"If you control at least 1 Kngsguard character, claim 1 power for your House each time you successfully defend a challenge.

Each time you lose a challenge as the attacker, kneel a standing Kingsguard character you control or discard 1 power from your house"

So how do you guys play it? I've always played it that if you win as defender you claim 1 power (having a kingsguard)

But having a second look, wouldn't you claim the power if you declare defenders….."succesfully defend"…..especially since the second paragraph says "Each time you lose a challenge as the attacker" and the first one doesn't say "claim 1 power for your house each time you win a challenge as the defender"

Just wondering…

Interesting.

My assumption (and everyone I've played) has always been that "successfully defend" referred to winning on the defense. That said, this is the *only* example of any card that refers to the word "successfully". The core rules say that if you win a challenge as the defender, you are considered to have "successfully stopped the challenge against your house", which isn't the same thing.

Given that there's specific requirement to be considered "defending", and you can fail at that requirement (Core rules: "Your opponent must declare at least 1 defending character in order to be considered defending against a challenge.") by not declaring a defender, there's a reasonable case to be made that by declaring a defender you have "successfully defended".

I strongly suspect this was not the designer intent… but given how unplayable the agenda is, it'd be an interesting way to play it. Doing so would cause some odd interactions with naval, which raises a question of the timing - the most logical would be to award a power as a passive after the determine winner framework action.

Thats exactly what i meant!!! It's clearly not the intention but when this appeared there was less problems with templates and changing of rulings…. it could go either way and it would be very funny….and maybe strong??

….btw, i reread this because of naval since it's easier to defend without stealth now if you can naval big strength chars.

this is winterfell: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/1281656500/med_gallery_6_102637.jpg

the text box difference is really interesting.

I do think however that this is just another phrasing **** up from FFG. if they intended the white book to work as a thirst for blood on steroids it would have said ''everytime you oppose a challenge''

How strong would it be if it was the way it's clearly not intended???

good question. kingsguard is probably the weakest agenda right now, but this buff would be huge. it's like permanent thirst for blood for your house card.

Rules link it!

As a TO - Traditional intepretation is currently winning a challenge as the defender.

As a rules lawyer - TAKE MY MONEY!!! Oh wait… That meme makes no sense here…