This is a question that came up on the French forum: when Heavy Taxes and a Raven are both in play, how do they interact?

1. Players count income up to 4 (according to Heavy Taxes), then take 3 in Winter or 5 in Summer (taking 1 less or more according to the Raven)
2. Players count 1 less or more (according to the Raven), then the maximum of 4 is applied (according to Heavy Taxes)

Relevant card text:

Heavy Taxes

Decree. Condition.
Attach to your House card.
If you are not running an agenda Heavy Taxes gains: 'Players cannot count more than 4 gold during the marshalling phase.'

White Raven

Raven. Creature.
Immune to non-Raven cards.
Attach White Raven to your House card and discard all other Raven attachments from play.
It is Winter. Each player takes 1 less gold token when he or she counts income.

Black Raven

Raven. Creature.
Immune to non-Raven cards.
Attach Black Raven to your House card and discard all other Raven attachments from play.
It is Summer. Each player takes 1 additional gold token when he or she counts income.

Heavy Taxes is merely putting a cap on the amount of gold you can count. So it is counted last essentially. You count all your gold, including factoring in white/black raven, then you see if your gold is over 4 or not. If you have over 4 gold then you count just 4. If you have 4 or less gold, then you get whatever you counted.

The trick, though, is that the Ravens refer to the gold you "take" when you count, not the gold you specifically "count." There is a very good argument that you count gold, Heavy Taxes puts the limit at 4, then when you "take" those 4 (or fewer) gold tokens from the treasury, the Ravens kick in.

So it all depends on whether you interpret the ravens as being part of the gold count, or whether you interpret them as being an bonus/penalty applied after the count itself.

I think the word "take" in the Raven's text is the real important part here.

I say that the Taxes limit the gold you count, then the Raven effects how much of that gold you take.

ktom said:

So which is it? I would think the "take" wording along with "Immune to non-Raven cards" would allow you to take 1 additional gold and reach 5 gold if you are already able to count 4 or more from your plot/gold bonuses.

I agree with Kristoff. "Take" is different from "count." If the Ravens were supposed to make you "count" one more/less gold, they would have said so. I think they're supposed to be effects that happen outside of the gold count, and thus outside of the limit of Heavy Taxes.

~But I don't want people to think I am making my own rulings to ruin another card.

~Because it's clear that you hate this game and want to destroy it, one card at a time.

But I also agree - you count your income, capping it at 4 if necessary due to Heavy Taxes, then take 1 more or put 1 back because of the Raven.

Heavy Taxes + White Raven is nasty.

ktom said:

I chuckled heartily.

And here i thought this is something that would have been clarified by now...

radiskull said:

Yeah, it's a nasty combo I hadn't even thought of when I first saw Heavy Taxes.

ktom said:

You're not. You're backing up mine

You cannot take the gold without counting it right? So since you have to count the gold first, first you count, then take. One less.

loffenx said:

Why not? I see no reason why you cannot Count gold, then Take +/- 1.

I think the two of you are actually in agreement: Count, cap at 4, if necessary, then take +1/-1 as needed.

Btw, if I'm not mistaken, Black/White raven are passive effects (worded as Eddard CS, House Umber berserkers, "When revealted" effects, melisandre RotO).

That's kind of wierd for the white raven since the count has already been resolved when the takes 1 gold effect resolves

Bolzano said:

I'd argue that it can be interpreted as a constant/continuous effect. "When" does usually appear in passive effects, but it can show up in constant/continuous effects, too (Spidercraft and Karhold Rookery come to mind).

But if it is actually ruled like that (count gold) +/- 1 wouldn't the rule that the shadow agenda have to change too ("count" cost)+1...i mean both of them say 1additional gold instead of actually modifiyng the count/cost

Francisco G. said:

City of Shadows says to "pay 1 additional gold" when you bring the relevant card out of Shadows. As such, you are clearly modifying the cost that you "pay" at that point in time. On the other hand, the Ravens say to take 1 additional gold when you count income.

So the situations are not analogous because the important word here is not "additional." It is the mismatch between "take" and "count" on the Ravens.

If the City of Shadows Agenda said something "give 1 additional gold to the treasury when you pay to bring a card out of Shadows," the Agenda would be like the Ravens. Or if the Ravens said something like "count 1 additional gold when you count income," they would be like the Agenda.

Sure, i get what you say and I'll play it that way but, one could argue that if FFG wanted to modify the "cost" to bring the card out of shadow as the penalty for doing so ooh, they would have worded it the same as actually paying ooh cards......

"the gold cost to play that card is increased by 2" making it "the gold cost to bring that card out of shadows is increased by 1" instead of "whenever you bring a card out of shadows (which is impliyng that you already brought it out, or at least payed the already calculated cost) you pay 1 additional gold"

The bottom line is that in some cases the rulings are based on very subtle diferences of words such as "take" and "count" but in other those same diferences are considered the same (pointing out that it is obviously the same), making it confusing but VALID. And since you are usually the one responding and guessingwhat FFG would rule, with the knowledge of precedences and what not, people usually complain to you. (which i'm not doing btw).

Cheers

PS: Thanks for clarifiyng and ruling this stuff because without YOUR rulings we would be fighting between ourselfs (even more ) to see who is right.

Francisco G. said:

This is the part I don't agree with. If it said "After you bring a card out of Shadows...", I'd agree that the implication is that the card is already out or the cost already paid. SInce in says "when," the implication seems to be "simultaneous action," which would be a cost modifier, to me.

So "when you bring (which requires you to pay), pay additional..." ends up being different from "when you count, take additional...".

Of course, this is also based on an extremely subtle difference of wording. That difference being that the rules effectively say you bring a card out of Shadows by paying a cost, but you count gold, then take it from the treasury. So what happens "when" you "bring" or "count" ends up being different. When bringing a card out of Shadows, the action is dependent upon paying the cost (therefore, the Agenda is a cost modifier), but when counting gold, taking it from the treasury is independent of the count (therefore, the Ravens are not an income count modifier).

Of course, this interpretation of counting gold could be incorrect. You could count gold by taking it from the treasury, which would indeed make the Ravens an income modifier (hence the earlier suggestion that it might be good for FFG to weigh in directly). So in this case, I'd say the wording subtlety that creates the difference isn't even on the cards in question.

Francisco G. said:

Undoubtedly. See above.

My point exactly. The diferences are just sooooo subtle.

i.e: My comparison with the agenda came from this,

- You COUNT gold (add your gold appliyng modifyers that say "count" extra/less.....like starve for your king) then TAKE (+/- modif that say "take".....like ravens) the gold.

- You CALCULATE COST (add the cost appliyng modifyers that say "increase/reduce/lower cost by"....like reducers [even hidden chamber] or ooh penalty) then PAY (+/- modif that say "pay".....like shadow agenda) the gold

The estructure seamed to me the same, but the game makes them differently by the interpretations that are usually made, hence my confusion.

This are fun threads.....it's like discussing quantum physics xS

Yep. We're saying exactly the same thing, just putting the emphasis in different places. And the difference in emphasis comes from the fact that we have information in the FAQ saying that calculating cost and paying it are part of the same process for initiating an effect, but we don't have anything saying that counting gold and taking it from the treasury are part of the same process, despite being part of the same framework event. They might be part of the same process (like choosing and revealing plots) or independent (like drawing each of your 2 cards individually in the draw phase). Both interpretations are valid - as we've said all along.

Francisco G. said:

I understand Francisco's point of view. I do think calculating cost and paying a cost is synonymous because it happens as part of initiation of bringing the card out of the shadows.

In initiation of the FWA in Counting Income, I believe the income amount is counted, then Save/Cancel responses to specifically counting income. Then I'm thinking that, in Resolution, you physically take the amount of this counted income. The problem with the Ravens is they imply the taking of 1 additional or 1 less gold is done when income is counted. If it was stated as taking 1 additional or 1 less gold after income is counted, then I think it would be more clear cut. Seeing as there is no additional event for the physical taking of gold, I am leaning toward the Ravens not being a separate entity toward Heavy Taxes.

From the perspective of the FAQ, I only see the FW action to count income, which is why ktom is suggesting that this be asked of FFG because counting and taking income could be deemed as the same thing. For now, I will treat the Ravens as not counting toward Heavy Taxes because I trust ktom's instinct on this.

This is a great topic.

Bomb said:

So I'd argue that there being no additional event for physically taking gold out of the treasury and putting it in your gold pool does not necessarily mean that "taking" the gold is synonymous with"counting" the gold - just like "killing" the card is not synonymous with physically "placing" the card in your dead pile, despite the high degree of correlation.

Do you think that all gold in the Count Income framework is taken at the same time?

For example, would you say that The Wealth of the Rock event gold is taken simultaneously as the Counted Income?

Response: After you count income choose an opponent and add X gold to your gold pool, where X is the number of characters that opponent controls. (Limit 1 per phase.)

That would actually be a very important distinction to consider since you could have Calm Over Westeros as a revealed plot.

Text - In order to play an event card,a player must give an opponent one gold token from his or her gold pool.

By the way, a fantastic plot to have in a deck that uses Heavy Taxes.

Bomb said:

I'd say the same thing happens when taking gold after/during the income count. Everything you count in the framework determination of income is taken at the same time, but separate "after you take a gold token from the treasury" Response opportunities are created.

Bomb said:

For example, consider CS-Robb Stark: "Response: After you win a (MIL) challenge in which Robb Stark participates, choose and kill a character controlled by the losing player." He Responds to winning the military challenge by killing a character, but the Response is not rolled into the determination of the challenge winner or the claim. The Response is it's own, separate, distinct effect. Same sort of deal with the income count and the Response to the income count with The Wealth of the Rock.

Bomb said: