Hi!
I'm new to AGoT and during the last Melee round with my friends the following question came up:
Red Wedding asks the player to my left to choose one Lord and one Lady character. I'd choose to kill one and the other claims 2 Power.
In case there is only 1 Lord and no Lady character(or the other way around) on the bord that time,
could I still use that effect to just kill that single Lord or Lady without having any character claim 2 Power?
Hope you can help me understand this card better
No, you must fufill all the conditions for the first part of the statement in order for the second part to resolve. Because the card requires one to choose 2 targets before the "then" portion of the card text, you cannot use the text on Red Wedding if there is not both a Lord and a Lady in play.
They must also be seperate characters, you cannot choose one character who has both the Lord and Lady traits.
Thanks a lot.
That'll solve our issues
Mostly unrelated follow-up:
Say you have a Red Wedding, with valid targets present, and a Valar go off in the same plot phase.
Tha valar goes off first, say that the valid targets for RW aren't saved, they are now moribound.
Will the RW still kick in and give power to one of the moribound characters?
And on a different note, can a character that cannot be killed (Power of blood, for example) be chosen as a target for RW?
If so, must the one that cannot be killed get the power? What if neither of the targets can be killed?
You cannot choose the moribund character or 'cannot be killed' one. You can read about different situations here: The Red Wedding .
Rogue30 said:
Skowza said:
They must also be seperate characters, you cannot choose one character who has both the Lord and Lady traits.
Truly? I am curious about the logic behind this statement. Any precedences?
the1andonlime said:
Skowza said:
They must also be seperate characters, you cannot choose one character who has both the Lord and Lady traits.
Truly? I am curious about the logic behind this statement. Any precedences?
I think you can make a twofold argument. One, if the text said "choose 2 Lord characters", you could not pick the same character twice; and two, the second part of the plot effect asks you "choose and kill 1 of those characters" and that "the other claims 2 power", implying that more than one have to be chosen in the first part.
the1andonlime said:
When any single effect chooses multiple targets, choosing "card A" a target #1 makes it ineligible to be chosen as target #2. That's the logic behind having to choose 2 different characters for high-claim military. Why wouldn't it carry over?
Saturnine said:
I think you can make a twofold argument. One, if the text said "choose 2 Lord characters", you could not pick the same character twice; and two, the second part of the plot effect asks you "choose and kill 1 of those characters" and that "the other claims 2 power", implying that more than one have to be chosen in the first part.
But it doesn't. For your example to be similar, it would have to say "choose a Lord character and a Lord character", which would, strictly speaking, allow you to choose the same Lord character twice.
The argument about "the other claims 2 power" makes a lot of sense, though. I'm convinced.
ktom said:
How about a 2-claim military challenge? Or perhaps Drunken Allegations, which reads: "When revealed, choose an opponent. Then, you and that opponent must each choose and kneel a standing character." Since all targets are chosen, then knelt together (the same way each player chooses his 3 characters, then all remaining characters are killed together with Wildfire Assault), why can't your opponent choose the same character you did to kneel?
My point exactly, for Drunken Allegations, why not?
For Wildfire Assault, the text requires you to choose 3 characters (effectively choose a character, a different character, and a character not already chosen for the effect). IMHO, the language used is different from if the text says "choose a character, a character and a character".
ktom said:
When any single effect chooses multiple targets, choosing "card A" a target #1 makes it ineligible to be chosen as target #2. That's the logic behind having to choose 2 different characters for high-claim military. Why wouldn't it carry over?
Similarly, a 2 claim military challenge requires the losing defender to choose 2 characters (effectively, choose a character and a different character) to be killed, not choose a character and a character. Strictly speaking, there is a difference.
the1andonlime said:
the1andonlime said:
The word "and" is the important part here. It denotes plurality in the objects of the choice. A Lord character and a Lady character indicates more than one character is chosen. That's the thing to recognize here; you are choosing characters, not traits. So your result has to include multiple characters, not just multiple traits. In the end, there is no meaningful difference between "choose a character and a different character" and "choose a character and a character" because using the word "and" carries the meaning of "different" or "distinct" on it's own in this context.
But that reasoning aside, it's just game mechanics in the end. You are not allowed to choose the same card more than once when initiating an effect.
ktom said:
You missed my point here. Wildfire is an example of how all targets of an effect are chosen before anything happens to any one of said targets. The point was made to make it clear that Drunken Allegations is not resolved as "choose character #1, kneel character #1, choose character #2, kneel character #2," which, if it happened that way, would be a clear (though different) reason why you cannot choose the same character twice.
Ok. Point taken.
ktom said:
Leaving aside the fact that "choose a character and a character" would be considered incorrect grammar, you're telling me that if I said "choose a friend and a friend," you'd automatically think that choosing just one friend would satisfy the meaning? And you're saying that if the effect just said "the player to your left chooses a Lord and a Lady character, then you choose and kill one of those characters" - without the "the other claims 2 power" text - you'd feel that choosing a single character as both Lord and Lady would satisfy the meaning?
I wouldn't automatically think of choosing the same friend twice, but that argument is quite the straw man, considering that it's "friend and friend". What if I asked you to choose a friend and a companion, would you choose your significant other?
"Choose and kill one of those characters" does mean that there has to be more than one character. Fair enough on that point.
ktom said:
The word "and" is the important part here. It denotes plurality in the objects of the choice. A Lord character and a Lady character indicates more than one character is chosen. That's the thing to recognize here; you are choosing characters, not traits. So your result has to include multiple characters, not just multiple traits. In the end, there is no meaningful difference between "choose a character and a different character" and "choose a character and a character" because using the word "and" carries the meaning of "different" or "distinct" on it's own in this context.
But you cannot say that if I chose Sansa Stark with a Lordship attachment twice (or even once, for that matter), I have not chosen a Lord character and also a Lady character.
ktom said:
But that reasoning aside, it's just game mechanics in the end. You are not allowed to choose the same card more than once when initiating an effect.
It's good to know that the game mechanics covers this sort of situation. Thanks for clearing that up.
the1andonlime said:
That's what I was getting at with the idea of context. If the effect were instructing you to choose traits - essentially choosing cards until both the Lord and Lady trait were represented - then I agree; choosing a single character with both traits would absolutely cover it. But I read the effect as instructing you to choose characters - with the traits as a basis for restricting and defining your choices - ultimately requiring two individual and distinct characters to be chosen.
http://info.wsisiz.edu.pl/~szczesnj/card.php?id=64&p
Thats all you need to know about it.
it would be different if...
"Choose a character with the Lord trait and the Lady trait" then its one character, two traits.
"Choose a character with the Lord trait. Choose a character with the Lady trait." then its two choosings, at different times, so you could choose the same character twice or two different characters.
But as it stands, two different characters. Sorry bud.
ktom said:
the1andonlime said:
I'm not so sure about this. You have certainly chosen a character that is both a Lord and a Lady, but have you really chosen a Lord character and chosen a Lady character?
That's what I was getting at with the idea of context. If the effect were instructing you to choose traits - essentially choosing cards until both the Lord and Lady trait were represented - then I agree; choosing a single character with both traits would absolutely cover it. But I read the effect as instructing you to choose characters - with the traits as a basis for restricting and defining your choices - ultimately requiring two individual and distinct characters to be chosen.
I am not saying you are wrong. You are right. I fully understand your point of view and accept that there is a game mechanic that defines the way to handle the situation, but English allows for both interpretation of that particular sentence.
Leaving Red Wedding (which has additional text that implies the restriction of choices) aside, there may be other cards that require the choosing of characters that allow for multiple correct interpretation of the text (e.g. a hypothetical card that says each player must choose a character and then do Y). The comparison to 2-claim military challenges is not a good one, IMHO. If there are game mechanics that define how the situation is handled, then it should be communicated to all players (forgive me if I have missed it) in case of misinterpretation.
Reason why I am still pestering for a good logical explanation is so that when questioned on the situation, I can provide a better explanation than "Oh, it's in the rules" (which gets old really quickly).
Maybe this could be clearly stated in the next iteration of the FAQ?
Mathias Fricot said:
http://info.wsisiz.edu.pl/~szczesnj/card.php?id=64&p
Thats all you need to know about it.
it would be different if...
"Choose a character with the Lord trait and the Lady trait" then its one character, two traits.
"Choose a character with the Lord trait. Choose a character with the Lady trait." then its two choosings, at different times, so you could choose the same character twice or two different characters.
I get that there is a game mechanic that defines the situation, but English allows for "Choose a character with the Lord. Choose a character with the Lady" ("trait" dropped for a better parallel) to be also interpreted (among other interpretations) as "Choose a Lord and a Lady character". Again, IMHO, the 2-claim military challenge does not make a fair comparison.
Mathias Fricot said:
But as it stands, two different characters. Sorry bud.
Thank you ktom, Mathias and Saturnine for taking time to explain the rules and trying to provide a logical explanation.
When I first saw it I tried to do the same thing, so at least I know im not alone in some of my shinanigans
Heh....this card.....over and over again it causes confusion. I know it did with me, and ktom can explain it to me until he's blue in the face and I still won't like it. But, it's just easier to accept the way it is played is pick two different kill one, next gains two power. If you don't have both, you can't do it. That's the way the card is designed, learn to love it and move on.
You don't have to like it. You just have to know that it is consistently how FFG interprets and rules on the card. They apparently think it's clear enough.
I call bull honkey!
But seriously I know, I know, but apparently they think wrong (to the cards clarity) if the same type questions keep getting asked. I'm just sayin'.....
goshdarnstud said:
[?QUOTE]Shenanigans! Shenanigans!
goshdarnstud said: