Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
43 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: Queen of Thorns question (remove supporting unit) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
pernunz z
msg tools
In our game tonight the final play was Tyrell attacking Kings Landing (Lannister) which was supported from the Sea by the Baratheons.

Tyrell played the Queen if Thorns card, to try remove the Baratheon support token from the game board.

The card states

"Remove one of your opponent's tokens from an area adjacent to the battlefield"

There was some confusion amongst the group, as to what the definition of an opponent is in this case. Had the support been from the Lannister house, then there would be no problem, but does the Opponent in a battle include support from a third party.

If so, I can imagine this card being significantly more powerful, as anyone declaring support against the Tyrells puts their support for future battles in that round at risk.

We need a neutral arbitrator (Bgk) to adjudged whether in this case, Tyrell can remove the Baratheon support token in a Tyrell vs Lannister battle when playing queen of thorns.

Thanks in advance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bear Claws
msg tools
Yeah I've had this happen in a game with my mates once. The answer is that your mate Joel wins. Better luck next time littlefinger!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Diego Garcia
Mexico
toluca
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe not; but this is a really interesting question. As i see it, there are just two contenders in a battle, but you can have support from other houses, but they can't take casualties as result of the battle, so i believe "The Oponent" for the purpose of the game is just the player in the territory you are attacking or if you are the defender the opponent would be the one attacking you. But if you put it as a logical matter, out of the game, someone supporting your enemy is also your opponent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Diego Garcia
Mexico
toluca
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry, that was a quick answer i should have reviewed the rules. well the answer is Yes, the queen of thorns can remove a supporting order froma another house
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Game Time
Australia
South Australia
flag msg tools
mb
Thank you Diego Garcia for your help, however I wasn’t able to find anything in the rule book that deals with this specific issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dypaca
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When a house card says opponent, it just means the other side of that battle, not anyone supporting the battle. I'm not sure if this ever got clarified in the 2nd edition rules or FAQ, but 1st Edition FAQ had this entry:
Quote:
Definition of “Opponent” on House Cards
Several House cards refer to an “opponent’s” units or
orders. (Such cards include “The Reader” and “Arianne
Martell” in A Clash of Kings, and “The Queen of Thorns”
in A Storm of Swords.) “Your opponent” means either the
attacker (if you are the defender) or the defender (if you
are the attacker), not players who are providing support.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Diego Garcia
Mexico
toluca
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First: i have the game in spanish and the rulebook is also in spanish. My rulebook defines an opponent as any other player that is not you. And never says anything about the word opponent in the house cards so for this reason i believe that a card saying. You may remove any order from an opponent adjacent to your territory let's you take out any order even if the owner it's not in the battlefield, for this reason i think that the answer is: the queen of thorns may remove any order from any house even if it's embattled or not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Game Time
Australia
South Australia
flag msg tools
mb
The 2nd edition FAQ has been updated to include everyone.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
roftie
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
dypaca wrote:
When a house card says opponent, it just means the other side of that battle, not anyone supporting the battle. I'm not sure if this ever got clarified in the 2nd edition rules or FAQ, but 1st Edition FAQ had this entry:
Quote:
Definition of “Opponent” on House Cards
Several House cards refer to an “opponent’s” units or
orders. (Such cards include “The Reader” and “Arianne
Martell” in A Clash of Kings, and “The Queen of Thorns”
in A Storm of Swords.) “Your opponent” means either the
attacker (if you are the defender) or the defender (if you
are the attacker), not players who are providing support.

Given the 2nd Ed. definition for opponent in the rulebook, this is not strictly true any more, although this can be problematic, and probably needs to be addressed in a FAQ.

Rulebook, p. 6 wrote:
Enemy/Opponent: Describes any game component or
area controlled by another player, or describes the rival
player himself.

Opponent means any player other than yourself. Usually which opponent is referenced on a house card is clear from the context of the wording (e.g. Mace Tyrell's "your opponent's attacking or defending Footmen" or Robb Starks's "the area to which your opponent retreats" can only refer to the direct opponent, i.e. attacker/defender). At other times it is not specified directly (see Patchface and Doran Martell, which I'm pretty sure are not intended to work on third parties providing support in the battle).

The only restriction that the Queen of Thorns seems to have, is that the Order token must be adjacent to the embattled area.

Compare Cersei's wording, which is essentially the same situation as the Queen of Thorns, except the opponent is specified explicitly (my emphasis added):

Cersei wrote:
If you win this combat, you may remove one of the losing opponent's Order tokens from anywhere on the board.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The wording on the card is also interesting. It says you can remove "your opponent's" Order token. If it could be used to remove the Order token of any of your opponents, it should be worded "your opponents'" Order tokens.

In other words, the position of the apostrophe means that you only have one opponent for the Queen of Thorns' effect.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
roftie
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
The wording on the card is also interesting. It says you can remove "your opponent's" Order token. If it could be used to remove the Order token of any of your opponents, it should be worded "your opponents'" Order tokens.

In other words, the position of the apostrophe means that you only have one opponent for the Queen of Thorns' effect.

I thought about that as well, but still am not sure whether the intention was to limit the order token that may be removed to those of the attacker/defender.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Diego Garcia
Mexico
toluca
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So maybe we should ask Christian Petersen what he thinks about it, or maybe Corey would know the true answer of this
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Hall
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have always interpreted it as your direct opponent in that battle (it is a battle card), not the broader category of other enemies. If I were umpire or mod in a PBF game, I would not permit removing orders from 3rd parties.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pernunz wrote:

The card states

"Remove one of your opponent's tokens from an area adjacent to the battlefield"

There was some confusion amongst the group, as to what the definition of an opponent is in this case. Had the support been from the Lannister house, then there would be no problem, but does the Opponent in a battle include support from a third party.


Rules p.6

Enemy/Opponent: Describes any game component or area controlled by another player, or describes the rival player himself.

Friend/Friendly: Game components or game board areas belonging to the same player.

The implication is that your units and lands are friendly, everything else is enemy/opponent
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dypaca
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Minedog3 wrote:
pernunz wrote:

The card states

"Remove one of your opponent's tokens from an area adjacent to the battlefield"

There was some confusion amongst the group, as to what the definition of an opponent is in this case. Had the support been from the Lannister house, then there would be no problem, but does the Opponent in a battle include support from a third party.


Rules p.6

Enemy/Opponent: Describes any game component or area controlled by another player, or describes the rival player himself.

Friend/Friendly: Game components or game board areas belonging to the same player.

The implication is that your units and lands are friendly, everything else is enemy/opponent

I don't deny that all the other players are opponents. I'm just saying that when a battle card (Queen of Thorns, Stannis, Doran, Patchface) refers to 'your opponent' it doesn't mean any opponent, just the one you are playing the card against.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pernunz z
msg tools
GameTime14 wrote:
The 2nd edition FAQ has been updated to include everyone.

This defines opponents in the game, not specifically for house cards. See my post below
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pernunz z
msg tools
"Opponent" on house cards

I will now go through each card in the game which mentions the word "opponent"

Arianne Martell: If you are defending and lose this combat, your opponent may not move his units into the embattled area. They return to the area from which they marched. Your own units must still retreat
This appears to be quite clear in opponent meaning that the opponent who battled you may not move into the embattled area.
Alternatively, it means no player may move his units into the embattled area for the rest of the turn.

Doran Martell: Immediately move your opponent to the bottom of one Influence track of your choice
This also appears to be quite clear in that you can only move the person who you are battling. Otherwise, this card becomes substantially more powerful in that you can move any player to the bottom of one influence track.

Robb Stark: If you win this combat, you may choose the area to which your opponent retreats. You must choose a legal area where your opponent loses the fewest units
As this specifically refers to combat, one must assume opponent means the house that is involved in the battle.

Salladhor Saan: If you are being supported in this combat, the combat strength of all non-Baratheon Ships is reduced to 0
This is a big one for me. Assuming "Opponent" means any other player, and this is a Baratheon House Card, why does it specifically say "non-Baratheon Ships" instead of "opponents ships", which is the standard wording for other cards.

Patchface: At the end of combat, you may look at your opponent's hand and discard one card of your choice
If opponent refers to the house involved in battle (which is the natural assumption) you can only choose to discard that from that particular house. However, if Opponent refers to anyone, then Patchface becomes even more powerful, as you can discard any card from any house

Stannis Baratheon: If your opponent has a higher position on the Iron Throne Influence track than you, this card gains +1 combat strength
If opponent refers to the other house in battle, then this card plays logically. If opponent refers to ANY other house, than assuming Baratheon is #2 on the Iron Throne Influence track, the Stannis Baratheon card always gains +1 combat strength

Cersei Lannister: If you win this combat, you may remove one of the losing opponent's Order tokens from anywhere on the board

On this card, it appears straightforward that this relates to the opponent who was in battle, as it clearly defines "losing opponent"

Tyrion Lannister: You may cancel your opponent's chosen house card and return it to his hand...
This obviously refers to the opponent in battle, as only they can play a house card

Balon Greyjoy: The printed combat strength of your opponent's House card is reduced to 0
As above

Mace Tyrell: Immediately destroy one of your opponent's attacking or defending Footmen units
If opponent relates to the battle area, this seems quite straightforward. If opponent refers to anyone, then Tyrell can remove a footman from anywhere on the board with a March or Defend order token placed on it.



It appears to me to be quite clear that in most of the cards, Opponent clearly refers to the troops in the combat area.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a great summary pernunz. Your analysis of Cersei is a little flawed as it does say 'losing opponent', which can't possibly apply to the other opponents, but the sheer number of other cards without qualifiers on 'your opponent' make the intention clear that it can only be the one you are battling.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pernunz z
msg tools
Clipper wrote:
That's a great summary pernunz. Your analysis of Cersei is a little flawed as it does say 'losing opponent', which can't possibly apply to the other opponents, but the sheer number of other cards without qualifiers on 'your opponent' make the intention clear that it can only be the one you are battling.

Yeah I was caught in 2 minds regarding Cersei. Because then what defines "losing". In that case it appears to be quite clear, but if you have an alternative definition of the word opponent then you could get wordsmiths arguing all day long. I've edited it accordingly.

Needless to say, I am the one who was Lannister in that game and stand to be claimed victor.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xavier A. Perez
Argentina
Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires
CABA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it's pretty clear from the context that opponent means the one you're battling against (defender or attacker).

If not, what difference does it make if the support was given or not?

Weather Baratheon was supporting Lannister or not, he is Tyrell's opponent RAW, so Tyrell could take away his support even when he has o stake on the battle, wich doesn't make sense.

Like pernunz said, every instance of the word opponent in House cards refer to the other guy in the combat.

Also the FAQ states:
Quote:
Q: If the Tyrell player chooses to use the “Queen of Thorns” House card to remove a Support Order from an adjacent area providing support in this combat, are the units in that adjacent area still counted when determining final combat strength?
A: No, Tyrell’s opponent does not add the strength of the supporting units in the area where the Support Order was removed. As per page 20
of the rulebook: “Some House card text abilities may cause a player’s initial combat strength to be recalculated.


Where, again, the word opponent is used to refer to the defender/attacker.

So I'd say it's quite certain that you can only remove an order token belonging to your adversary in that battle.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
roftie
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
GameTime14 wrote:
The 2nd edition FAQ has been updated to include everyone.

Could you provide a reference, please?

After checking the 1st Ed FAQ again, I concur that "opponent" in Queen of Thorns must refer to the attacker/defender. The FAQ specifically mentions the Queen of Thorns in ASOS as an example, and 2nd Ed's Queen of Thorns comes from that card, so the intention of the wording could not have changed.

The definition of "opponent" in the 2nd Ed rulebook is poor, since it is not defined clearly enough for all the game material that uses the word (e.g. house cards).

It must have been a misread of the apostrophe that coloured my understanding of the card. shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthias Krähenbühl
Switzerland
Galmiz
Fribourg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting thread.

Yesterday in our session we had a similar problem. Martel attacked baratheon. Stark supported baratheon and so it was impossible to win for martel. Martel however played doran an would drop stark down in one track. He argued that stark is now an opponent because he supported against him? I don't think this is leagal?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Radosław Michalak
Poland
Bytom
flag msg tools
Gaming is for having fun. Fun requires clear rules.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Question to FFG sent.
I'm sure "opponent" on House cards should refer only to that one player you're fighting with and that's what I always said to every player, but confirmation would be very desired.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Radziol wrote:
Question to FFG sent.
I'm sure "opponent" on House cards should refer only to that one player you're fighting with and that's what I always said to every player, but confirmation would be very desired.


I think in part the issue is that you are in fact fighting more than 1 player in a battle with other power supports.

Another scenario, if a player is attacked, can he/she remove the Order from an opponent that is totally uninvolved from the fighting. As an example, the Tyrell know they will lose and rout, but want to remove a March order from a 3rd party opponent to prevent a subsequent attack on their soon to be routed units. So it is a March order, but not the one creating the battle.

Personally I think 0 value card text should get a pretty wide degree of latitude. They are operating on a diplomatic level, rather than a tactical one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pernunz z
msg tools
Minedog3 wrote:
Radziol wrote:
Question to FFG sent.
I'm sure "opponent" on House cards should refer only to that one player you're fighting with and that's what I always said to every player, but confirmation would be very desired.


I think in part the issue is that you are in fact fighting more than 1 player in a battle with other power supports.

And this is the exact issue.

The 3 cards I think this directly affects are:
Doran Martell (Move opponent to bottom of one influence track)
Patchface (Look at your opponent's hand and discard one card of your choice)
And Queen of Thorns as discussed here.

If "opponent" can mean a player supporting a battle, then it becomes completely illogical for a player to support a battle against Martell, Baratheon, or Tyrell, as the potential negative effects are huge.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.