Hey all,

Two quick questions. The first one: How do the keywords Intimidate and Melee interact (or as it's becoming known in my group, the Cotter Pyke problem)? Let's say I attack with Cotter Pyke, who has STR 3 and both the Intimidate and Melee keywords. My opponent blocks with a STR 3 character. This increases Cotter's STR to 4, which then theoretically makes his defender an illegal choice because of Intimidate. Is there ever any check to see if the character is still a legal defender, or is he still in the challenge because he was a legal defender at the time the challenge was initiated?

As I was perusing the FAQ to try and find something to help me answer the above question, I came across the following section:

Is there a difference between moving power
and claiming power?

Moving power is not considered claiming
power. If an effect prevents you from claiming
power for your House card, you cannot bring
power into the game from the power pool
and place it on your House card. You can,
however, move power that is already in the
game onto that House card by, for example,
winning a power challenge.

Just to be 100% sure, does this mean that a Stark player can still gain power from power challenges if running The Siege of Winterfell agenda? (The text of which reads: You cannot claim power for your House except during a military challenge. After you win a military challenge, claim 2 power for your House.) Assuming that the loser of the challenge has power on his/her House card, and the result of the challenge does not involve moving power from the pool.

Thanks in advance for any insights

Varrec said:

Read Intimidate again. It does NOT make lower strength characters ineligible to participate, it just stops them from counting their strength. And the ability works so long as the character with Intimidate is attacking. So the game is constantly checking on the Intimidating character's strength, and the strength of other characters in the challenge to see who counts their strength and who doesn't.

In this instance, the defending character would still be in the challenge, because nothing about Intimidate says he can't be, but he would not count his strength.

Also, as a general somewhat related note, only effects that specifically remove characters from challenges do so. For example, if there was a character already participating in a military challenge, and their military icon were removed, they would STILL be in the challenge. The icon is a prerequisite for being declared as an attacker or defender, not for participating.

Varrec said:

Yes, it does mean that Siege of Winterfell does not stop the Stark Player from gaining power through Power Challenges, though they would not be able to claim power for Unopposed in that case.

Thanks for the quick reply. I guess somehow I got Intimidate confused in my head, and was thinking that they couldn't be declared as defenders. Maybe because no one ever bothered to declare defenders against Intimidate in my group

It's a common misunderstanding in how the ability functions. I've encountered it in my own playgroup as well.

No problem, always happy to help.

Keep in mind that Intimidate also keeps your own characters from counting their STR as well, if they have lower STR than the character with Intimidate. It is not limited to only your opponents' characters. One of those nasty things you find out when you don't read the rules closely enough and then get screwed by your own cards.

This is counter-intuitive to the Keyword. Why in the hell would people on your side of the fight be intimidated by their own man ? I feel like this wording in the rulebook was an oversight and not meant to function in the way you are describing.

It is intended to work that way.

AceManUSC said:

If I was fighting on the same side as Gregor Clegane, **** right I'd wouldn't get within arm's reach of the man. Perhaps even far enough way to not count my strength for the challenge.

While that is funny, it is still idiotic that Intimidate works this way. I fail to see the logic, but there are a lot of issues in this game that don't follow logic.

A balanced game is more important to me than a thematically consistent one. If Intimidate only hurt your opponents, that'd be uber-broken.

Varrec said:

Thanks for the quick reply. I guess somehow I got Intimidate confused in my head, and was thinking that they couldn't be declared as defenders. Maybe because no one ever bothered to declare defenders against Intimidate in my group

AceManUSC said: