ktom said:

I agree with that example, but not if the example said "this character can be declared as an attacker while knelt during any challenge". The keyword to me is still "any". Like I had said before, it probably won't end up mattering because of who has the first response opportunity… however it might matter in a Melee game.

Seems like this would matter quite a bit after a Valar. If you can play it during the Save/Cancel Response Step you could prevent your opponent from triggering any of his saves during the same framework action where the Valar effect is taking place. You also could as first player trigger a save of your own and then play Little and Less during the save/cancel response step of your own save response, which would let your save go through and prevent your opponent from doing the same.

If it truly was only during the Step 5 Responses then you'd have to play this during the Start of Plot window to make it an un-savable Valar, which would be before your opponent selected their plot and would obviously influence their choice.

Aside from the basic question of scope (which sounds its been answered to mean ALL triggered responses of any kind), this timing question seems pretty critical. I generally agree with just about everything ktom says, but this card is already so badly templated and without precedent that it's difficult for me to say for certain what exactly you can or can't do with it.

Reldan said:

Well, if you have the first save, playing that card would create a normal response step (response to the save being triggered), so you could then use L&L in that step before other saves/cancels.

agktmte said:

ktom said:

I went ahead and sent the question in late last week. Damon responded this afternoon:

Little and Less is only to be trigger-able during the normal response window (Step 5 in the Timing Chart in the FAQ), not during the save/cancel opportunity.

During the Challenge phase, there are Framework Action Windows with the Framework events

1. Active Player declares challenge type and opponent
2. Active player kneels attacking characters

For the purposes of Little and Less, are these Framework Action Windows, including their step 5, there whether the active player actually declares challenges or not, or do they only open up when the Active player actually declares a challenge? As Framework Action Windows, they should always be there, I guess, but I'm not sure.

To illustrate, is the following scenario possible?

Player A (FP):
"OK, Challenge phase begins, no Response from me, any from you? No? Good. No Player Action from me. You? No? OK. Next up, Active Player declares challenge. I don't actually declare a challenge, but I'd like to play L&L in the response step of the window."

Ratatoskr said:

However, if people argue with that reasoning in the scenario you describe, just tell them you are playing "Little and Less" in the Response Step of the "change active player" framework action window.

I believe it skips all the way down to the Framework Action "Active player is finished with challenges". You cannot enter Framework Action windows that are dependent on preceding actions I believe, otherwise removing all attacking characters from a challenge before Stealth is declared would still allow you to declare defenders(or a challenge fizzling will still allow you to respond to challenge resolution). Consider the challenge resolution window. It has an arrow pointing up to the top Player Action. If you declare no challenge, then you would reach this window and thus be able to have another Challenge opportunity by following the arrow. You cannot follow this arrow if this Framework Action window is skipped by not declaring a challenge type and attackers.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain the act of "declaring no challenge" just skips you down to the "Active player is finished with challenges" window.

Bomb said:

ktom said:

That doesn't work if the Active Player is the First Player, though, does it? There is no distinct FAW in which the FP becomes the Active Player; he does so during the "Beginning of the Phase" FAW.

Ratatoskr said:

Maybe I misunderstood your example. What I thought you were going for was this:

1. FAW for "Challenge Phase Begins" (you could use Little and Less here, but no one does) - First Player is Active Player
2. Player Action Window: No one triggers anything (so no Step 5 - "Little and Less" cannot be triggered)
3. FAW for "Active Player Initiates Challenge" - Active Player says "no challenge"

Now, if we assume that FAWs where nothing is initiated don't happen (which is probably not the case, but we're pretending), when the Active/First Player says "no challenge" in #3, not only is there no Step 5, but there are no challenges. If you PASS on an opportunity to declare a challenge, that's it: You don't get any more challenges during that phase. So the next FAW you get to (we're assuming no Player Actions) is "Active Player done, next player becomes active player."

That FAW will have a Step 5. You can play "Little and Less" as the status of Active Player transitions from the first player to the next. But the First Player is done with challenges. Isn't that you you were going for? First Player declares no challenges, but Little and Less is played before the next player has a chance to declare attackers in their first challenge? (Because with my luck, they'd attack with Brienne….)

ktom said:

but someone told me that "little and less" only prevent the Event Cards , they have received the mail form ffg

snowfrost said:

There has been quoted a message from Damon in this very thread that says otherwise (reply #7). I suggest you post the exact queation that was asked and the exact answer here. Until then, this is just hearsay.

reply from ffg:

It only prevents the player from playing responses, that is triggering a response effect from hand. Any response ability on a card in play is still able to be triggered.

Then FFG needs to figure it out amongst themselves and answer the question again because that is in direct conflict to the answer FFG sent to Bomb.

Who from FFG replied with that answer? I still have my email from Damon Stone if you would like me to forward it to you.

Damon Stone just emailed me this today without me asking for the correct interpretation:

"Sorry I should have been more clear when I sent this to you, this is specifically from hand.

You play cards from your hand that covers all "using, triggering, activating" etc. common words that might be associated with the act. Cards are played or put into play. This term only ever refers to a card that originates from your hand."

So, snowfrost has received the correct interpretation from FFG. I literally quoted both my original question and the reply I received from Damon earlier on in this thread so I guess it wasn't entirely clear to any of us here. It's a good thing snowfrost asked again.

That being said, my new opinion of Little and Less is that it is now only about 30% as effective as my original opinion of it. This will only limit response events and cards like Catelyn Stark(LoW), Blood Riders, Khal Drogo(core). Sure, this is anti-Stark murder and anti-Martell revenge, and I think it's still excellent protection in a Melee game, but this is no longer a card to strongly consider for deck building in Joust. Maester decks will still be able to capitalize on chain attachments.

wow I'm so disappointed with this.

Bomb said:

Sorry about this. She's not a response so I made a mistake. You get my point though…..

So Little and Less would prevent Ser Aerys Oakheart's response, correct? But anything already in play is fair game? Like Samwell Tarly? How about Castellan, I assume it couldn't trigger off itself, but any other Lanny character or location played after the Castellan is in play can trigger him?

@Bomb: Catelyn Stark (LoW) doesn't have a response, but a "Challenges" action.

@Crevic: it wouldn't prevent any of these, as these cards are already in play when the response is triggered.

Khudzlin said:

Right, that is what I was correcting in the post following it.

The "card originating from hand" thing is sort of bugging me. There are no "play response" from non-Event cards, are there? I may be furthermore incorrect in that last post because those cards are "put into play" by triggering their response. Maybe that is what Little and Less intended to fend off.

Besides, there are "put into play" effects from the discard and dead piles, so the statement about being only from hand is invalid.

Oh for gods sake…the words "play" "initiate" "trigger" responses are used interchangeably all through the rules and FAQ.