Good day,

There was a recent thread that discussed the difference between the "Defending Player" and the "Supporting Player" and how they interact with cards and triggering responses.

I just wanted to be clear on this new Targaryen location for future considerations.

*Meraxes
2 cost
Warship

Meraxes counts as 4 STR during the dominance phase.
Dominance: Kneel Meraxes to draw 1 card. Then, each opponent who did not attack you this round draws 1 card.

For the purposes of the "then" portion of this ability, are you considered to have been attacked if:

1) A challenge has been declared against you, even if it had been redirected or supported via Titles?
2) You choose to support the player with a title that you support?

I believe that:

Anytime a challenge is declared against you, you are considered attacked this round even if it has been redirected.
Any time that a challenge has been redirected to you, you are also considered to have been attacked.
If you are supporting another player, you are not considered to have been attacked that challenge.
If a challenge declared against you has been canceled, you are still considered to have been attacked.

Does anyone agree with that? And are there any other instances to consider in either Joust or Melee?

Well, in Joust this could be a consideration:

Player one declares one attacker and Player two is using Field spikes. Player one decide to remove the attacking character from the challenge - no combat at all.

So then Player one is consided to be as a player who attacked Player two (stating that no more challenges have been initiated by Player one)?

Miklos is citing the correct precedent to these sorts of questions. That is, we know from ruling and the FAQ that if a participating character is removed from the challenge before the challenge resolves, it does not count as having "attacked" or "defended" in that challenge.

However, if you initiate a challenge and all your characters are removed before resolution, you have still "initiated" that challenge.

Ultimately, though, I would draw the line between "initiating" the challenge by declaring it on the one hand and "having attacked this round" by resolving the challenge on the other. That is consistent with the rules for characters, drawing the line between "declaringing" them in the challenge on the one hand and "having attacked/defended this round" by resolving the challenge on the other.

So if we modify that ruling on characters (which seems appropriate and applicable in the Meraxes example because it defines what counts when looking at "did X in a challenge earlier in this round" play restrictions), it is the resolution of the challenge, not the act of initiating it, that defines the "did not attack you this round" play restrictions. Therefore, I'd say that when Meraxes looks for "opponents who did not attack you this round," it is looking for those players who were never in a position to win/lose a challenge as the attacker when you were in a position to win/lose it as the defender. If you were never able to win/lose the challenge as the defender (and a player who was supported is not, even though they are on the hook for claim effects if the challenge is lost), you were not under attack.

The other thing I would point out is that the way the card is worded, you have to look at all of this from the defense point of view, not the attack. You don't look at each person and say "who did you attack this turn"; you look at the person triggering the location and say "who was never on the other side when I could have won or lost the challenge on defense."

Think about the new Robert. A initiates the challenge against B with Robert. C & D can declare one defender each. Even if A wins the challenge (clearly against B, since he is the one who "lost" the challenge) and C & D have to participate in claim, did A attack C or D? Can C or D trigger "after you lose a challenge" effects in this challenge? So what would happen if C or D then triggered Meraxes? You can look at the "supporting" situation in much the same way. Even though A initiates against B, when C supports B, it is C who wins or loses the challenge, even though B has to participate in claim. B cannot trigger "after you lose a challenge" effects, right? So it looks pretty similar to the Robert situation, where A is not considered to have attacked C or D, even with all of their potential activity in defending the challenge and settling claim.

Thanks ktom!

I understand what you're saying but think it's weird that the challenge needs to resolve and that you need to be on a winning or losing end in order to be considered attacked. I do understand why you believe that is how to determine who is eligible for Meraxes though and am ok with playing like that.

I agree it's kinda weird, but let me paint you another picture.

Player A initiates his challenge against Player B. Player B uses Crown Regent (not a cancel) to redirect it, so Player A shifts to Player C. Player C does not declare defenders, but Player D does so through support of Player C.

Has Player A really attacked all 3 other players in the game with a single challenge? According to the "so long as you were ever the person the attacking player was trying to hit" reasoning, he did!

You have to draw the line somewhere. Based on the rule for character "has participated," the logical place for the line until we hear differently seems to be at challenge resolution.