Naval Superiority is a plot card that reads:

Raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 2 during challenges in which you have declared a [Naval] attacker.

I want to know if the claim remains raised even if all the characters that were declared as Naval attackers end up removed from the challenge. It doesn't say "had Naval attacker" like the Black Sails agenda does, but "have declared", so I have some doubts.

No, claim would not be raised:

FAQ 3.31 "Participated" and Removal from Challenge
A character is only considered to have participated if they remain in the challenge through its resolution. If they are removed from a challenge, there is no memory of that character having participated in that challenge.

Skowza said:

Yes, I know that. But it doesn't say "in which Naval attacker is participating" or "was participating" or "in which you have/had a Naval attacker", so is it just inconsistent wording?
Imagine that PotS Arianne Martell reads: "Raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 1 during a challenge in which you declared Arianne Martell as an attacker." Would it be so obvious that she falls under this FAQ entry?

After some thinking I have to say, you are probably right Skowza. Still, the wording could be better.
BTW can you edit your posts here?

I think this comes down to poor wording as the game has evolved. I would suggest that the character would have to be still particapting in order to have the claim raised although i can see and understand as there is a little ambiguity.

Unless stated otherwise i would follow this ruling.

Thanks

Skowza said:

@theCrow - This is a bit oversimplified, but is accurate.

So here's the deal. Naval Superiority is a lasting effect. This is indicated by the lack of text that would indicate a point of initiation for the effect (i. e. After you declar a Naval Attacker, raise your claim by 2). Now, the game is also said to have no memory. Because of this, it can never remember that a Naval Attacker had ever been declared. The best example of this is what I will refer to as the Son of the Mist Shutdown .

Son of the Mist Shutdown

Pre-Cursor - Lannister has two Son of the Mist in play. Stark has one card in hand, No Quarter, and a Harrenhal in play.

1) Stark plays No Quarter

2) Lannister triggers Son of the Mist 1

3) Stark triggers Harrenhal

4) Lannister can no longer trigger Son of the Mist 2

The reason that Lanni can't trigger the second Son of the Mist is because it checks the players hand and sees a card in it. It no longer thinks that No Quarter was the last card played.

The same is true in this case. The only time that Naval Superiority can actually impact claim is at the time that claim initiates and resolves. At this point, the only way to determine if a Naval Attacker was declared is to look and see if there is a Naval attacker in the challenge.

Hmmm… I hope someone can refute this, because this creates a real issue with the whole "You can't use Black Sails if you declare a Naval Attacker in the normal window because it didn't enter the challenge through the Naval ability" thing. This whole "no memory" thing really creates problems.

TL:DR - Naval Superiority only cares at the time of claim whether or not there is a Naval attacker/defender participating in the challenge.

I'd argue that claim has been raised by 2 as soon as you declare the naval attacker. It's really a conditional constant effect that is checking for your declaring of naval attackers. Upon the naval attacker being removed from the challenge, the claim increase is also removed until you declare another naval attacker.

For example, your opponent can play this card:

I don't think you are limited to a maximum of X where X is the claim value, but if it is, it will matter at which point claim is raised.

I am considering running Pentoshi Manor and would like confirmation of this situation. Common sense would indicate that claim is raised as soon as you declare a naval attacker because that's how the card is worded.

I still think that since it doesn't have a duration it can only be measured at the time claim is actually counted - at the resolution of the challenge. And a Naval Attacker has to be present in the challenge and have been declared as a Naval attacker to get it…

Which is funny because then the game DOES have memory - it remembers that the naval character was declared as a naval attacker and is not just a regular attacker.

A little bit of derailing the thread, but I know I've heard the game has no memory but how does events like Sitting the Iron Throne (Limit 3 per round) work?

Slothgodfather said:

Right, this is my exact issue. It has consistently been stated that the game has no memory, but for Black Sails to work as has been suggested, the game MUST have a memory.

My real conclusion is that the game has no memory, therefore the only way it can determine if there is a [Naval] Attacker in a challenge is after all opportunities to add and remove attackers are past (the resolution framework begins). This would make Naval Superiority work as suggested, but would also mean that Black Sails would be able to respond to a [Naval] Attacker being declared as a normal Attacker due to the game's inability to figure out how the [Naval] Attacker participated.

@Bomb - INBAMF is technically different from Naval Superiority . INBAMF (god that is terrible…) initiates and resolves which creates a lasting effect reducing claim by X. This lasting effect will be recalculated any time claim is modified similar to strength I believe. The key difference is the way the cards initiate. INBAMF has an initation of a cost and resolves immediately, the resolution of which is the lasting effect. Naval Superiority has no initiation (it doesn't say "after a Naval Attacker is declared") and can not resolve until right before claim happens as up until then the participation of a [Naval] Attacker is fluid. Let's look at this chain of events and try to make sense of it.

1) I declare Attackers

2) My opponent declares Defenders

3) I declare a [Naval] Attacker (Is [Naval] Attacker declared? Yes. Claim is raised by 2)

4) My opponent plays Endless Endurance (Is [Naval] Attacker declared? Game can't remember. Claim is no longer raised by 2)

5) Claim (Is [Naval] Attacker declared? Game can't remember. Claim is not raised by 2 OR Is a character participating with a [Naval] enhancement? Yes. Claim raised by 2)

My example is to show that if you assume the game has no memory, the only way the game will ever know if a [Naval] Attacker is declared is if it checks in step 5 for a participating [Naval] Attacker.

If you're suggesting that Naval Superiority hangs out there as an effect waiting to be satisfied and then is turned on, that does not jive with the precedent for card effects like The Burned Men (" Raise your Claim value by 1 during any challenge in which The Burned Men is attacking if you have fewer cards in hand than the defending player. ") The templating is the exact same, but if it were left as a hanging effect that could only be satisfied once and then disabled then fluctuations in game state (for The Burned Men , hand size) would be irrelevant. I don't believe that is meant to be for The Burned Men and The Burned Men 's text is templated identically to Naval Superiority with the only exception being that the declaration of a [Naval] Attacker can't be changed. Worse, when does The Burned Men 's ability become valid again? Before the next challenge? There's no construct within the rules that I am aware of that would indicate when conditional lasting effects that have been turned on and disabled become valid for being turned on again.

If Naval Superiority turns on when you declare the [Naval] Attacker and can not be turned off, then The Burned Men should equally turn on when The Burned Men is attacking and you have fewer cards than your opponent and be unable to be turned off.

I don't necessarily have issue with that interpretation, but I don't think many people would agree with it and I don't think there is a construct within the rules to make it work.

Slothgodfather said:

It is not creating a lasting effect, so it doesn't provide a duration. It is, however, a constant effect that has a condition. "During challenges where X happens" tells you when the constant effect's condition is met and is "active"(for lack of a better term). Just like Lyanna Stark's constant effect, and just like Dothraki Outrider's constant effect, it tells you when the effect becomes applicable.

You are correct that the only time the amount of claim matters is when you are actually using it to fulfill it, but the amount of claim is not modified at the claim fulfillment step. There is no place for this to happen.

This is more like a switch. Switch is on means there is a participating naval attacker that you control. Once the naval character leaves play, the switch immediately goes off.

mdc273 said:

The misconception that I think everyone is making is that Naval Superiority and the Burned Men are creating lasting effects when they are in fact constant effects. The reason the effects of Naval Superiority and the Burned Men turn on and off is because they are constantly checking for their conditions to be met before becoming active. This is a passage from the FAQ to help define the difference between constant effects that need to update elements in play versus triggered and passive effects that only use them at their points of initiation.

@MDC. When you attack with the Burned Men and have fewer cards in your hand, you fullfill their criteria and your claim is indeed +1 "during" the challenge… however, since claim ONLY matters when you are resolving the challenge, that is the only time it matters whether you meet the criteria for them or not. In the same above scenario, say your are only 1 card less than your opponent. You attack and now have raised claim. During a player action, your opponent plays Much and More and now you both have equal cards. Your claim is now normal. Unless you can reduce your handsize again, when the resolution of the challenge comes, your claim will be normal.

As for the plot, let's look at the text again…

"Raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 2 during challenges in which you have declared a [Naval] attacker."

If this card is not simply measured during the resolution of the challenge but instead raises the claim when they are added does that mean this scenario works:

If I have this plot revealed, and I attack you for a MIL challenge, then add in a Naval attacker the plot will be raised by 2. Claim = 3. What happens if I add in another Naval character, is my claim raised again by meeting the condition?

Say before resolution the Naval character is removed. This is where the wording differs from the Burned Men and I feel is counter productive to your argument. TBM require they are attacking characters to raise your claim. Since it does not have a duration, the raised claim goes away any time the condition of them attacking or you having fewer cards is not met. However, the more I look at the wording of this plot - the duration is "during challenges" which makes it similar to the Red Viper that raises claim during the "current challenge". No one questions that the raised claim from the Viper extends beyond the current challenge or that if he is knelt again that it somehow changes the triggered effect.

Looking at it again, I think I have to agree that it should work as immediately raising claim for the current challenge in which you had declared an attacker through the Naval enhancement. Since it does not require them to be "attacking character" or "participating character" like other claim raisers do, I see your point.

Slothgodfather said:

No, because it is constantly checking for the existence of a naval attacker you control. It is not doing this check only at the time you declare a naval attacker. There is no point of initiation like you have with triggered and passive effects. If there was, it could be canceled. Even if you could cancel it, it would be pointless because it will just check for a naval attacker again and then claim will be raised by 2.

Compare this to Lyanna Stark's constant ability:

"Non-unique characters get -1 STR while knelt."

This is a constant effect giving -1 STR to knelt non-unique characters. There is no point of initiation because this effect hits the non-unique character immediately when it is knelt. This cannot be canceled because there is no point of initiation. As soon as you stand the non-unique(blank Lyanna, Lyanna leaves play, etc), the -1 STR goes away.

The same applies to Naval Superiority. It is a constant effect that raises your claim by 2 during challenges where you have declared a Naval attacker. It is constantly looking at trying to raise claim by checking for your Naval attackers. Once the Naval attacker is removed from the challenge it is forgotten to have participated and claim is no longer raised by 2. This is not a lasting effect as there is no point of initiation and it cannot be canceled. This is a constant effect because as soon as the condition is met, it immediately applies the raised claim. As soon as the condition is no longer met, the raised claim is gone.

Constant effects with conditions are a lot like light switches.

Is the condition met? Then apply the constant effect where applicable.
Is the condition not met? Then we are not applying the constant effect where it may be applicable.

For you to compare Lyanna's ability it would have to be worded more similar for me. Currently Lyanna is definitely a constant effect and the "point of initiation" is simply whenever the condition is met and it's duration is simply until it's condition is no longer met.

Here is the plot text again, followed by a new ability for Lyanna:

"Raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 2 during challenges in which you have declared a [Naval] attacker."

Say something along the lines of:

"Reduce the STR value of all characters by 1 during challenges in which you have knelt a character."

This follows the exact same template as the plot. Now, in that new ability… if my knelt character is stood, does the STR reduction go away?

Ultimately I think this is a constant effect, but I think you are looking at the wrong condition to be met. Since it's not asking for an "attacking", "defending" or "particiapating" character, the condition was met as soon as you declared a character with the enhancement. Unless you are saying that removing them from the challenge "nullifies" that they were declared in the first place - that they are now "undeclared". That argument I could see, though we've never used the term before.

Either way, I went ahead and sent in the question to get absolute clarity on the issue. … wow, never knew how weird the emoticons were on this site…

Slothgodfather said:

Point of initiation certainly belongs in quotes up there because it has to start somewhere(but not in terms of the timing structure and constant effects).

If the plot is not constant, then it would create a lasting effect. If it created a lasting effect, it would not matter if the Naval attacker was removed from the challenge because that is only checked at the point of initiation and resolves with a raised claim of 2.

As for your new example, yes the STR reduction goes away once that knelt character is stood or removed from play. As it is constantly checking for you having a knelt character and applying the -1 only if one exists. As soon as the condition is no longer met, it will no longer apply the -1 on all characters.

Slothgodfather said:

That is what the FAQ is saying. There is no memory of the character being a part of the challenge so the plot's constant check is deeming you to not have a naval attacker. Otherwise, we'd be able to trigger effects off of characters that previously participated in a challenge but were killed or simply removed!

Slothgodfather said:

Awesome! I'm looking forward to clearing this whole mess up. Here is a star for doing that. (and a dumb smily)

I ironically think you guys agree with the point I was trying to make.

The core question is "If the game does not remember anything, how can it remember that an attacker was declared using its Naval ability?" The only way for it to do so is at time of claim for it to look for an attacker with the [Naval] icon. This means that Black Sails would work with just a [Naval] attacker and not an attacker declared using its [Naval] ability. That was the core issue I was highlighting. Naval Superiority is very straightforward as a card, but the "no memory" precedent we've been trying to operate within causes some weirdness. I'm glad you sent it in. I was going to if no one had today.

I really think that "game memory" is being a little overextended beyond it's intention(participation in the challenge and then removed per the FAQ). Otherwise the game would be unplayable because it has no "memory" of any state of the game.

I agree with Bomb on the over-use of "no memory". How else do we know how to play events with self-defined limits (Like Die By the Sword, Make and Example or Sitting the Iron Throne). How else does the game know you've already made a MIL challenge and therefore can't make another without a card effect. If we attempt to extend the "no memory" to everything then it makes the game fail.

I decided to look through the FAQ for any entry about the game and it's memory, or lack there of. Here is what I found:

Bomb said:

Well I have no problem with that as it makes things easier, but I think it was Ktom that explcititly stated the whole Son of the Mist thing is how it works. If the game has memory, then getting the card off of Harrenhal wouldn't stop the second Son of the Mist from triggering and is counter to what Ktom said. Fortunately, if the Black Sails part is in the question that was sent to Damon, we should get a conclusion to both.

mdc273 said:

I do know that you check game state and play restrictions at the time of triggering Responses. "Is the condition currently met by the game state? Yes? Trigger the response."

One thing we know won't change mid-challenge without the character being removed: The character was still declared as a naval attacker.

It's a lot different with examples like The Dreadfort and Sons of the Mist because by the time you trigger the response, properties of the game state have already changed. You now have a 3 STR House Bolton character because WInterfell gave the 2 STR House Bolton character +1 STR before you trigger the Dreadfort. You now no longer have an empty hand because Harrenhal put a card in your hand before you triggered Sons of a *****. However, how that character entered the challenge remains unchanged. They entered the challenge as a Naval attacker.

So, changes in game state can potentially make previous states forgotten, however declaring a character as a Naval attacker is a property of the game state that does not change. Once the Naval attacker is removed from the challenge, the game state changes for that character as they are no longer holding properties that participating characters would have had.

Bomb said:

I like it. I need to internalize it a bit, but that is a very elegant explanation of why "no memory" isn't an accurate way of describing the fluidity of the game state.

And i now officially am going to refer to that scenario as Sons of a B%$#& . Lmao. I feel like it should be in the FAQ at some point.

I think you guys are really overthinking this. The card only cares about a Naval attacker being Declared. It never says anything about participating.

And this whole, "game has no memory" thing is stupid too. Of course the game has some memory. If it didn't, then how would cards like Lionstar work? There is no way that it can check to see if you have a Naval attacker…especially since Lionstar is activated in a totally different phase.

sWhiteboy said:

We're not necessarily overthinking this as most of us act as TOs for our respective metas and all of our rulings need to be in sync as much as possible and it's good to be able to explain it thoroughly and understandably when asked. Our opinions of "game has no memory" are irrelevant as well (I've hated it since day 1). The statement was originally made in such a way (months or years ago) that it appeared to be an inherent aspect of the game. We needed to come up with a better way to state it, which Bomb did, that maintained the original intent of the game having "no memory", which was to say that it does not remember previous game states. It only remembers the current game state and how it got there (where relevant).

Well I was waiting on another reply to my followup question, but for the sake of further discussion, here is the question I posted to FFG:

Rule Question:
Naval Superiority (plot)
Raise the claim value on your revealed plot card by 2 during challenges in which you have declared a [Naval] attacker.

When does the "raise claim" effect take place? If I add a Naval attacker into a challenge by the enhancement, is the claim raised then? If they are subsequently removed from the challenge before resolution what happens to the claim value? Is the duration of the raised claim the "current challenge" therefore making the claim raised regardless of if the naval character remains in the challenge?

If the claim is only raised during resolution of the challenge and a naval enhanced character was added using the enhancement, can you explain how that applies when the wording of the plot only asks for "declared" and not "attacking", "defending" or "participating" like other characters that raise claim?

And here is the response I recieved:

"The claim is raised when you declare a naval attacker." - Damon Stone

I've sent back a followup question because the answer really doesn't tell me if the raised claim stays raised if that character is removed from the challenge, but it does appear to be that way to me. What do you all think?