Some1new said:

I've dropped 3 Drogo's Horde out for free in a single turn. Potentially the Horde are very ugly but no one really complains about them being overpowered. They're not the only cheep army in the game either.

playgroundpsychotic said:

Drogos Horde, Army of the Faithful, and Edmures Host

jack merridew said:

Although not 7 STR armies, but The Conclave are basically the same as the above.

Bomb said:

This could be similar to the infantry/cavalry rules in L5R. In L5R first infantry folk get declared for a battle, then cavalry get declared. Here it coulbe be declare attackers, then defenders, then attacking naval, then defending naval.

-Goshdarnstud

Da Wolf Pack said:

Except that since each character declared as a naval attacker/defender is a different action, you can do other stuff before and between each attacker/defender declared through naval, making a lot more flexible (and chaotic) than committing to battlefields in L5R (where all cavalry characters are done en masse ).

If declaration as a naval attacker/defender is separate from the framework action, what does this do in melee games? Is it a similar effect to Greatjon?

So far all indication is that it is non-card text based Greatjon effect.

I think we may have "declare as an attacker" and "declare as a defender" be the "enters play" style general wording, and "declared as a naval attacker/defender" as the more particular "play from hand" style specific wording. IOW, all characters declared as an attacker, regardless of how they were declared, will trigger attacker effects. Declared as a naval attacker will only ever trigger off a character declared through the that specific challenge enhancement.This is of course assuming that declare is going to be considered the same game effect (just one during FAW and one by PAW).

And regarding the -X total STR… I definitely dislike that idea. That seems more complicated to understand (isn't as intuitive as declaring characters one after another) and far less interesting strategically.

HoyaLawya said:

"As an action during a challenge, a player may kneel a character with an enhancement on the appropriate icon to declare it as an attacker or defender and add it to the challenge."

So, since it is "as an action," we know that it is separate from the framework declaration of attackers/defenders. Every indication is that is does, indeed, work like a "rules-based" version of CS-Greatjon. It's essentially a "super-keyword," similar to the way crests are essentially "super-traits."

We'll have to wait for the rules to see about things like whether or not it can be canceled, whether it is considered a "Challenges" or an "Any Phase" action, etc.

That mechanic scream power creep to me.

Or at least that Wyman do - he would be already a very strong character without it and with naval mechanic he also forces opponent to overcommit in challenges.

So i'm afraid that most of guys with it will be autoinclude in deck because you would be at disadvantage without them.

I have been told the mechqnic it is not cancelable or preventable (via brienne). It is a standard player action like marshalling a card (which obviously isnt cancelable either).

Remember "Standard Player Action" does not = "Action". Marshalling a card is the former, playing an event is the latter (examples).

A Standard Player action still requires the player to use an Action, even if it's not a Triggered Effect.