So it came to be that a Baratheon player with a pair of The Fox's Teeth came after me and the only kneeling character I had was the neutral iconless Maester Aemon.

I argued that it was possible that the rules only require icons of the appropriate challenge type for declaring defenders unless characters are otherwise enabled to defend, and that the Fox's Teeth was enabling knelt characters, thus enabling Maester Aemon to defend the challenge, my tablemates thought not. What do you think?

• Step 2: Declare defenders: The opponent you are challenging now has the option to kneel any number of his or her characters that have the corresponding challenge icon (or are enabled to participate by some card effect) to defend against your challenge. Already kneeling characters may not be declared as defenders.

• While The Fox's Teeth is attacking, knelt characters may be declared as defenders. While The Fox's Teeth is attacking, only knelt characters may be declared as defenders.

The requirement to have the appropriate icon is not directly contradicted by the th card text, so you cannot bypass it. Only the standing requirement on the characters being declared as defenders is contradicted.

Take the example of Ser Balon Swann. He can defend knelt in an Intrigue challenge even though he had no Intrigue icon, because the icon requirement is contradicted in his ability.

More to the point, and to put it into the language you were using, in order to declare a character as a defender, it must meet two separate requirements (normally):

1. Be standing
2. Have the correct challenge icon

As you say, a character can be declared as a defender without meeting these requirements if a card effect specifically enables them to bypass the requirement.

Fox's Teeth specifically bypasses #1, enabling knelt characters to defend. It does not bypass #2, so that requirement still holds.

Here's a fun one for you that should illustrate the point very convincingly: Fox's Teeth says that while it is attacking, knelt characters, and only knelt characters, may be declared as defenders. Your position is that this text enables all knelt characters to be declared as defenders despite any other factor or condition on declaring defenders that "normally" applies - such as having the appropriate challenge icon. If that's the case, shouldn't I be able to declare any knelt character as a defender, even if I don't control it? After all, the text only says "knelt characters can be declared." It doesn't say I need to control them any more than it says they need to have the appropriate challenge icon. From that example, it should be pretty clear that the text on Fox's Teeth only affects the "characters must be standing" requirement for declaring defenders, but does not make this the only requirement for declaring defenders. All other requirements normally imposed on declaring defenders (such as icon and control) holds true.

Actually, it's not so convincing, let me try to break it down to how my admittedly addled mind is interpreting this, maybe it'll make sense as to why I'm not convinced.

So in step two, the defender has the option to kneel any number of his/her characters

- This requires choosing his or her characters, precluding choosing another player's characters whether kneeling or standing.

that have the corresponding challenge icon (or are enabled to participate by some card effect)

- it's the or here that causes me problems. The character has to have a corresponding icon, or a card effect has to enable them to participate. I'm reading the Teeth's effect to be a card effect that enables kneeling characters to be declared as defenders. It doesn't state that the kneeling characters must have the appropriate challenge icon, and the challenge icon requirement specifically states an alternative that bypasses it being a requirement - that it can be ignored if another card effect allows characters to participate.

And then the standing requirement is created by the last line that already kneeling characters may not be declared as defenders.

So the way I see it, there are three requirements for declaring a defender in order:

1. One of the Defender's characters
2. Has the challenge icon (or enabled to participate by a card effect)
3. May not already be kneeling

- And as a cost they are knelt

And I see the teeth as removing the third restriction, counting for the second restriction, and adding a new restriction of must be kneeling, rewriting it to:

1. One of the Defender's characters
2. Enabled to participate by a card effect
3. Must be kneeling

- And as a cost they are knelt, which is redundant, but who knows, might somehow come up.

As opposed to text such as:

Bound by Duty
Challenges: Choose a kneeling House Stark character. Until the end of the phase, that character is eligible, while kneeling, to be declared as a defender for any challenge in which it could normally participate.

which maintains that it only can be declared as a defender in challenges that it could normally participate in, leaving the icon requirement intact, while bypassing the "may not already be kneeling" requirement.

If the latter end of the text from Bound by Duty was pasted onto the Fox's Teeth's text box, I'd easily view it as you state.

Edit: And I'm not sure what Balon Swann has to do with this. He has both an intrigue and military icon. His ability text seems more to restrict his ability to defend a challenge while knelt to only intrigue challenges, as opposed to allowing to defend intrigue challenges without an intrigue icon. Though if it were read that way, he'd be able to do so while standing or kneeling even if icon stripped I suppose.

Ser Balon Swann does not need an INT icon because his ability specifically allows him to be declared as a defender of an INT challenge even if he is already kneeling. The ability itself states the challenge type and his special versatility. He, indeed, does not require his INT icon to defend INT challenges with. The difference between his ability and Fox's Teeth is that it enables the special eligibility of a specific challenge type, so he overrides the standing and the challenge icon requirement.

Basically, don't assume it does more than what the card says. Fox's Teeth doesn't say any more than knelt characters are eligible and are the only eligible state a character can be in to be declared as defenders.

If the Fox's Teeth said:

"While The Fox's Teeth is attacking, characters without the corresponding challenge type icon may be declared as defenders."
and
"While The Fox's Teeth is attacking, only characters without the corresponding challenge type icon may be declared as defenders."

Does this mean that the defending characters can be standing or kneeling to be eligible to defend the challenge? Absolutely not, because it does not say that it overrides that part of eligibility. Is the above scenario any different from the way the Fox's Teeth currently works? No, not really.

I would not compare this to Bound by Duty. It's additional text is there for clarity. It's a little farfetched to assume the absence of "core rules text" on a card means the game rules don't apply. Some cards have additional clarity that may not be necessary. An example of one is "Any Phase: Kill House Dayne Skirmisher (cannot be saved) to draw 1 card. Then,each opponent chooses and discards 1 card from his or her hand." The "cannot be saved" portion is not necessary because it's not possible to save characters that are killed when that is paying the cost of an effect. They have it there most likely to keep it less confusing for newer players.

Another example:

Jaime Lannister(Core)

"Ser Jaime Lannister does not kneel to attack or defend during a challenge."

Should I assume that I can still attack or defend with him during a MIL challenge if he happens to be kneeling? It does not state all the core rules that make him eligible to be declared as an attacker or defender, but I shouldn't assume he can do more than what his card text says.

How do I word this….

Jobastion said:

The important thing here is that Fox's Teeth does not say the character is eligible to participate, or is enabled to participate, based on the fact that it is kneeling. Rather, it is saying that whereas being knelt would normally make it impossible for you to kneel the character to pay the "cost" of declaring it, this time, being knelt already is the only way to pay the cost.

Effectively, where you are going wrong is in saying that "knelt characters may be declared as defenders" counts for the second restriction. There is nothing in that language that says the standing/kneeling status of the character is the only measure of eligibility, any more that the normal "Already kneeling characters may not be declared as defenders" is the only measure of eligibility. It's like saying that because the law is "18-year-olds may vote," voter registration doesn't mean anything.

The thing to recognize is that "may be declared" is permissive, not dispositive. I think that where you might be getting confused is that while "may no t be declared" is phrased in the negative - and you only need to lack permission on 1 of the 3 factors - it is dispositive as well as permissive. That is to say "may not be declared" makes the kneeling status the limiting factor in the normal course of events. The reasoning you have outlined is trying to keep #3 as the limiting factor, even though, by phrasing the limitation without the "not," the kneeling status becomes one of many factors that can fail. By changing #3 to "already kneeling characters may be declared as defenders," kneeling no longer fails automatically - but that doesn't mean the character cannot fail on the other 2 criteria!

So your conclusion that giving permission to kneeling characters to be declared counts as "enabled to participate" is tenuous at best. It assumes that kneeling is the only criteria of eligibility. It is CCG-101 that while the cards control, they only control when they directly contradict the rule. There is no direct contradiction here.

Imagine that Balon Swann loses his intrigue icon. Read his text again and see if you still think he has nothing to do with this.

If I were to entirely agree with your explanation Ktom, I'm not seeing where Balon would be able to defend an intrigue challenge if icon stripped.

While his card text does refer specifically to intrigue challenges as being the only ones he can be declared as defending while already kneeling, it does not refer to whether he can do so if he no longer has an intrigue icon, only to his state of kneeling. In your argument, if the card text does not specifically address the restriction, the restriction remains in place.

"You may declare Ser Balon Swann as the defender of an Intrigue challenge against you even if he is already kneeling."

I have a followup query, but that depends on whether you think Balon can or cannot defend an intrigue challenge if he has been icon stripped.

"You may declare Ser Balon Swann as the defender of an intrigue challenge against you…"

Defense declaration is allowed if it is an intrigue challenge. Specifically contradicts the requirement that an intrigue icon is needed to be declared during an intrigue challenge. Imagine that you have a character without a printed intrigue icon and text saying "you may declare this character as the defender of an intrigue challenge against you." Does it need the icon?

"… even if he is already kneeling."

Defense is allowed whether he is kneeling or not. Do the words "even if" require him to be kneeling before you can declare him as a defender?

ktom said:

Except it doesn't contradict the requirement. The card text does not say that he can do it without an intrigue icon

Put it this way, if you replace the word intrigue in your example with any, so it said "you may declare this character as the defender of any challenge against you", would you agree that the character can defend against any challenge, regardless of icons?

Jobastion said:

Yes.

But that's not what Fox's Teeth says. Fox's Teeth says kneeling characters "may be declared as defenders." It doesn't say anything about when they can be declared. It doesn't say anything about how they can be declared. It doesn't say anything about which challenges they can be declared in. Nothing. Just that they "may be declared" when they are knelt. So without any other information about when, why, or by whom they can be declared, you fall back on the basic rules for when, why, and by whom defenders can be declared.

Don't confuse the play restriction for when the ability of the attacking character is active ("while Fox's Teeth is attacking") for eligibility criteria placed on the defending player's characters in order to be declared as defenders.

On the other hand, Balon Swann does say something about when he can be declared - during intrigue challenges initiated against you. The hypothetical "any challenge" character does say something about when he can be declared - during any challenge initiated against you. You don't have to directly contradict the words "must have the appropriate challenge icon"; you just have to directly contradict the fact that it is the icon that makes the character eligible under normal conditions. Swann does that by saying "during intrigue challenges against you, he is eligible."

Look, it really sounds like your mind is already made up. The interpretation that Fox's Teeth does not bypass icon requirements has been around since the card was release 4 years ago, though. If the information in this thread has not convinced you, it may be time to send the question in to FFG so you can get the answer from an authority.

I'm more curious about Ser Balon Swann. If You may declare Ser Balon Swann as the defender of an INT challenge against you contradicts the fact that it is the icon that makes him eligible, wouldn't it also contradict the fact that he has to be standing to be eligible, making the end of the sentence ( even if he is already kneeling ) unnecessary? There are 2 requirements for eligibility under normal conditions: having the appropriate icon and be standing. Why explicitly contradict one (be standing) and not the other (having the icon) if both are meant to be contradicted?

Khudzlin said:

Khudzlin said:

• A) Because "may be declared as an attacker/defender in an X challenge" is how FFG has traditionally and explicitly contradicted the icon requirement. How much more explicit does it need to be?
• B) Because he has the printed intrigue icon and saying he can be declared even without the icon would undoubtedly confuse people.
• C) Because if they say "can be declared as a defender even if he doesn't have an intrigue icon" isn't specific enough (can he be declared as a defender in a power challenge even if he doesn't have an intrigue icon?) and "can be declared as a defender in intrigue challenges even if he doesn't have an intrigue icon" sounds awkward and redundant.

Is that why the event Bound by Duty states "for any challenge in which it could normally participate"?

Absolutely Khudzlin. It is saying that even though the character is knelt, it can participate in any challenge it normally could have been in. So if it doesn't have an INT icon, it can't meet the requirements to ever "normally" participate in an INT challenge.