Hello you beautiful, beautiful people.

This came up in a game last night:

It was summer.

I was running Knights of the Hollow Hill, so my house card gained "+2 gold" (among other things).

My opponent played two copies of Taxed Dry on my house card.

Believing that he would now be running at +4 gold (+2/taxed dry) for the rest of the game (unless I could control the seasons), I conceded.

Now that I look at the card, I'm beginning to think that multiple copies of Taxed Dry on the same card don't stack, but I'll ask anyways:

1. Do multiple copies of Taxed Dry on the same income-producing card stack cumulatively?

2. Can Taxed Dry be played on my House Card when I am running Knights of the Hollow Hill?

Thanks!

Nate

Eldil said:

It's no different than putting, say, two copies of Gutter Rat's Cunning on a character. Each one gives the character a separate and independent +2 STR, which add together - along with everything else for determining STR - when you count STR.

Essentially, they stack in result because you get the gold for each separate and independent attachment.

Eldil said:

Thanks for the prompt response, ktom.

Man, that is brutal, then. I guess I can't afford to run that agenda without attachment control (to either kill the taxed dry or the season).

Thanks,

Nate

ktom said:

So if two players control a copy of Mance Rayder, power on Kingdom locations would count twice (1 power = 2 power)?

FATMOUSE said:

I have the same doubts here. If 2 constant effects says you may attack without kneeling it doesn't get you attack twice. Maybe not as good example as with Mance, but you know what I mean. Constant effect wich is not a modifier is either 'yes' or 'no'. 2 x 'yes' is still 'yes', not 'double'. 2 x allowing to count is still allowing to count. I may be wrong but it's how it feels.

You guys know the answers here. You just need to read the cards a little more closely.

Mance says that "power on Kingdom locations count toward victory total." Mance himself isn't counting or adding value to anything. He is expanding the definition of what power on cards count toward victory. Two copies of Mance - expanding to the same limit at the same time - do not have any sort of synergistic interaction.

Now, if Mance said "Each power on a Kingdom location counts 1 point toward its controller's victory total" or even "When you count your victory total, count the power on your Kingdom locations," his effect would be adding the actual bonus (instead of expanding the ability of the rules to count), so two copies would make the power count twice.

Similarly, Taxed Dry says "when you count income, count this card's bonus," so it is the attachment - not the income producing card it is attached to - that is adding into the controller's income count. If it read more like Mance (e.g. "Income bonuses on attached card are part of your income count"), it wouldn't matter how many attachments are on the same income producer - it would only be put into the count once because each bonus only goes into the count once.

It's all part of the dynamics of this game and its language.

Ok, so it's "count this bonus" and "count this bonus" vs "this location gives its bonus also to you", right?

However I don't understand why do you underline "when" word.

Rogue30 said:

The word "when" is why you would count each Taxed Dry. "When" is triggered by a certain action, just like "after." The only difference between "when" and "after" is the timing of the trigger. After/when any action occurs, cards are independently checked to see if their trigger is activated. This is why the card Flaming Sword is limited to 1 per character. After Beric Dondarrion activates Renown, each Flaming Sword would be checked for a trigger and then provide the him with 1 extra power each. Another example is Bay of Ice, which forces you to kneel all Bay of Ice cards after you win Initiative. If it did not kneel all Bay of Ice cards, then each one would be independently checked after winning Initiative, and you would draw one card for each Bay of Ice in play.

EDIT: I clarified WHY it would work, but I am still uncertain that it works. The issue we need to look at is whether, or not, the ability "you may also count the income bonus on the attached card" stacks. I personally do not think that this ability stacks on the same card; it just expands the rules of what you may count in your income bonus. If it instead said "you may take X gold from the treasury and add it to your gold pool where X is the income bonus on the attached card," then I would say that the ability stacks.

I waited for ktom's response, but there is no one, so:

sWhiteboy said:

There is no difference between "after" and "when".

I still don't see why the "when" is important here - to make passive effect instead constant effect? If we treat this as passive, then it makes no sense, because in step 4 there is too late for counting income. I can add gold to gold pool, but not increase my income.

Rogue30 said:

"When" triggers at the same time as another action. "After" triggers immediately following the conclusion of an action.

Rogue30 said:

"When" does not make it passive, "when" makes the card trigger WHEN you count income. If it were "after," then the effect would be too late to add extra income.

What we need to look at is whether, or not, the phrase "you may also count the income bonus on the attached card" stacks when applied to the same card.

As I see it, the two options are:

1) This phrase does not stack because it merely expands the ruling on what you may count in your income bonus.

2) This phrase does stack.

sWhiteboy said:

This is the right idea, but it is not entirely accurate in game terminology. Nothing actually triggers here. It is an extra rule/definition that takes place at a certain time - "when" you count income. The effect does not create its own trigger - it indicates that it shares a trigger (in this case, the framework action trigger to count income).

As mentioned, the real question here is how you look at "you may also count the income bonus on the attached card."

1. You can look at it as a straight permission to count the attached card (in which case, just 1 regardless of number of attachments)
2. You can look at it as a card-driven modifier to the count (in which case, you get 1 modifier for each copy on the card)

Something like Mance Rayder is a straight permission for counting power on non character/House cards. I read Taxed Dry as a modifier to the count because of the wording as a whole (including "when," "may," etc.). Although I've been wrong on some of these "interpretation" things recently, so that doesn't mean anything.

sWhiteboy said:

No difference. Robert Baratheon CS works the same as Beric Dondarrion with Flaming Sword.