Ser Davos Seaworth from the Core Set Question.

By Pope1777, in 2. AGoT Rules Discussion

Posted at

Bomb said:

KristoffStark 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.

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:

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.

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 entirely apologize if I said something to give you the impression that I was running a Regional tournament, which is far, far from the truth.

I would also hope that in such an official setting, personal interpretations would be put aside.

Posted at

KristoffStark said:

Fair enough. The play restriction only specifies that is a S character.

Not even that. The targetting restriction on Kingdom of Shadows only specifies a S card . Limiting the effect to characters is already overrestricting.

Posted at

Khudzlin said:

KristoffStark said:

Fair enough. The play restriction only specifies that is a S character.

Not even that. The targetting restriction on Kingdom of Shadows only specifies a S card . Limiting the effect to characters is already overrestricting.

I stand corrected.

Posted at

KristoffStark said:

I entirely apologize if I said something to give you the impression that I was running a Regional tournament, which is far, far from the truth.

I would also hope that in such an official setting, personal interpretations would be put aside.

Hey, no problem. I'm just glad we are on the same page with that. As long as you and your meta are having fun, who cares, right?

Posted at

So I have a question! Does this mean that Davos can always be on the table ? I mean can you save him every round using the response if you have gold all the time ? And do you pay the gold to the bank or to the opponent ?

Posted at

Yes, you can save him any time he would be killed (unless the effect says "cannot be saved"). Gold paid to keep him in play goes to the bank, not your opponent.

Posted at

re Sorrowful Man

I thought this had an errata - CardGameDB is quoting the text as

Response: After an opponent's character enters play, kneel 2 influence to bring Sorrowful Man out of Shadows and into play. Then, that character's controller must either pay you 1 gold or kill that character.

I've been playing him recently and have assumed my opponent would need gold to save the character - as the word Choose is no longer present

For Davos, I certainly remember this being confusing when we started ... we certainly believed you had to use something else to save him, maybe it's too unusual for the core pack

Edited by HastAttack
Posted at

re Sorrowful Man

I thought this had an errata -

Note that the original discussion is over two and a half years old. There has been errata and clarification on things like Sorrowful Man since then.

Posted at

For Davos, I certainly remember this being confusing when we started ... we certainly believed you had to use something else to save him, maybe it's too unusual for the core pack

So did my group and I at first. What's weird is that I don't really think there's an issue with the way his ability is worded. It's more of a learning curve type of thing.

Posted at

Yes, it was a case of not believing that you could simply save someone purely by electing to save them

Posted at

re Sorrowful Man

I thought this had an errata -

Note that the original discussion is over two and a half years old. There has been errata and clarification on things like Sorrowful Man since then.

Thanks ktom - I could have saved a lot of reading if I had noticed that

Posted at

That is correct. By not using the word "choose," the effect puts the emphasis Speed Test Scrabble Word Finder Solitaire on the outcomes, requiring one of them to be successful (unless neither of them can be). Using the word "choose" would put the emphasis on the choice, only requiring you to pick something, then see if it can actually be accomplished.

Edited by toucherts