During our game last night, we had a serious disagreement about the interpretation of the Salladhor Saan house card. Forgive me that the game is at my friend's house, so I don't have it to get exact names and wording.

Background: My friend was playing Martell, I was Baratheon. He attacked me in a sea territory. I had a support order on an adjacent sea territory I also owned, and used that ship to add to my defenses. I played my Salladhor Saan house card. The text reads (paraphrase as best I can remember):

"If you are being supported in this combat, the combat strength of all non-Baratheon ships is reduced to zero."

Two points of argument came up:

1) I feel that "being supported" means if you have forces on your side that resulted from ANY support order, including your own. My friends playing Lannister and Stark disagreed and thought it meant another player had to be supporting me for the card to take effect.

2) I read it as my Martell opponent's ships all now have zero strength, which would have given me the victory, and if there had been any other player's ships involved on his side or mine, they would also be reduced to zero. Lannister and Stark players read it all as one sentence and think it means if they gave me support, the card would make their ships zero, and does not have any effect on your opponents ships (as in other words, there is an implied your in the second clause so that it's "YOUR non-Baratheon ships is reduced to zero." Needless to say, I strongly disagree with that interpretation (and I think it's worth noting that Martell, the person who was actually affected by this, agreed with me). They argued, correctly, that not all House cards actually benefit you all the time, and that some used at the wrong time can actually hurt you. One of the challenges of the game is selecting the right card at the right time.

To further bolster my argument, I pointed out that the character is Salladhor Saan-the pirate. My theory is the reason it reduces my opponent's strength is the pirate on my side is off raiding all his ships and sinking them. Stark countered that argument by saying that a pirate is loyal to no one and can't be trusted, which might be why playing him could actually hurt me.

Who is correct?

You are.

From the FAQ:

Q: If a House card’s text ability requires a player to
be supported (or not be supported), does this support
have to come from only that player’s own units?

A: No, the support can come from either that
player’s own units or those of another House that
has chosen to support him.

Hi (excuse me for my english, I'm not american)

You're right (in my point of view and all my friends),

your own support does take into account! You have always the choice to support or not yourself. For exemple with the expansion dance with dragon, the card Stannis bartheon says ''you could remove all the supports around the area (in this case, even the baratheon supports have to be removed) if you're not supported!'' That means that you have to choose if you support yourself or not and if you ask for supports from someone else.That means that if you are supported by another friend or yourself is the same, so even with sallandhor you support is okay.

They always indicate clearly if the support has to come from you or another player like in one of the new stark card.

I agree with the above posts. Being supported by yourself is still being supported.

With regard to the other interpretation that 'all non-Baratheon ships' would somehow just refer to the non-Baratheon ships on your side, this is more than slightly silly. The card negates the combat strength of ALL of the non-Baratheon ships involved in the combat (including supporting ships), on both sides.

You are correct that this card represents Salador being a pirate and doing pirate things, i.e. raiding other player's ships.

Your friend is ALSO correct, that, as a pirate, his loyalty isn't all that dependable. That is why he effects the ships of ALL non-Baratheon players, not just those supporting your enemy. He's sworn to Stannins, so he won't raid his ships, but that won't stop him raiding the ships of Stannis' temporary allies.

I need a more Black & White response to this, without the fluffy stuff.

Does this card cancel out the ENEMY (attacking/defending non-Baratheon player) ship strength? Or does it only apply to the Baratheon player's supporting ships that are NOT Baratheon?

If you base the understanding of this card on Sentence structure it is that the Subject is Support (because it's supporting ships) and the Verb is Combat (as the predicate) then it would seem to imply, within the context of the same sentance, that the affected player is Baratheon because the card begins "If you are being..." You = Baratheon, correct?

Thus, my understanding is ONLY Baratheon player is affected by this, including any units supporting Baratheon.

Alternatively, if I am wrong, this card implied anyone not Baratheon.

However; since the person attacking/defending against Baratheon is NOT lending THEIR support, they can not be affected.

Need more clarification.

"If you are being supported in this combat, the combat strength of all non-Baratheon ships is reduced to zero."

All means ALL. Yours & Opponents.

If Baratheon is receiving Support (from himself or another player), then the only ships that count their Strength on either side of the combat are Baratheon ships.