i think ive been playing this card wrong... it says choose an opponent, you and that opponent each choose and kneel a standing character. We been kneeling characters we control, but it doesnt say you have to choose a character you control... so we can both choose and kneel other opponents characters, right?

You're totally right.

thank you, its hard to remember sometimes that you gotta take the card by its exact wording

A point worth making with Drunken Allegations is that both of you choose the (standing) characters before they are knelt, so you could potentially kneel the same one (source=http://www.agotcards.org/card/v/180). Of course, the typical play for this card is to use it when your opponent has a particularly critical character you need out of the way, and you don't mind losing one of yours (of his chosing) for the turn in exchange.

Actually, you and your opponent may not choose the same character. Once the 1st character is chosen, it becomes an ineligible target for your opponent to choose. This is no different than in a high claim military challenge where you are required to choose 2 separate characters to settle claim. In general, when in effect chooses more than one target, the choice of the 1st target makes it ineligible to be chosen again by the same effect.

So with Drunken Allegations, as soon as the person revealing the plot chooses a standing character the selected opponent is cut off from choosing the same standing character as their target for the same effect.

Which of the players gets to choose first?

nikotina said:

Ah, this come up in our game.

We eneded up flipping a coin for a random outcome on who chooses first.

nikotina said:

The "controller" of the effect, then clockwise around the table.

If multiple players choose targets for the same effect, the general rule is that the player who played the effect is the one that chooses 1st.

ktom said:

This general rule is not codified anywhere, is it? Does anybody else think it would be a good thing if this went into the FAQ? Or is it there and I've missed it?

Ratatoskr said:

ktom said:

Well, that's not in an obscure place at all!

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be included in something more recent. I'm just saying it is codified beyond "tradition."

ktom said:

I know. I was merely pointing out that without you, one was unlikely to ever stumble upon this ruling.