heres kings balon host: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/1281900855/med_gallery_13_201888.jpg

what the hell do they do?

If it is standing your opponents characters lose deadly, stealth, renown etc, except immunity keywords, like, immune to events.

~Mostly they dont see play or they piss people off in melee, kinda like Core Mel.
Do you mean why would anyone chose to play the card? Well, I don't particularly like being Stealthed or dealing with opponent's Deadly guys. They completely shut down Bara rush decks since all those Lords suddenly no longer have Renown; Vengeful is no longer a concern, Ser Kyle stays dead instead of going back to the top of the deck, and you can toss Fishing Nets on your opponents Armies since they can have Attachments when KBH is standing. Biggest problem with them is they arent worth playing unless you have the King or Queen out, and there arent too many options in GJ, so theres a good chance you'll have a useless card in your hand, not a good scenario for a House that doesnt draw all that well and already has plenty of expensive guys that are generally a better choice. I suppose if you need something to help stall the game for a while before Rise of the Kraken and you can guarantee that you'll be able to reduce the cost (Copper Link maybe?) you might be able to fit them into a deck.

I actually didn't understood what the text even meant. '' non-immunity keywords'' is the part that bugged me. I didn't realise ''immune to events'' is a keyword.

apparently ''no attachments'' is a keyword too.

I thought keywords were deadly, stealth, vengeful etc.

playing fishing nets is very risky though. as soon as your balon guys are knelt, their guys gain their ''no attachments'' back and fishing net goes away. yeah from all the ''kings'' hosts, I'd say this one is the worst.

Robby Stark said:

There's a list in the Core Set rules (including "immune to X" and "no attachments" - the latter includes "No attachments except X" and "No X attachments"). Add "Joust" and "Melee" to that list and you're set.

If an opponent's character gains a keyword(stealth,vengeful,etc.) from another card does he-she has the keyword while king balon's host standing or not?

ikarianprince said:

All non-immunity keywords means they literally have -1 of every keyword in the game. If they then gain back an instance, or multiple instances, you have to do math.

So King Balon's Host removes 1 instance of stealth:

1. A card with Stealth will no longer have Stealth (1 - 1 = 0 instances).
2. A card without Stealth will have -1 instances of Stealth. (0 - 1 = -1 instances)
3. A card with 2 instances of Stealth will have 1 instance of Stealth. (2 - 1 = 1 instance)
4. A card with Stealth that gains an additional instance of Stealth will have 1 instance of Stealth. (1 - 1 + 1 = 1 instance)

Questions? That might have been a little confusing.

Back on this topic considering the FAQ 4.1 entry (4.21):

(4.21) Losing/Gaining "all" Traits or Keywords
If a card gains or loses "all traits," it gains or
loses 1 instance of each trait in the game. If a
card gains or loses "all keywords," it gains or
loses 1 instance of each keyword in the game.
If a card loses "all instances" of a trait or
keyword, it loses that trait or keyword an
infinite number of times. A card cannot gain
"all instances" of a trait or keyword.

This FAQ entry backs the historical interpretation described by ktom in other threads and contradicts above answers.

However, before this FAQ entry (23rd of July 2013) we got the following Nate French ruling about King Balon's Ost (May 7th 2013):

Should also be one instance of each non-immunity keyword in the game.

I would say that it means King Balon's Ost should be interpretated as "losing all keywords" case from FAQ (4.21). But one could read it another way, or maybe it was discussed with FFG?

I would say that it means King Balon's Ost should be interpretated as "losing all keywords" case from FAQ (4.21). But one could read it another way, or maybe it was discussed with FFG?

I guess I'm not seeing the confusion here. King Balon's Host says that characters lose "all non-immunity keywords," not " all instances of all non-immunity keywords," so by FAQ 4.21, shouldn't characters should get -1 of each keyword in the game that does not involve immunity?

Isn't that what the thread had explained and Nate had ruled before the FAQ came out?

This card is a real game changer and highly underrated.

It absolutely stops Baratheon in their stride by taking away renown not to mention the complete change it enforces when opponents cannot use stealth or other keywords.

Yes it is expensive, but with manning the city walls and 3 being run in the deck it becomes very viable.

I expect this card to see more and more use as it stops rushes and provides some great control

During the NYC regional, this card was out against my while I had Quentyn Martell as my agenda to give Vengeful to my unique characters. I had Darkstar in play and it made a huge difference as to whether or not he lost both instances of Vengeful he had. As a group of judges, we ruled that he only lost 1 Vengeful because we couldn't remember exactly how this ability was officially ruled.

Per the FAQ now, it sounds like we were correct as the keyword removal is against a subset of multiple keywords as opposed to "lose all of keyword X". If this card removed all non-immunity keywords, I think it'd be a little too strong while it's standing.