NOTE: Grab a cup of coffee, before you start reading this.

I posted a wall-o'-text about AGOT, rules and all things related in one of the rules discussions just last week. Now, after reading another large set of Tourney Reports (both here, and on other sites), it started seeming all the more relevant, so I'll post it here on the main forum as well.

Why? Here are some details in those TRs that caught my eye:

• Locations with attachments being bounced with Search and Detain (this one was on CardgameDB and had to do with Burned and Pillaged, I think)
• People only executing part of an effect, and their opponent noticing this and not acting upon it ( "Turn 2 I forgot to search for To Be a Wolf (still got the stand). He noticed but didn’t say anything, which may have cost him because he had to discard for my agenda since it was winter.")
• The different ways of playing/ruling, with regard to how Maester decks interact with timed wins.
• A player not searching for a Maester with At the Gates
• There were also other similar examples… I think I saw at least an indirect mention of a game, where I think someone had used Burned and Pillaged to choke a KotHH player, even though KotHH stops all gold modifiers etc.

I really think, that as a community, we would need to take a firmer stance on trying to play this game ' by the book ', ESPECIALLY since the rules are more than a bit convoluted in AGOT.

To be really irritating (I apologize beforehand): There is no rule stating that a card effect is executed completely (the To Be a Wolf example) only if it suits the player who notices this. Effects need to be executed completely and it's up to both players to maintain this. If something is voluntary ("you may…"), then sure, you don't need to start noting on this to your opponent. But passives need to always happen (if one player doesn't draw from GTM, then the whole game is in an illegal game state) and effects need to be executed as they are written (you play the cards as they are written, not how it suits you). I remember there was a TO somewhere in the States, who used to penalize both players for an illegal game state? In a way, I think he was onto something.

So… that original wall-of-text I mentioned? Here. It's about AGOT, rules and why I'm a bit worried about the overall direction thereof. Was originally posted into the thread here about why Castle Battlements ends up NOT granting any immunity to the card it is attached to:

Wall-o'-text:

NOTE: The following is a sort of preamble to something that I've been thinking about lately, feel free to skip until later if this is all clear or boring to you. ; )

First of all, some background on why the rules exist, and why they should be followed:

• All of the different cases of how cards interact cannot be explicitly written on the cards themselves, not enough room.
• All of the different interactions between cards cannot be written explicitly out by the design team. Even with binary interactions there would be over half a million interactions (6*120 cards for CPs, 60*6 cards for deluxe expansions, around 200 for Core Set… that makes around 1280 cards… square that and you have around 1.6M. Remove double-counting and you're at something like 800k). Not enough manpower, time etc.
• Despite this, players have to be able to interpret all of the interactions during gameplay and preferably in a similar way in different isolated places. Otherwise somebody will come with a deck that contains Free Man, only to discover that the TO says that it's a widling, not a wildling…

Now, for all of this to work out properly, we need two things:

• A formal language that is used in the cards.
• A compatitable rules set for parsing this formal language.

If there is no clean set of rules, then we cannot extrapolate and come up with the same end result in every game played by every player everywhere. Essentially, we'd end up playing the game differently in different places, and it would be useless to talk about a real metagame anymore, since we wouldn't all be talking about the SAME GAME anymore.

This is actually pretty similar to how programming works. The text written on the cards would be the code, the rules would be the coding language and the player/TO doing the interpretation would be the parser/compiler. Now, in an ideal situation, the rules set would be so thoroughly defined that there would be very little room for mistakes, all of the special structures of the language would be included as rules and the overall size of the rules set would be manageable. Of course, ideal rarely happens. However…

Why I decided to pick up on this:

I'm a bit worried on how laxly FFG is treating the overall formal language behind the game. To begin with, the game is pretty hard to parse for most people, evidenced by the 'Oh, we've been playing this wrong' -comments that you very often see from people. So, FFG isn't doing too well with either the clarity (the rules are in a difficult to interpret form) or conciseness (there's just too many rules for players to keep up with) to begin with. One portion of this might be the fact that the rules are spread out into two documents? Or just the way the sheer length of the accumulated rules text? But it starts getting downright worrying, when an argument can be made that even the card designer's aren't fully aware anymore of how the rules function.

Now, the following (and previous for that matter) are purely my personal thoughts, so feel free to disagree. Even vehemently. No, really. Feel free. I'd love to hear peoples thoughts on these:

• I think that instead of using existing well defined structures within the formal language to produce new and interesting effects, AGOT design tends towards constantly creating new structures into their own games language. Now, the funny thing is that Castle Battlements is actually a good COUNTER-example, since it is using an existing rules structure (Immunity) in new and interesting ways. An example in this direction would be the new River Plots. Or the fact that we have exactly two Deathbound cards in the LCG. Maybe the character agendas also, although they're resurrected from CCG.
• For the amount of new types of effects that AGOT gains constantly, very few of them are defined into new terms into the language. An example? Instead of defining 'Claim Replacement (attacking alone):', we write out all of the rules for this on each card that does this. Similarly for character Agendas. Now, this is of course good in it's own way, since players don't need to look elsewhere for the rules. However…
• Clear templates aren't being used in card text, not at least always and consistently. Instead, the card text is written 'free form', which leads to every single card having to be checked for it's exact wording and how that relates to the rules. Hard to come up with a good example of this, I'm personally drawn towards pointing at Kindly Man and dual-house Theon Greyjoy. They both function similarly, but one has you 'name' a cardtype, while the other doesn't. If Kindly Man used the Theon template, it would say: …he or she names either 'kill' or 'pay', then chooses and kills the chosen character or gives you 1 gold from his or her gold pool, if able. Another good example is Dragon Skull vs. Venomous Blade.
• I really think, for this kind of game, either strict usage of templates OR defining terms for everything is very beneficial in keeping the rules 'clean'. For comparison, L5R uses the template -system, while MTG tends towards terms. AGOT sort of swims between the two, without really deciding on either solution. Both solutions have the same effect however. You can think the rules through for the template or mechanic, and can 'inherit' most of the behaviour. One comparison of these two methods is that 'terms' are easier to change later on, while templates tend to be more user friendly, since you don't have to check what the mechanic was… Templates lead to long card text (which can be daunting for new players), terms can lead to loads of 'what does Character Agenda (death): … do?' during first games.
• Rules problems aren't always solved 'cleanly' in AGOT. Case in point: Kings of Summer, framework draw and draw cap… and how this was resolved, i.e. changing the rules suddenly to work differently. Or To Be A Stag, To Be a Dragon and suddenly deciding that for these cards you suddenly needed a card in your discard/dead pile… instead of changing the wording to match the rules.
• The number of QA slip-ups is getting a bit too obvious, and is causing people to 'lose faith' in the cards being correct. This makes it harder for people to accept how a certain card works, and causes them to start arguing 'designer intent' etc. Examples: Wilding. Snakeskin Veil and there not being a single 'Sandsnake' in the cardpool. Onborn.

TLDR

sry, cant help myself sometimes.

I actually agree with just about everything you said.

I think you meant "Sorrowful Man", not "Kindly Man" in that one example above talking about card effect text templating.

I want to add Burning Bridges as an example to the above where "on" means "printed" character abilities.. I did not think that it needed any clarification as I had thought it was pretty clear what it had meant only to find out that it meant something else. Examples of card text meaning needs be more clear on examples like those as some people may not even know it might mean something else and would never present it as a "frequently asked question".

WWDrakey said:

I know Clu uses this in Iowa, and because of that I used for our event in January. And he is on something….er onto something. It forces everyone to play correctly (or at least attempt to)

Bomb said:

Yeah, I did mean Sorrowful Man, good catch.

Although you can claim, that he's oddly 'kind' for an assassin, since he doesn't kill you even if you don't pay him… Quite a jovial fellow, really, once you get to know him.

I think the truth lies somewhere in-between.

Yes, there are standard templates that could be followed more closely and language that could be clearer. (The problem with "Sorrowful Man" is not that the template used cannot be understood - it is that, based on the flavor of the card, it's not the template people expect. The difference between "Choose A or B; do what you choose to the extent possible" and "Do A or B, whichever can be done successfully" has been around for a long time. FFG used the first template on Sorrowful Man, but for a card named after a society of merciless, though "compassionate," assassins, the second seems more appropriate.)

But the game rules are much easier than most people seem to think. There aren't nearly as many "exceptions" to memorize as people think - if they'd just learn and apply the true basic flow of the game.

Anyway, if people aren't following the rules, it's not necessarily because they don't understand them. Sad to say, but people cheat - both negligently and intentionally. If Player A uses "To Be a Wolf" to stand his character, but doesn't search (negligently or intentionally), and Player B notices but doesn't say anything about it (negligently or intentionally), I think you have a sportsmanship and fair play issue on your hands (related to both players), not a rules issue.

WWDrakey said:

This. The designers really need to get their act together.

The same person giving different answers to the same question at different times, cards that are intended to work one way but are worded to work another way - these things will happen when dealing with a subject matter as complex as this game. I get that. But they shouldn't happen, and they definitely shouldn't happen as often as they do these days. I'm sorry, but I really think this has to get better.

What really takes the cake for me is this:

The question what happens when time is called in a tournament game and one of the players still has chains on TMP has come up lots of times. So far, the standing ruling on the matter was this:

ktom said:

EDIT: Source .

Now, I have to read in the Days of Ice and Fire TR, in this thread , that Nate himself has ruled this the other way round. I'm sorry, but this stuff can't keep happening.

Rules inconsistencies and unclear wordings are my biggest concerns about the game as well. I like the game a lot and have played it for years, but if there's one thing I find frustrating enough to cause me not to want to play anymore, it's these two things.

Case in point - just learned at Days of Ice and Fire that Meera Reed can blank The Red Viper, even though he is immune to character abilities. It was explained that Meera's ability isn't a character ability, and instead is a card effect. Not intuitive at all, and I know many people are probably playing this wrong. I know we all were in the MN FFG Event Center meta.

I'd prefer if things were cleaner and simpler. If it's written on a character card, it's a character ability. If it's written on a location, it's a location ability, etc.

ASoIaFfan said:

Both rulings (Meera cannot blank TRV and The Maester's Path not counting when determining modified wins) both came straight from Nate over the past year. Now, we have conflicting rulings on both - also reportedly straight from Nate. This sort of thing seems to happen at Days every year….

It's very difficult to keep track of these rulings if they keep changing.

Meera Reed blanking TRV just means she's even more of a beast and I hate her(love her in the book, but she is a **** head to be against).

Someone in my meta just asked me the other day if she can blank TRV, and I said no because it's been that ruling for as long as she's been around. Coincidentally now she is not someone you are immune to if you have character ability immunity? It makes a world of difference against TRV if she now can now do that.

ktom said:

And now this Meera thing. I'm popping a vein here. Nate and Damon really need to get their act together.

An E-Mail from Nate that says Meera can't blank TRV is quoted directly here (Reply #48).

If the info in this thread is true, that two more MASSIVE rulings have once again been re-overturned, I am going to seriously consider quitting this game. I can't take the flipfloppery.

To be fair, I don't recall Nate saying at Ice and Fire last weekend that Meera Reed can blank TRV because it's a character EFFECT out of shadows, rather than a character ABILITY from a card in play. I did however have it explained to me by another FFG judge/employee who is VERY good with the AGoT rules. I also verified it later that evening with Damon.

Papa

Papa Khann said:

Sounds like, in the heat of the moment, the ruling and explanations given at Days did not take the "when does the 'then' part of an effect initiate?" part of the situation in to account. Both interpretations are sound and, once you know the answer, you can convincingly argue either one. I'm wondering if the people you talked to simply justified the answer Nate had given earlier in the day rather than considering the other possibility and remembering that they had justified the opposite answer back in the February time-frame.

so, the confusion regarding my modified win and the ruling on tmp in fact is on kevin and myself. i recall when being asked who won our match when the turn was over we both reported i had. obviously i had never heard the ruling on tmp before, and i assume kevin had not heard it either otherwise he would have received the modified win. please refrain from nate bashing as this oversight is on us and not him. i will amend my post when i am at a computer to reflect this (as i am on my phone at work). i would also like to say that if nate had made a mistake (which he didn't) he's human and we all make mistakes. i know we all take the game seriously at this level of competition, but let us all remember it is only a game, and a rather complex one at that. mistakes are bound to be made. we should take them in stride and not have a knee-jerk reaction to something that is overall not a big deal. again i just want to say, it is my fault this ruling was made and NOT nate.

ktom said:

I think that's likely at the heart of the matter. Judges need to make rulings on the spot. Sometimes they can get things wrong. The Meera/TRV thing is almost certainly a mistake. I guess what we can learn from the whole thing is that we should take rulings reportedly made at tournaments with a grain of salt, even if they come from Nate or Damon (or ktom, for that matter). Especially if those rulings go against established wisdom.

It gets worse if it's not specific rulings that are reported, but offhand remarks made by Nate or Damon in a conversation. We never know the context in which these remarks were made, or whether the reporting person understood them fully or reproduces them correctly. I'm not saying this happened here at all. But I've had conversations with people who were adamantly claiming interpretations to be correct that directly contradict the written word in the FAQ because "Damon told me so at GenCon".

That said, I still believe that we need a definite statement on the Maester's Path question from FFG. Public and in writing. And soon.

Thanks for that update, Nick. That part did not come across clearly at all - that it was the reporting of who got the modified win, not a ruling of who got it - that contradicted Nate's ruling from over a year ago.

And to be clear here, I am not Nate-bashing. Conflicts and changes in rulings happen. People look at things differently, especially when the environment changes (as you expect it to do in a "living" card game). I know I have given different answers to the same question asked 9 months apart, too. Even if Nate had made a contradictory ruling on The Maester's Path (as he apparently did on the Meera/TRV situation), he's allowed to do that. The question here is more one of expectations and communication. The fact that there are contradictory rulings (whether they are "human mistakes" or the result of careful consideration) is probably not what has people up in arms so much as now they don't know which one to follow. When I make a mistake (like I did recently on the Burning Bridges vs. dupes question), it's easy to say "do what Nate says." Contradiction resolved, you know? But when Nate makes a mistake, that leaves people uneasy. It's not a fun position to be in. Sure, we need to cut him some slack and allow him to be human, but also, when he is "human," there needs to be a resolution to the conflict.

Effectively, how should people play Meera at the next regional?

The Nick-ler said:

I have a feeling this might be directed at me, since I was the one who called out Nate and Damon to "get their act together". Twice, even. I feel a bit ashamed about that, and I apologize. Mistakes do happen, certainly.

But whether a mistake was made or not, we don't know where we're at now. Two pretty big rules issues we had tucked away nicely are pretty unclear again.

The TMP issue can't be on the reporting players alone, because Professor Nomos said in the other thread (reply #11) that he was there when Nate made the ruling. So I guess Nate must've said something on the matter. The Meera/TRV issue used to be crystal clear, too, and now it's murky again.

EDIT: That said, inconsitencies in rulings and card text seem to increase lately, or is that just me? So, my basic gripe still stands, even though I feel bad about my choice of words.

Ratatoskr said:

Ratatoskr said:

With the TMP situation being explained by Nick's description of this being player report, not judge's ruling, I'd personally say that we should be playing both of these situations as they had been ruled before Days until we hear otherwise.

LOL. The FFG AGoT LCG boards, a rather unhurried place usually, teeming with nerdrage (our very tame version of it, anyway). The same events discussed in three different threads, almost in real time! I think it's fun!

ktom said:

No, we're not certain. As every police officer can tell you, witnesses *are* unreliable. That's not a knock on anyone in particular. To quore myself from upthread:

Ratatoskr said:

ktom said:

My thoughts exactly.

Ratatoskr said:

~Quore. Maybe that should be a new word for quoting yourself. I'm a quore. I'm quoring myself.

Ratatoskr said:

Could lead to a quore-war.

kevin and my game was not the only one to go to time. nate was not standing anywhere near. he approached us, asked, and we reported.

@Ratatoskr - my statement was not directed at you, though i can understand why you would given the circumstances. it is and was a blanket statement regarding the message boards (which is why i do not post often) .

@ktom - again, what i said was a blanket statement for the boards. i don't want anyone to feel like i'm calling them out for disagreeing with whatever rulings happened or who made them, because i'm not trying to. i just get a little protective because i've been there in the same spot making snap rulings which may or may not fall into a game state "grey area". it isn't easy to remember everything. all i'm asking is to give credit where it is due to the tournament organizers and rules arbiters. it is not an easy thing to get 51 people to play nice and abide by the rules for 8 rounds.

so again, no offence was intended and no fingers were meant to be pointed. ^__^

Just a thought on the Meera being able to blank TRV thing. Meera is not considered a character card while in shadows, therefore the effect is really initiated from a shadows card. This shadows card does reference a character named Meera Reed, but it is referential. The Shadow Card Meera Reed is not the in-play character Meera Reed. Shadow Card Meera Reed is blanking TRV, but Shadow Card Meera Reed's blanking effect is dependent upon Character Card Meera Reed being in play. The source of the entirety of the effect is a shadows card (Shadows Card Meera Reed) that is not a character when the effect is initiated. Just because Shadows Card Meera Reed no longer exists once Character Card Meera Reed is in play, doesn't mean Character Card Meera Reed becomes the source of the card effect. Non-intuitive, but I can see where the logic would stem from.

Good, looks like the issues were mostly resolved succesfully.

Actually, all this fuss actually might have helped me figure out my actual points in a succinct form. Miracles do happen…

They are:

1. FFG needs to be sharp with QA. Obvious QA slip-ups (looking at you Schrödinger's Castle Battlements) cause people to lose faith. People losing faith leads to second-guessing of designer intent and easily believing hearsay on rules decisions. Among other things.
2. As a community, we really need to try and play the game by the rules, to the best of our extent. While you're free not to remind your opponent about any missed responses, passives that don't have a 'may' clause in them must happen. It's in the rules. Similarly effects need to execute completely and play restrictions have to be met. If you notice something like this, and don't mention about it, I'll sick an angry Ratatoskr onto you. He may look like a pup, but when it comes to rules questions he's a regular full-grown Grey Wind! And don't you worry little Jaime, you'll have plenty of opportunities to play to win, without breaking the game rules while you're at it. People will still play a location as their only card during FoW by misthinking - even two games in a row!
3. Rules questions need to be solved cleanly and information on rulings spread as well as possible. It would be good if rulings (like the timed win for TMP, or Meera and TRV) would be added to the FAQ as soon as possible. And since FFG updates the FAQ about quarterly while cards come out monthly (and we're continuously still discovering interesting interactions in old cards)… as a community, it might be good if we kept some kind of list of FFG rulings and tricky interactions that have been solved but are not in the FAQ? If this were, say, an easily printable document, it could help TOs (and in smaller Tourneys also other people having to rule on TO games) quite a bit?