I don't play melee, so I don't know if I should read this literally:

"if the defending player declares no defenders"

If, for example, the defending player plays Catelyn Stark before defenders are declared, can I use Lord Commander or supports rule?

In the core rule book under Lord Commander of the Kingsguard:

"This title also has a special
ability that allows you to
redirect against yourself one
undefended M challenge each
round."

If Catelyn Stark is put into play as a defender, it's no longer an undefended challenge. I'd have to say that you can use this ability after the opponent has decided not to declare defenders though.

As for the Crown Regent, it's supposed to be used after Attackers are declared. To me, that means even if Catelyn Stark has entered play, there is still a window of opportunity to redirect the challenge before defenders are declared since that Framework Action hasn't been reached yet.

Rogue30 said:

I forgot to mention Support. Support can be declared after the opponent says they are unopposed which is after the "declare defenders" framework action. With Catelyn Stark, it wouldn't be unopposed since she is put in as a defender so Support can't be declared by a player that Supports the defenders title.

Read the whole entries on both a little more closely. They explain how and when the redirect can happen (for Lord Commander) or your own defenders can be declared (for Supports). Specifically:

Lord Commander: "When an opponent is attacked by another opponent in a MIL challenge and decides not to declare any defenders, you can use this title to change the target of the attack." (Rule Book) & "The redirect ability on Lord Commander of the Kingsguard occurs during step 2 (save/cancel) of the resolution of the Framework Action Window in which stealth targets are chosen and defenders are (not) declared."

So the play restriction for the title's redirect is not declaring defenders. Even if there are already participating defenders in the challenge (eg, Horesback Archers or Greatjon Umber pre-stealth window), play restrictions would be met if the original defending player does not actually declare any defending characters.

"Supports" rule: "In addition, when a player you support is attacked by another player, if the defending player declares no defenders, you may, by virtue of your supporting title, declare any number of your own eligible characters as defenders to that challenge."

So again, it is the absence of declared defenders, not the absence of all defenders, that fulfills the play restrictions for "taking over" the defense of the challenge.

In both cases, the timing instructions speak in terms of the absence of declaring defenders, not in terms of "unopposed" challenges. So short answer is: "yes, you can use the Lord Commander or the 'Supports' rule (at their proper times) if there are defending characters in the challenge - provided that none of those defenders were actually declared."

Thanks, that's what I thought.

Am I correct that, in above scenario:

-after redirection using Lord Commander, Catelyn's controller is no longer defending player and I become defending player?

-after I decided to defend with my characters in support, I don't become defending player? (Catelyn's controller still is).

Cards like Stannis Baratheon CS can be confusing when you have no experience with melee.

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Wrong example with Cat of course.

ktom said:

Yes, I know, but I have a doubt how to read cards like Stannis, Reek or The Burned Men.

The timing of the whole "supports" thing is that declaring your own defenders when the original defender has declared none becomes part of the "declares defenders" framework event. (This is why Stealth must be assigned against the original defender.) Between that and the fact that the rules define claim in terms of "the defending opponent," I think we can safely say cards that refer to the "defending player" are still looking at the person against whom the challenge was originally declared.

"Supports" does not actually redirect the challenge against a new defender the way that Crown Regent or Lord Commander do.

ktom,

I agree with what you are saying with the rules interpretation, but they shouldn't have "undefended" as a chosen word in the rule of Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.

"This title also has a special
ability that allows you to
redirect against yourself one
undefended M challenge each
round."

It is not synonymous with not declaring any defenders. Unopposed is synonymous with undefended. Yes there is more clarity in the following sentences, but with all the rules language debates we've seen and had on this game, this can become frustrating.