www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/GoTCards.html/_/core-set/ser-davos-seaworth-core

How do I handle his Response? Do I just say "I want to save him" then pay 1 gold and put him back in my hand? Or is he saved only via attachments etc?

Just a little confused on the wording I guess.

Thanks for any help.

~Pope

Attachments? Huh? Pretty much you save him, then you have to pay 1 gold. If you choose not to pay 1 gold he is returned to hand.

How is the wording confusing? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

"Response: Save Ser Davos Seaworth from being killed, then pay 1 gold or return him to his owner's hand. "

1. Save Ser Davos.

2. Pay 1 gold

3. If you can't pay 1 gold, return him to owner's hand.

Nothing said about attachments at all...

kauai1964 said:

You actually can choose not to pay the 1 gold if you want to.

And yes, it's that simple - Davos is killed, you say "I'm triggering Davos's Response, saving him." Then you choose to pay or put him back in your hand.

Some people do have a tendency to read things like Davos, CS-Viserys, or even Risen from the Sea that saves and then does other stuff as being a Response to the character being saved, not a save Response to the character being killed.

Essentially, there is a (somewhat rare) tendency to read Davose as "Response: after Davos has been saved, pay 1 gold or return him to your hand." That misunderstanding is probably what led to the question about attachments, etc. in the original post. Some people read things like Davos and think you have to save him with some other effect before his text can be used, failing to recognize that the actual save is the main point of his ability.

radiskull said:

radiskull said:

My understanding is that Davos would be different from Sorrowful Man in this regard, as Sorrowful Man says "choose to either pay you 1 gold or kill that character." whereas Davos says "then pay 1 gold or return him to his owner's hand."

The lack of the word "choose" in Davos' ability means that you ACTUALLY have to do one or the other.

The lack of the word choose means that you have to be able to do one successfully. If it said "choose to pay 1 gold or return him to your hand" then you could choose to pay 1 gold even if you didn't have the gold. Since it doesn't say choose you have to actually pay 1 gold and if you can't or choose not to pay the gold then he is returned to hand. You don't have to pay the 1 gold.

KristoffStark said:

It's a subtle, and somewhat annoying, distinction, but an important one.

ktom said:

I'm beginning to strongly suspect that this is how Sorrowful Man was intended to work. I may consider ruling that it's text should be read this way. Bless FFG and the authority they give their TOs.

KristoffStark said:

Seriously, think about it. If Sorrowful Man had exactly the same text, but was named "Qartheen Diplomat," would people be as upset about the "'choose' lets you pick paying gold, even when you have none" interpretation of the card?

As an aside, I think that it is probably better to "rule" that the text should be read this way (if and) until FFG issues errata on the card, particularly for consistency with other cards that use the "Choose A or B. Do what you choose ('if able' implied)" template. If any of your play group plans to travel for Regionals, for example, better get them in the habit of playing the card as written now.

Thank you for all your replies!

I'm pleased that his Response is really that simple!

Apologies if this seemed like a daft question, but better asked than not aye?

~Pope

Pope1777 said:

Absolutely.

KristoffStark said:

Seriously? Despite precedent, and despite the fact that Nate has weighed in and said that we should play with the card as written until further notice? This seems like a singularly bad idea. Assumed intent is a very bad guideline for interpreting rules. For example, I am pretty certain personally that it was intended to give all Creature characters the No Attachments keyword, and that it is an oversight that said keyword is missing from CS Ghost, Carrion Bird and Pit Viper. I wouldn't dream of errata'ing those cards in the tourneys I run, though.

If I was considering attending your tourney, and you announced beforehand that you'd house rule Sorrowful Man, I wouldn't go. if I only found out about it on the scene, I'd be seriously, seriously pissed.

IMO we should do our utmost to keep the rule set unified. House Rules are OK for casual local play (although I wouldn't want to be part of a meta that used them), but we should really keep tournaments free of them. That way lies chaos and madness.

Out of curiosity, if you decided to go through with this, how would you rule Shield Islands Dromon? Kingdom of Shadows?

Ratatoskr said:

You say that assumed intent is a bad guideline. I say that personal judgement is the guideline that FFG encourages TOs to use in the Tournament Rules.

I ask you: What is the point of saying that TOs can override official rulings if we should all just tow the party line for the sake of consistancy?

My meta is incredibly small. My events are regularly attended by 4-6 people, counting myself. I see my position as TO primarily being about providing a play environment that is as fun for those players as possible, because without them, there is no game. Now, if one or more of the decisions that I make to facilitate that means that you would not enjoy playing with us, that's fair, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Don't mistake me. When I consider a ruling that conflicts with official word, I bring it to the players, and we discuss the issue before reaching a solid conclusion. I also explain to them what the official word is, so that if they travel to another city or convention, they are prepared for what they'll encounter. But so far, what happens in our playgroup happens essentially in a vacuum, the players know that, and they prefer it that way. And since FFG gives us that flexability, I don't see anything wrong with that.

To satisfy your curiosity:

For Shield Islands Dromon, I am not certain how I would lean. It would take more expirence with the card in play (admittedly, as does Sorrowful Man, note that I said "may consider") for me to decide completely where I think the balance lies.

As for Kingdom of Shadows, I don't see how that applies to this at all. The ability "After a player wins an Intrigue challenge, that player kneels all copies of Kingdom of Shadows to choose and stand a card with the S crest." is incredibly straight forward.

There is nothing wrong with House rules, just so long as everyone knows which are the House rules and which are the official ones. Plus, you know, people playing in their basement can do whatever they want. Consistency is really only important if you cross metas for official, FFG supported events, where the general assumption is "no House rules apply," which, of course, does not stop a TO from ruling the way that makes the most sense to them during an event. If you don't like the TOs ruling, it's not like you can appeal the results of the game or the event to FFG (and that's the way it should be, I think; otherwise, the whole organized play process is micromanaged to the point of being unmanageable and a lot less fun).

If the TO at an offical event is going to enforce a House rule that he knows contradicts the official interpretation, I think it is his responsibility to make that clear when promoting the event. Otherwise, "your roof, your rules."

KristoffStark said:

KristoffStark said:

If you are going to rule that something like Sorrowful Man, with its "choose A or B; do that" wording limits your choice to the option(s) that can be resolved successfully (ie, the unofficial stance), you would be limited to choosing a Shadows character that is currently kneeling when resolving Kingdom of Shadows - even though there is nothing in the text of Kingdom of Shadows limiting target eligibility to kneeling characters. This is because you cannot successfully stand a character that is already standing. So limiting resolution choice to those that can be successfully resolved automatically limits all "choose and stand" effects to kneeling characters (and "choose and kneel" effects to standing characters) - something that directly contradicts years of official FFG rulings.

I see the point there, but I would argue that the impact is limited. Since the location does not keel to do anything but stand the character, and the only effect on the character is to stand, if there are no keeling S character, it doesn't seem to matter if it happens or not.

However, realizing that there may be mitigating circumstances, I suppose it may be worth addressing.

My personal opinion here, would be that the most important aspect is the difference between the word "then" and the word "and."

If it said "Choose an S character. Then, stand that character" there'd be no argument. You'd choose an S character, THEN worry about standing them. The effect to stand them only hinging upon successfully choosing them, regardless of their state at the time, though of course it couldn't resolve if they were already standing.

I think that "and" should link the two halves of the ability, making both parts a requirement for the successful resolution of the effect.

If my opinion goes against previous rulings, it remains my opinion. Does that opinion mean that I'm going to rule that way regardless of the official ruling? Not nessissarily. I don't feel that a difference of opinion from the rulings requires overruling them in every occasion. I also don't think that, even should I rule a certain way on Sorrowful Man and the Dromon (which I realize is a logical consistancy issue; I didn't mean to imply that I would rule differently on each card), that it logically follows into a ruling on this card. To me the dominant issue here is the "and" vs, "then" wording, not "choose x or y" vs "do x or y."

I have a problem with a TO not following an official interpretation. I may build my deck a specific way that follows the official interpretation, rules, and FAQ only to arrive at such a tournament and find out that it will not be followed, perhaps making a key strategy in my deck worthless. I believe official rulings that are made should be followed the same way throughout all official tournaments. Designer's intent is not a judgement call when the designer tells us that we should follow the card text literally until further notice.

A TO's judgement call is their interpretation when there is no official ruling on that specific scenario or text on a card. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with not following Nate's ruling to play it as it's written.

KristoffStark said:

Let's say that you have 2 Shadow characters, one kneeling and one standing. I have no Shadow characters at all. I win an intrigue challenge and all copies of Kingdom of Shadows in play are standing. They kneel and I have to choose and stand a card with the Shadows crest.

Under the "when given a choice, only choices that would be successful are valid" interpretation (the unofficial interpretation), I must choose and stand your kneeling Shadows character - something that is almost certainly going to make my life more difficult.

But under the "when given a choice, all choices not specifically barred are valid" interpretation (the official interpretation), I can choose and stand your standing Shadows character - allowing me to avoid being forced into a choice that would be bad for me.

KristoffStark said:

Bomb said:

I agree. The distinction, I think, is the context of an official event or casual play.

In casual play, do whatever you want. At an official event, follow the official rules, rulings, and interpretations - unless you have specifically advertised otherwise. There's no problem, in my book, in saying "we're going to play that Sorrowful Man doesn't let you choose to pay gold you don't have at this event" for an official event, provided that it is right next to where you say "this is a Kingsmoot, Hand-of-the-King variant, Melee event." But there would be a huge problem (especially after all this community discussion) if, in the middle of a game, my opponent from the home-meta says "you can't choose to pay gold you don't have!", calls the TO over for a ruling, and the TO says "yeah, that's the way we interpret it here; shoulda done your homework."

Bomb said:

Okay, I think some clarification is in order here. The events I am referring to, wherein I feel within my rights to enforce rulings at my discretion, are the biweekly tournaments that I hold for the local meta. There is no registration of these events with FFG, nor any need to report the results of them. Therefore, while I call them tournaments, I hardly consider them "official." We pay for the League Kit, so how we run the events using it is entirely at our discretion.

At an event such as a Regional setting, or anything "official" like that, I whole-heartedly agree that the official rulings should be strictly adhered to.

As for your statement: "A TO's judgement call is their interpretation when there is no official ruling on that specific scenario or text on a card," I'm afraid the tournament rules themselves say otherwise. From page 1:

"The Tournament Organizer (“TO”) is the final
authority for all card interpretations, and he or she
may overrule the FAQ when, in his or her opinion, a
mistake or error is discovered."

"In his or her opinion," gives the TO wide authority to rule occording to their personal interpretations and opinions, not limited to when there is no other ruling.

ktom said:

And indeed, I agree that any deviation from "standard rules" regardless of what they are, should be advertised along with any other information on the event in question.

ktom said:

Fair enough. The play restriction only specifies that is a S character. I was getting caught up in the specifics to needing legal targets in order to trigger an effect (ie, you can't play Put to the Sword if the only characters in play Cannot be Killed), and forgetting that the effect does not need to be successful for the effect to target, only the target needs to be.

KristoffStark said:

KristoffStark said:

Fair enough. That is not the impression I was getting from you. The impression I received was that was how you would run your regional tournament.

KristoffStark said:

I'm glad you pointed this out to me. I think the next time I disagree with card text, I will call it a mistake and use my own interpretation. The FAQ is not perfect, but when Nate says you should play a card as written, I would not consider that a "mistake" or an "error".

I was under the impression that official interpretations and rulings would be followed on cards that have received them specifically. But I guess if a TO considers any to be mistakes or errors, that would be the final say. I would really hope a TOs personal interpretation is not used to overrule an official one during any official FFG sanctioned tournament.

I actually love the fact that FFG allows for a TO to overrule a ruling or interpretation of a card. How many rulings have we had in the past couple months that were then reversed in the FAQ. As long as the TO announces the changes to the official rulings beforehand I don't see a problem. Then you can just avoid the event if you don't agree.