He will see play NEVER.

Who agrees.

Edit: Okay, so he might see play. I misread the card initially. I still think it will be difficult to get a challenge through unless you voltron the robert. Its not AS useless as I thought.

He could see play in melee. He's good for that turn where you really need to close the win, which is Bara's biggest problem in melee atm. Its going to be easier than you think to win a challenge with him. Hell just by loading him up with a Hunting Spear will make it pretty hard for people to win challenges with him. Not to mention that you can grab the crown regent title to really help you win the challenge. I'm thinking he's going to be better than you think.

In Joust? Sure, he will never see play.

In a Melee game, he could net you a ton of power on a single turn. Imagine a 2 claim turn. You win a power challenge with him (which is easier than you may think). Everyone satisfies claim. Renown + 6 power from opponents' house cards. Also, his Melee keyword will help to offset the extra characters the Opponent's are throwing in the challenge.

Maybe I misred it.

Do all opponents have to settle the claim regardless of whether or not they participated in the challenge?

I guess so.

That's not as bad.

yeah, so if they can't defend with someone, then even better. They're still going to lose power when you win. Now if there was only a way to put him into play mid challenges phase!

The card is worded oddly - I read it that way too, Fieras. If you had to count on your opponents jumping in to block him - his ability would nver trigger adn that sucks. Since it happens when they jump in or not - they are all going to need to block him.

You're probably going to lsoe most of hsi challenges, but you may kneel out a whole bunch of charatcers and elave stuff open for additional power challenges, military and intrigue. I think I like him.

I'm confused now, because Joe says you get a power from "each participating player." Has FFG already made a ruling on this card? It says "If you win the challenge, each opponent must satisfy claim." It doesn't say each participating opponent. I'd still rule in a tourney that you get power taken from all opponents regardless of if they were participating or not.

___

See that's what I thought, but Joe's article makes it seem like it only works for participating opponents, which would make this card useless.

The new Bob looks kinda awesome to me. Definitely more of a game closer than a racehorse to get you there, but you drop this guy after a reset (or time it for a double reset for extra shenanigans) and most of your opponents might be in a position where it is **** hard to stop you from winning. He may be worth building a deck around, he certainly seems fun enough to do so for casual melee play.

I wouldnt call it ridiculously good, but it should see play, especially in casual melee.

I'm pretty sure thay printed him wrong. It should be participating word in between., Anyway expect errata soon. At current stage broken in melee and autoinclude in barathon build.

We've gone from 'sucks' to 'broken'- sounds like he's perfect!

imrahil327 said:

LOL!

I want to make Heir to the Iron Throne deck with this Robert OOH - what better way for usurper to pay for his treachery?

They have since edited the article to reflect what is actually on the card. The article no longer clashes with it by saying "participating" opponents.

what about Blackwind OOH? Would they kill all three defending characters? One from each defending player? Obviously assuming there are three opponents actually defendng.

Looks great for melee;

But I got a few rule questions,

What's the order people have to declare their defender:

Starting with the first player and then proceed clockwise around the table?

The person who was attacked and then you start with the first player and proceed clockwise around the table?

Starting with the first player and then proceed clockwise around the table, skipping the target of the attack, who then chooses his defenders last?

What if he's jousting with the lance? Can everyone still throw in a defender?

The other players should still be able to declare defenders if you give Robert a Tourney Lance. Joust limits how many characters the defending player can declare, so it would mean Robert would be facing at most 3 characters.

alpha5099 said:

So if robert had melee and joust, there would be 3 characters at most defending, and with -3.

Melee gives +1 to the character per defender, not -1 to each defender (that would be broken for burn). Same STR differential, though. But give Robert a Hunting Spear and opponents are going to need pretty big characters to defend (or armed ones).

The attacked player declares defenders first, then it would be first player and move clockwise around the table.

The Rulebook reads,

"During a challenge, if the attacking player controls
the most participating characters with the
“Deadly” keyword, the defending player must
choose and kill a defending participating character
after the challenge resolves."

This seems to clearly indicate that only the defending player, not the opponents who have also declared defenders has to kill a character... interesting enough though, it seems to also imply they could choose someone elses character to die to deadly... things just got real interesting.

Penfold said:

That would make Deadly + New Robert a pretty brutal combination if nobody chooses a deadly character to defend with.

If you are the attacker and lose the challenge, if you own Walder Frey, he will join the defending side. His deadly is still for you because you control him. The defender can then choose Walder Frey for his own deadly.

Bomb said:

Yeah, I had that cleared up in the rules forums a few months ago. Pretty neat how it all works.