We had an interesting development this evening. A one-on-one game in which we had both agendas out and it was winter. We both started a round with no cards. Then we each drew one during the draw phase (because of the Summer agenda), and then my opponent had to discard one because of the winter agenda. So the only way he would have been able to ever get a card again was if he had some sort of summoning or draw plot. That slowed the game down tremendously and left him with very little hope of staging a comeback.

Did we play that correctly? If so, it seems unfair to put one player in a position where he has no way of drawing cards.

vrava said:

Actually, no, you did not play the situation correctly. It is a little unclear from the wording on the card (and calls FFG's position on an old plot card called "Under One Banner" into question), but the card draw modification on Kings of Summer only applies to the player who holds that Agenda, not to everyone at the table. So, because it was Winter and you had both started the round with 0 cards, the Summer player would have drawn 1 and the Winter player would have drawn the normal 2. Now the Summer player has fewer cards than the Winter player, so Kings of Winter does not force the loss of the card.

Of course, if you ever did get to the end of the Draw phase and you both only had 1 card, the Summer player would lose that card. You got the outcome of the situation correct, but not the setup.

As for whether it is unfair or not, I would have to say that it was the Summer player who put himself into the situation, not the game design. When you consciously choose to build/play a Kings of Summer deck, you have to anticipate that you will see a Kings of Winter deck and that, at some point, it will be Winter. So sure, when the situation comes about, you're going to need some outside search or draw effects, but isn't part of the choice to play the Summer Agenda knowing this could happen and making those effects available to yourself? It's a harsh situation to find yourself in, no doubt. But it's one that can be addressed at the deck-building level rather than a "design flaw" that it exists in the first place. IMO, anyway.

Ah, thank you for the clarification as always, Ktom. We debated for a bit if the summer agenda was referring to just the player who played it or to everyone and apparently came down on the wrong side. It does seem like other cases exist in which similar wordings were meant to apply to all players, and Under One Banner is a good example.

And yes, I think it would be fair if we had played it right. As it was, he was never able to get another card which seemed rather harsh. If we had played things correctly, that wouldn't have happened.

This is the only topic I could find similar to my question so here it is:

If two winter agendas are playing against each other and it is winter, which agenda happens first?

If there is a difference of one card, say 4 in hand vs. 3 in hand, then if the player with 4 cards' agenda goes first they both lose a card but if the other agenda goes first only the player with 4 cards loses a card.

ARGHH! I butchered my own example but I think the question is still clear.

If there are 2 Kings of Winter Agendas in play, the resolution of their passive effects would conflict, so the First Player would determine the order in which they resolved.

There are two possible scenarios:

Player A and Player B have the same number of cards in hand -

In this case, the order of resolution doesn't matter. Both players will lose 1 card each. (When Player A's Agenda goes, Player B loses a card because he has the same number of cards as Player A. Then, when Player B's Agenda goes, Player A loses a card because he has more cards than Player B. The order wouldn't change.)

Player A has more cards in hand than Player B -

In this case, the player with fewer cards always wants the opponent's Agenda to go first. So if Player A's Agenda goes first, Player B doesn't lose any cards since he has fewer cards. Then, when Player B's Agenda goes, Player A loses a card. And actually, if Player A has 2 or more cards than Player B, the order wouldn't matter because even after losing 1 card, Player A will still have more cards than Player B when his Agenda goes. But if Player A has exactly 1 more card then Player B, then it would benefit Player A (who is going to lose a card no matter what) to have Player B's Agenda go first. Then, when Player A's Agenda goes, Player B has the same number of cards as Player A and would lose a card.

It's a little tricky, so I hope you followed all that. In the end, if two players both have the Kings of Winter Agenda, the order of resolution of the Agendas is determined by the First Player, but it only actually matters if one player has exactly 1 more card in hand than then other.