Bomb said:

Isn't that the same discussion as Meera and Hidden Chambers? Using the standard framework mechanic and triggering the character effect (as a player action) are both "bringing a card out of Shadows." But even though they share the same words, Hidden Chambers' use of those same words only applies to one mechanic, not both equally.

So, with the "bring cards out of Shadows" example in mind, are you sure that Joust should apply equally to "declaring" defenders by both framework event and "naval enhancement" player action? And if you are, what is the reason that Hidden Chambers/Shadows works exactly the opposite way?

Bomb said:

And is it really safe to assume that this is an "any phase:" action? Or is it some other new framework action, or is it something akin to the "player action" of playing a card during marshalling?

We'll have to wait for the rules, but I pray to God it's clear and unambiguous.

I certainly hope the rulings do come out clear, and are intuitively easy - something FFG has never been good at (why they didn't totally remodel the game into a chain-style rulings game when they hit the reset button is still beyond me). Why they don't have Ktom look over the rules and even the press release before any new mechanic is also beyond me…he only has been the rules guru for 10+ years now.

Anyways, I guess I want to see how it is carried out. I am not against new keywords in the least, good to keep the game fresh. But I hope it is a nail in the coffin of continuing with no deck limitations or (less attractively) some sort of rotation. Keep adding cards to the pool AND new keywords and it will continue to get more an more intimidating for new players. Unluckily you have to look at the games that have survived the longest, and that would be L5R, MTG, and YGO - only YGO doesn't and that is sort of a joke of power creep. Heck even aGoT has had multiple types of rotation

I was teaching a cousin last week, and had to go with Stealth, Deadly, Renown, Ambush, all the basic rules, gold/influence plus the idea of reducers, initative, triggered actions vs. required actions, saving/moribund, and more. He finally said 'this is a pretty complex game!' when I truly think the basic idea of it (plot phase, marshalling, three challenges) is very easy. We didn't even get into 1/2 of the keywords most likely (Joust, Stalwart, etc.) *shrug*

I want to say that it is a great idea to use a visual marking. I have a big heart for new players. But that mechanism is easy to understand. "That tiny ship means you can declare this card as a attacker or defender at any time in the challange, for instance you can delcare an attacker after your opponent has declared his defenders". Once they have seen it in play, they will remember it. Keywords are much more stupid and hard to remember because they don't have a visual representation. I really hope they will never ever create more keywords. The idea to use visual aspects on the card is much more better.

ktom said:

I am not sure at all. I am just using the given definition of the Naval mechanic. Right now it says "declare" and not "kneel to have them participate".

I hope they release the clear cut definition and hopefully they plan on releasing all the trigger possibilities with it.

AGoT DC Meta said:

I actually assume nothing yet, but I guess I made that clear in a different post somewhere else and not here. :-)

Bomb said:

For example, the "Naval Superiority" plot card seems to say something about "if you have declared a (Naval) attacker." Does that mean "declared" as part of the normal initiation of attackers, "declared" by using the naval enhancement mechanic to have them join an existing challenge as an attacker, or both?

I hope the rules are clear on the difference - or non-difference - as well. In a perfect world, they would have used a word other than "declare," though.

I have a feeling this next cycle is going to require more FAQ entries and errata than even the current cycle from poorly written card text.

HoyaLawya said:

The best part of the mechanic is that it's just an icon printed on cards.

I'll reiterate from my previous posts that I'm hoping that when they do release these packs, they actually explain exactly what can and cannot be done with this mechanic.

I think that if it is treated exactly like Greatjon Umber's ability(basically a player action that just lets him participate on your side in that challenge type), it should be easy because we already have a precedent as to how we handle situations with him.
If it's own framework, then I think we will have a lot of questions and situational concerns. Perhaps they can be cleared up as to how we should treat this ability("declare as an attacker/defender" for triggering responses?).

We will also need to know if this can be canceled or not if it's a player action. My guess is it cannot(like Ambush), but if it can be, that would make things a little more interesting.

Oddly we seem to have reached a consensus

The mechanic makes sense in theory,

The mechanic may/may not really add much to the game but certainly isn't repulsive in and of itself,

The mechanic paves the way for new structures to be introduced via challenge sub-icons and in-the-rules text instead of trying to jam new rules inconsistently onto individual cards,

The Design team will most likely completely cock up the way it is written, either through a confusing new double use of the term "declare" (ala Meera/Shadows reducers) or by simply not taking into account all the goofy timings that can happen in the game. (ala How the ef does it work with Joust, etc.

and 2 more for consideration:

In an attempt to convince people to use it, a minority of cards will be needlessly OP (while others will be totally useless ) and the meta will temporarily tip madly into 1 house's favor until the design team can retroactively test everything and slap restrictions and erratas everywhere.

After the 6 Sea chapter packs, the design team will forget about the sub icons and move on to something else

Gotta love speculation. The rules aren't even out yet and it's already assumed they're wrong. Maybe that'll wake up some of the FFG higher ups and convince them to get some money/help so the LCG designers aren't doing EVERYTHING, LoL.

Also, if new keywords caused new players trouble, Magic would've died years ago. I'm pretty sure they're way past their 100th keyword.

RobotMartini said:

Perfect summation.

So uh… why didn't they just make this a new keyword?

Seksibro said:

Also, perhaps they wanted to make it Meera-proof.

Can't be blanked or removed (since it's not in the text box), although that's not to say that there might be other cards in this cycle that remove the enhancement thingy.

Seksibro said:

It's a super keyword. Kind of like how crests are super traits.

It's new and shiny, so I'm down for it. But yeah, I think adding multiple versions of challenge enhancers like this, along with things like the shadows mechanic are going to turn the new players away a little.

Personally, I like the new mechanic. It adds a new layer of depth for challenges.

It does raise questions regarding its use in combination with other card effects but I have faith that FFG will find a good balance. It will certainly make the challenge phase more interesting…

I love the idea of it. The Greatjon is a great character in theory, but he seems not to see much play in traditional Stark decks. I've built a theme deck that used Osha and Greatjon and buffs that made figuring out who was going to participate and how much strength I was going to have when I did participate difficult… it was actually based on an old CCG Targ deck that had a bunch of jumpers (pre-Ambush).

The deck was fun but not even remotely competitive (tier 2.5). But, **** was it fun. I was building an Ambush based deck with the same general idea in mind which I am pretty sure could be 1.5 (with the right amount of burn or aggressive attachments tier 1). I think the mechanic is simple and elegant.

It also plays into the one thing I see a lot of new players try to do, declare attackers or defenders in stages. I think anything that takes what a new player wants to do, and builds a way for them to do it is good design. It helps them grasp how the "regular" game works but giving them a path to do what they had wanted to do. Kudos.

I actually like that they used the word declare. If the two means, by normal framework action and game mandated player action, are equatable it means there are a number of effects that will already be able to interact with the new mechanic which empowers older cards without creating power creep (not to say that it can't do both, but the mechanic itself doesn't become an instance of power creep).

Penfold said:

I do hope that, when the rules for this mechanic are released, they show that the word "declare" was consciously chosen to mean the same thing as the Framework Event usage and that a character 'declared' via the enhancement indeed folded in (albeit a bit later than usual) with all other 'declared' characters with respect to the rules and the text of existing cards. Otherwise, the conflicting usage is going to create a lot of confusion, FAQ 'clarifications,' and general wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.

That would leave plenty of room in the design space for cards like the Greatjon that can join in without being 'declared' without blowing challenges up into a morass set of special rules about which cards that use various conjugations of the word "declare" do and do not apply to enhanced chanarcters.

Today's spoiler confirms that the "Declare" word in the description of the naval enhancements was no accident, as the card (Fleet from Pyke) uses the same terminology with respect to the enhancement.

I guess the additional question is whether this is another "comes out of shadows" (framework) vs "comes out of shadows" (other) distinction or not, as alluded to previously in this thread.

One thing that I think will be distinguished in triggering effects is declaring an "attacker/defender" versus declaring a "Naval attacker/defender". Declaring a "Naval attacker/defender" would be via the Naval mechanic and declaring an "attacker/defender" would be via the normal Challenge Framework action.

This way, you cannot sneak the Naval enhancement onto an already declared character for the purposes of triggering effects that require you to declare them as a "Naval attacker/defender".

I am simply deducing this based on the language used on the spoiled plot Naval Superiority, which seems to require you to win with a character that was a "Naval attacker".

Edit: Also look at the new spoiled card and the language used in its ability. I think that helps what I'm saying above.

Yes. The text on the card does imply that there is a difference between "declared as an attacker" and "declared as a Naval attacker." If that is true, we will only need one statement in the rules that they are not equivalent or a subset of one or the other. It will then truly be a "play" vs. "put into play" situation. Which is good. People know how to handle that.

Bomb said:

I find myself wanting to read that as meaning that the character was "declared" (one way or the other) in a challenge of the type for which its applicable icon has the Naval Enhancement icon. If that's what they mean (rather than specifically added to a challenge after the ordinary Framework opportunity by means of the new mechanic), then spoiled GJ Fleet would be "declared as a Naval attacker" in any MIL challenge, regardless of when it is actually declared, but not (absent some other card effect) in other challenge types.

But I can be stubborn. This is known.

Woah, is anyone else concerned by the potential cost of that card to be wildly low or even free? Naval enhancement and Response ability aside, the idea of bringing a deadly army that strong for very cheap seems… yeah…

On topic; it does seem early to speculate how the new mechanic will work, but as we're starting to see a difference with "declaring Naval attackers" vs "declaring attackers," I'm quite excited to see how it'll "turn the tide" on the current state of houses and their strengths. Although I wish they would finish the River plots and Character Agendas from the current cycle and add more Joust/Melee keywords from the previous cycle. Neither are especially represented, but the Rivers and Character Agendas are still being made (hopefully).

I feel like this mechanic should have been created an entirely different way. The whole premise to this seems too convoluted and complicated than it has to be.

Why couldn't it have just been something along the lines of, "Before a challenge, the attacker must declare it to be a standard or Naval challenge. Standard challenges play out like normal. But during a Naval challenge, the player who doesn't have as many Naval Enhancements get -X STR to their total STR?" It would make for the idea of "whoever has the bigger fleet clearly has the bigger advantage" sort of deal this strikes up at first thought. Having characters jumping into challenges is going to be way too messy and is just another annoyance you're going to have to make sure you see when someone plays a character with it. Not to mention this feels a bit late since there has been a TON of characters already released who would make more sense to have the Naval Enhancement icon on them that now won't.

I don't know. I feel like this new mechanic is unnecessary… But maybe I'll be proved wrong when I actually play a game with them.

Also, it would have been neat if the characters with these enhancements were able to jump out of a challenge too to avoid Deadly. You can either jump them INTO or jump them OUT OF a challenge once per phase.