Hey all,

Sorry for the dumb question but we are mid game and argueing instead of playing.

If and when you issue a challenge to a player do they HAVE to accept challenge if they have any form of defense on the board? We are assuming that you can only "not resolve" a challenge if you do not have the proper defense.....I.E. Intrigue challenging a player who has no intrigue showing.

I think I understand the rules correctly, in saying that you have to defend a a challenge if you have any characters showing that match that category?

thanks.

Melianne said:

You can issue a challenge against someone regardless of what icons they have showing, and their characters are never obligated to defend.

So in essence you can just avoid all challenges and never fight back?

Yeah, but if you don't defend a challenge, the attacker gets a power for his house.

Melianne said:

If someone decides to attack you, that's it. They are attacking you and you cannot stop it. You cannot "avoid" the challenge in the sense that you cannot stop them from attacking you if they want to do it. If I want to punch you in the face, I don't really need your permission or your agreement. I just do it.

In game terms, if I am the attacking player and I have characters with the correct icon, I can use them to attack anyone I want (unless some card effect stops me). And that's all I need. I don't need the person I attack to say, "Yeah, you can attack me." I am not limited to only attacking someone who has a fighting chance to defend themselves (ie, have characters with the right icons to defend). If I have the means to attack, game on (so to speak).

Once I do choose and attack someone, if they have no way to defend themselves (ie, no characters with the correct icons eligible to defend), oh well. It's considered their own fault for either not having the right icons on the board, or having all the right icons knelt out. But if the person I attack can defend themselves (because they have the right characters standing), they essentially have three options:

1. Defend and win
2. Defend and lose
3. Not defend at all - and still lose

So, the answer you are getting in the earlier posts is #3. Attacking someone who has characters that can defend does not make them kneel those characters in an attempt to defend. You are always free to not defend yourself and take it on the chin. You will lose the challenge, and the attacker will get the bonus for winning an unopposed challenge, but your characters will still be free to attack, or whatever.

But I think you were also asking the question about attacking someone who does not have characters that can defend. There is nothing stopping you from doing this. For example, a Stark player could easily build a deck without a single intrigue icon. If he does that, it is not like he is cleverly shutting down any intrigue challenge his opponents might want to make under the "you can't attack someone who can't defend himself" reasoning. Instead, he is choosing to make himself completely vulnerable to 1/3 of his opponent's possible challenges.

Hope that makes sense.

Melianne said:

I didn't think it needed greater detail, but of course ktom has the right of it. I think you're getting hung up on the idea of a 'challenge' being between two characters, like one slaps another with a glove and they decide to throw down. It's not like that at all. They challenge your POSITION, and your guys can either try to stop it (by defending) or not and you just get beaten down. Not accepting the challenge doesn't mean you don't have to take up pistols at dawn, it means you are already getting shot at.

I want to add one small thing to keep any confusion in terminology cause anyone to play the game correctly.

If I do not defend, regardless of why, I lose the challenge unless there is some card effect I use that says otherwise. If I lose this challenge I must pay the penalty for losing that challenge (choose and kill a character I control for military, discard a card at random form my hand, move power from my House card to my opponent's) equal to the claim on their revealed plot card. After that, my opponent gets to claim 1 power for their house if I did not have a character defending in the challenge with STR greater than 1.

I wanted to be clear, that even if I don't defend I still must pay the claim effect of losing that challenge. I tis not just my opponent getting to claim power for unopposed.