Brotherhood without brothers Agenda with no brotherhood characters in play

By Francisco G., in 2. AGoT Rules Discussion

The Brotherhood Without Banners Agenda:

" If you would claim or move power to your House, you must place it on a Brotherhood character instead. Opponents may choose and take power from your Brotherhood characters to fulfill the claim of (crown) challenges initiated against you"

So, what happens if you don't have any brotherhood character in play when you claim or move power? Does it goes to your house card, you cannot claim or move the power, or it goes into a black hole where you cannot see it anymore?

On the other side of the board.....if i win against a brotherhood player (power challenge). Do i choose from wich character i move the power to my house?

Sorry if this was in an old thread. Tried the search but didn't find it that way.


I almost asked why you'd ever use that agenda, and then I saw several of the Brotherhood characters.

It's like the Night's Watch "The North" agendas, you basically need them to get any use out of many of the characters that target that trait. It makes sense I think so you don't mix all the powerful neutral characters into one deck, but I can see it being irritating if it narrows deck construction a little more. It's a nice little ploy to get players to buy a lot of the chapter packs in order to build a useful deck that can use the agenda though.

To answer your question, the Agenda says you "must" put that power in a Brotherhood character. To me that means the power fizzles. Plus, you probably don't want to put power on your house card since once it's there, you can't move it unless your opponent takes it. If you can't move it, you won't be able to use some newly played Brotherhood abilities that require no power on your house card.

Bomb has the right answer here, but let's be perfectly clear about how it plays out.

Because the Brotherhood Agenda tells you that you must place the power claimed or moved onto a Brotherhood character, if you have no Brotherhood characters, you are SOL. You cannot claim or move power because you have no legal place to put it. The Agenda prevents you from placing it on your House card because "must" does not provide you with the option.

As for winning against a Brotherhood player, you do get to choose which character it comes off of.


Thats what I thought by the use of the word must.

But what happens with the power won in a power challenge then. It goes puff (to the pool) or it stays in the other player house card? I ask because not being able to claim power its not the same as not being able of initiating a power challenge and winning it.

BTW.....what is being SOL?? (not english native and i haven't been playing that long if that is slang for something)

As ktom said, you can not *move* power onto your house card, so it stays on your opponent's house card (or wherever it was being moved from by some other effect).

As for SOL, you could look on Urban Dictionary, but basically it means "out of luck."

schrecklich said:

As ktom said, you can not *move* power onto your house card, so it stays on your opponent's house card (or wherever it was being moved from by some other effect).
from to

how about infamy and this agenda?

Infamy won't really do anything with this agenda. You can already put power on your Brotherhood characters so Infamy does not thing for them. For other characters, Infamy normally gives you the *option* to put power on that character instead of your house, but the agenda puts a *requirement* on what you must do with power that would normally go on your house and that requirement never lets you use the option to put the power on a non-Brotherhood character.

Ktom answered the infamy/Brotherhood question a while ago, and if I recall correctly, he argued in favor of Infamy always being an option, even with the Brotherhood agenda. The reasoning was that while the agenda and the keyword are in conflict, only one order of resolution allows for both to have the opportunity to take effect. If the Brotherhood agenda was always "resolved" (can't think of a better word) first, then you would never have the opportunity to make use of Infamy. But because Infamy is optional, if you always resolve Infamy first, you still can resolve the Brotherhood agenda if you choose not to make use of Infamy.

Hmm, I focused too much on the restriction vs. option part of the effects. What really matters is that both effects replace the placing of power onto the house card. So whichever effect is chosen to resolve first, the other effect will no longer be applicable since power will no longer be in the process of being placed on the house card. I feel like there should be a separate entry in the FAQ for the case of conflicting replacement effects. My guess would be that the "Passive Effects Conflict" section extends to replacement effects and so the first player should decide whether the Brotherhood player may put the power on a character with Infamy or must put it on a Brotherhood character.