when clam before the storm reveal,can called to arms effect to raiders?
Called to Arms
No because immunity means not only immune cards cannot be chosen as targets for effects to which they are immune, they also aren't affected by non-targeted effects to which they are immune.
The effect for 2 cards might go through because it doesn't affect the raiders (it merely counts them).
Khudzlin said:
The effect for 2 cards might go through because it doesn't affect the raiders (it merely counts them).
Since the event is telling the characters to claim power, the event-immune Raiders will ignore it and not claim power.
ktom said:
Khudzlin said:
The effect for 2 cards might go through because it doesn't affect the raiders (it merely counts them).
I see the confusion there, but for the "discard 2" on "Called to Arms," it is the Raider characters claiming the power. It would say "for your House" if the power were going on your House card instead of on the character.
Since the event is telling the characters to claim power, the event-immune Raiders will ignore it and not claim power.
The relevant portion of Called To Arms reads as follows: "If he chooses to discard 2 cards, claim 1 power for each Raider character you control. "
When the question was asked over at AGOTCards, I read that to mean the power for each Raider would have to go on the controller's House card because it doesn't read "each Raider you control claims one power." So I gave the same answer Khudzlin did--that the other two effects would fizzle but that one could go off because it doesn't directly or indirectly affect characters. That seems the more natural reading of the text on the card.
Make an Example, Winter Festival, Minstrel's Muse, Superior Claim, High Septon, Brothel Guard, and Corpse Lake all specify that you claim power for your House . So I'm not certain you can say "claim power for each character" defaults to putting the power on your House.
In fact, when cards like Melisandre and The Iron Price talk about claiming power, they are clear that "you" or "the winner" is actually claiming the power (making it go on the House).
But Called to Arms doesn't do that. It doesn't say to claim power "on your House." Nor does it say "… you claim 1 power for each Raider…." So to me, the more natural reading of the card is clearly that the Raider characters themselves are claiming the power. And given that the other two choices are benefits specific to the Raider characters, not to the player, it makes a lot more sense that this choice is the characters claiming the power, not the House or the player, to be consistent within the context of the card.
So I think you and Khudzlin are wrong. It is the Raider characters claiming the power by the event, not the player or the House. As such, Raiders immune to events wouldn't get the power for 2 cards, any more than they would stand for 1 or get +1 for 3.
But send it in to FFG for official word if you'd like.
On the other hand, when effects make characters claim power, they are usually explicit about it, like Wedding Feast (to have them each claim 1 power) or Kings in the North (to have them claim 1 power each), making the character(s) the subject of the verb claim.
By the way, it is the absence of the phrase "for your House" that made me put the word "might" in my answer. In "If he chooses to discard 2 cards, claim 1 power for each Raider character you control.", I read "claim" as the 2nd person imperative, meaning "you claim" (and judging by the discussion about Called to Arms on agotcards, I'm not the only one - though of course, that's no proof, except of the fact we need to send to FFG for an official answer).
Khudzlin said:
On the other hand, when effects make characters claim power, they are usually explicit about it, like Wedding Feast (to have them each claim 1 power) or Kings in the North (to have them claim 1 power each), making the character(s) the subject of the verb claim.
for
Khudzlin said:
By the way, it is the absence of the phrase "for your House" that made me put the word "might" in my answer. In "If he chooses to discard 2 cards, claim 1 power for each Raider character you control.", I read "claim" as the 2nd person imperative, meaning "you claim" (and judging by the discussion about Called to Arms on agotcards, I'm not the only one - though of course, that's no proof, except of the fact we need to send to FFG for an official answer).
The ultimate point is that every other "claim a power" card is explicit, one way or another. This one is less so. So official interpretation is probably needed.
ktom said:
Yes, I picked up the "might." And yes, I understand the "second person imperative," and if the sentence stood alone, I'd probably agree. But since it is written in the context of one of three possibilities, and the other possibilities are written in passive voice, the context argues for something different.
The ultimate point is that every other "claim a power" card is explicit, one way or another. This one is less so. So official interpretation is probably needed.
If I were writing a legal brief, that would certainly be the argument I'd make. There's even a lovely Latin phrase for the doctrine ( Noscitur a sociis -- "a word is known by the company it keeps"). But since FFG isn't a court and consistency isn't exactly its strong point (per the discussion of templating or using strictly defined words for various abilities), one can't be sure.
Thinking on it further, I think the 'consistent' interpretation that all three powers be read as affecting the characters makes sense for another reason: Power on characters is somewhat more vulnerable (all else being equal) than power on one's House. This card could potentially garner rather a lot of it for a pretty low cost. To dump all of it on your House card, where it's safe from Valar, First Snow, VB, &c, would be a pretty powerful result compared to putting it on characters (most of whom not named Euron have low to middling STR).
Regardless of how it interacts with any one specific plot, people using this card will need to know where to out the power, so I'll follow your suggestion and send the question to FFG. But until/unless we get an answer, I am persuaded your answer is the better one.
Amuk said:
But since FFG isn't a court and consistency isn't exactly its strong point (per the discussion of templating or using strictly defined words for various abilities), one can't be sure.
ktom said:
Amuk said:
But since FFG isn't a court and consistency isn't exactly its strong point (per the discussion of templating or using strictly defined words for various abilities), one can't be sure.
True, but it's surprising how much more thoroughly it prepares you to argue in court than to write computer code.
Latin is marginally more useful in court than in computer code. Marginally.
Nate gave me a very prompt answer:
- "For each Raider" means that the power should be placed on the Raider characters themselves.
So Latin is of some utility in AGOT, too, I guess.
