I'm a noob but I have found that it seems like too good of a strategy to choose no defenders if facing an overwhelming attack especially if facing deadly opponents. That way you don't loose any great characters and you live to fight another day. I would rather my opponent get a free power token for an unopposed challenge than loose multiple characters (like in a military challenge with deadlies). Then I challenge my enemy multiple times and get multiple power tokens. Is there something I am missing that would prevent me from fighting like a doush in this way? I almost think there should be a rule that if there is an unopposed challenge in which the defender could choose to select defenders, the attacker gets two power instead of one. Thoughts?

Keep in mind you can choose to not assign defenders, however you still have to fullfill the claim of the challenge. So if during a military challenge you would still have to kill the appropriate number of characters and your opponent would claim a free power for unopposed. This is not ideal during a power challenge as they would take power for claim and unopposed. Plus there is the fact that certain events trigger for the challenge being unopposed or winning by a certain strength total. Although if you are palying House Martell loosing the challenge can be benifical. So yes while assigning no defenders can be apporiate at time it is not always the best option.

As White Phoenix says, don't forget that you are still losing the challenge, which means the attacker still gets the claim effects (kill a character, discard a card, steal a power) in addition to the extra power - as well as Renown and any other Responses they may get for winning a challenge.

The "avoidance" strategy is usually a pretty good on in the first few rounds, but a bad one in the later rounds - when every power counts. Many times, you will find yourself in a position that you can only defend 1 challenge, successfully or otherwise, and deciding which one it will be. The art of defending (when, with how much and whether or not to win on defense) is a big part of mastering the game.

Thanks for the input. I can see your points. It just seems a little wrong that I can let one of my minor characters get killed by avoiding an overwhelming force and let my opponent get a power token. Then I do several challenges in which I kill one of my opponents characters, steal the power they collected by fighting me unopposed, then get extra power to boot. I guess all this is a good argument for splitting your attack into multiple challenges instead of one overwhelming one. Thanks!

sirhong said:

sirhong said:

Don't shed a tear for someone who is doing a single all-out attack just because you can side-step it and then wail on him. If your opponent picks a bad strategy - knowing that you can let them through, take minimal losses, then walk all over them - that's him not playing the game to its potential, not a flaw in the game design.

Bringers of Law is relevant to this thread