So...discuss.

Well, and I just yesterday bought the game, what coincidence!!

Interesting. I'm not certain that banning was the way to go, but I won't miss the domination of Wildlings. Also, was the errata on Knights of the Hollow Hill necessary? I could have sworn that the additional text was already encapsulated by the word "other" in the original text.

Narrow Escape errata makes sense, most folks were clamoring for it anyways. Adds better balance. KotHH, I guess that's just a duh fixing. I never even noticed. I'm sure it was Ktom who brought it up

Blood of the first Men....wow..... That changes everything about Wildling decks. And I never made one. Now I probably never will..... That's ok I'll somehow solider on.

Nice...I was hoping for something like this. Hopefully the competitive scene will be a bit more mixed up, rather than 1/3 - 1/2 of the players showing up with wildling decks.

@Ser Folly: Just to clarify, the change applies only to competitive play (unless the people you play with casually are sticklers for following FAQ's), and the FAQ items mainly aim to address perceived imbalances in the competitive environment. If you didn't plan to play with Narrow Escape or Blood of the First Men (Wildling Agenda), then this wouldn't affect you negatively at all. All it really means is that Wildling decks will run a little slower than they have been, which in my opinion is a good change. And even if you want to play a Wildling deck, there are still two great agendas to use. Narrow Escape is still a great card as well...didn't really change it other than to limit the ability to play two in a row.

@Kennon: I think the clarification was added because the agenda says that your house card actually gains the +2 gold, etc. So technically speaking, the agenda gives the house card +2 gold, but then says such bonuses on other cards (including your house card) were void. I don't know anyone who would have interpreted the card that way...even in competitive play, I'm sure any TO would have allowed the +2 gold bonus. ~Like someone else said, maybe this was a Ktom thing.

Banning the BotFM was definitely the way to go. I said as much when they made the first errata to The North agendas. They are no longer the most cost-efficient characters in the game, which will pretty much end their crazy rein in competitive play (even casual); opening up play for what I'm fearing will be the very powerful Maesters and Chains.

Narrow Escape is still very silly, but a little less silly with the obviously needed errata of "(limit one per phase)."

KOTTH seems more like clarification than errata (It was more of a Rogue30 thing than ktom ). Same for Blood-Crazed Screamer.

The clarification of how cards come out of the Shadows is actually pretty huge too.

the ban makes wildlings much less brain dead of a choice. i think they are still viable if anyone wants to run them, its just that the cards are now costed as they should be. look at the boltons the undercosted stuff has some serious draw backs, traitors too....the wildlings were undercosted with no real enforcible drawback. (one of the armies got you 2 power in one power challenge so 3x of those = no draw back).

I like the limit on narrow escape but for a different reason. I was getting tired of waiting to draw 2 i still think its a neccessary card (and not silly at all) as resets were becoming much too offensive instead of an individual game balance device.

KoTHH is pretty funny, especialy becuuase i often kneel it instead of my house card when using the influence....dunno why it had to be added to the house card at all, but that is probable some arcane and mystical rules discussion that i just don't care about

Twn2dn said:

I think the FAQ also says that House Card is not affected by cards unless clarified in the same effect.

So the House Card is affected by the +2G part, but not "Other cards you control"... so no errata was needed, IMHO...

Anyway, now is easier to understand.

Lars said:

Yeah, pretty much, lol.

Let's also clarify that the "errata" on KOTHH is really more of a clarification than an actual errata. No wording has been changed on the agenda; the effect of it's text has simply been clarified.

Narrow Escape erratta is good, I hated discarding my hand only to have someone play a second one. Probably should have been like this from the start.

Banning of Blood of the First Men is not how I would have done it (shameless plug: listen to Two Champs and a Chump podcast to see how Zeiler would fix the Wildling agendas!) but is probably for the best. They will still be really good, but hopefully not as dominant in the competitive scene. 9 str stealth and deadly armies for 5 is still one heck of a deal.

expected: narrow escape and knights o' hollow hill.

unexpected: any ban.

I'm disappointed in the outright banning of BotFM. I think errata is a better choice to try before banning.

Narrow Escape change was much needed.

So after years of shadow mechanic, months of waiting for answer (including getting incorrect and confusing one), and after all those discussions I still don't know how Dragon Skull work. Good job FFG!

FATMOUSE said:

KOTTH seems more like clarification than errata (It was more of a Rogue30 thing than ktom ).

I'm terribly sorry, it won't happen again. Besides, I know at least 3 persons (you, ktom and Nate) who would let infinite use of Dragonstone Port before errata, so those same persons should be happy now with KotHH (especcially if they play it), right?

Masi said:

Which page?

Rogue30 said:

Mi mistake. Mixing rules.

Rogue30 said:

Seems simple enough to me.... maybe it's not FFG?

Rogue30 said:

FATMOUSE said:

KOTTH seems more like clarification than errata (It was more of a Rogue30 thing than ktom ).

I'm terribly sorry, it won't happen again. Besides, I know at least 3 persons (you, ktom and Nate) who would let infinite use of Dragonstone Port before errata, so those same persons should be happy now with KotHH (especcially if they play it), right?

All three of these people said that, at an event, they'd say "you found a broken combo that no one else saw - good for you; you're never going to get away with it again." No one ever said they would wait for official errata before issuing a local rule after the first time they saw it.

You continue to make it sound like fatmouse, myself and even Nate would have insisted that local rulings to curb a broken card or combo like Dragonstone Port should never be allowed.

Rogue30 said:

What is the confusion about how Dragon Skull works? You bring it out of shadows, you attach it to a character who gets -2 STR and who is killed if its STR is 0. If you can't attach it, Dragon Skull is discarded.

An attachment coming out of Shadows is not played on a card, it attaches as a passive or response to it being brought out of Shadows. Is that the part you don't get?

Rogue30 said:

It seems to me that Dragon Skull would come out Shadows by it's text and not the rules:

"The text on a Shadow attachment explains and clarifies how a Shadow attachment attaches when it comes out of Shadows."

So it works the way ktom has said it works in the Rules section.

Rogue30 said:

There's nothing to be sorry about. I didn't mention you to be critical of you or anything. Bringing up rules/wording concerns is very important, and I encourage everyone to say something if they see something they think is wrong. I was simply highlighting the fact that you saw an issue with KOTTH. The "errata" (it's NOT an errata) simply addressed and clarified it.

Rogue30 said:

Read what ktom said. Specifically note how he said "at the event," which means mid-tournament. I think you would find that many players would agree with our handling of the situation if it ever arose in the middle of a tournament .

Here we go again...

Seems simple enough to me.... maybe it's not FFG?

Yeah, I'm probably too stupid for this game.

"you found a broken combo"

Obvious mistake is not a combo . The point is that you would allow it the first time it's discovered. So with clarification of KotHH it's impossible to let this happen, if there are more TO like you and someone finds it at some future tournament, right?

Rogue30 said:

I'm sorry if that's what you read into it. Let me be more specific so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding...

IMHO, it's pretty clear how FFG intends shadows attachments to be played. Perhaps I'm the one too stupid to notice what is still so confusing? (I wouldn't doubt that for a second) However, from reading your previous posts, I've noticed (perhaps falsely) that you have a tendency to not listen and/or argue with those who are willing to provide their take on certain issues. At the end of the day, you don't have to believe anyone and can play the game or TO however you'd like. There's no reson to continually call people out in an effort to catch them in their own words. I took your earlier post in this thread (calling out FFG because their answer was not good enough for you) as another example of this. So, what I was really trying to say in my first post is, I think perhaps FFG provided an suitable answer, and you just want to argue it. If that is not the case, then please let's discuss in detail what is still confusing, and what possible solutions there might be in an effort to help out others who could be in the same situation.

I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm certainly not calling you "too stupid to play this game." As this really isn't the place for this conversation, I hope I've clarified my original post.

Back on topic, I think Wildlings still have a chance at being competitive, but I'll need to play around with my Wildling deck before making any final decisions on that. As someone else previously mentioned, a 5 gold 9STR army with stealth, deadly, and a war crest is still good!

"Once this effect initiates when the Blood Crazed Screamer's controller wins his first MIL challenge as an attacker, the "to a maximum of 2" card text applies to any additional MIL challenge that player would initiate."

Just to be clear, this means you could do a total of three military challenges, right? Either through two Screamers or a plot effect.

Alando said:

I think the "maximum of 2 applies to any additional MIL challenges" means you cannot do more than 2 MIL challenges, period. I think this errata was to clear up confusion about combos with After the Mummer's Ford, Storm of Swords etc so that no one can get off 4 MIL challenges in one round.
Unless I am completely misinterpreting the errata, it is stating that once you win a MIL challenge you cannot make more than 2 total MIL challenges under any circumstances with a BCS in play even if other cards would allow you to somehow go beyond 2.
And again, maybe I'm getting it wrong, but to me it sounds like it makes BCS weaker - before the errata it was possible to get 3 MIL challenges during one round even if you had a BCS in play by declaring 3 attackers other than the BCS and ignoring him completely; his ability only applied to a challenge in which he participated, now he creates a global effect for the person who played him unless they are losing the MIL challenges? (my terminology may be all wrong but I hope I have made my point/question clear)

I'm with Rogue30 in feeling that the clarification about Shadows attachments doesn't really clarify things. What confuses me about Shadows attachments is that there are four of them with two templated as attaching passively and two templated as attaching as responses. Do the two kinds of Shadows attachments really come out of Shadows differently? If so, why doesn't the FAQ just say that explicitly (i.e. something like "Attachments with the Shadows crest that may be attached as a response to coming out of Shadows do not become attached when coming out of Shadows")? Also, maybe it's just me, but the minor changes to game play (i.e. being able to cancel Dragon Skull while you can not cancel any attachment played normally from hand) do not seem worth the warping of the rules required to make it work.

schrecklich said: