Corinos said:

What "winning conditions" are we talking about here? Are you seriously suggesting that this entry in the FAQ requires people to keep track of which power counter came to one of their cards through a power challenge (and other "move" effects) and which didn't?

So, common usage of the word "target" is effectively any object that is acted upon, but in the game, it is only objects indicated by the word "choose" in an effect or rule. In common usage, to "trigger" something means to initiate it, but in the game, it is only effects that are specifically initiated by player choice that are termed "triggered effects."

Those differences between "common use" and "game terminology" have no more explanation in the FAQ than what you're getting from the one entry on the difference between "claiming" and "moving" power in game terms. Why is that one so much harder to learn and accept?

The point, actually, is that I don't think you should have to keep track of power moved and power claimed differently. I think they should be kept track of the same. The FAQ, though, very clearly states that the power that goes to your house from another's house from a power challenge is not claimed, it's moved, right? Well, the rules also state that you win by claiming 15 power. Does that not seem to conflict?

And I'm not trying to fight for the sake of fighting. I don't have a problem with the intended usage, but, again, if the wording has been out since the ccg and has been confused since it came out, and continues to be, why not errata for clarity? What's the downside? Even if it has to be stated in two places, it seems like everybody wins.

Corinos said:

Granted, it would be nice if FFG went though all of the documents and cards, rewording for consistency of language. However, given the "effort-to-outcome" ratio at this point, I can also understand why it is low on the priority list.

… and I'm thinking that new Forum Use post may have something to do with this discussion, so I'll leave it off. I had no intention of causing a rukus, just wanted the make sure the rules are as accessible as possible. Thanks for the responses, Ktom. You know your stuff.

Hi guys. I agree that the rules are not perfectly clear on this matter, they talk about 'claim' in some different ways (for example: claim 15 power to win the game; claim power for winning a challenge; etc.)...
I think we can solve several conflicts assuming that the rules define one specific action where they say:

<When you are instructed to “claim X power for your House” take X counters from the power pool in the Throne Room (see “Game Setup”) and place them on your House card.>

So whenever you read 'Claim-power-for-your-house' it refers to a specific mode of claiming, which has to happen as described (that is: from the power pool to the House card).

In conclusion, Siege of Winterfell forbids only this kind of claiming power, not others!

I like the Siege agenda but you are giving up a lot not being able to claim any other power - it's certainly not unbalanced and new metas such a Prize will make it an even weaker choice of agenda

Another possible weakness is that the claiming of two power for winning a military challenge is a repsonse

This recently came up and we were not sure ... can responses on agenda cards be cancelled, i,e, with He calls it thinking?

_{Something went screwey with my font}

_{I posted after page 1 and missed half the thread .... seems like the Repsonse cannot be cancelled, just prevented from being triggered}

_{I get the impression most pepple saying the agenda is broken haven't actually played it that much ... I use it in melee and there are definate weaknesses with it ... for one think other people will try to take the military title and other openents will avoid military challenges. Often you end up with all players with a lot of characters on the boards}

_{I also run Winterfell - but only get the benefit on military challenges}

_{Response: After you win a challenge as the defender, claim 1 power for your House. (2 power instead if it was a Military challenge.)}

_{So in theory I get 4 power if I win a M challenge as the defender, 5 power if I took over the challenge and 6 power if I also opposed the attackers title}

_{Still not enough to slam dunk a win!}

Unless you have revealed I Fight to Win, you can't have an opposed title while having the military title.

Each round, the Siege player is giving up the possibility of 3-4 power (unopposed INT, unopposed POW, dominance, and possible an "opposed" title - none of which are sure things) per round. They are gaining 2-4 power per round for winning military challenges (attack and defense).

But the most successful Siege decks are built around declaring additional military challenges each round. It's not unusual for these decks to initiate 2-4 military challenges each round, so they are gaining 4-8 power, assuming they aren't winning MIL on defense. Suddenly, the power gained outweighs the power lost, and this says nothing about all the characters they kill for winning those challenges!

The agenda isn't broken, but built right, it is a monster of a deck that doesn't give your opponent a lot of room to maneuver.

You're not totally giving up the power for an opposed title, because you can still take it in military. With a very good draw, you can even win on the first turn.

Well it seems my friends and I have been using this agenda wrong also as we didn't know you could still win power during power challenges.

That said, If somehow a Stark Player got his hands on a character with infamy, could said Stark player then start claiming power for unopposed challenges and winning dominace then? Assuming of course that they are running the Seige of Winterfel Agenda.

That said, If somehow a Stark Player got his hands on a character with infamy, could said Stark player then start claiming power for unopposed challenges and winning dominace then? Assuming of course that they are running the Seige of Winterfel Agenda.

No. This wouldn't work.

When you claim power for your House, Infamy allows you to put it on the card with Infamy instead of putting it on your House card - but you still have to claim the power for your House first. Siege stops you from claiming the power in the first place, so there is nothing to put on the card with Infamy.