Hi there,

I have some doubts about the Deadly effect of Walder Frey. Here is the definition of this keyword from the rules :

"During a challenge, if the attacking player controls the most participating characters with the “Deadly” keyword, the defending player must
choose and kill a defending participating character after the challenge resolves."

1) Lets say I control Walder Frey and I attack my opponent with a total STR 2 and a Deadly Character.

He defends with 3 STR, no Deadly. Walder Frey jumps in on his side making his total STR 7. Then somehow I manage to boost my STR to 7.

So on each side there is 7 STR and one Deadly Char. However the attacking player controls 2 Deadly characters and the defending player controls 0 Deadly character.

Looking a the "Deadly" definition the defending player will have to choose and kill a defending participating character, not necessarily one he controls and so the defending player might kill Walder Frey himself.

2) In a Melee game, my Walder Frey jumps in a challenge in which I'm not participating. Because he is not controlled by the attacking nor the defending player, only his STR will count but his Deadly keyword will have not be taken into account.

The idea here is that the player whose side Walder jumps in on is controlling him for that challenge, if I understand it correctly. That may be an intuitive leap though.

walder will give 4 str and deadly to whatever side is winning when you resolve the challenge.

Bolzano said:

So, it appears the wording for deadly is creating confusion.

In senario 1, the attacking player still "controls" 2 participating characters. His 2 STR deadly guy, and Walder (!). Following the wording in the rules for deadly, it appears Walder's deadly still counts for the controlling (in this case the attacking) player. Also, since Walder is a participating, defending character, it would appear he can be killed by the defending player for deadly.

In senario 2, none of the participating players "control" Walder, so it appears niether player gets to count Walder's deadly.

Interesting. This seems to go against the intended purpose of the card, or at least how I have been playing it. But, with a closer look at the wording for deadly, this is how I would see the card being played unless something changes, or there is something I am completely missing.

I hope ktom can tell us I'm wrong, because this seems goofy. Seems like the rules for deadly could use some cleaning up.

Penfold said:

Fieras said:

Deathjester26 said:

In general, Deadly has been interpreted as "if there are more participating attackers with the Deadly keyword than participating defenders with the Deadly keyword." The rules could be cleaned up to clarify this, but it is how pretty much everyone plays.

So OP is actually correct in its application if its broken all the way down to the deadly rules

I'm still going to use it the way its been used, because not only does it make more sense, but I think its the way it was intended and designed. Tight spot for a TO to be in I must say.

Mathias Fricot said:

Mathias Fricot said:

I am pretty sure OP= original post.

ZombiePrime said:

Correct.

I wasn't trying to say that there would be an issue in the Errata's application, as far as I know this card isn't covered in it. What I was trying to convey was the tight spot the TO gets put in - not because the rules are unclear but because there are two options: (a) agree with the lone individual who is using it by-the-book since its pretty clear the rules-as-written conclusion is that Bolzano said at the start of the thread, to the dismay of everyone else using the card improperly (although probably as designed). The other option is (b) agree with everyone else using it despite the fact that the lone individual is correct in their use of the card due to popular opinion. Obviously A would be the path that is best, if the lone player knows how to use the card and everyone else doesnt, that doesnt make using it incorrectly appropriate, it just makes a lot of people wrong. What I was trying to convey is that its not a fun position to be in as a TO.

Edit: quote wrong name

Mathias Fricot said:

Whether the TO decides on choice a) or b), I don't think players would really fight him on it or walk away feeling he made a bad call. To me, that goes a long way to taking the "toughness" out of it, even if it does seem like a pretty ridiculous, and "un-fun," position to be put in by the wording of the various rules documents.

Speaking of deadly, my play group has always played deadly as it HAS to be on the attacking side, and the attacker HAS to win for deadly to work. Have we been playing this incorrectly? Does deadly still work if the defender wins with more deadly characters? Does deadly still take effect if the attacker has more deadly characters but doesn't win the challenge?

Winged_Human said:

You've been playing it wrong. The rules for "deadly" simply compare the number of deadly characters on the attacking side and the defending side. If there are more deadly characters on the attacking side than there are on the defending side, the defending player must choose and kill a participating defending character. It has nothing to do with winning the challenge, which is why this is a neat keyword. Deadly will never affect the attacking player, though. If the defender has more deadly characters than the attacker, the attacker won't have to kill one of his characters.

Following this discussion, it is likely French nightwatch will play Walder Frey with the strict Deadly definition ( that is, not the same way we used to play it)

For a character as deceitful as Walder, I think it's even a funnier way to use it. Bonus: it might give some play to a card we didn't see in much decks.

Told/asked Nate about this issue; both Walder and Deadly are phrased correctly:

Walder's deadly should work as written in the rules, counting the number of controlled characters:

I control Walder. I attack with a chump.

You defend with more STR, my Walder jumps in on your side.

You win the challenge. I still control Walder, who is a participating Deadly character.

You as the defender must choose and kill a defending participating character.

You choose to kill my Walder.

So what I've accomplished is: losing a challenge and losing my own character. Walder is much better when he jumps in on the side of his controller when attacking.

Nate French

FATMOUSE said:

*Very* interesting. I guess pretty much everybody has been playing that wrong.

Walder was the fluffer character IMO. Now he will stay in our collector albums... Always sad that sort of things...

Well in a Martell deck he will always protect you from Deadly and allow you to trigger Responses... not that bad