1. At the start of the game, are Agendas revealed at the same time? I'm using The House of Dreams with The Iron Throne (always win dominance), but if my opponent plays Brotherhood without Banners I'm thinking of bringing Eastwatch-by-the-Sea instead. So timing of revealed Agendas is important in this case.

2. With Storm's End in the game (after winning dominance, instead of claiming 1 power for your House, claim 2 power on 2 different Baratheon characters) and Melisandre (double power for dominance) do I claim 4 power and distribute it among characters? This does sound a little over the top, yet it looks like that.

I'm not sure, but I think it has been ruled that the first player (randomly decided before anything is revealed) has to reveal everything (House, Agenda, other information linked to the Agenda) before the other reveals anything. The alternative is that houses and agendas are revealed at the same time and linked information is revealed one player at a time.

A more careful reading will tell you that the power you claim for Melisandre's passive is not "for dominance" and is therefore not affected by Storm's End. So you end up with 3 more power, 2 of which are on different Baratheon characters and the last one on your house card.

Khudzlin said:

1 - From the Core Set rules:

Declare your House and agenda
Randomly determine which player will be the first player. This player now announces which House card and agenda (if any) he or she will use for this game. Then all opponents, in clockwise order, do the same. Note that more than one player may play the same House and agenda.

2 - This has always been problematic for me. For reference:

Storm's End - " If you win dominance, instead of claiming 1 power for House, you may claim 1 power each for 2 different House Baratheon characters. "

Melisandre - " Claim 1 additional power when you win dominance, and when you win an unopposed Intrigue or Power challenge. "

Note that Storm's End replaces the standard Dominance framework of "Claim 1 power." So when claiming one additional power, what happens? Does it go on your character or your house card? Does each character claim 2 power or 1?

To try and put it simply because I'm busy at work today:

Melisandre's ability has no direct relationship to what is done with the power you normally would claim for winning dominance. All she has you do is claim 1 power as long as you win dominance.

mdc273 said:

because mel just lets you claim an additional power, her ability is not affected by your decision regarding storm's end.

if you choose to use storm's end's ability, you would claim one power each on 2 different [bara] characters and 1 to your house for mel's ability.

the agenda thing can be tricky. I've usually seen it played where the agendas and house cards are revealed in a specific order, and then the first player gets to choose who does which "when you reveal… as your agenda…" in what order… kinda like plot cards

The Agenda part is important. Both Agendas are first revealed, and then they do what they do? Or as I reveal my Agenda (in this instance HoD) I immediately say which location I'm bringing on the table, even before my opponent reveals his? This is probably irrelevant in most cases, though important at times.

As for Mel, I don't think it should work with Storm's End for 4 power, yet the wording leaves some room for doubt I believe. Since Mel says "claim 1 additional power for dominance…" isn't this extra power still dominance? In this case, it would work with Storm's End.

Thanos Voidseeker said:

right. Mel's ability works with Storm's End to claim a total of 3 power. 2 for Storm's End (1 power each on 2 different Baratheon characters)… that replaces your normal claim of 1 power on your house card… then Mel's passive kicks in, causing you to claim 1 additional power because you won dominance… for a total of 3.

stormwolf27 said:

But where does that additional power go? Most cards that claim power specify where it goes. Mel's ability isn't claim 1 additional power for your house. I'll do the rules link for confirmation once my current inquiry comes back. I agree it should be on the house, but the text is too vague for me to agree 100%.

@OP - Yes. Whe you reveal HoD you must do the search. It's actually pretty bad now that you point it out. I find it unfair for Stark Bear Island. That'll probably be another question for Damon because I may not play HoD any more if that is in fact the case. I play Stark Bear Island, lol.

mdc273 said:

If a card does not specify power claim destination, then by default it gets put on your house. Remember, the card is speaking to the owner, so it is telling "you" to claim the power. Since "you" are not really a card(and you will not put power tokens on your head), your house card represents "you".

Your uncertainty means you are suggesting that there must be another destined possibility for where to put this power.

Bomb said:

Is that anywhere officially? It's a good explanation and I'm gonna use it, but I don't remember ever actually seeing it.

I don't know. ktom has said it before and it makes the most sense. I could provide another point but don't feel like it because it will only provide you with something else that you'd want proven and I don't have the energy to defend it.

Bomb said:

LoL. One of the reasons that I object so vehemntly to claims that are not cited is that without citation, nephyte TOs are left with no other explanation than "the boards say so". This is very bad for FFG from a marketing standpoint. When I took a break from this game, it was part that the game was broken from my perspective. It was unfun. The fact that rules were arbitrary and many of the complicated rulings were just player consensus was the other part. While player consensus is fine from the perspective of actually operating tournaments for a TO, it will leave anyone with a desire for a more technical explanation unsatisfied.

Let's look at my bulls*%$ on the Blood Magic Ritual thread. Everyone disagrees with me. I don't really care. The issue is that everyone is making an assumption that Blood Magic Ritual works like all the other Shadows attachments. I am railing against that assumption. If a neophyte TO comes to the boards and just rules the consensus, what happens to the guy who knows the rules and disagrees? It's possible nothing, it's possible he could get pissed and never play the game again. My arguing the opposite now gives the TO ammo to fight back with. Instead of "the boards say so" he can now say "yes, that has been argued, but the consensus among players is that it works like this and there is currently no official ruling from FFG". Now the player may still decide they hate the game, but that TO has done all in his power to give a satisfactory answer to the new player.

I argue to decrease the chances of losing new players for hating the rules of this game for being below average in their construction and, believe me, they are below average in construction. I have never played a card game where a rules question comes up from even the most experienced players on a day-to-day if not game-to-game basis. There is no reason for a new player to play this game if they feel Magic is a viable alternative and far less fiddly. My arguing is to make it so that TOs have the ability to explain that the fiddliness of the rules is not a knock on the game, but due to the complex nature of the rules and the timeframe that it takes FFG to publish its FAQ. When you remove the ability for a player to quit because the game is too "fiddly", you increase the chance that any type of player with that issue will play the game. I want a player to look at this game and look at Magic and decide that this is the superior game even with the ruleset as fiddly as it can be at times. A positive and satisfactory experience is paramount in making that happen.

This is probably going to go south on me… but

rant/

I think a more accurate description is that everyone is assuming you are being argumentative. If your intent is to help new players then, DUDE - TL;DR to infinite proportions. If you think a wall of text where you argue every single picayune point of every established rule SOMEHOW helps new players… you and I have VERY different definitions of the word "help."

Am I frustrated? Yes. Why? Because the rules forum is DESIGNED to help new players and to help us locate answers… your constant overreaching has done nothing more than make it MORE DIFFICULT to find out how game mechanics work. IT IS NOT EASIER THIS WAY.

I am nobody. But my frustration has mounted to the point where it is hard to stay silent. I've gotten to the point where I just end up rolling my eyes when I see your user name on a post. Which is sad, because you can actually be helpful and you can add to conversation. It's just when you force everybody to prove every jot and tittle to YOUR satisfaction that I grow weary.

/rant

As a TO, you do not have to justify your rulings. That doesn't mean a brief explanation isn't always something worth giving. There isn't enough time to prove cases and go look up forum posts, FAQ entries(where some are open to interpretation), and other documentation at the time a ruling must be made. That being said, sometimes this game doesn't have to be played like you are a magic robot or a perfectly developed algorithm.

doulos2k said:

TL:DR - This thread has been hi-jacked by me waxing philosophical. Nothing to see here. Sorry OP!

LoL. I like that you think it's going to go south on you. I generally only get pissed at trolls and intentional a%$#^@%$, though. I respect people who are honest with themselves and others without malice. Responses, like in this thread, are me trying to generate understanding because lack of understanding is what causes all miscommunications. It's also very difficult to explain things, especially incredibly complicated things, on a forum. In real life it would be more like:

"What does this rule say?" "Card does not enter play"
"Okay, so Blood Magic Ritual brings back the dead character and then attempts to attach to it right?" "Right"
"Does it succeed?" "No"
"Does it enter play?" "Yes"
"But this rule says that if it doesn't successfully attach, it doesn't enter play, right?"

And then the discussion would go on from there. It would take like five days just to establish that one thing with my posting habits and then we might still have all the argumentation that follows it.

I'm not going to totally change my modus operandi, but I will definitely consider how I can better serve someone like you for who a shorter, concise, "I'm a TO. I just want to know what the current ruling is." I do feel it's partially my fault as my arguments solely focus on game theory and I often ignore how a TO should rule under current concensus, but no one asks the questions with that specificity.

For example, Darknoj didn't start with "As TOs, how should we be ruling that Blood Magic Ritual works?". I don't give a s$%#. Someone decide and I'll agree to rule that way. He instead asked "How would Blood Magic Ritual work on a No Attachments character? Basicly it sounds like The character would enter play, the attachment would leave play and the character would stay in play". That is a game theory question that must be derived from current rules and rulings and is currently impossible without intervention from Damon. Common sense is what TOs should be using to grease the skids on cards like this in play, but you don't grease the skids at a foundational level. You f%*$* fix the **** foundation. Yes, I would probably argue with the answer either way, but saying "I just want to decide on a TO ruling." will shut me up in that regard and everyone can move along except those interested in the actual theory/rules lawyer aspect.

The worst part is that there are often times where people, usually Bomb and Khudzlin, are aware of the actual rule to which is the proper reference. So if I rules link it, I'm just wasting FFG's time on a stupid question. I could've just posted on the forums and gotten the straight up, no assumptions, this is in the rules answer. But getting to that point is often a pain because everyone already operates under a MASSIVE set of assumptions and when someone calls those assumptions into question, it's rocking the boat way too much. The Sons of the Mist conundrum is a great example. Ktom assumed it was right. It wasn't, but he would argue his point with conviction due to it always having been right before even though it wasn't an actual rule. No one had ever challenged him on it. Equally so for his explanation on why immune to attachment characters are immune to Dragon Fear. I think at some point I asked if the immunity was based on being the subject of the effect and he said no. Then Damon said "yes, it was due to being the subject" (paraphrased) when I rules linked it. And yes, I just complimented Bomb and Khudzlin, who I am usually arguing with endlessly. I have a great amount of respect for them because they usually try to be very clear and accurate in what they say and often times have the right reference to make me feel better.

I appreciate the level-headed response, Doulous, even if you didn't think it was. I say things. Sometimes they're stupid things. Just call the bull and laugh with me. It's much easier and I generally laugh at my own stupidity.

Hey… It wasn't that long, was it?

mdc273 said:

Okay - that made me laugh. Thanks for taking it in stride… I think I was more frustrated than warranted overall… but, alas, there you have it.