I'm not saying there is any mechanical difference with the cards currently available...

As you said your self, all cases of "the defender" require you to win/lose. The main gray area being the cards using the term "defending player".
The primary suspects being war of attrition, burned men(not so gray), reek, doran martell & pickpocket, which i'll suppose you'll agree all conveniently comply to my definition of "defending player".

All that combined with Nate's description of "Defending player"...
Whether or not this was an intentional difference by the designers? I'm thinking probably not.

If there are any "defending player" cards which apply to supporters, please bring them up.

ktom said:

wait, i think we've been playing this wrong.

If i get supported, and my supporter wins by 8, which one of us can play make an example/wars won with quills/etc? we've been playing it that both "defenders" can trigger responses as the winner/loser. same goes for losing & vengeful.

oshi said:

War of Attrition: the card comes out of the hand of the person the challenge was initiated against (aka, the "defending player").

Burned Men: the comparison is to the hand size of the person the challenge was initiated against (aka, the "defending player")

Reek: the control exchange happens between the attacker and the person the challenge was initiated against (aka, the "defending player")

Doran Martell: you use the claim value of the person the challenge was initiated against (aka, the "defending player")

Pickpocket: the gold would come from the pool of the person the challenge was initiated against (aka, the "defending player")

So while I'm a little lost on what your definition of the "defending player" is here, I just don't see a grey area here when it comes to effects using the term "defending player." You do the same thing you do with claim: "defending player/opponent" means the person the challenge was initiated against. Which makes sense: effectively, supporting seems to intentionally be a very "minimal risk" kind of thing.

oshi said:

oshi said:

So is Norvos impossible to trigger if a challenge is supported?

Response: After you lose an challenge as the defender, discard a card at random from the attacking player's hand. (Discard 2 cards at random from the attacking player's hand if you trigger this response during the epic phase.)

I think it was already mentioned above that "defending player" and "defender" are synonymous.

And this logic would also make Kingsguard weaker in my opinion.

Ser Meryn Trant

Response : After you win a challenge as the defender, choose and stand a Kingsguard character.

I have played this in Melee and triggered this response through Supporting the defending player. I guess I shouldn't have done that.

I am reading "defending player" being synonymous with "defender" from ktom's post earlier in this thread. Maybe I am taking it out of context.

A little out of context. oshi and I are saying the "win" part latches on to the rule about the supporter getting to be the winner/loser, letting "as the defender" apply to the supporter (as winner, not so much as the defending player).

ktom said:

We've just about come full circle here i think but...This pretty much sums up everything i've been saying the whole time, with only the additional assumption that since all situations of "the defender" require you to win/lose, you can assume they refer to the supporter if there is one.

I make this assumption only because it doesn't say anywhere why supporters can trigger stuff as the defender. superior claim/make an example, sure no problem. its when supporters can trigger things like burning on the sand, where it isn't stated anywhere that they are the considered the defending player(since you say they are synonymous) for the purposes of win/lose responses.

If im an idiot and it is stated somewhere, please enlighten me.

just to get it clear...

A champion arises : if your supporter loses a challenge, that challenge does not lock you out from this event right? since you, the defending player, did not lose that challenge, the supporter did (even when you still paid claim).

Ser Meryn Trant : A supporter can trigger him when they win as a defender. but if you get supported and your supporter wins, you cannot trigger him. since you did not win the challenge, the supporter did. same goes for norvos except for losing.

oshi said:

That said, there are certainly some things that need to be clarified within the "supports" rules because they are not clear. First, I don't know that you can trigger things like Burning in the Sand when you are a supporter. The card never actually refers to "the defender" or "defending player." Do we have a definitive ruling on this somewhere? Does the challenge count as "would be won" against the supporter before a winner is determined - something that may be required first since the rules state the supporter is "considered" the winner/loser? That one may require a ruling for when the supporter is "considered" anything.

oshi said:

Trant is straightforward, though, because it's taking place in that challenge resolution. The supporter can trigger him because the rules say he can (he won the challenge). The defending player cannot trigger him because the rules say he cannot (he did not win the challenge).

I can buy that "defender" and "defending player" may be different within the narrow context of the "supports" rules, but if so, that difference is not specifically defined for the "supports" situation. The best information we have is that when coupled with "win/lose," "the defender is referring to the winner/loser of the challenge and the "defending player" is referring to the person against whom the challenge was initiated. That's a contextual conclusion based on the "supports" rules. And there is no reason to think that if they are different in the "supports" situation, they must be different in all situations.

In all other situations, "defender" and "defending player" are the same, functionally if nothing else. And this is more than 95% of the challenges and situations in the game.

Ok, i think i got it.

If a card refers to a defender/defending player, in the case of supporters/supported. the way to determine which it refers to is entirely dependant on if the card cares if that player wins/loses or not.

wait wait wait... who chooses for deadly? the defending player or the supporter?

For your reference, Nates responses to my question on supporters & deadly:

The supporting player, who declared defenders, would choose who dies for deadly in this example. This is an extension of him being considered the winning/losing player for purposes of responses, passives, etc., but the original target of the attack is still responsible for claim.

Another exception to the rule, but it's the way it should be if you apply a bit of common sense.
Then his response on reek, war of attrition, pickpocket, etc...

The original target of the attack is responsible for claim. (Claim replacement effects (like Pyat Pree, that use the phrase, "instead of the normal claim...") qualify as claim.)

Anything else: Responses, passives, etc. that has to do with challenge resolution is between the attacker and the supporting player who stepped into the challenge.

Why would Reek and War of Attrition belong in the same group as Pyat Pree? They aren't claim replacement effects (unlike Pyat Pree, who clearly is), though they refer to the defending player. Does that mean that the supporter who declared defenders will be the player referred to by these cards, like he's the one to choose who dies to deadly?

yeah, reek, war of attrition, pickpocket, etc. all fall into the "anything else" category, so apparently they effect the supporter. not the original target.

What Nate did here is probably really smart - and something that could only be done by official ruling.

He has effectively said (without using the words) that the Support mechanic results in a redirected challenge. From the moment you decide to declare defenders in the challenge for the player you support, the game looks at you as the "defending player" - with the added benefit that any challenge result effects resolve on the original defending player.

The reason this is so smart is because instead of the "big exception" situation we have been building in this thread (where there are effectively 3 players involved in the challenge instead of 2, creating some ambiguity around "defender," "defending player," and "winner/loser"), he has created a "small exception" situation (where there are still only 2 players involved in the challenge, just with claim effects shifted to a 3rd player). So all the other confusion about defender, defending player, winner, loser, "your side," "if you won...," etc. goes away in the same way that it goes away when Crown Regent of Lord Commander redirects the challenge entirely.

So the ruling is, more or less, that the supports mechanic works as a full redirect. The supporting player becomes the defending player (and any effective difference between "defender" and "defending player" goes away). In the end, that is much less confusing.

ktom said:

I completely agree and think it's the best way to use "Support". Finally something incredibly simple!

I don't know about that ktom. Your statement is somewhat general. i think its still only for within that framework action.

Going back to Greatjon. If he jumps in before you declare supporting defenders, he claims a power. but if he jumps in after you declare supporting defenders, he doesnt? Since you claim you would be the defender at that point, and you normally don't support yourself...

I think greatjon claims either way because his effect doesn't have to do with "challenge resolution".

Also from this, do we know who's hand The Burned Men look at?

oshi said:

But let's say now that The Hand of the King doesn't jump Greatjon in before defenders are declared. The Master of Whispers doesn't declare defenders and The Lord Commander of the Kingsguard exercises his right and takes the challenge. If The Hand of the King jumps Greatjon in now, before the challenge resolves, Greatjon doesn't get the power.

Seems like essentially the same situation in that post-defenders, someone else takes responsibility for the challenge situation. The idea is that once someone else takes responsibility for the challenge, the original defender can no longer win or lose the challenge (whether he is responsible for claim or not), so why does it seem wrong in one situation, but not the other?

But, if you want to say the redirect effectively happens during the resolution framework action window instead of at the moment of taking the challenge (when the original player can no longer win or lose, no matter what happens from that point on), that's fine, too. But if you do, preserving Greatjon's ability to claim a power in the post-defender/pre-resolution window, keep in mind that the supporting player will not be able to bring in their Guardian Wolf (it's not "your side" yet) or drop in their Catelyn Stark (the challenge is not considered to be initiated "against you" yet) in that window, either. That seems a lot harsher than Greatjon not being able to get the power in both windows - especially since there is another situation (Lord Commander) that gives rise to the same situation with Greatjon.

oshi said:

All those ambiguities and seeming inconsistencies - Burned Men, Walder Frey, Catelyn Stark, Guardian Wolf - go away if you consider the supporting player the defending player from the moment he declares defenders. And it is really very consistent to do so, both because from that moment, the original player cannot be considered the winner or loser of the challenge, and because all those things can fall under Nate's "Anything else that has to do with challenge resolution." (Burned Men's potential to increase claim certainly deals with challenge resolution; Walder's need to know who is most likely to "win" at that point references the potential outcome of challenge resolution as predicted at that point; having a side or an attacker against you is a consequence of being able to win or lose the challenge; etc.)

So if you want to say the supporter is only considered the "defending player" when the challenge is actively resolving, that's fine - but it still leaves some ambiguity. Or you can take the broader view of Nate's reference to "anything that has to do with challenge resolution" and say that from the moment the supporter declares defenders (thereby being the only person who can win or lose the challenge on defense) s/he is considered the "defending player." I'd personally say the latter is cleaner.

I think that for the purposes of simplicity, I will just presume that the Supporter declaring defenders is an added framework event of "step 3" to the original framework window which is only considered if the original defender did not declare defenders. Considering you cannot declare Stealth on the Supporter and you would play responses specifically to that framework after the Supporter chose to step in or not.

Hope I didn't just add complexity to simplicity. :-D

Well, I think I'd say you are more creating a centipede's dilemma by thinking about something you don't particularly need to think about.

Remember that each framework event cycles through Steps 1-3 alone, then move on to a common Steps 4-6. So the "declare defenders" framework action window really looks like this:

Step 1.1: Initiate "Active player chooses stealth targets"
Step 2.1: Save/Cancel choosing stealth targets
Step 3.1: Resolve choosing stealth targets (chosen characters cannot defend)

Step 1.2: Initiate "Defending player kneels defending characters"
Step 2.2: Save/Cancel declaring defending characters
Step 3.2: Resolve (characters are knelt/participating as defenders)

Step 4: Passives to Step 1.1-3.2
Step 5: Responses to Step 1.1-4 (and earlier stuff in 5)
Step 6: End

So I would say the supporter declares defenders in Step 3.2 (well after stealth targets are chosen in Step 1.1) when it is official that the original defender did not declare defenders. If you need to compare it to something, think of supporting as a "then" effect on declaring defenders. (ie: "Then, if the defending player did not declare defenders, players who support the defending player may declare defenders instead.")

That "then" effect could even always be there, but have no hope of ever meeting its play restrictions outside of a Melee game using the titles.

(~ And sure, we can argue about the exact timing of a "then" effect, too, if you like. It's not particularly well defined, which makes it the perfect analogy.)

Yeah - I don't think it needs to be well defined. I was just thinking of the timing for something like Double Bluff and the like. However, Double Bluff should respond AFTER the Supporter decided to do nothing or not.

Yep. Double Bluff happens in Step 5 of this window, no matter who decides to declare (or not declare) defenders in Steps 1.2-3.2.

That would mean if I support a player and win the challenge, my defending characters would claim power from Renown.

Seems consistent with the rulebook example p.16 about Titles.

For information, from Nate, about Where Loyalty Lies Greatjon :

"Greatjon will claim a power if you meet the condition of supporting yourself."

Bolzano said:

Good to know. Thanks.