Dragon Sight makes the defending player declare defenders before the attacker declares attackers and has no opportunity to declare extra defenders once attackers have been declared…

How does stealth fit into all this….. If they declare someone to defend can I stealth past that person, if I do do they stay kneeled?

Also Pentos:

Discard a (targaryen) attachment (cannot be saved) from a character you control to save that character from being killed or discarded from play.

Since it doesn't specify you have to control the attachment, only that it has to be targ, If I'm up against burn and my character gets flame-kissed, can I discard flame-kissed to save my character?

Drakka said:

Drakka said:

Stealth is essentially nullified by this attachment, because the defending player has to declare defenders first, and you can't stealth a character that is already participating in the challenge.

Of course, this attachment does screw over naval enhancements on the defense, as it only allows the one window to declare defenders.

Drakka said:

No. From the FAQ (and yes I'm paraphrasing, cause I don't have it in front of me… it's within the first 3 questions… using an opponent's Cersei Lannister to pay for an effect), you cannot use a card you do not control to pay the cost for an effect. Though the Flame Kissed is attached to a character you control, you do not, in fact, control the attachment.

Actually, you can bypass a character already in the challenge with Stealth, but it won't remove them from the challenge. It will only prevent them from returning if they are removed.

Dragon Sight does not prevent naval on defense, it is only about the normal opportunity to declare defenders (keep in mind that it was design way before naval existed).

Khudzlin said:

You may want to check with FFG on this. Although I tend to agree with you that Dragon Sight only eliminates the framework opportunity to declare defenders, the actual text ("The opportunity for your opponent to declare defenders after you declare attackers is lost.") can certainly be read to include any and all opportunity to declare defenders (including Naval).

ktom said:

That is very interesting. I agree that as it is written it would prevent your opponent from declaring naval defenders.

Khudzlin said:

Then what happens with the definition of stealth where it says that a character bypassed by stealth cannot defend? If you follow the rules that the word "cannot" is absolute, then it follows that, if you can, in fact, bypass a character already involved in a challenge with stealth, then that makes every single character who can "jump in" to a challenge (Catelyn Stark, Horseback Archers, Naval enhanced characters, etc) useless, since the word "cannot" makes it so the aren't defending when they are already defending….

Are you seeing the confusion in making that statement, Khudzlin?

Remember that Stealth only requires that you choose a character controlled by the defending player. You do not have to choose a non-participating character. Nor do you have to choose a character that has the appropriate icon or otherwise eligible to defend. Stealth targets can be any character controlled by the defending player. That character then gains the status "cannot defend."

However, since "defend" is not specifically defined, you are left looking at other information in the FAQ to determine just what practical outcome "cannot defend" actually has. Nothing in "cannot defend" contradicts, conflicts with, or overrules where the FAQ says, "Once a character is in a challenge, it can only be removed from that challenge by an effect that specifically removes the character from a challenge, an effect that removes the character from play, or by an effect that changes control of that character."

This means that "cannot defend" has the practical effect of "cannot become a participating character on the defending side by any game mechanic or card effect." But if a character is already a participating character on the defending side when it gains the "cannot defend" status, it's like becoming "cannot be killed" after the character is already moribund, or losing the challenge icon after it is participating in the challenge.

So I don't see the problem with a character being "bypassed by stealth" (meaning, "chosen as a stealth target and gaining the 'cannot defend' limitation), even if it is already participating in the challenge.

ktom said:

Interesting. I'll trust you on that, but, personally, it sounds like angle shooting to try and get off that poisoned knife when a character is already in the challenge.

So the consensus is you can stealth but it doesn't matter because they are already participating…

Cool thanks for the information, I don't think I'll be using this skill…