would my dragon get the +3 str bonus during a challenge?

If a character is standing it gets +3 STR. The dragons are standing. 'Nuff said.

Questions like this seem to be popping up with more frequency these days.

Turn the question around - why wouldn't they get the +3 STR? Is there any support in the rules, the FAQ, or the relevant card text to support this outcome? Could you make a cogent argument why a standing character shouldn't get +3 STR?

It's just sort of baffling to see questions along the lines of "I have this card that says X happens. Does that mean that if I play it, X happens?" I just don't get it.

radiskull said:

radiskull said:

Let's not be too harsh on the newbies, eh?

I can kind of see where the OP might be getting confused. With the Core Set alone, you're generally seeing two states that a character is in, a character is either standing because they aren't participating in a challenge, or kneeling because they are or have just participated in a challenge. Whereas we know that kneeling is just the major way that a character gets to participate in a challenge and has no direct correlation to challenges beyond that - but it's easy to see how one can conflate the two.

So assuming that you see kneeling and participating in a challenge as one and the same, a card like Danaerys QotD is going to throw you for a loop, and interactions with cards like Pavilion just make it worse. You're right, there is no reason to assume that a Dragon wouldn't get the +3 STR if you are aware of the complexities involving challenge participation, but try to understand the mindset that a new player might be in, finding causation out of correlation and making mistakes because of it.

Yeah, I'm with Circadia. While I totally understand Rad's bafflement, I think the Rules board should be a place where newbies can ask even the most basic questions without fear of admonition (hell, I ask some pretty dumb questions from time to time, too). Some good-natured ribbing is certainly OK, though.

Rad, for the record, I certainly don't mean to lay into you or anything. I don't think there was anything wrong with your post, and in fact I agree with you. It's just that I think we should cut the noobs some slack. It's easy to forget how daunting this game can seem to newbies, especially if they don't have any previous experience with CCGs. As the game grows, it's only to be expected that very basic questions pop up more frequently. I think this should stay a place where those questions are welcome.

That doesn't mean that I don't advise newbies (or anybody else, for that matter) to try to find answers on their own in the rulebook, the FAQ and via the Search function before posting. Because I do. Emphatically.

I completely agree - this is one of the most polite forums on the internet, in my opinion, and I'd hate to do anything to endanger that!

To the OP, my comments weren't directed at you specifically; they were more of a global bafflement that just happened to land in your thread. I just wish there were a more polite way to say that "the cards do what they say they do" and "please read the FAQ" and "please search before posting". But maybe I am trying to make this board into something it's not.

I take no offense at any criticism directed my way. It's justly deserved, and I'm not that thin-skinned.

I've noticed the trend recently, too. And not just from new players. We've had questions along the lines of "this card says to choose any card and put it into play; does that include attachments?" or "this card says the character doesn't kneel to attack during challenges; does that mean just military challenges, or power and intrige, too?" And I agree that sometimes, when answering these questions, you do want to say something along the lines of "what else would it mean? or "reading comprehension is dead."

But I also agree with what everyone else has said about cutting people slack, new or otherwise (~except Staton). There is just something about this game that encourages you to think there is some hidden meaning, that you missed something, or that you cannot take things at face value - maybe because sometimes, "face value" includes 3 other variables or rules scattered through the Core Rules and FAQ, so things that seem plain are not because the context can be complex.