OK, we've seen it now, virtually no changes and I'm sure a lot of people are upset that there was nothing done to GG. Will new Wildling decks see play with the modified BotFM, or are they just past their heyday at this point? Aside from GG, does anyone feel other major changes were needed?

Take Blood of the First Men off the banned list.

Which is kinda why I expected to see it already.

Although, there's part of my brain making me wonder if there's something that needs to be pre-restricted in the upcoming CP's.

Given the changes, I'd be willing to bet the new FAQ was timed to address the Defenders of the North reprint issue right as Blood of the First Men would become tournament legal after the waiting period. In that light, the ruling on Meera Reed is a little surprising, but I'm sure it's much easier to add a simple clarification like that than to weigh the pros and cons against mucking with the metagame just to make some people happy and some people upset as you address whether a card should receive an erratum or restriction or be left alone until further play sees how full it impacts the metagame (Ghaston Grey).

Note that Ghaston Grey did very little among the top decks at Stahleck.

God, I'm glad they didn't nerf GG just because there was a bit of nerdrage on the forums.

I would have expected they'd adress Meera more extensively. Things like, can she target the Viper, can she target KL Joffrey, is she affected by Death by Payne, can she be cancelled by Bloodrider, because these rulings are not intuitive at all. All this has been cleared up by Nate and can be found in the forums, but IMO it would have a place in the FAQ.

I'm severely disappointed that they didn't take TLS off the restricted list. IMO he has no place on the restricted list in the current environment, and that move would be necessary to restore Bara to anything that resembles competitiveness.

Otherwise there's not much to talk about. I'm not sure the new BotFM will see much play at all with the current cardpool. There's only 9 different unique Wildlings. Out of those, Gilly costs 0 to begin with, Jon Snow is utter crap, Mag is decidedly subpar (or maybe the other way round, YMMV there) and Varamyr only fits in a few selected decks. Plus, Val is restricted. That means most Wildling decks will only run four or five characters that will be affected byBotFM. Not enough to offset the drawback of the Agenda, maybe.

Ratatoskr said:

TLS and Val make such a good draw engine together that I doubt we'll ever see either card off of the Restricted list.

sWhiteboy said:

A draw engine that's so easily disrupted it's not funny. Let me tell you something. If TLS came off the restricted list, I'm not even sure a majority of high level Bara players would even go for Val as their restricted card, at least in Rush decks. I could well imagine that many would think Narrow Escape more worthwhile.

sWhiteboy said:

Many possible solutions to that issue have been proposed. Errataing either card to break the combo would not be difficult to accomplish in such a way that neither card is significantly nerfed.

Ratatoskr said:

Have to disagree here. There is no reason for rush deck to not run that combination. It's actually very devastating (have tried plenty in not so serious games with friends). Baratheon rush usually has to specifically decide if they are going with pure speed when it becomes its weakness that it will run out of steam if the speed plan fails. On other hand they have the option to go slower and add some draw to make the deck more stable. With TLS + Val they can use the full speed option (val really never hurts a rush build) without going out of steam if your opponent didn't have a target kill in hand. The baratheon player will most likely get to use this once which already nets them +3 cards a thing they aren't getting easily and even on a second turn if opponent didn't have any direct kill. If thanks to this combo you manage to force your opponent to valar too early? most likely you will win. Then there is also threat from the east to go well with TLS even without Val which nets you good amount of cards and hurts your opponent well since the discard is random and they are unable to draw more. The option of that good draw engine goes over narrow escape atleast for me any day.

someone call the internet flight marshal, because this thread has been hijacked.

getting back to the new faq, i'm glad to see the return of BotFM in it's current form. I'm also glad to see the meera reed dupe issue is addressed in a way that I assumed it worked. the lack of Ghaston Grey is a bit worry-some, but there is still plenty of time to see how it impacts the metagame before regional's season.

@Ratatoskr

what about meera's ability isn't intuitive? things that are immune to character abilities and opponents triggered effects, she will not effect. her ability is a character ability, therefore her ability can be canceled by bloodrider (a cancel response) and she can be killed by death by payne (granted that death by payne isn't a cancel its just a kill effect to a triggered character ability so her ability triggers first then you respond with DbP). this stuff is all addressed in the flowcharts.

The Nick-ler said:

Thing is this: yes, her ability is a character ability. Yes, her ability is a triggered effect. But no, her ability is not a triggered character ability, so she can't be killed by Death by Payne, and she can't be cancelled by Bloodrider. See Reply #48 of this thread and reply #11 of this thread . Thing is, you need to pay very close attention to the Rules Board *and* know the FAQ by heart to even suspect this. So it should have gone to the FAQ. QED.

Ratatoskr said:

I'd run that **** all day long. ALL. DAY. LONG. As it is, I think Val might be the solution to the Baratheon Draw Problem. MIGHT.

I think the Meera clarification is sufficient. I'd heard conflicting thoughts from Nate and ktom on that issue, which to me means it needs to go in the FAQ. The rest of the questions concerning her are clear enough I think.

As far as GG not being restricted or given some errata, I think it's fine at the moment. Lannister is going to be king of the mountain for a while with the box, and location hate seems to be the hotness.

Ratatoskr said:

By the way, the answers are: yes, yes, no and no.

EDIT:

IGNORE ^^

See below for correct answers and explanations.

*sigh*

I wrote a bit of a rant about Meera related things, then decided it wasn't worth the effort. I'll play as ruled, but it would be nice if we had less rulings that were Pactively anti-intuitive like Meera-Duplicate vs Meera-Fortified Position.

It would probably be nice to compile a list of anti-intuitive rulings to send FFG's way to see if there's a way to address some of the underlying flaws that have created some of these issues in forthcoming FAQs.

And I will at least give FFG some props for reversing what had long been one of the most anti-intuitive and debate sparking rulings- null=0.

You can't use Death by Payne on Meera? The deck I most recently made put in three copies of it largely due to Meera. Doesn't seem to make much sense, but whaever.

FATMOUSE said:

WOOPS!

Sorry guys!

I misread the way Ratatoskr wrote his post. LOL. The correct answers:

NO, she can't target TRV he is immune. NO, she can't Joffrey he is immune.

She is NOT affected by DPB because when you trigger her ability it's not triggered as a character ability (she's not in play when it is triggered). If you're second guessing how TRV and Joffrey are immune then, it's because her "then" effect IS a character ability (she is now in play) and Joffrey is immune to triggered effects which her "then" effect is part of.

She CAN'T be cancelled by Bloodrider for the same reason DBP doesn't work: she doesn't trigger her ability in play. Remember cancel's respond to the trigger of the effect, not the "then" parts. Only saves can respond to "then" effects.

Sorry about the confusion...I'll try to be more careful next time I'm terse with my answers

Can I also add that things which are half effect and half ability don't make the slightest bit of sense, either?

Per that reasoning, why can't one Bloodrider cancel another? Since putting it into play is part of the cost, then it's in play before the rest of it's ability continues, so it should be a character ability now instead of an effect, and thus a second Bloodrider can cancel it.

Yes, I'm simplifying, but it's an example of how allowing text to be half one thing and half another within the same trigger sets a precedent that is going to be quite confusing and extremely anti-intuitive to players.

Kennon said:

For the same reason Bloodrider can't cancel Meera's ability -- it's an effect triggered out of play. When an effect is triggered from out of play it's only considered a triggered effect, not an ability, even if it's on a character card. Bloodrider only cancels character abilities. When you trigger Bloodrider it's not considered a character ability, but a triggered effect because it was triggered from an out of play state (your hand). Sure part of the cost is to put in play, but THAT alone tells you that you are triggering it from an out of play state (your hand) and not in play.

What's important it to look where is it triggered from? This is before costs are paid, targets are chosen, etc. When you want to "press" the bold Response, Any Phase, etc. "button" on a card, look at where and in what state is that card in. That will tell you what type of effect you are triggering.

I'm right there with you, Will. If only this were a court of law where precedence meant something. (Where's our podcast, btw???)

longclaw said:

Precendence of what? ~You guys need to use the actual law in a court of law

Haha, yes, Fatmouse, Bloodrider does actually make sense to me, but I was trying to use it for an example for why the many Meera rulings appear to contradict each other.

Under the exact reasoning that you just clarified for me, anything triggered from out of play is an effect for the entire duration of the that text because you look at where it was triggered from. So how is Meera not able to blank The Red Viper or Joffrey?

@Longclaw, currently editing, so I'd expect it up in the next hour or so.

Kennon said:

I briefly mentioned the reasons earlier. Joffrey is the "easy" one to understand. Meera's "then" effect is part of a triggered effect, right? So he's immune to it since he's ITE.

The reason why TRV is immune is because when the "then" effect resolves, Meera is in play. Remember "then" effects are predicated on the previous effect resolving, which in this case is bringing Meera Reed into play. So now that she is in play, the "then" effect resolves as a character ability that simply happens to be part of a triggered effect. TRV is immune to character abilities, so he's immune.

Haha, you've got me on Joff. I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have and forgot that he's triggered effects in general.

The Red Viper though still seems anti-intuitive to me.

Wait, TRP immunity seems anti intuitive? I see things as intuitive when a new player looks at a card or how certain cards interact and goes I think it works this way. I think anyone new to the game would look at Meera's ability and say yeah I don't think she can hit things immune to character abilities.

In the aggregate of rulings relating to her and the interactions that it draws to light, I think it does seem anti-intuitive. For players that never get into the FAQ and interact here on the boards at all, you're right, they'll just jump on the fact that she's a character and likely play that she'll not be able to blank TRV. Likewise, those same super casual players are pretty likely to play that one Bloodrider can cancel another. Or can permanently stop LoW Catelyn from coming into play.

The problem is for all of the players in the middle zone who've had some questions they want answered or who want to expand into organized play. Then they start learning the difference more clearly that keeps Catelyn a triggered effect rather than character ability, etc. Once you're at that level, I think that allowing a single...... textualized happenstance to change from one thing to another all within the single block of text is anti-intuitive.

Lol, know what else is anti-intuitive? Trying to come up with a way to refer to this thing that that switches from being an effect to an ability without actually using either on of those words for the thing as a whole. Thesaurus.com was no help at all.