here is cersei attendant http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/1281901134/med_gallery_11_131645.jpg

if you have multiple cersei's attendants in play can they trigger each other?

BONUS QUESTION is cat immune to eagle? cat and eagle:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/1281901976/med_gallery_24_260634.jpg

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/1281658345/med_gallery_8_162322.jpg

Robby Stark said:

Cards that have self-referential text cannot trigger off of other copies of it in play.

Here is a reference from the FAQ:

Robby Stark said:

Orell the Eagle does not create a play restriction directly to characters in play. He creates a play restriction on the defending player by forcing them to declare 2 or more characters as defenders if they want to try to defend the challenge instead of just 1 or more. Since Cat O' Canals is not immune to their players own decision making, they cannot be declared as your lone defender while Orell the Eagle is attacking.

It is sort of similar to the reason why Pyat Pree can indirectly be the cause of killing Cat O' Canals. He doesn't do the killing, he modifies the framework for military claim. Since she isn't immune to military claim, she can be killed using Pyat Pree.

Pyat Pree can also modify intrigue claim.

Bomb said:

I have to disagree with this as Cat O' the Canals is immune to Dragon Fear. We probably need more explanation here.

mdc273 said:

Dragon Fear is telling you to do something to the attached character, which is directly affecting the character that is attached.

Orell the Eagle is telling the player how they can successfully defend a challenge. It does nothing to the characters directly in play.

If Orell the Eagle said "characters cannot be declared as defenders unless 2 or more are declared as defenders", then Cat would be immune, because the play restriction would be imposed directly on the characters in play, and not on the player themselves.

This is also one of the reasons she is not immune to Joust. Joust is placing a play restriction on the player themselves by telling the player he cannot declare more than one defender. This thread was beaten to death about her versus Joust.

mdc273 said:

Also… Good luck getting Dragon Fear on Cat O' The Canals considering she has "No attachments except a single Weapon".

it doesn't say ''cannot declare defenders'' so I can I still kneel cat as a defender? let's say she has the big ass-sword

Catelyn's effect (not that it is not an ability) has the explicit restriction "during an [iNT] or [POW] challenge against you" and the implicit restriction of being in your hand (since her effect puts her into play from your hand). So she could never be jumped into a [MIL] challenge and she could never jump into a challenge if she was already in play. However, her effect could still be used during a [POW] challenge where Orell is attacking (or even [iNT], should Orell get the icon) if she is in your hand. Effects like The Wall (neutral), Greatjon Umber or Guardian Wolf (the first 2 are abilities, the last is not), not being declaration of defenders, can be used. Using a Naval enhancement, being declaration of a single defender, cannot be used (though I'm not sure Orell does require the defenders to be declared at the same time).

@Khudzlin -

The character in question is Cat O' Canals, not Catelyn Stark. :-)

Bomb said:

Oh.

Then: no way. The restriction is on the player, not the characters.

Bomb said:

someone brought her up earlier in another thread as a way to get around jank, I think is why he was talking about her ability when he saw "cat."

stormwolf27 said:

Thanks for proving I'm not complety out of it. However, I feel obliged to point out (as I did when I mentioned her last time) that LoW Catelyn Stark's effect is not an ability, since it is triggered while she is out of play (in hand). An ability is any text on a card in play, excluding traits and keywords (and obviously, flavor text), per the FAQ.

Khudzlin said:

gazundheit :-P

stormwolf27 said:

Be careful or I'll call my lookalike Ratatoskr to punish you for mangling his native language (German).

Bomb said:

No. Dragon Fear 's text:

If there is at least 1 Dragon character in play, attached character must be chosen for Military claim if able.

Either this puts an onus on the player to choose the character with Dragon Fear for claim or this puts an onus on the character to force the player to choose itself for claim. Ktom has already stated that cards immune to attachments would be immune to Dragon Fear. This means the onus is put on the character.

Now lets look at Orell the Eagle :

While Orell the Eagle is attacking, opponents must declare at least 2 defenders in order to defend the challenge.

The only difference is that Orell actually mentions the opponent and Dragon Fear does not. Why does Dragon Fear not say "opponent must choose attached character for military claim if able"? It's implied. Therefore, it makes sense that Cat would be immune to Orell. Dragon Fear puts the onus on the character to choose itself, it says "no you can't". The same would happen with Orell. Cat would say "no I don't have to listen to you".

The only difference?

Orell the Eagle doesn't say anything about affecting characters, period. Characters have no direct interaction with Orell the Eagles ability, so there is nothing to be immune to.

Dragon Fear tells you to do something to the character it is attached to. Cat O' Canals is immune to Dragon Fear because Dragon Fear does something to the character directly by painting a "target" on the attached character.

That is a HUGE difference.

Bomb said:

I don't know where people get this idea that Dragon Fear does something to the character. There is literally nothing on the card that indicates Dragon Fear is doing something to the character.

Once again, as I have indicated before, Dragon Fear explicitly affects the player. The player can attempt to not choose the character to which Dragon Fear is attached, but it will not succeed. The player is forced by Dragon Fear to choose the attached character. The attached character is not killed by Dragon Fear, but by the generic framework action of claim. The closest Dragon Fear comes to doing anything to the character is pointing at it. The character ignores it.

Orell the Eagle puts the same type of restriction on the player. The player must defend with 2 characters or not defend at all. In the instance of Dragon Fear, this restriction on the player is considered something to which a character immune to attachments would be immune. It makes no sense to not apply the same logic to Orell the Eagle. Orell the Eagle, in the same vein, wags its finger at the characters that try to defend alone. The character ignores it.

Either both of these effects should be ignored by something immune to them or neither of them should.

No one has yet made the argument that Dragon Fear is an absolute abomination of templating and word choice and that the card should be interpreted as "Instead of normal military claim, reduce the claim by one. Kill attached character."

you guys like my bonus question a lot more than my actual titled question

mdc273 said:

the problem with that is I aleardy find ''instead of normal claim'' cards extremely ambiguous. instead of claim cards that are already printed means that the normal claim is replaced by what follows it on the card. that would mean that if I play my favourite card FOCUSED OFFENSE and win a mil challenge, only attached character will die, as opposed to attached character + 2 other doods

while we're at it with normal claim replacement, heres a funny situation (I don't know if it was brought up before): let's say i'm running out-of-house hyper lordship pyat pree. while he is attacking alone I play direct assault and win. what then?

You have 2 "replace claim" effects timed as passives. The first player chooses which goes last (each effect will replace the previous one).

Robby Stark said:

I apologize for the de-railing of the thread. I have a tendency to vehemently attack anything that is not clear enough for a simple ruling by "Joe Schmoe". I feel if a card is read and can be interpreted one way 50% of the time and another way 50% of the time either the card is badly printed or the rules are badly constructed. A card should be interpreted one way 95% of the time and another way 5% of the time or at least that should be the goal when creating rules and printing/templating cards.

My play group is incredibly experienced. One of the guys in my play group has consistently been a contender in pretty much every championship he's played in. We still ask questions about the rules all the time because of the complexity of the timing structure. The irony is that I like the core concept of the timing structure, I just don't like all the unwritten and unintuitive nuances that go along with it.

And what Khudzlin said is correct. Basically the first player should just pick the one they want to happen and ignore all the other claim replacement effects. That's what happens in practice when you have conflicting claim replacement passives.

mdc273 said:

First of all, I don't rule anything. I am just answering the OP's questions.

Second of all, I'm sorry if I am just providing "simple rulings by 'Joe Schmoe'". I may not be a creditable source of information on these forums in your eyes, but I do have almost 3 years of play experience and I did have plenty of bouts with ktom when I first started playing. At this point, I think I have a pretty **** good grasp on the rules.

Whether you want to accept anything other members of this forum have to offer based on previous rulings or play experience that they have is up to you. I am no longer interested in attempting to convince you as to whether or not Cat O' Canals immunity applies to the play restriction placed on declaring defenders that Orell the Eagle creates.

To that, I provide the following puzzle:

If Cat O' Canals had the ability "Any Phase: Kneel Cat O' Canals to draw a card.", can you kneel her to draw a card inside the following scenarios?

1. Stannis Baratheon is the only king in play.
2. Rotten Bastard is in play and you have hit the draw cap by drawing 2 cards.

My own answer to this is: yes, you can kneel her to trigger her ability (you can trigger abilities as long as you can pay the cost and choose all targets - no target here). However, the draw effect will fail because:

1. both scenarios affect the player, not the card
2. abilities are not covered by immunity anyway

Now, back to the Orell vs Cat question: Orell directly affects the player, not the characters and immunity is only applicable to direct interaction (which is why claim replacement effects can choose and kill Cat).

Bomb said:

This wasn't directed at you Bomb. I was apologizing to the OP for going off on my tangential argument about Dragon Fear and Cat o' the Canals. That's why I chose his quote to begin my reply.

I wasn't saying anything about what you contributed to the thread. I literally meant that if I grabbed an average guy of the street, a "Joe Schmoe", that the goal for the rules should be that they are written in such a way that this random guy off the street should be able to accurately guess the correct answer 95% of the time.

I was in no way insinuating anything or even refering to you, my apologies that you took it that way.

As far as your posited items, Cat o' the Canals doesn't care about either. Neither effect prevents Cat from kneeling to allow you to draw a card. You as the player are not allowed to draw the card, but Cat is unaffected and actually allowed to be knelt. It doesn't contradict anything I've said to this point.

Edit:

@ Khudzlin, some questions:

1) How does Dragon Fear not directly affect the player?

2) How does Dragon Fear directly affect the player?

3) How does Dragon Fear Directly affect the attached character?

4) Who does Dragon Fear directly affect and what is the action it is taking upon that which it is directly affecting?

5) Who chooses characters for claim?

6) Does a character with Dragon Fear choose itself for claim?

These questions may seem redundant, but I'm curious what your answer will be to each question independtly.

I believe I originally asked if the subject was the object of a given effects effect, but that the response was no from Ktom. I might have to go dig up the thread.

If there is at least 1 Dragon character in play, attached character must be chosen for claim if able.

1. The player isn't mentioned at all.
2. It doesn't.
3. The character is the only game entity mentioned in the text.
4. The character, because it's the only game entity mentioned.
5. The player does.
6. No, the player does it.

If being the subject is not the criterion for being directly affected, I don't know what is.