FFG,

I am finding it hard to make any direct interpretation of rules based on the fact that terminology is often times inconsistent or not explained directly. An example of this issue is the terms "Initiated" and "Declared" as it pertains to challenges. On one hand we have the Title Crown Regent that has and ability to:

"After a player initiates a challenge and declares a target and attackers, you may use this title to make that player choose a new target for the attack! That player must choose a legal target." (The fact that both initiates and declares are used as two separated things in the sentence points to the fact that they are different in some way)

And on the other hand we have Varys who reads:

"...' Response: After an opponent declares a challenge, put Varys into shadow to redirect the challenge against an eligible opponent of your choice, ignoring any Title restrictions."

Now the reason this terminology inconsistency is an issue is when we look at things like Supporting.

"If your title supports another title, you cannot initiate challenges against the player holding that title."

Now I assume the designer's intent is to prevent you from Redirecting with the Crown Regent to someone who the Attacker Supports but as it is written it is very unclear as whether this is the case when reading the Rules of the game. Reason being that the core rulebook states (with no errata from the FAQ):

"...the first player may initiate one of each type of challenge."

and further states:

"First declare the type of challenge being initiated (military, intrigue, or power), and which player you are challenging. Then declare attackers by kneeling any number of your characters that have the corresponding challenge icon."

Which to me seems that the initiation is the first thing to happen. Initiation being a combination of the choosing of icon type and choosing a target for your attack. The second being the declaration of the attack by Declaring your attackers. If this is the case then when you use the Crown Regent you are only changing the target not the initiation and to recall the Support ruling only stated that initiation is the only thing prevented here.

​Now I know my argument here is weak but the real question here isn't what is correct in the ruling ( Although that would be helpful to know too) but rather that as it stands the terminology provided by FFG in this regard are inconclusive and can not be deduced by provided rules material. Terms must defined in this situation to come to a conclusion for future issues. Forums are nice but one cannot be expected to come to a forum to understand a core function of the game.

This terminology is only an example as there are many other that seem to continue to cause issues and prevent game play.

Thank you for reading and hopefully this issue and many other can be resolved.

-Iron-On Ghost

If you are sincere in your request that FFG clear up the inconsistent templates and terminology in its rules documents (and, admittedly, they are there), you should know that they rarely - if ever - respond to posts on the boards. The "open letter" format is unlikely to spark change. You might have more luck submitting your list of inconsistencies directly.

If this is the case then when you use the Crown Regent you are only changing the target not the initiation and to recall the Support ruling only stated that initiation is the only thing prevented here.

For the specific example, recall that there is language in the Core Set rules specifically stating that when directing, the player with Crown Regent "...must choose a legal target. If there are no other legal targets, the attack goes through against the original target." Whether or not the new target would be legal would include the rules on Support, so you can't get around the "may not initiate against" language by saying Crown Regent only changes the target.

Many of the inconsistencies, as annoying and/or confusing as they are, tend to "wash out" when applied within the larger timing windows and game structure - which may be one of the reasons FFG could be a little sloppy over the 10-year history of the game.