or you wont, I won't change that. But why not put my next character that dies on top of my deck? Robb Stark? No. It was Eddard Stark. I could say it was Eddard Stark (Core) and you can't look at the top card of my deck to disprove me. Oh, you don't think it was Eddard Stark (Core), you think it was Robb? Well, you can't tell can you. You remember Robb Stark being in play, but I remember Eddard Stark being in play. Tough call. Who knows my decklist better - you or me? So, where are we drawing this line in the sand? I am trying to convey that just because the rules have a built-in cheque for your opponent to know if you are cheating in some ways does not mean that you should cheat. I think you shouldn't, most people reading this agree with that. Some people will say "But the rules don't stop me! How is that wrong ?" Well, Timmy, the rules don't say I can't break your jaw either. We shouldn't confuse "im not cheating" with "the rules don't let you prove that im cheating," thats all I am trying to convey.

Really poor example with stalwart card. Unless your opponent is blind man.

Mathias Fricot said:

I always thought that there are some rules people call "law" or something like that

lol well the audacity of my statement did get my point across

Rogue30 said:

As you say, there is a difference here. If you really don't have an appropriate lower STR army in your hand, everything is fine. If you do, there is a question of sportsmanship and fair play. I think that most TOs would be willing to verify which of the two situations it was for the opponent - if called upon to do.

Rogue30 said:

That's the best part of this thread. A long thoughtful well written discussion on sportsmanship and legality, brought on by poop.

This event is amazing.