I have (awesome) Grand Melee Robert on the table, I have three troublesome opponents sitting opposite me, all with juicy looking power tokens on their house cards.

I represent with Robert in a power challenge against Opponent 1 (Hernando), alone. Hernando declares some puny little defender, Opponent 2 (Wolfgang) sends a little girlyman to Hernando's assistance, Opponent 3 (Cornelius) does nothing.

Robert beats both of the defenders combined, he doesn't even break a sweat.

What happens next? Obviously Hernando owes me a power token, but do Wolfgang and Cornelius?

My reading of Big Rob says that, regardless of who does or doesn't defend, if he attacks alone in a power challenge then all opponents owe me power when he wins (regardless of whether some, all, or none of them declare defenders). Is that right?

That is exactly how I understand it.

It doesn't say that only opponents with participating characters can have power taken from them. If it did, then I don't think the other opponents would bother declaring that one defender ever since they have nothing to lose.

Would be a decent time to play Red Vengeance if I must say... (but then if I were using Robert, I wouldn't attack the Martell player!)

For any readers own reference: http://www.agotcards.org/card/v/4299

Robert Baratheon

King, Lord

Melee. Renown.

While Robert Baratheon is attacking alone in a POW challenge, each opponent you are not attacking may declare 1 eligible character as a defender. If you win the challenge instead of the normal claim effects, each opponent must satisfy the claim effect of the challenge.

Hi LoneWanderer:

I did not realize an article on The Grand Melee was released that explained some of the new Robert Baratheon.

First of all, the way they describe how he is used implies that the claim effect only effects opponents that have a participating defender(always the defending player even if they unoppose).

Second of all, that is not how his card reads at all and it's a good thing they wrote that article. The card reads in such a way that if you don't stop him, everyone has to fulfill the Power challenge claim. They better start rereading new cards before they release them so they can make sure they make sense.

Look at the new The Smalljon :

House Umber .

Melee.

Response: After The Smalljon is declared as an attacker against a player with a Title you oppose, raise the claim on your revealed plot card by 1 until the end of the challenge. (Limit once per challenge.)

You can only declare attackers one time and not only that, how can you declare the same character two times in the same challenge anyway? I am guessing that there may be a card that allows a new window to declare attackers, but even if that is true, it's a lot of effort to use The Smalljon in both to even bother limiting the ability.

So confusing.

You take their power, and they regret now helping their friend.

Bomb said:

Robert works the way you originally supposed. If he wins the challenge, ALL opponents (not just opponents who control participating characters) must satisfy claim as if they had lost the challenge.

The idea of "participating only" may have come in through the Warhammer discussion. It can only hit participating characters - an incentive not to help out against Robert, with a good character, anyway.

That's because the article is now completely different.

What I am reading now is not anything like I had read earlier. It specifically mentioned claim was against participating players and I'm certain this is why LoneWanderer started this thread.

Yeah, it looks like the guest writer either made a mistake or or the editor did, but the article did say that opposing players paid claim, and it now reads properly, that all opponents pay claim.

Regarding The Smalljon, I have no idea why it is once per challenge,.

Bomb said:

I will take my silence on my intentions to the grave. Ser.

... Ok fine.

You're right. I started this article because of the stupid wrong article on the front page.

40 seconds... quite an early grave, Ser

Khudzlin said:

Compared to the length of time I keep my word at a melee table, that's an impressive demonstration of my oathkeeping abilities.

LoneWanderer said:

I'd love to have you play in Thunder Bay any day. It can get pretty headed, and the new melee themes are going to make the knife in the back cut so much deeper.

Bomb said:

I'd guess that at some point during the set's creation, it was "Limit once per phase," and then it was changed during development without thinking of the fact that the limit was built into the rules.

ktom said:

Yeah that would make sense. The limit is harmless to keep on the card so I guess it doesn't matter.

I'm sure the answer is somewhere else, but if I support the Defender that is being attacked by Robert Baratheon, and the other opponent chooses to declare one defender to keep the challenge opposed, if the Defender declares no defenders, can I still Support him and declare any number of eligible defenders to try and stop him from claiming power off all of us? Or must none of us declare any defenders through Robert's ability?

In the core rules under Supporting titles:

"...if the defending player declares no defenders, you may declare any number of your own eligible characters as defenders to that challenge."

Thanks!

Both effects are valid and in place. The "Supports" rules and Robert's text do not actually interact (directly, anyway). So:

1. When Robert is attacking alone, each non-defending player may declare 1 defender, no matter what the Titles say about Oppose/Support. The actual defending player may, of course, declare as many defenders as s/he would like.
2. If that defending player chooses NOT to declare any defenders, a player Supporting the original defender may then declare as many defending characters as s/he would like (in addition to the 1 defender they are allowed to declare from Robert's text).

Not much more to it than that. They are two separate effects/rules, so you have to deal with them separately.

Thanks. That is what I thought, but wanted to make sure that the defender not declaring defenders was not synonymous with unopposed.

I feel like this has also been answered 100 times, but with the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard title, is the redirect opportunity present for the same reasons? Simply not declaring defenders, or does it have to be undefended overall?

"This title also has a special ability that allows you to redirect against yourself one undefended MIL challenge each round." doesn't necessarily mean "When an opponent is attacked by another opponent in a MIL challenge and decides not to declare any defenders..."

I'm just making sure undefended isn't synonymous with unopposed.

Lord Commander is used before defenders are declared; Crown Regent is used after defenders are not declared.

v1.0) Lord Commander of the Kingsguard
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. It cancels
the initiation of this Window, and re-opens the Player Action Window between declaring attackers (now against the new target) and assigning stealth.

alpha5099 said:

alpha5009 mixed up Lord Commander and Crown Regent, but the FAQ does indeed tell us that Lord Commander's redirect ability is specifically referring to the defender not declaring defenders. When the redirect is triggered, technically, the challenge is not unopposed yet because the frame action window didn't fully resolve (it's canceled).

Going back to Robert , what's to stop an opponent from declaring an eligible defender another player controls?

Crap, I did get those backwards. Switch around that first sentence.

FATMOUSE said:

I think from the perspective of the opponent, a player they don't control is not considered an eligible defender. If this wasn't the case, this version of Robert would be terrible.

I had read that in the FAQ about Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, but wanted to make sure I understood that undefended only meant they did not declare defenders. If they got Catelyn Stark or Greatjon Umber in the mix on the defending side before defenders were declared then technically the challenge would be "defended". This is relevant to me and similar to when it comes to Supporting a player where this version of Robert Baratheon is concerned.

Supported and Lord Commander of the Kingsguard use the same "defenders are not declared" criteria then.

FATMOUSE said:

"The opponent you are challenging now has the
option to kneel any number of his or her characters
that have the corresponding challenge icon
(or are enabled to participate by some card effect)
to defend against your challenge"

So "that you control" is built into the game's definition of declaring attackers or defenders.

What is the order people have to declare their defenders?

Mig el Pig said:

My assumption is that (A-D are Players):

-A

D B

-C

If A is using Robert to attack C, then the B would choose if they wish to declare a defender first, going in a clockwise motion as per the normal "Marshalling/Challenges" routine.

Only other interpretation would be the first player choosing which of the other two players to go first like "When Revealed" Plot cards, but that doesn't really quite make much sense by the time the Challenges phase comes around.

Ah k, was wondering if it started from the first player or from the defender and then clockwise.