Stealth vs naval defender

By joecana, in 2. AGoT Rules Discussion

I have Jhogo (core) in play with attachment Jhogo's Whip

I declare Jhogo as attacker.

Opponent "Fleet from Wolf's Den" declare naval defender

Jhogo Stealth "Fleet from Wolf's Den"

Opponent declare another defender

My action: I trigger Jhogo's Whip ability to remove the 2 defenders out from current challenge.

My question is: Could "Fleet from Wolf's Den" again declare naval defender to jump into the challenge again?

My default answer is NO.

Since it has been Stealth.

Tks

Exactly.

I declare Jhogo as attacker.

Opponent "Fleet from Wolf's Den" declare naval defender

Jhogo Stealth "Fleet from Wolf's Den"

This could never happen, as Stealth happens BEFORE defending characters are declared. You cannot Stealth a character once it has been knelt/declared as a defender.

You have the opportunity to declare a naval defender before stealth is declared.

Kuaui1964, in this case you're wrong, I'm afraid.

Since the Fleet from Wolf's Den was declared as a Naval Defender prior to stealth, the entire sequence outlined by the original poster is correct. You can stealth an already-defending character, and this is one of the situations in which it would be to your advantage.


Kuaui1964, in this case you're wrong, I'm afraid.

Since the Fleet from Wolf's Den was declared as a Naval Defender prior to stealth, the entire sequence outlined by the original poster is correct. You can stealth an already-defending character, and this is one of the situations in which it would be to your advantage.

This makes Poisoned Knife a little interesting against a declared Naval defender.

Attached character gains stealth.

Response: After attached character declares stealth, discard the bypassed character from play unless its controller kneels 1 influence or pays 1 gold to the treasury.

It is also a little amusing that you can stealth passed a character that is already engaging you in the challenge when stealth is supposed to be sneaking passed unseen. :-)

Sorry,

In conclusion, is the poster's scenario valid?

Thanks thanks

Yes, he was correct.