Orell the Eagle's text:

While Orell the Eagle is attacking, opponents must declare at least 2 defenders in order to defend the challenge.

Thoros of Myr(TGM)'s text:

If you have more than 1 opponent Thoros of Myr gains: "While Thoros of Myr is attacking, non-unique characters cannot defend alone."

Assume for the below questions Thoros of Myr is played in Melee format.

There seems to be an implicated difference here, so I'd just like to clarify. Orell the Eagle seems to imply there is no play restriction on declaring defenders, but if you only declare one, it will not be considered a defended challenge(so unopposed). Thoros of Myr seems to basically say that if you are using any non-unique characters, you must declare more than one defender in order to declare any non-unique characters as defenders.

So my question is, is this accurate for both? What is possible with both of these characters?

Can I declare one defender against Orell the Eagle and later pop in Catelyn Stark, Greatjon Umber, or Guardian Wolf and it be considered defended?

Can I do similar with Thoros of Myr with non-unique characters? Or is his ability strictly a restriction on declaring defenders?

We had a debate on agotcards.org with Orell the Eagle and after reading Thoros of Myr's text, I wanted to be sure that the ability is or is not setting the same precedent with Orell the Eagle. Afterall, putting a Tourney Lance on Thoros of Myr against an opponent full of non-unique characters would be as close to a situation as Orell the Eagle.

Bomb said:

If Orell is attacking, the defending player must declare at least 2 defender characters. The defending player is prevented from declaring only 1 defending character by the text "must declare at least 2 defenders." Yes, the "in order to defend" could be phrased better, but "undefended" and "unopposed" are not the same thing. Orell's limitation is on declaring fewer than 2 defending characters. This is the much simpler explanation and interpretation of his text than assuming you can declare a single defending character and then creating some undefined (by rule or by Orell's card text) "undefended" challenge state which, as far as I know, doesn't exist in any other circumstance. Effectively, you are trying to equate Orell's result with the result of Scouting Vessel (participating character somehow doesn't oppose the challenge) without defining the mechanism by which that happens (with Scouting Vessel, it happens by the character not counting it's STR). As is usually the case, the simple answer is the better answer. Given that Orell specifically talks about declaring defenders, the better interpretation is that Orell requires the defending player to declare at least 2 defenders if they want to declare defenders at all.

Thoros is a little different in that rather than placing a limitation on how many characters the player must declare when "defending" (ie, declaring defenders), he places limitations on the eligibility of characters to be declared as defenders. It would be like saying "in order to defend in a MIL challenge, characters must also have the INT icon." It doesn't change the mechanism by which defenders are declared or the challenge is resolved; it just changes which characters are available to defend in specific scenarios. So whereas Orell says "players need to declare at least 2 defenders," Thoros says "non-unique characters cannot be declared by players unless they also declare at least 1 other character." (Interestingly enough, this means that non-unique characters that are immune to character abilities will ignore this limitation imposed on them by Thoros.)

So the difference between Thoros and Orell isn't so much the practical result (basically, at least 2 characters must be declared when the player declares defenders), but the mechanism by which that practical result is achieved.

Bomb said:

Bomb said:

Bomb said:

Bomb said:

And yeah, Tourney Lance on either of these guys is pretty devastating. Put the Lance on Thoros and the defending player had better have uniques to declare; put it on Orell, and they better have jumpers.

I just wanted to be sure how it is understood based on the core rules text on declaring defenders:

"Your opponent must declare at least 1 defending
character in order to be considered defending
against a challenge."

Orell the Eagle has near identical text except that instead of 1, it's 2 defenders. I have always played(and everyone else for that matter) that Orell the Eagle basically makes you declare at least 2 defenders to declare any defenders at all. After finding his near exact text in the core rule book, I began to wonder what defending against a challenge actually meant. Did it mean declaring defenders? Did it mean opposing the challenge? Know what I mean?

Thanks for the detailed response!

Bomb said:

Yep. And for all intents and purposes, it means "declaring defenders in the framework window set aside to do so." Opposing the challenge has different rules (at least 1 participating character, plus a total challenge STR of 1 or more).