Hi there.

So yesterday I was involved in a melee game. One of the participants flipped a Confession into play, then declared that he was using its effect to kneel another player's Holy character. At this point I said something along the lines of "Wtf? Hax? Oneoneoneoneone".

The reason for this sudden exclamation? Well, it had always been my understanding that the text of Confession was worded so as to make the kneeling of influence/Holydude a cost which the player using the card has to pay using his own resources. Am I correct?

As support for my position I refer the jury to Distraction, which makes it clear (inasmuch as AGOT wording is ever truly 'clear') that the "choose a mil character that you don't like the look of" part of the card's wording is the cost and that the kneel is the effect. It is worded thus:

"Choose a character with a M icon. Kneel that character"

Which, to my mind, is a construction that clearly runs Cost -> Effect.

Similarly, Distraction's feeble younger brother, The Lion's Will:

"Pay 2 gold to choose a character. Kneel that character"

On the other hand, cards like Confession and Guilty are worded like so:

"Kneel 3 influence or kneel a H character to look at an opponent's hand. Then, discard 1 non-limited card from that hand" and "Kneel 3 influence or kneel a N character to choose and kill a non-HS character"

Which, again, I would argue is a construction which implies Cost -> Effect; with the first part of the cost only being payable from your own resources (which is an implicit rule of the game and doesn't need to be stated on every card, in a similar fashion to 'you can only pay for characters using gold in your own gold pool' rule).

Finally, if my Confession using opponent has the right of this, what's to stop CS Selyse Baratheon's ability being worded as "Challenges: Kneel every point of influence on the board, then watch in bafflement as your opponent throws all of his Targaryen 'Ambush' cards into a woodchipper".

Either way, let me know. I'm keen to find out whether Confession is an event which, for a price, lets you look at your opponent's hand and then vaporise their best card; or whether it's actually an event which lets you kneel 1 - 3 of your opponent's cards, then look at their hand, then rip out their best card, all for free.

PS. If the opponent in question is reading this thread, then I would like to make it very clear I am in no way accusing him of dishonesty/deceit and that I am well aware that he is a far better player of this game than I. I'm just keen to know whether I need to seriously reconsider my evaluation of some of my cards.

In any construction that says "Do X to do Y", X is the cost. Costs for effects can only be paid with cards that you control.

If you read "Do X to do Y" then X is the cost and Y is the effect that applies when you pay the cost. The player who plays Confession must pay the cost with characters or influence providing cards he or she controls in order to apply the effect.

PS. I don't get why you are bringing up "Distraction". There is clearly no cost involved. A cost is always denoted by a "Do X to do Y" construction.

PS. I don't get why you are bringing up "Distraction". There is clearly no cost involved. A cost is always denoted by a "Do X to do Y" construction.

Sorry for double post. This forum really needs an update, so you can edit / mark for deletion your own posts.

LoneWanderer said:

p.12 of the Rulebook:

"Complete your marshalling actions by playing
cards from your hand and paying their gold cost
from your gold pool."

and p.22 of the FAQ:

"If my card says something like 'Discard a
Wildling character to kill a Night’s Watch…'
can I discard any Wildling character in play?

Discarding the Wildling character is a cost,
and you can only pay for a cost with cards that
you control."

So here's the big question: what was it about Confession that had your opponent arguing that kneeling the Holy character was not a cost?

So here's the big question: what was it about Confession that had your opponent arguing that kneeling the Holy character was not a cost?

I just read the card as kneel a holy crested charater the same as I would read the distraction as kneel a military icon holding charater. Thanks for clearing up the mistake that it is still a cost.

Another argued rule was of Make an example, where you win an un-opposed challenge and if you count strength of 8 then claim 3 power. One side argued the challenge had to be won with 8 strength while the other side argued that since cards userally say win by at least X then this ment just count 8 strength on your charters in play, Since we are clearing up rules from this melee maybe some light can be shed on this card also?

Disciple said:

Disciple said:

Ah. Simple mis-read. Happens all the time. With costs, just look for the word "to" and figure out which stuff is before (cost) or after (effect). Distraction doesn't have the word "to," so everything is effect.

Disciple said:

The card reads:

Response: After you win a challenge and count 8 or more total STR, claim 3 power for your House. (Limit 1 per phase.)

The key word to look at here is "count." What STR are you "counting" when you win a challenge? Characters in play? No. In fact, when do you ever count the total STR of your characters in play for this game? And if it did refer to "characters in play," are you thinking all characters in play, or just the standing ones?

You only count STR of any kind when a card or rule tells you to. So when the card asks if you won a challenge and count 8 or more total STR, it is referring to the STR count you did to determine if you won the challenge. That means it only looks at your participating characters, not all characters you have in play.

Saturnine said:

I brought up Distraction because it is an event that lets you kneel a specific character without you having to pay a cost. The reason that this was relevant was because my opponent (Disciple) had interpreted Confession as being an event which let him kneel a specific character without having to pay a cost. That was why it was helpful for us to consider how Distraction's wording differed from Confession's; to allow us to identify the differing wording constructions involved when events have costs and when they do not.

LoneWanderer said:

I see. In your original post it seemed as if you are using Distraction as a cost/effect example; perhaps you simply missed to put a "not" somewhere in there.

Thank you for this reponse:

"You only count STR of any kind when a card or rule tells you to. So when the card asks if you won a challenge and count 8 or more total STR, it is referring to the STR count you did to determine if you won the challenge. That means it only looks at your participating characters, not all characters you have in play."

So it is if I use 8 strength or more to win the challenge, but I don't have to win with more than 8 strength, correct? If so I guess both parties interpereted it wrong.

Disciple said: