MDC, There were two many negatives in a row in your first sentence for me to follow what you were saying, but to clarify what has been said about this particular event, standing characters can be declared navally as normal, KNELT naval characters cannot be declared navally, but can be declared regularly. In addition, they do not have to have the appropriate naval icon (while knelt) to be able to be declared for a challenge, but they must of course have the appropriate icon for any given challenge. For example, my kneeling The Reader can declare a power challenge because he has 1 or more naval icons and a power icon, then I can declare my standing Apostle of The Drowned God navally to join the challenge. This event doesn't break any of the current rules and shouldn't be causing any confusion…

mdc273 said:

wow, I can feel the love. J_Roel elaborated on my statement to make it more understandable from a layman's standpoint as far as game mechanics.

MDC, There were two many negatives in a row in your first sentence for me to follow what you were saying, but to clarify what has been said about this particular event, standing characters can be declared navally as normal, KNELT naval characters cannot be declared navally, but can be declared regularly. In addition, they do not have to have the appropriate naval icon (while knelt) to be able to be declared for a challenge, but they must of course have the appropriate icon for any given challenge. For example, my kneeling The Reader can declare a power challenge because he has 1 or more naval icons and a power icon, then I can declare my standing Apostle of The Drowned God navally to join the challenge. This event doesn't break any of the current rules and shouldn't be causing any confusion…

Yea, too many negatives, LoL. Anyway, the point is that Battle for Shield Island allows kneeling [Naval] characters to be declared as attackers or defenders in any challenge (literal interpretation) while standing [Naval] characters are restricted to challenges for which they have icons. That's silly/absurd.

Your assertion that they require the appropriate icon has no bearing. The card declares them as eligible for declaration as attacker or defender (and thus breaks the golden rule of requiring the appropriate icon).

Hence why this revelation frustrated me. What you are saying SHOULD be true, but isn't if you take the card literally.

What??? That isn't what the epic battle says at all. The only challenge declaration rule the epic battle breaks is that they can be declared as attackers or defenders while kneeling. It does not say they can participate in any challenge type without the appropriate icon.

Card text:

"Plot: After the dominance phase this round, there is an epic phase during which each player may initiate a single challenge of his choice. Characters with 1 or more [Naval] enhancements may be declared as attackers or defenders while kneeling. Instead of the normal claim, the winner of each challenge may choose and take control of a location controlled by the loosing opponent. (Place this card next to your plot deck until the end of this epic phase.)"

Note there is no mention of whether or not they are required to be eligible for declaration.

Compare it to Bound by Duty:

"Challenges: Choose a kneeling House Stark character. Until the end of the phase, that character is eligible, while kneeling, to be declared as a defender for any challenge in which it could normally participate."

This includes specific language that limits it to challenges it could normally participate in, which Battle for Shield Island does not. It's a judgement call as to whether or not the lack of this verbiage was intentional.

Bound by Duty did not need to have that additional text because it is redundant with the core rules on declaring defenders.

If you list out all the play restrictions when it comes to declaring attackers or defenders, there are numerous points that determine a characters eligibility to be declared as an attacker or defender.

1) They must have the appropriate challenge icon.

2) They must be standing.

3) They must go from kneeling to standing to be declared.

4) They cannot be targeted for Stealth to be declared as a defender.

The epic battle ignores item #2, and overrides item #3 by allowing them to be knelt to be declared.

"Does not kneel to attack" only overrides item #3.

Just because a card doesn't explicitly state it is following all the normal rules(like bound by duty) does not mean it is implicitly breaking all the normal rules.

For a knelt character to participate in a challenge during the epic phase created by Battle for the Shield Islands, it must have:

1. A naval enhancement on ANY icon

AND

2. The icon of the corresponding challenge type.

I'm not sure where you guys are getting these added restrictions from. The card says it plain as day. You can declare them. I understand that it might not be the current convention or intent, but it plain as day says they can be declared as attackers and defenders and as the card says it, it rules all the other considerations for their declaration as attackers and defenders moot.

Now you may be interpreting "be declared as" to mean, "ignore part 2 in Bomb's list", but that's not what the card says. It doesn't even say eligible to be declared, which would make sense with your interpretations.

I doubt any TO would ever rule this, but this is just another example of a card that wasn't properly QA'd. I also doubt the text on Bound by Duty was unnecessary. I'm pretty sure that's a Nate French era card and he was pretty good at making sure the text on the cards served a purpose/was not extraneous as far as I'm aware.

I'm getting the added restriction from the core rule book. You don't ignore game rules just because a card doesn't reiterate them while having text that breaks part of them. Card text always overrides game rules, but that doesn't mean they can go beyond the scope of the text printed on the card.

For examples sake, to drive a car, I have to have:

1) A road to drive on.

2) Gas in the car.

If the card said "You may drive your car while there is no gas in your car.", that doesn't mean I can drive my car when there are no roads available to drive on. Realistically, you can go off-roading, but not for the purposes of my example.

We also have other characters with abilities that identify that the character can be declared as an attacker/defender while kneeling for a specific challenge type. Ser Balon Swann allows himself to defend an INT challenge while kneeling(which means he does not need the INT icon). Shagga Son of Dolf allows knelt clansman to defend MIL challenges. Tyrion's Enforcers has the same ability but can also attack while kneeling. Since Battle for Shield Islands does not specifically tell you that you can attacker/defender ANY challenge type while kneeling, you must abide by the any challenge declaration eligibility rules that the card text does not specifically override. This is why you cannot attack all challenge types just because your character says "Does not kneel to attack.". It is overriding only one of the few play restrictions that is required to have a character be declared as an attacker.

I'm not sure why you're referencing the cards you are referencing. All of them seem to effectively support my argument. All of those cards allow the named cards to participate in the indicated challenge regardless of whether or not they have the icon. I don't understand the argument that all of the logic that applies to those cards doesn't apply to Battle for Shield Island.

Does not kneel to attack is a whole other can of worms. It's actually undefined. As such, the only reasonable interpretation is really that it ignores the kneeling step of the declaration of attackers window. I would imagine the number of players interpreting this as "can participate in any challenge as an attacker without kneeling" is quite low if not approaching zero.

Again, I could care how it's actually played, but this card is either a QA fail or a convention fail. It probably needs to be sent to FFG, but I'm a little concerned there is some hostility towards the community for questioning the thoroughness and accuracy of the cards coming out and rules in general.

I'm referencing the cards I'm referencing because they tell you exactly what play restrictions they are overriding. Battle for Shield Islands tells you exactly what play restrictions it is overriding for declaring attackers and defenders. While kneeling, they can be declared as attackers or defenders if they possess a naval enhancement. No where does it say this can be for ANY challenge type and thus by default still has the icon requirement play restriction. It does not explicitly(or even implicitly in my opinion) state in the text that it is overriding the icon requirement. I see no QA issue with this ability and don't see how you, being someone who has strict criteria for effect text formatting and templating, would assume an effect does more than override what is printed on the card.

I see the disconnect. You are interpreting it as lacking specific information and I'm saying the specific information is not necessary. I don't know which is correct.

Bomb is correct.

This subject was discussed there (among other threads):

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/34089-ser-balon-swann-without-icon/

Generally speaking, a card must directly and specifically contradict a rule for the Golden Rule of "do what the card says when it contradicts a rule" to apply. So when you are talking about following card text that contradicts rule text, the specific information is always necessary.

Let's say it this way: Bomb left out two very important restrictions on the requirements for characters to be declared in a challenge - you must control the character to declare it, and you cannot declare characters as attackers/defenders unless you are the attacking/defending player. MCD doesn't seem to be saying those basic requirements are contradicted by Shield Islands (otherwise, I could declare all of my opponent's knelt, enhanced characters as attackers against him, or declare all of my knelt, enhanced characters in a challenge I wasn't involved in during a Melee game). So, under that "specific information is not necessary" interpretation, why would basic icon requirements be ignored, but not basic requirements about control and timing?

Here's one from Damon about splitting your deck for Black Sails, reported by Lucasz Omasta on agotcards:

"You may not count cards. The Black Sails Agenda reads, "When you reveal Black Sails as your agenda, shuffle your deck and cut it into 2 stacks." Counting cards is not cutting a deck once as indicated but making multiple cuts each of one card. And nothing in the card text indicates you may make more than a single cut. "

wtf? That's a weird one, most people (everyone I've seen use BS) just make two equal stacks. What's the difference between doing that precisely or just doing it approximately in "one cut"?

In fact, when I use it, I pile shuffle twice, the second time just putting half the piles into my hold and the other half becoming my deck, so it's exactly even. I don't really see what the issue should be there...

Question sent to Nate French (FFG):

I has been reported from Damon on cardgamedb that when a card becomes moribund, all its attachments immediatly become moribund.

And by immediatly, it means at the very same Step 3) when the character becomes moribund.

The direct consequence is that there is no opportunity to save the attachment from beoing discarded through save effects such as Davos.

That's why it was always previously ruled, also by Kevin / Ktom, that attachment on moribund card becomes Moribund as a passive game effect (so during Step 4), not Step 3)) : this left an opportunity to save the attachment.

In my opinion this ruling could be correct but is tricky, that's why I prefer to double check.

In conclusion, Davos (CS) can save attachment from being directly discarded by card effects, but not from beoing discarded because the card on which they are attached to is moribund.

Or (2nd interpretation), the attachment on a moribund card is discarded passively (Step 4) hence Davos can save it.

I tried to be as clear as possible regarding the ruling different interpretation. Here is his answer:

So the ruling was based on an FAQ entry, page 19, under step 3, "Action is executed." It says there that "cards that are killed, discarded, or returned to hand/deck (including their attachments)" become moribund for the remainder of the action window.

However, ktom is also correct that the majority of the community has understood and played that attachments so that they go moribund passively, during step 4, when the card they are attached to leaves play.

So, in my opinion, the best course of action is to maintain that they go moribund passively during step 4, and correct the FAQ on page 19 to reflect the way the game has been being played for 10 years.

As a conclusion, I guess we can keep playing as we did and save every attachment with our dear Ser Davos

Here's one from Damon about splitting your deck for Black Sails, reported by Lucasz Omasta on agotcards:

"You may not count cards. The Black Sails Agenda reads, "When you reveal Black Sails as your agenda, shuffle your deck and cut it into 2 stacks." Counting cards is not cutting a deck once as indicated but making multiple cuts each of one card. And nothing in the card text indicates you may make more than a single cut. "

Hmm, might want to ask about this again, I asked Nate directly at Gen Con and he said you can cut multiple times to even out the size of the 2 stacks.

Also here's one about Naval Victarion when I asked if you needed Naval Enhancements on the icon corresponding the the Challenge type:

VIctarion is checking the total number of participating characters with Naval enhancements on each side.

Because the effect does not mention anything about Naval enhancements on the icon of the current challenge type, or similar wording, we know it is simply counting the number of characters on each side with the enhancement.

Damon Stone

Associate LCG Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

Question:

I was wondering how the timing with control change of moribund character work with Call of the Three-Eyed Crow. If for example I have stolen a character from my opponent with Reek and then the Reek dies while under my opponents control will the control revert back to me in time for me to use CotTEC on him and again have him under my control?

Answer (Damon Stone):

From FAQ entry 3.42; "the card is still considered to have left play for the purpose of responses and passive effects."

From FAQ entry 3.31; "when a card leaves play for any reason, it always returns to its owner's discard pile, dead pile, hand, deck, or shadow's area."

Basically, the control changes passively when the card leaves play, so Call of the Three Eyed Crow will keep it in play under its owner's control.

Basically, the control changes passively when the card leaves play, so Call of the Three Eyed Crow will keep it in play under its owner's control.

Correct. Because of FAQ 3.42, the "moribund:return to play" card ends up losing all attachments, power, and lasting effects on it as part of being "returned to play" in Step 6 of the action window (when moribund cards are moved to their "destinations"). So, the control change is wiped out when the card goes from "moribund:return to play" to "in play" at the end of the action window.

It may be important to note, though, that until the end of the action window, the card - while moribund - is still under the control of someone other than the owner.

Question: If Pyat Pree attacks alone in a MIL challenge and wins, is the controller of Pyat Pree required to choose Blackwood Elite as target for the replaced MIL claim?

Answer: The “must be chosen for MIL claim, if able” text still applies when Pyat Pree’s controller is doing the choosing. So he would have to choose the Blackwood Elite. (from Nate, via E-Mail, 24-Sept-2014)

Far be it from me to disagree with Nate French, but I don't see how that follows. Once Pyat Pree's claim replacement effect takes place, isn't the claim type a null value? Or is it still MIL claim because it's the result of and during a MIL challenge? I guess I could see it that way.

Q: Where does the claim type come from in a normal, non-replaced challenge?

A: The type of challenge initiated.

Why would that change just because the way the claim effect resolves is changed by a replacement effect?

Far be it from me to disagree with Nate French, but I don't see how that follows. Once Pyat Pree's claim replacement effect takes place, isn't the claim type a null value? Or is it still MIL claim because it's the result of and during a MIL challenge? I guess I could see it that way.

It's in the CS rules. Claim is dependent on what type of challenge was *initiated*. Even if you change a MIL challenge's claim effect with Double Bluff, discarding cards/moving power would technically still count as "MIL claim".