this is direct assault: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/1285735369/med_gallery_65_167596.jpg

If I play 2 direct assaults in the same challenge, what happens? +4 strg and +2 locations? or +4 strg and +1 locations since one effect ''replaces the other''?

this is red vengeance: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/1281901920/med_gallery_34_198663.jpg

if I play direct assault and a sneaky martell plays red vengeance, what happens? he takes control of one of my buildings or I choose one of my own buildings and take control of it (sort of like red vengeance during a power challenge)

On the first, you get to stack the +2 bonuses for +4, but as each effect there is a claim replacement (instead of x), you can only do one of them and steal one location.

As for part 2, you're correct - the Martell player picks a location you control, and you "take control" of it. For more on why, see this thread on Pyat Pree and Red Vengeance ( http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=18&efcid=4&efidt=629040 )

Not that it makes a difference (seeing as you're taking control of your own location), but I believe it would be the winner that chooses the location, not the Martell player.

Right you are, that was a slip on my part.

It would make a difference if the chosen location was under your control temporarily before the challenge (afaik, there are no applicable effects).

Khudzlin said:

Oooh! Oooh! Can I play?

Using my Stark-Wildling deck, I play Abel's Washerwoman in Marshalling. In Response to that, I play Over the Wall and take control of your Alchemist's Shop. I then play House Umber Berserkers, choosing to kill Lucas Blackwood for the passive ability. I trigger his Response and, as my next action, declare my military challenge against you with the Berserkers. I use Direct Assault and win the challenge, but you use Red Vengeance, choosing me to be the "losing opponent" for claim. I choose the Alchemist's Shop I already have from you, taking control of it. The new "take control" effect (arguably; depends on how you want to treat the "still in play" text - in reality, this sequence probably wouldn't work) preempts the one from Over the Wall, so when Over the Wall wears off at the end of the phase, I keep the location anyway because of Direct Assault.

See, you can create just about any situation here!

(Anyone else think that sometimes, we go overboard trying to name all the possibilities and exceptions to various rules questions and answers?)

-Istaril said:

I'll nit pick it some more just to be sure. direct assault reads ''…instead of the normal claim effect, choose one location blah blah blah…''. To my understanding, the normal claim effects are

-move power

-discard a card from opponents hand

-opponent kills character.

obviously the first direct assault replaces the ''normal'' claim, however one could argue that the second direct assault does not replace the first one, as there is no longer a ''normal'' claim to be replaced.

yes the word ''normal'' is bugging me.

Robby Stark said:

But, if you insist on "normal" claim being one of the "standard" three claim definitions, then claim replacement #2 would be unable to replace claim replacement #1, and claim replacement #1 would resolve.

Either way, though, the First Player ends up choosing which one ends up being applicable since the First Player sets the order.

ktom said:

I did think of Over the Wall, but dismissed it because the location is still in play (read literally) no matter how many times it changes controllers.