Firs I'm just going to say I do appreciate these articles as they create a unified place for people to learn some rules oddities, but I need to ask about some of the points and feel this is the better forum for it. If you prefer it in the article's comments, I'm glad to ask there from now on:

Lancel - Your logic appears inconsistent with Rhoynar Emissary and Dragon Sight. These two cards appear to use the " during the Framework Action " interpretation of " declare as X ". Lancel doesn't appear to use that same logic. Did I misinterpet this?

Desolate Passage - See Lancel

Orell - This card is an absolute mess and I hate it. I interpret this card as a constant effect that says " If the defender has not declared 2 defenders, it can declare no defenders. " This interpretation would allow for Naval characters to join later as the condition would be removed by 2 defenders already being declared and is consistent with the Naval Superiority logic. Both are conditional effects that are satisfied and are applicable/no longer applicable once the condition is met. Damon's logic when I asked why Dragon Fear and Orell differed appears to support this: " Orell the Eagle, on the other hand, places a condition on opponents: "opponents (subject) must declare at least (condition)." " Did I miss some logic here?

Brienne and Naval - Brienne actually should prevent Naval. Brienne does not prevent " triggered effects ". Note that her ability does not use any phrasing that would indicate " trigger " is a descriptor for the word " effect ". " Can not trigger " is the verb in her ability. What can not be triggered? Effects. What type of effects? Effects. Effects is the object of the sentence and has no descriptive words to give it any additional context. Compare that to Bloodrider: " Response: Kneel 2 influence and put Bloodrider into play from your hand to cancel the effects of a character ability just triggered. " In Bloodriders text, " triggered " is part of a phrase adding additional context to the object of the sentence, " effects ". What is being canceled? Effects. What type of effects? Effects of a character ability just triggered. You could argue that Naval isn't an effect, but then you would be arguing that Cat O' the Canals is not immune to Deadly.

Cowed - This has both the "alone" problem and the "declared as x" problem. I am of the opinion that "declared alone as x" falls under the Rhoynar Emissary logic and should be ignored after the framework action similar to Lancel and Desolate Passage. We'll see how that pans out.

FFG needs a DCI or something… I hope that not publishing DUST any more means more resources for stuff like this.

I'm going to leave the more experienced to reply to your other comments, but I'm curious about your assertion on Naval. The Naval rules explicitly state: "Declaring a [Naval] attacker or defender is a game mechanic, not a triggered effect or card effect."

I fail to see how you could ever say Brienne would prevent this since the rules call it a game mechanic. Sorry if I'm completely missing your point - but I don't understand it.

doulos2k is correct. Naval declaration is a game mechanic, not a triggered effect. Brienne of Tarth cannot prevent this from happening. She can only prevent effects that are prefixed with "Any Phase:", "Phase X:", or "Response:" and the Ambush keyword(defined as an "Any Phase:" player action in core rules) as those are defined as triggered effects.

I didn't read the Quill and tankard article, but here are my 2 cents:

I have sent a while ago this question to Nate French:
"Rhoynar emissary forces an opponent to declare one of his eligible character in the next challenge.
But what if I attack him with Orell with Joust? His character is eligible (has the icon, is not stealthed), and yet he cannot be declared. So he would be discarded through Rhoynar Emissary's effect.
Or do we considerer that he is not eligible to be declared as a defender?"

He has answered the following:

"If there is anything preventing a character from being declared as a defender (for instance: knelt, lack of icon, stealth, or a card effect), that character is not considered an eligible defender."

I think this clarifies Orell.

Now about Brienne: you consider Naval declaration as a game effect. And this could be backed by the following from FAQ:

(3.34) Plot Rotation
When a player's plot deck is empty, that
player's used plot cards move from his or her
used pile to his or her plot deck as a passive
game effect of resolving the revealed plot.

It says "game effect" to describe a game mechanic. But I think it is just an abuse of language. Because declaring defenders normally (without naval) is also a game mechanic/effect and is NOT prevented by Brienne, obviously. And so it should be the same for Naval.

Whether it is a "game mechanic" or a "game effect", using a Naval enhancement is not a "triggered effect" (the rules for Naval explicitly state it isn't), so Brienne does not prevent it, whether you compare it to normal declaration or not.

"Declaring a [NAVAL] attacker or defender is a game mechanic, not a triggered effect or card effect."

mdc273 said:

Brienne - I think other people already answered Brienne. The important thing to remember is that triggering an effect does not equal performing a player action (think about marshalling a card for an example). And thats's what she clearly states: " opponents cannot trigger effects ". Triggered effects are a well defined term in the AGoT vocabulary, and it has for the longest time been interpreted that triggering an effect is the same as using a triggered effect . If you still have any doubt about this, I suggest you submit a question on it to FFG here . When such established terminology is questioned, it's best to get the answer directly from FFG, to avoid confusion.

Lancel - The article stated that:

Does Lancel stop characters from navaling into a challenge (with a printed cost lower than the number of House Lannister attackers)? Yes, he does. His effect stops the defender from declaring defenders, and using the Naval Enhancement doesn't bypass the declaration, it just means you can declare defenders outside of the appropriate framework for doing so. This is another way the Naval mechanic differs from our friend The Greatjon.

I fail to see the confusion, although I do admit that the first sentence might have been better worded. Lancel affects Naval declaration just the same as he affects declaration through the Framework Event. And how is this now connected to Rhoynar Emissary and Dragon Sight (those cards are very different in nature to this one)? Could you maybe write this out in further detail?

Desolate Passage - Again, failing to see what you find confusing.

Basically, what the article states isn't really rocket science. Lancel and Desolate Passage modify your overall ability to declare defenders/attackers, and Naval is worded as declaring attackers/defenders… so those cards also affect Naval. So what's the issue here?

Orell - Orell, is a bit of a mess, and because of him and Lead By Example I submitted a question to FFG on Thursday. We went with the 'established' interpretation of needing to declare all defenders (or attackers for Lead by Example) 2 at a time, but like you, I can also see plausible doubt with regard to it being " needing to declare 2 together to initially defend " (the one that you were also considering). I'll report the answers to that here, and correct it into the article if there was an error.

Cowed - Now Cowed is not worded the same as Orell / Lead By Example, the alone changes things a bit, since now we have to figure out whether it's referring to "declare alone" (like it literally says, and how the article interpreted it, in which case it stops Naval altogether) or "would be participating alone, if declared" (which is very much different, but I can see plausible doubt about it). Submitted this as a separate question to FFG now. Again, if there was an error, I'll correct it in.

Got an answer for Cowed from Damon:

Cowed prevents a character form being declared, by any means, by itself. Since declaring a character through the naval enhancement is an action, it is impossible to declare multiple characters with the naval enhancement at the same time, so Cowed would prevent the attached character from being declared through the naval enhancement.

OT, but did you ask that through the regular rules link? I sent a question almost a week ago and havent gotten an answer yet . . .

Vaapad said:

Sometimes I get an answer the same day I ask the question. Other times, I get no response.

WWDrakey said:

Brienne

Okay, I'll try to clarify why Brienne prevents [Naval] as worded. I apologize if I state the same things as before as I'm lazy and don't feel like checking my original post. The points are still relevant, though.

Brienne DOES NOT prevent triggered effects from being used, though it is one result of her effect. Brienne prevents the opponent from TRIGGERING effects. The [Naval] mechanic is an effect the opponent chooses to TRIGGER . Brienne innately will prevent this for much the same reason she prevents the use of triggered effects on Agendas (which can't be cancelled). She does not say "While Brienne of Tarth is participating in a challenge, opponents cannot trigger triggered effects . " This phrasing is not redundant and would add context that explicitly indicates preventing only triggered effects rather than effects in general. That explicit context is lacking from the printed card. She says:

" While Brienne of Tarth is participating in a challenge, opponents cannot trigger effects. "

If you look at her literal text, you, as the opponent, can not trigger the [Naval] mechanic's effect. We have already confirmed, per the thread about City of Spiders and Negotiations at the Great Sept, that the word "trigger" when used as a verb is synonymous in game terms to initiate. Her ability is therefore synonymous with "While Brienne of Tarth is participating in a challenge, opponents cannot initiate effects." There should be no question here and nothing to argue except designer intent.

The Rhoynar Emissary Ruling

" Challenges: Kneel Rhoynar Emissary to choose a character. If that character is not declared as a participant in the next challenge this phase for which it is eligble, discard it from play. Any opponent may kneel 2 influence to cancel this effect. "

Article (which is a paraphrase of Damon): "It does not matter how a character enters the challenge, so long as they are declared as a participant by the end of the framework declaration step "

Declared as a participant is obviously inaccurate in the original text. It must be observed as either "declared as an attacker" or "declared as a defender". Therefore, if you do not declare them as an attacker or defender in the relevant framework action, they did not meet the requirement of "declared as an attacker" or "declared as a defender".

This ruling sets a precedent that "declared as an attacker/defender" explicitly refers to the relevant framework action, if taken literally. I continue to ignore the possibility of differing from designer intent as I can not take it into account.

"Declare as x" and its variants :

Lancel - "While Ser Lancel Lannister is attacking, characters with printed cost lower than the number of attacking House Lannister characters cannot be declared as defenders. "

Lancel is a restriction on "declare as defender". Above, we established that this explicitly refers to the framework action ONLY , per the ruling from Damon. Therefore, they should be able to be declared via the [Naval] mechanic.

Article: " His effect stops the defender from declaring defenders, and using the Naval Enhancement doesn't bypass the declaration, it just means you can declare defenders outside of the appropriate framework for doing so."

Desolate Passage - "Each player cannot declare more than 1 attacker or defender in each challenge."

"Declare more than 1 attacker" is a variant of "declare as an attacker" and can be re-written as "Each player cannot declare as an attacker/defender more than 1 character in each challenge." Desolate Passage is again a restriction on "declare as attacker/defender". Therefore, additional characters should be able to be declared via the [Naval] mechanic.

Article: "… so you cannot declare a challenger normally and through Naval."

I'm leaving out Cowed and Orell, but they should really follow the same "is a variant of declared as attacker/defender" logic.

I really don't see this precedent being set that you are seeing. Declaring a naval participant is inclusive of being declared as a participant. That is also what I am getting out of the paraphrased Damon response.

Like I said, it does no good arguing about this here. If you feel that Brienne prevents "all effects" and not just triggered effects (referring to the special type of effect separately discussed in the FAQ) you really should just send the question to FFG, and not try to argue the point.

Anyway, I sent the question now for Brienne/Naval, let's see what we get for an answer.

The reason I advocate just sending the question over, instead of arguing, is that otherwise we really only get into a situation of the blind leading the deaf . It's not really an issue about which interpretation is right, but rather that we shouldn't take risks with trying to interpret effects that can be interpreted ambivalently. And clearly, since two people have a different interpretation on Brienne/Naval right now, then the effect can be treated ambivalently.

Now, I think you're over-extending the reach of Damon's answer to Rhoynar Emissary here, but since I cannot be sure, I submitted a question on Desolate Passage to Damon, that should cover both him and Lancel together since the wordings are similar.

Now, I already recieved an answer for Lead By Example:

You must declare two attackers/defenders in order to declare any additional attackers/defenders. Once that player restriction has been met there is no more restriction. So a player would need to declare 2 attackers/defenders in the standard attack declare window in order to then jump another attacker or defender into the challenge by way of the naval challenge.

Interesting stuff. This should naturally also extend to Orell, since the wordings are similar.

I also want to point this out from the challenge enhancement rules:

"Declaring a Naval attacker or defender is a game mechanic, not a triggered effect or card effect."

Even if Brienne could prevent non-triggered effects, she CANNOT prevent the Naval declaration from occurring.

As expected, Damon confirmed the old interpretation of Brienne:

My question:

Does the extent of Brienne's ability cover only triggered effects or does it also extend to other effects, such as using the Naval enhancement?

Damon's answer:

Trigger effects is synonymous with triggered effects.Declaring a character as the attacker or defender is not a triggered effect, it is a player action.

Hence, Brienne only stops triggered effects (see FAQ §3.6 for definition), nothing else. Hopefully this satisfies everybody? If anybody still wants to push for the question being posited wrongly (or something similar), please ask the questions yourself from Damon, so that they are formed in such a way as to prove your hypothesis.

Also got final word on Dragon Sight, and this one's pretty interesting.

Damon's answer:

Stealth is part of the framework action to declare defenders, so because that has already passed, so has the opportunity to declare stealth.

My interpretation:

Now, this is interesting, and directly conflicts Ktom's old interpretation. So basically the movement of the declare defenders framework event causes the whole opportunity to ever declare stealth to disappear. In addition to Naval, this would also affect some old cards like Lost Oasis, Poisoned Knife or the newer version of Darkstar.

I would assume the whole challenge flow would then look like this:

• Challenge declared
• Declaration of defenders framework
• Declaration of attackers framework
• Player Action Window
• Challenge resolution

NOTE: Using shorthand.

Anybody interpret this differently? Anybody see a reason why the two Player Action Windows wouldn't meld into one? Once I'm sure that I'm interpreting this correctly and acceptable with everyone, I'll add the corrections to the article and notify about them on CardgameDB and Agotcards.

Bomb said:

This would be the correct answer. Thanks. Naval isn't an effect and that's why Brienne doesn't prevent it. It would help if they posted that thing online so that I can actually look at it. I thought Naval was considered an "effect" and not simply a "mechanic".

@WWDrakey on "Trigger Effects" = "Triggered Effects" - Whoa… If "Trigger Effects" is synonymous with "Triggered Effects" then To Be A Kraken should be able to cancel City of Spiders since City of Spiders is a "Trigger Effect"-type card. I don't understand how a verb-noun combo can be synonymous with an adjective-noun combo. That makes no sense whatsoever and so this doesn't make any sense. The sentence "I cannot triggered effects." is broken English at best and nonsense at worst. I honestly think the way he answered the question is worthless/meaningless, but well-intentioned. Obviously what Bomb says makes this part irrelevant for Brienne.

@Bomb on "Naval Participant = Participant" - If Declaring as a Naval Participant = Declaring as a Participant then Rhoynar Emissary would not discard immediately after the framework window of Declare Attackers/Defenders. The ruling was that it does:

From the article: " The answer is that it does not matter how a character enters the challenge, so long as they are declared as a participant by the end of the framework declaration step . In other words, if you are the attacking player, your character who has been targeted by Rhoynar Emissary must enter the challenge during the "declare attackers" framework step (or be discarded from play), meaning that Navaling him in is not an option."

Rhoynar Emissary's text for reference, my emphasis in bold: "Challenges: Kneel Rhoynar Emissary to choose a character. If that character is not declared as a participant in the next challenge this phase for which it is eligble, discard it from play . Any opponent may kneel 2 influence to cancel this effect."

This establishes the precedent that "Declare as a Naval Participant" != "Declare as a Participant" .

I'm ultimately trying to establish whether or not there is a difference between declare as attacker/defender and declare as participant. If it's preferable to just rules link these questions going forward, as Drakey suggested, I will.

@WWDrakey on Orell - I'm glad we got that cleared up. It's a nuance that is easily missed. I didn't even remember Lead by Example existed.

@WWDrakey on Dragon Sight - I think you missed the post Declare Defenders Player Action Window, but yes. Since declare stealth is a part of Declare Defenders, unless you somehow got a character with Stealth into the challenge as a response to declaring the challenge, you have no participating characters with stealth and can not use it. So really, lazy-hand version is:

1. Pre-Challenge Actions
2. Declare Challenges
   1. Response Window
3. Declare Defenders (This sub-divides into…)
   1. Declare Stealth (Will almost always be 0 if Dragon Sight is active)
   2. Declare Defenders
   3. Response window
4. Player Action Window
5. Declare Attackers
   1. Response Window
6. Challenge Resolution
   1. Response window
7. Post-Challenge Actions

The game and the rules get a lot easier if you don't use bad cards like rhonyar emissary. If you don't use them you really don't need to know how they work.

as for brienne, she doesn't stop naval. Lets stop arguing that. If brienne said, "while brienne is participating in a challenge opponents cannot trigger game mechanics" then she would stop naval.

Triggering effects and triggering game mchanics are different.

mdc273 said:

Honestly, I have no idea if you're trying to be funny or not. You yourself said that:

Brienne and Naval - Brienne actually should prevent Naval. Brienne does not prevent "triggered effects". Note that her ability does not use any phrasing that would indicate "trigger" is a descriptor for the word "effect". "Can not trigger" is the verb in her ability. What can not be triggered? Effects. What type of effects? Effects. Effects is the object of the sentence and has no descriptive words to give it any additional context.

So, based on that I asked Damon if Brienne only worked on triggered effects (again, see definition in FAQ), or also "other types of effects" (which is so badly defined, that I had no idea what you were talking about). Damon answered that she only works on triggered effects . What's the rub? Again, if this does not satisfy you, send the question yourself, like I mentioned. I thought we all knew from the Naval rules that Naval is clearly defined as " not a triggered effect ", so clearing that up was all that was needed?

mdc273 said:

Not really, it is also possible that it only establishes that Rhoynar Emissary's effect is unaware of Naval existing . Everything is usually checked as soon as it is possible by the regular game structure, and without Naval existing that would be the ends of the Framework Action Windows. If Rhoynar Emissary's effect were just "blind" to Naval existing (or think of it this way, didin't change with the introduction of Naval ) then this would be the end result, right?

mdc273 said:

Ok, good.

mdc273 said:

Yep, this was productive.

mdc273 said:

Hmm… so you think the whole FAW would move, not just the events into the existing one? Okay, so that is still ambivalent, good thing that I didn't correct into the article yet. If there's a PAW there in-between, then that completely screws up the challenge mechanic, since the Challenge would end the moment that the defender declared no defenders . Which… is not good, if you see what I mean. Basically the Dragon Sight player would never get to make any challenges…

Unless of course Dragon Sight somehow also modifies that, which is quite a bit to imply, since it says nothing on it on the card .

Oh, and why do you think that the Declare Challenge and Declare Defenders would be in separate FAWs (and so have separate Responses), when the original Declare Challenge and Declare Attackers aren't? (See page 21 of the current FAQ)

WWDrakey said:

Man… Amtrak + These Forums = Headache, LoL.

On Brienne - Either what Damon is saying is meant to explicitly clarify Brienne, which it didn't seem when I read it, or the generalization which he is referring to is going to have far and over-reaching applications, which is why I mentioned the City of Spiders part. Neither of these things would be particularly good for the game as the card text of Brienne is very clean and straight-forward. It really doesn't have any room for interpretation. What Bomb said is the cleanest way to answer the question. It has no implications other than misassociation of "effect" with Naval on my part. So yea, I was serious about not ever wanting to refer to that response from Damon and hoping it gets forgotten, lol.

On Dragon Sight - I am re-reading this and questioning why I didn't include the post Declare Attackers action window. Let me try again:

1. Pre-Challenge Actions
2. Declare Challenges
   1. Response Window
3. Declare Defenders
   1. Declare Stealth
   2. Declare Defenders
   3. Response Window
4. Player Action Window
5. Declare Attackers
   1. Response Window
6. Player Action Window
7. Challenge Resolution
   1. Response Window
8. Post-Challenge Actions

Also

" (3.35) No Characters in a Challenge If, at any time after a challenge begins and attackers are declared, there are no participating characters in that challenge, the challenge ends immediately without resolution. "

Note it explicitly includes "attackers are declared". What this actually winds up doing is making it possible for the defending player to win a challenge without the attacker ever declaring attackers, something not traditionally possible. Okay, now to your other questions.

On the whole FAW moving (it took me a while to figure out what FAW meant <.<) - I can't see any reason the whole FAW wouldn't move. The card as worded doesn't really give any guidance as to the mechanics of the exchange, so it doesn't seem to be a stretch to move the whole FAW if you assume "declare defenders" refers to that FAW. If you don't move the whole FAW, where does "Declare Stealth" go? Dragon Sight doesn't explicitly state that the opportunity is lost. Again, it might be, but that's a Damon question.

On why Separate FAWs for Declare Defenders and Declare Challenge - I just feel like there are probably some weird cards that might respond to the challenge declaration and now you create this bizarre precedent. For example, if they aren't separate then Crown Regent actually kneels out defenders, then you can redirect the challenge after defenders are declared (at least if I remember correctly). I just get the feeling that without them separate, you get this really weird opportunity to abuse some very strictly timed cards. And then what does that mean? Are the already declared defenders participating in the redirected challenge or is it as if they were never participating?

Brienne

Ok, finally had the time to get back to these… The lack of a concrete final picture of how Brienne functions bothered me, so I sent this question today to Damon, should clarify the issue:

Brienne is attacking, goes undefended and the defender has Bungled Orders Revealed. When the effect on Bungled Orders happens, the defender chooses to reveal City of Spiders (having a City of Soldiers in the used pile). Does the effect from City of Spiders (copying City of Soldiers) happen and a character get killed?

Took me a long while to figure out that what you were aiming at were the 'trigger' wordings used in copying 'When revealed…' effects in plots. Those have long been thought of as being 'loose' uses of the word trigger, an unfortunate coincidence, if you will. Hopefully this question will allow us to reach a suitably concrete conclusion.

Dragon Sight

Sent Damon a question positing your flow for the Challenge, and asking whether it's correct… Pragmatically, I'm fine with any solution here, as long as I can be sure it's the right one.

I think the existence of the PAW is the most important question here (for Naval etc.), everything else is very marginal.

WWDrakey said:

Dude! I already agree about Brienne!!!! That's like, so last week! What you state is correct. My confusion with Brienne was that I thought [Naval] was an effect.

I know it's hard to believe I agree with anyone, but sometimes I do!

I'm curious how Damon will respond to the Dragon Sight thing. It'll be interesting, though probably won't have huge ramifications. I haven't seen much Dragon Sight in NYC. It'll be good to know the ruling if someone does pop up with it.

Hah. Sorry about being such a curmudgeon.

Got the answer for Brienne already from Damon:

Brienne only stops bolded triggered effects. City of Spiders is using trigger to show when a passive is supposed to initiate, 'When revealed' effects are not triggered effects.

Pretty straightforward, and should not leave room for doubt.

WWDrakey said:

You used the word curmudgeon… I want to give you points somehow… **** the lack of thumbs and upvotes!