I just had somebody try to declare LotR Tyrion alone as an attacker in a challenge while he has Cowed attached, arguing that this was a legal action since Tyrion's passive text would bring his knelt clansmen into the challenge with him. I am quite confident that this is not legal and my opponent promptly left the game when I didn't budge on the issue. Just to be sure, am I in the right?

You're right - he "declared" Tyrion as an attacker alone, which cowed specifically prevents.

The fact that other characters are then participating in the challenge is irrelevant - cowed only affects the "declare attackers" or "declare defenders" step.

There is a huge difference between being "declared" as a participant and becoming a participant. A limitation on one will not necessarily become a limitation on the other.

Turn the situation around. Ask him if Tyrion can be declared as the only defender against a character with "Joust" when there are kneeling Clansmen.

Right or wrong, it's kind of disappointing when someone "takes their ball and goes home" over something like this.

Doesn't someone keep an OCTGN blacklist for just this occassion?

The blacklist was on agotcards.org but eventually got taken down due to general bad feelings.

Feel free to keep your own lists of people you enjoy or don't enjoy playing with, though. Who decided who went on the agotcards blacklist and did they have to explain their decisions in any way?

Heh, it was less of an actual list and more of a thread of people (myself included) bitching about other people ragequitting. Also people bitching about people bitching about ragequitting. And on and on recursively…. It's a good thing Dennis removed it

Hahaha! I thought it was more of a user rating system. That does sound like a horrible thread for a forum.

mdc273 said:

you may have just stumbled on to a bit of a brilliant idea with your user rating system idea there.

Lulz, I do have my own personal blacklist, populated by folks who insist that they can save vs Brienne and the like. I don't really mind folks ragequitting a game that they've obviously lost, it saves me time, although I guess a "gg" first would be nice.

A couple more questions while the topic is active, so I don't have to make another one.

My opponent has two iron mines on his side and I have one river blockade on mine. I flip Valar and he flips A City Besieged. If he triggers his plot first and targets my river blockade with one of his mines, does his second mine still get canceled since river blockade remains on the board until the end of the framework window even though it is moribund? I think so, but I just like to be sure. Of course he could always just choose to trigger Valar first, but I'm just curious about the way moribund works in general.

How does The Maester's Path interact with cards like Brienne and Seasick? I think you cannot trigger the agenda off winning a challenge where Brienne defended or attacked, correct? I'm not as sure about Seasick. Can it cancel the agenda's response, or can it not because the agenda is not considered to be in play?

You cannot trigger TMP (or Siege of Winterfell for that matter) if Brienne is participating because of her "cannot" text. Seasick (or painted table for that matter) is a different story - an agenda is not in play, and therefore it's text cannot be cancelled. The difference is that seasick tries (and fails) to cancel, while brienne doesn't allow the effect to trigger in the first place.

tibs3688 said:

The River Blockade is moribond while Valar is resolving, so its text is still applicable. Assuming your opponent hasn't triggered any location effect before plot revelation, the first Iron Mine's effect will be cancelled.