So, I know I have been told that it is dangerous to keep the M:tG mindset while playing this game, so I will post this simple rules question and se if I have succeeded in my interpretation

1) Once a character is declared as attacking for a given challenge (let's say Millitary for this example), if a card effect can choose and stand that character, is he still a part of the challenge? My Magic instincts say yes, since an attacker is always an attacker until specifically "removed from combat." Because of this, I will assume that AGoT is much more streamlined and say that the character is stood up before resolution, and therefore does not contribute STR to that challenge.

2) Along the same lines as the above situation, let's say a card effect causes that character to lose the Millitary icon. Does that character now contribute 0 STR to the challenge, since they are no longer elligible to participate in the Millitary challenge? Again, I will fight my M:tG instincts and say that this is correct. Especially since it would make some Martell Cards worth running as "combat tricks" to deny icons during a challenge.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my other posts. I bet a new player asking a bazillion questions can get a litle annoying, but everyone has been very patient thus far... so thank you

1) If a participating character stands before challenge resolution, it is still participating in the challenge and therefore counts its str. It would specifically need to be removed from the challenge to not count its str.

2) Challenge icons are need to be declared as an attacker, or a defender unless some text says otherwise. If a charcter loses icons after they are already participating in a challenge, they still count their str at challenge resolution.

Do not fight all of your M:tG instincts. They will help you, just not with timing issues.

MrDudeguy said:

So, I know I have been told that it is dangerous to keep the M:tG mindset while playing this game, so I will post this simple rules question and se if I have succeeded in my interpretation

MrDudeguy said:

MrDudeguy said:

That's one of the things that makes Martell icon manipulation so tricky to play. Icon manipulation is not a "combat trick." You cannot wait to see what your opponent is going to try to attack/defend with and deny them after the fact. You have to anticipate their choices, and use icon manipulation to remove those choices before anything is declared as an attacker or defender.

So you see, just because you have an instinct from M:tG does not mean that it is incorrect. It just means that, in some cases, you may not be working with the right base assumptions. In the above cases, you are because the "once declared, the character is participating until specifically removed or the conflict ends" assumption is shared.

Here's an example, though. Let's say that I attack with Character X. You defend with Character Y. Before resolution, I use some card effect to kill Character Y (your only defender) and/or remove it from the challenge. Do I collect the extra power for the challenge being unopposed? In AGoT, the answer is "yes." At the point of resolution, you have a total challenge STR of 0 and no participating characters, so "unopposed" it is. My understanding and experience is that, at least at some point in M:tG's history, the fight would be considered opposed (and the monster not directly hitting the opponent), even though there was no opposing monster when the fight actually resolved.

The games are similar in that what the cards say is, generally speaking, all that you take into account. If a card says stand a character but does not say it removes it from the challenge, all it does is stand the character. Similarly when a card says remove a character from a challenge, but does not say stand the character, it remains knelt.

The icon issue is the same, that taking away an icon that the rules say is needed to have the character declared as a participant, it simply means it can no longer be declared as a participant in further challenges (important when you are facing decks that stand characters and are capable of participating in multiple challenges of a particular type in a single challenges phase.

The main difference from a rule perspective between the games comes into play with things like summoning sickness, timing, and blocking.

as far as timing goes can you kneel a character in response to them declaring challengers? so it makes the character ineligible to commit to the challenge?

chrismata said:

This is the major difference in timing between the two games. There are no "stacks" of effects in AGoT. Every effect (player action or game effect) resolves completely before any other effect is initiated. This means that when you "Respond" to something, that something is resolved, over and done with, before the Response is even triggered.

So, while in M:tG, you might be able to use the "Last in, First out" timing structure to say:

"I Respond to you initiating a challenge by kneeling your character; my Response resolves first, so your character knelt for the effect, not for initiating the challenge - and is therefore not participating in the challenge"

in AGoT, where the timing structure is "Nothing in until all out," that conversation sounds like:

"I Respond to you initiating a challenge by kneeling your character - but your character is already kneeling and participating in the challenge because your initiation of the challenge was complete before I could use my Response; guess I just wasted it to kneel a character that was already kneeling."

Hope that makes sense. Essentially, it comes down to this: in AGoT, there are no "chains" or "stacks" of effects that are waiting to resolve. Instead, no effect can interrupt the initiation and resolution of any other effect.**

**(There is an exception to that rule: Response effects that specifically use the words "save" or "cancel" will interrupt effects, working between the initiation and resolution of other effects. It is much more limited than "stacks" or "chains" in other games, though.)

Oh, and one more thing. Be careful about reading this "there are no stacks in this game" thing I'm saying. What I mean is that no effects in this game (other than "save" and "cancel" Responses) can be used between the initiation and resolution of the same effect. That's not the same as 3 separate effects resolving completely and independently whose results add together. So while multiple STR bonuses, for example, can "stack" in the sense that they produce a combined effect, multiple effects do not create "stacks" in which playing "effect B" after "effect A" lets B resolve before A.

The way I like to think about it is that effects in AGoT work precisely the way we operate in the real world. If you want to do something to a card to keep it from doing something else you need to do that thing first. I don't get to go back and put my parking break on to stop my car rolling down the hill, if it has already rolled down the hill.

Penfold said:

This is the bane of any magic player! xD

lol.