S S
Belarus
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thinking about Fealty agenda profitability for Lannisters, I faced with the question - does Fealty reduce the The Queen's Assassin's cost using Ambush? Fealty reduces the cost of the loyal card you marshal or play, but what cost is meant - only printed (2 in the case) or any payed as well (4 for Ambush in the case)?
No answers found in RR and through the forum topics.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Conor Hickey
Ireland
Dublin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ambush in the RRG: 'Ambush is a keyword ability. A player may, as a player
action during the challenges phase, pay gold equal to the (X) value of a card with ambush to put that card into play from his or her hand. A card that enters play using ambush is not considered to have been marshaled.'

When you use Ambush you're putting the card into play, as distinct from playing or marshaling it, so Fealty will not work to reduce Ambush.

More here: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/27555-ambu...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S S
Belarus
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
While I agree that "putting into play" is not marshaling (as it stated by RR), I wonder why it can't be considered as playing?
As well as Ambush description stating "card that enters play using ambush is not considered to have been marshaled", but there's nothing said that such card is not considered to have been played.
Still doubt that, more thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Conor Hickey
Ireland
Dublin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There's also nothing that says that a card that had been put into play via Ambush has been 'played'.

In pretty much all FFG LCGs to date, there is a distinction between 'put into play' and 'play', with the former usually allowing you to bypass costs or some sort of restriction, and the latter involving paying the cost(s) and playing the card.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S S
Belarus
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So everything depends on interpretation the word "to play" in terms of AGoT:TCG2. Unfortunately, there is no definition to such fundamental term in RR to avoid any misunderstanding...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The term "play a card" only ever refers to events. Every other card is marshalled (or "put into play"). For example on pg 30, the gold cost of a card is the cost to "marshall a card or play an event". The definition of Ambush says "put into play" and never "play", so this one is pretty clear to me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
X X
United States
California
flag msg tools
Although there is no terms in RR, if you are carefully enough you will notice that the only card type are considered to be played is events. RR and learn to play never use the word "play" on any other types of cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

This wording is from the rules for 1e. Why it's been omitted for 2e is curious:

(4.4) "Play" and "Put into Play" Character, Location, and Attachment cards are “played” from the hand during the marshalling phase, by taking a player action and paying their gold cost.
Event cards are “played” by placing the card on the table, paying the specified cost, and triggering the effect.
"Put into play" effects are not considered to be "played." Similarly, when a card is "put into play," it does not trigger any "when played" effects, and vice versa. Both, however, would trigger effects that occur when a card "comes into play” or “enters play.”


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
X X
United States
California
flag msg tools
It's different from 1.0. In 1.0 there is no "marshal", while all cards are played regularly.

In 2.0, characters, locations and attachments are marshaled, and events are played. The only strange thing is the missing of the term "play" in RR.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

andrewaa wrote:
It's different from 1.0. In 1.0 there is no "marshal", while all cards are played regularly.
OK, I know this is getting besides the point, but now I'm confused, especially after reading this in the 1st Edition's rules:

"Marshalling Actions
Even though actions always pass back and forth between players, the types of actions that can be taken during the marshalling phase are a special exception.
During the marshalling phase, only the active player may marshall cards with a gold cost printed in its upper left corner. (A printed gold cost of 0 is still considered a gold cost.)
"

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Przemysław Rodzoń
Poland
flag msg tools
mb
There is no missing of terminology. As stated before:
"Play" only refers to events, and (for now) only events can be "played". This is one and only description of "play".
"Marshall" is used for characters, locations and attachments in the same way.
They both more-less mean: "pay gold value (and any extra costs), then put card in play".

1st ed. was 1st ed. and had it's own rules. No need to go back there, applying old rules only makes understanding new rules problematic.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

uday_pgr wrote:
"Play" only refers to events, and (for now) only events can be "played". This is one and only description of "play".
Please cite a reference. (And BTW, any use of the word, "play", or "played" under "Event Cards" doesn't do anything to define the term, "Play")

uday_pgr wrote:
1st ed. was 1st ed. and had it's own rules. No need to go back there, applying old rules only makes understanding new rules problematic.

I only mentioned the 1e rules as they took the time to define "play", whereas 2e doesn't. I wasn't attempting at all to infer that the 1e rules are applicable to 2e - I don't think I said that. I was merely showing that 1e took the time to define "play" while 2e does not. And thusly the definition of "play" for 2e is left open to interpretation only. As such, I felt it might be useful for this thread to mention how 1e defined the word.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Even if using ambush counted as playing a card (which it doesn't), Fealty reduces the cost (i.e. that number in the corner). When you ambush, you aren't paying that cost anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

MasterDinadan wrote:
... Fealty reduces the cost (i.e. that number in the corner).
I know this is going off topic, but I'm feeling feisty ...

The cost you're talking about is the gold cost of a card. I agree that Fealty is most probably addressing a card's gold cost when it says, "...to reduce the cost of the next loyal card..."

But could there be cases when it may apply to other costs as well? As covered under "Cost" on page 5 of the RR, costs also include the "do X to do Y" construct. I believe Ambush qualifies as a "Do X to do Y" cost (Pay X gold to put that card into play). So you are paying a cost when you ambush. OK, that's the off-topic portion. Now to get back on topic...

However, like you and others above, I also agree of course that Fealty does NOT apply to Ambush for the reason that you don't "marshal" or "play" an ambush card (hence the discussion just above wrt the definition of"play").

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S S
Belarus
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you guys for such long-thread clarification, I see your point and agree that Fealty can't reduce the cost of the Ambush (even without having "Play/played" properly determined).

One more interesting question regarding to this Fealty agenda. I read:
"Kneel your faction card to reduce the cost of the next loyal card you marshal or play THIS PHASE by 1". And I wonder - why "this phase" have been used? To prevent using the ability in the next round (prepaid with discount)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's probably more for practical reasons so you don't have to remember (and if it didn't say this phase, it probably would say this turn).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:


But could there be cases when it may apply to other costs as well? As covered under "Cost" on page 5 of the RR, costs also include the "do X to do Y" construct. I believe Ambush qualifies as a "Do X to do Y" cost (Pay X gold to put that card into play). So you are paying a cost when you ambush. OK, that's the off-topic portion. Now to get back on topic...

I get what you are saying, but that would be the cost of the ability and not the cost of the card.
If you had any effect that said, for example, discard a card to gain gold equal to its cost, and you discarded Magister Illyrio, you could not really argue that i should only gain two gold. Illyrio's ability costs 2 gold, but Illyrio himself costs 5 (I think!)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S S
Belarus
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you, Pat, your clarification is comprehensive.

Sadly, the further we advance in the Fealty-related thread, the less reasons to choose that agenda I see.

Citizen Badger wrote:
If it was just blanket until end of round, the first thing you would do practically every round would be kneel your House card because there's no downside to waiting later, there's no real thought involved. Do it now and get the bonus whenever, or if ever, it applies and if it doesn't oh well. There's no penalty for calling it wrong with an until end of round effect, there is for an until end of phase.
In case of "until end of the round" effect duration the limitation would be word "next" (so only the next one loyal card would gain discount). Additionally, the knelt faction card limit your in other cards' abilities until the end of this round (e.g. Wildling Horde). But these remarks don't matter as we have "this phase" printed and perfectly clarified by you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

MasterDinadan wrote:
... but that would be the cost of the ability and not the cost of the card.
OK, I can see that. Fair enough.

Thx!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Citizen Badger wrote:
It isn't most probably addressing, it is addressing. Gold Cost and Cost are synonymous. In the same way that Draw Deck and Deck are synonymous, but Plot Deck and Deck are not synonymous. Draw Deck is the default, so the short hand refers to it always, and anything referring to a different deck will use a specific call out. If an effect says draw/search/play a card/etc from your Deck it always means your Draw Deck. ...
Similarly, if an effect references a card's cost, that means the Gold Cost. If an effect wanted you to reference an ability cost, it will specifically call out Ability Cost.
You know, I see where you're coming from, and from a sensical POV, I agree with you. But while your explanation of how "deck" and "draw deck" are synonymous is actually written in the rules, your claim that "cost" and "gold cost" are synonymous is not supported by the rules - that I could find.

While linking the term, "cost" to "Gold Cost" by default certainly makes sense, I'm unwilling to jump to that conclusion given how careful FFG is in specifically defining their game terms. Think about it - they took great care to specifically write that "Deck" and "Draw Deck" are synonymous. But despite a glossary entry for "Costs" which consumes half of a column, they don't mention nor infer that same linkage for "Cost" and "Gold Cost". Nor is there any mention of, "ability cost" that I could find.

So if you have a reference, I'd love to be corrected on this one (seriously)! Because when a set of rules takes great care to define just about every term used in a game, that alone infers that the designers want to leave as little room as possible for interpretation. Many games' rules leave the door wide open for interpretation. My sense is that FFG's LCG rules do not - which is why I like them so much (I thrive on clarity).

And please take this in the spirit of have a great conversation - I'm not trying to poke, incase it's coming across as such.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls