Alrighty, here's our extra special 47th episode, wherein we begin the first part of our Lions of the Rock review with Top 5, Bottom 5, and Favorite 5. Also, I welcome a new guest host- Staton! Fair warning though, despite trying to crack down on editing, our 2hr+ recording session is still about 1.5hr of jam packed strategy and card discussion. Still, for the audio naysayers, I think you'll be pleased with a marked improvement in audio quality this episode. Enjoy here.

Yeah the audio quality was better thanks to skype. Gogo Skype! Also Darkened Hallways in the bottom 5?! wtf man?!

Ooh a Staton guest appearance! Can't wait until this hits my iTunes feed.

Kennon said:

lol. Geeze. Try this link .

Kennon = epic fail

Don't know what you guys are talking about. I linked to the Feedburner feed which shows episode 47 to me perfectly. Also, I send people to Feedburner instead of the direct link like Josh provided so that we can keep better track of the figures. So, if you want to help out, hit up Feedburner or iTunes and subscribe.

Regarding Shield Islands Dromon, To me the wording is alot like the Whitebook agenda, where if you have an option which can be fulfilled, you must take it (according to ktom). meaning you couldnt choose to discard 2 power if you dont have 2 power to discard.

The White Book says:

"Each time you lose a challenge as the attacker, kneel a standing Kingsguard character you control or discard 1 power from your House."

Here is ktom's ruling on The White Book:

"You must do one or the other successfully.

That means that if both options are open to you (i.e., you have a standing Kingsguard character and power on your House), you may choose which penalty is applied.

If only one option is open to you (i.e., all your Kingsguard characters are kneeling but you have power on your House or you have standing Kingsguard character but no power on your House), you must take the option that is left to you. You can't say "I choose to kneel the kneeling Kingsguard character" - which would result in an unsuccessful resolution - because you have another option in resolving the effect (discarding the power) that will be successful.

If neither option is open to you (i.e., all your Kingsguard characters are kneeling and you have no power on your House), the effect will fizzle completely."

Shield Islands Dromon says:

"After an opponent plays a location, put Shield Islands Dromon on the bottom of your deck to have that player choose to either place that location on the bottom of his or her deck or discard 2 power from his or her House."

Theon Greyjoy (PotS), because Kennon used it as the basis for his Shield Islands Dromon ruling, says:

After any player loses a challenge by 4 or more total STR, he or she names either "character" or "location," then chooses and discards from play (cannot be saved) 1 card of the named type he or she controls, if able."

Just looking at the three cards, Theon looks out of place. So, even if Shield Islands Dromon does allow you to choose an option that you can't successfully complete, I don't think Theon was a good example. The only thing you have to do to successfully complete Theon's choice is name either "character" or "location;" the rest just kind of follows.

Hmmm I wasn't aware of that ruling by Ktom. It actually makes quite a bit of sense, and I do think this seems to be more in line with the White Book instead of Theon. I would rule that you MUST choose something that completes successfully in order to resolve. So in that case, Suck it Will! Suck it long, suck it hard. Just like your mother did last night!

That said, i think this ruling kinda conflicts with the way Game of Cyvasse is played... since i remember it being stated that kneeling an already kneeling character even while you have other options available is apparently legal.

Game of Cyvasse and The White Book seem to have opposite rulings. Which doesn't make sense.

For Game of Cyvasse, you can make a choice that you know will be unsuccessful (kneeling a knelt character), even though you have an option that will end in success; but, for The White Book, you can't make a choice that is unsuccessful while you have an option that will end in success?

Hmmm... count me in the group that understands from the intuitive standpoint, that you would have to choose the possible of option of the two for the Kingsguard agenda, otherwise, the downside is effectively nullified.

But it's been proven before that we can't rely on intuition for card interpretation.

So count me in the group that says the rulings don't make sense. If anything, the language on Game of Cyvasse is more restrictive because of the word "must." In fact, despite recalling the existence of the ruling itself, I can't recall what sort of reasoning gets by that word in order to allow someone to choose a character already knelt when they have valid standing options.

ktom gave his ruling on Shield Islands Dromon.

He said that the word "choose" makes all the difference. Basically, SID asks you to choose what you want to do. Making that choice is the only legal requirement of resolving the card (from the opponent's p.o.v.). After the choice is made, the rest of the card is resolved as much as it can be.

So, Kennon was right.

QUOTE KENNON

Hmmm... count me in the group that understands from the intuitive standpoint, that you would have to choose the possible of option of the two for the Kingsguard agenda, otherwise, the downside is effectively nullified.

But it's been proven before that we can't rely on intuition for card interpretation.

So count me in the group that says the rulings don't make sense. If anything, the language on Game of Cyvasse is more restrictive because of the word "must." In fact, despite recalling the existence of the ruling itself, I can't recall what sort of reasoning gets by that word in order to allow someone to choose a character already knelt when they have valid standing options.

END QUOTE KENNON

I have the answer to this also. The White Book says to "...kneel a standing Kingsguard character...," and Game of Cyvasse says to "...choose and kneel a character..."

GoC only asks that you choose a character to kneel, it doesn't require you to choose a standing character. The White Book does force you to choose a standing character.

The reason that you HAVE to successfully complete The White Book's effect, even though you can let GoC fizzle, is because of the word "choose." The White Book doesn't include the word "choose," so something has to happen (if it can).

While being right is some measure of vindication, this discussion has just brought to light once again how strange the ruling is that you can "kneel" characters that are not standing. I can't think of any other effect or action in the game that lets you actually choose to do something that isn't a valid state change. I can, however, think of longstanding examples that to me, run counter to the also longstanding ruling that you can "kneel" knelt cards. IE, you cannot even initiate an attempt at a save when a character is in a terminal state if that save won't remove the terminal state (IE, if they've been burnt and the save doesn't increase their STR above 0).

*shrug* I'm sure there are reasons for allowing people to "kneel" something that can't actually make that state change, but I sure can't remember what they are right now, and I think that it would be more internally consistent within the rules to disallow that, or to allow other effects to be attempted anyway, regardless of whether the state change is actually possible.

*edit* A bit of clarification on why this bugs me comes back to the phrasing on Game of Cyvasse and the use of the word "must." For reference, the full phrase is "Each player must choose and kneel a character with an intrigue icon he or she controls, if able." In English, the use of that phrasing applies the auxiliary verb "must" to both of the actions "choose" and "kneel." It seems that making this state change is required by the card. If the capability to make this state change is not inherently required by the use of the verb "kneel" and the required phrasing would need to be "choose and kneel a standing character..." then why don't cards have to say "Choose and kill a living character?"

Another thought that occurred to me though, is how such a change would affect icon removal. If I'm arguing that you can't choose a character to make a state change that they cannot make, there's a line of argument that would suggest that cards like the Prince's Wrath could only ever be used on tri-con characters because it specifically lists each icon. Though, I would likely argue that it's changing the attributes of the card (similar to traits, STR, etc) rather than its state.

Sometimes you just gotta love the game, despite the riddle of rules that are its foundation...

Oh I do, I do. Built a new Lannister deck last night that I love, and working on a new, terrifying Baratheon/Targaryen conglomerate tonight,

Kennon said:

Sounds interesting! Let me guess - a certain Stark lady is a linchpin of that deck, right?

If by Stark you mean Neutral, then i think I've built the same deck...

It uses killers of.. certain people and someones escort ship? A fun deck, but i never did figure out how to grab much power.

oshi said:

Yep, that's the one. She was born a Stark, but later, more Houses claimed her as their own, so she's represented in the LCG as a neutral card. Should work very nicely in a Stark/Bara Alliance deck.

Lol, actually, I've thought about that deck, but that is not it at the moment.

So what did people actually think of the episode? lol I'm assuming it OK?

I really liked it. Honestly I may be of the minority in this... but I sit and listen to podcasts all day at work. I would be perfectly fine with the full audio version not cut for length. I prefer longer-form podcasts. I can break it up if need be, but the detail I get from those 2 hour podcasts I listen to trumps all my 30-45 minute podcasts, and I am usually much more entertained and focused.

Obviously editing for content is different than editing for length. If the subject starts to ramble and the tangents don't tie back in to the main point or the podcast subject that is a different issue entirely.