i have 1 dragonstone watchtower in play.

if my opponent play or reveal the named card more than 1 during a phase,how many powers i can get?

You should get 1 power each time that card is revealed or played during the phase. The "if an opponent plays or reveals..." effect lasts until the end of the phase, after all.

now i know, but the card not print "each time"in text box,so..............

Hello. We are discussing this card on the french forums.

Some of us are pretty sure it can work each time the chosen card is played during the phase.

And by looking at the rules we think it works even if it concerns a unique character, because you have to reveal it before putting him behind the first one.

If it concerns an event, the same thing happens if the event is canceled (he had to be revealed to be played).

Are we right ?

Khoriakei said:

Khoriakei said:

Khoriakei said:

Now, if I am understanding your question correctly, you are saying that playing the dupe is essentially a two-step process; 1) reveal the card as a copy of the unique already in play, the 2) play the dupe on the copy already in play. And, since the two-step process includes "revealing" the card, you should get a power from the Watchtower.

The problem with this reasoning is that playing the dupe is not really the same as "revealing" the card. When you play a card, you take a previously hidden card and make all information about it common knowledge by putting it into play for as long as the card is in play. When you reveal a card, you take a previously hidden card and make some information about it common knowledge without putting it into play, only for the duration of the effect that reveals the card. So just because hidden information becomes public knowledge does not mean that each time you play a card, you also reveal it.

If it did, then when your opponent played The Red Viper as a character, why didn't he get 2 power? 1 for revealing the card and 1 for playing it?

So, "playing" a card and "revealing" a (non-plot) card are completely separate mechanics. Even though both end up with hidden information becoming common knowledge, you cannot say that one is part of the other. There are distinct differences - just like "play" and "put into play" being different mechanics that have similar, but distinct, end results.

Khoriakei said:

Keep in mind that if an event effect is canceled, it has still been "played." You can name an event, cancel its effects when it is played, and still claim the power for the Watchtower.

So, end result: "revealing" is separate from "playing." Both have an aspect of taking hidden information and making it common knowledge, but just because other players know what a card is now that you have "played" it does not mean that you have actually "revealed" that card (as the game uses the term) while playing it.

Thank you you were right on the spot. It was what i meant each time.

Thank you for answering so clearly.

You're welcome.

For fun, here's another example for why "revealed" doesn't mean "when hidden information becomes public" in all situations:

Say that I have Grand Maester Pycelle in play ("Response: After an opponent's effect reveals one or more cards, reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand (limit 3 per phase).").

You win a challenge and use the effect on Khal Drogo to put him into play ("Response: After you win a challenge, put Khal Drogo into play from your hand. At the end of the phase, return Khal Drogo to his owner's hand.").

The Khal Drogo that was hidden in your hand has become public knowledge. I know you have him now. You had to "reveal" him when you used his effect to put him into play, right? So I get to use Pycelle's ability and get a card, right? (Of course not, because like "play," "put into play" has its own aspect of making hidden knowledge public that is separate from the "reveal" mechanic.)

Wouldn't the following section from the FAQ (page 15) require revealing a (non-event) card in order to use one of its effects while it is out of play (emphasis mine)?

The Action Window in Detail

1) Action is initiated

After a player announces an action, the timing window starts.

For the initiation stage of any player action, a player must go through the following substeps in order. The first step is always revealing the card or declaring the intent to use an ability . Then:

Khudzlin said:

The entry quoted does not contradict the discussion above. In order for the "reveal" that happens as part of playing the card to be a separate, actionable Response trigger, the Response would need to specify "after a card is revealed as part of initiating an effect...".

I have to disagree here, ktom, when you talk about "after a card is revealed as part of initiating an effect".

As a matter of fact, how would the passive ability of Hungry Mob ever trigger? It is not written "when you pay 3 gold as part of initiating an action"

In addition, I have noticed the FAQ excludes step 1) from the timing action window:

Page 15:

"After a player initiates an action, the timing
window starts."

and Page 16:

"4) Passive abilities are triggered
Any passive abilities that are triggered as a
result of the action (or a save/cancel response
hereto), are now initiated."

We can notice Step 1) is not mentionned as part of Step 4) (nor Step 5) triggers.

But Hungry Mob is not the only example where one can respond to a cost payment : for example all the Maester chains respond to a character kneeling, which is usually part of initiating an action (though not always).

So that makes no sense, and I guess Step 1) should be fully part of action window and allow passives to trigger and open Responses opportunities. Which also implies that the revealing before Step 1)a) should trigger Dragonstone Watchtower. But I tend to agree with you that it is probably not intended by design and I would conclude the FAQ should just say 'show the card" instead of "reveal the card" (or clarify when Step 1) can provide triggers).

I see where you are going, but there is a difference between "initiating" an effect and paying the cost, so I'm not sure the analogy is perfect. All of the actionable things you mention (paying gold for Hungry Mob, kneeling characters for chain attachments, etc.) are costs actually paid. Paying the cost is a separate, distinguishable thing when playing the card. "Revealing" the card is not. There is a big difference between "I am playing this card you didn't know I had" and "I am changing the game state by manipulating these other things in order to pay the cost of playing this card."

Bolzano said:

Just because some hidden information becomes known does not mean a card has been "revealed" as far as the game recognizes an actionable term for Responses, etc. If it did, why isn't every card discarded from your hand or deck "revealed"?

But, if people disagree and think that "reveal" is a separate, actionable part of playing a card, I'd suggest sending it to FFG.

Seems clear to me.

You don't invoke the specific game mechanic of "revealing" a card in order to play it, therefore you cannot claim power twice via dragonstone watchtower when a named card is played.

Simples

I do have a further Q though.

Does revealing a hand count as revealing each card? IE if the named card is in the hand do you get one power? And if so what if two copies are in the hand?

Marshal Lambert said:

(4.12) The Hand
Any reference made to a player’s “hand”
refers to that hand as a single entity, and
does not refer to any of the individual cards
in that hand. Thus, it is possible to discard a
“hand” of 0 cards. Further, if you do discard
your “hand,” you are not considered to
have discarded any of the individual cards
that make up that hand (for the purpose of
initiating other card effects).

Revealing your hand is not considered
revealing any of the individual cards in your
hand, and adding a card to a revealed hand is
not considered revealing that card.

Note that it is possible, through card effects,
to reveal individual cards from a hand that is
revealed in its entirety.

ktom said:

BTW

If a card effect allows a player to search his
or her deck for a specific type of card, but the
effect does not ask the player to reveal the
card, how do I verify that that player is pulling
the appropriate category of card from his or
her deck?
Any time a player searches his or her deck
for a card of a specific type, that player must
reveal the found card to his or her opponent(s),
to verify that it falls under the search
parameters.

So, is this "revealing" just for verification or revealing mechanic wise?

Rogue30 said:

Pretty sure it's both.

Rogue30 said: