Is the negative gold on Burned considered a bonus for purposes of Rains of Autumn?
Rains of Autumn and Burned and Pillaged
It is, and not only for RoA, but also for KotHH. There's been a thread about this recently, if you're interested in the reasoning.
Ratatoskr said:
It is, and not only for RoA, but also for KotHH. There's been a thread about this recently, if you're interested in the reasoning.
runningby
Can someone remind me please, why exactly we treat penalties as bonuses, while core set rulebook logically separates them on page 7? Some unofficial/historical answer? Or it is entirely based on page 12 rulebook?
Because the game makes no functional distinction between its use of a +X or a -X modifier. When many apply, you are literally told to put all of them together into a single modifier, and apply the result just the one time.
ktom said:
Because the game makes no functional distinction between its use of a +X or a -X modifier. When many apply, you are literally told to put all of them together into a single modifier, and apply the result just the one time.
Sorry but I don't get it. You are talking about modifiers (pretty obvious thing). Doesn't game make distinction between lowering and raising? I'm just courious if that was always official answer. Bonus (in language meaning) is a positive modifier and I don't know why it must be another confusing thing to remember, especially when rulebook names it bonuses and penalties.
The ruling goes back to Burned Fields in the Iron Throne edition of the CCG.
The introduction of the "income bonuses and penalties" as a differentiation between the income modifiers (something that was interestingly not carried over into initiative, even though there are -X initiative modifiers as well), came in the LCG core set. So the ruling that "does not provide bonuses" applying to all modifiers, regardless of the sign on the integer, pre-dates the different label of "bonus" and "penalty" seen on that page.
As for the "in language meaning" of a bonus being a positive modifier and a penalty being a negative modifier, isn't the "out of house gold penalty" a positive modifier? I.e., doesn't the cost go up with the application of that "penalty"? Shouldn't it be the "out of house gold bonus" since it is a positive modifier on the overall cost of the card?
Language meaning is affected by context. In the "income bonus" context, the mechanics of adding all modifiers together, regardless of sign, and applying the results must be factored in. I know you hate learning these contextual components, but in a game as driven by context as this, such things are inevitable.
ktom said:
The ruling goes back to Burned Fields in the Iron Throne edition of the CCG.
The introduction of the "income bonuses and penalties" as a differentiation between the income modifiers (something that was interestingly not carried over into initiative, even though there are -X initiative modifiers as well), came in the LCG core set. So the ruling that "does not provide bonuses" applying to all modifiers, regardless of the sign on the integer, pre-dates the different label of "bonus" and "penalty" seen on that page.
As for the "in language meaning" of a bonus being a positive modifier and a penalty being a negative modifier, isn't the "out of house gold penalty" a positive modifier? I.e., doesn't the cost go up with the application of that "penalty"? Shouldn't it be the "out of house gold bonus" since it is a positive modifier on the overall cost of the card?
Language meaning is affected by context. In the "income bonus" context, the mechanics of adding all modifiers together, regardless of sign, and applying the results must be factored in. I know you hate learning these contextual components, but in a game as driven by context as this, such things are inevitable.
I see a bright future for you in the field of tax law ktom. 
ktom said:
something that was interestingly not carried over into initiative, even though there are -X initiative modifiers as well,
ktom said:
isn't the "out of house gold penalty" a positive modifier?
ktom said:
Language meaning is affected by context. In the "income bonus" context, the mechanics of adding all modifiers together, regardless of sign, and applying the results must be factored in.
ktom said:
I know you hate learning these contextual components, but in a game as driven by context as this, such things are inevitable.
Rogue30 said:
ktom said:
YOU are the one that said "bonus is a positive modifier." I was giving you an example of a place in the game where a positive modifier is clearly not called a bonus, but is in fact called a penalty. I was trying to say that the same word can be used differently in different contexts, and still be clear "in language meaning."
isn't the "out of house gold penalty" a positive modifier?
Seriously? Even foreingers know what this means. Is it your argument? Ok, but then I will say that Knights of the Hollow Hill stops all gold penalties. Gold penalty = gold bonus, isn't it?
ktom said:
No, you misunderstood what I was saying.
No, this time I understood what you was saying.
Rogue30 said:
I'm just disappointed, that nobody cares about improving this game. Think about new players - they have no idea about historical rulings, they learn from rulebook. And then they need to remember one more silly, unintuitive thing. Any player or TO will be perfectly right to "target" only positive modifiers with cards like Rains of Autumn.
Agreed. The rulebook needs to be better, even if this means putting in more pages. The need to read the FAQ to understand the game is not good for new players, since they may or may not use the online resources.
Adding parts of the FAQ (especially the Timing sections and the bit about "moribund") into the rulebook as an "advanced" section is a much better option, IMO.
ktom said:
Notice that Burned can be played just fine on someone running KotHH. It just cannot be run effectively by someone running KotHH.
What!? Really?
Burned and Pillaged: Attach to a location. Attached location gains: -1 INI -1 GLD
KotHH: Other cards you control do not provide a gold bonus.
Player A (Greyjoy) plays B&P on, say, Aegon's Hill controlled by Player B (Targ KotHH). The hill gains the Income "bonus". As the hill stil is controlled by the Targ player, and cards controlled by the Targ player don't provide a gold bonus, the -1 GLD is disregarded, right? So, of course you're right, and B&P can be played just fine on someone running KotHH, but its effectiveness is severely diminished. And why couldn't it be run effectively by someone running KotHH? It's a gained effect of an opponent's location. If the player playing B&P is running KotHH has nothing to do with it, no? What am I missing?
Sorry. Was forgetting that the attachment had the location gain the "-1"s. I thought the attachment was doing it. Don't know what I was thinking....
Whew. Thank god. You really scared me there, man. Just when I thought I had the basics of the game down, along comes ktom to shatter all my basic assumptions...again 