Ost du roi Balon et mot-clé

Salut ! Quelques précisions donc sur l'ost du roi balon

texte a écrit:

Army, Ironborn No attachments except siege. Lower the cost to play King Balon's Host by 4 if you control a King or Queen character. While King Balon's Host is standing,opponent's characters lose all non-immunity keywords.

On est bien d'accord que si je donne 3 fois renom à un personnage (genre chevalier des fleurs + grand griffe + le pin's qui donne renom) et que l'ost est dressée il n'a pas de mot-clé, le nombre ne comptant pas et tous disparaissent ?

Il me semble que dans cette (épineuse) situation, le wording "lose all keywords" veut effectivement dire qu'il les perd tous, même s'il a 18478230 fois le même.

Par contre je me suis laissé dire qu'un wording du style "all characters lose stealth" ne faisait perdre la furtivité qu'une fois, donc qu'un perso qui l'a perdue ainsi peut la regagner avec un quelconque effet de carte... Mais je suis pas sûr à 100%

Tygrou a écrit:

Il me semble que dans cette (épineuse) situation, le wording "lose all keywords" veut effectivement dire qu'il les perd tous, même s'il a 18478230 fois le même.

Par contre je me suis laissé dire qu'un wording du style "all characters lose stealth" ne faisait perdre la furtivité qu'une fois, donc qu'un perso qui l'a perdue ainsi peut la regagner avec un quelconque effet de carte... Mais je suis pas sûr à 100%

Comme j'ai lu quelque part sur Agot (mais où ?) exactement l'inverse, j'en appelle à un rulebook

Martell de poitiers a écrit:

Tygrou a écrit:

Il me semble que dans cette (épineuse) situation, le wording "lose all keywords" veut effectivement dire qu'il les perd tous, même s'il a 18478230 fois le même.

Par contre je me suis laissé dire qu'un wording du style "all characters lose stealth" ne faisait perdre la furtivité qu'une fois, donc qu'un perso qui l'a perdue ainsi peut la regagner avec un quelconque effet de carte... Mais je suis pas sûr à 100%

Comme j'ai lu quelque part sur Agot (mais où ?) exactement l'inverse, j'en appelle à un rulebook

The clash of the noobs Enfin ouais, c'est exactement la situation dans laquelle le bon sens ne suffit pas à trancher...

Citation :

Don't forget that FFG has templated "all keywords" as 1 of each and "all of specific subset of keywords" as all of those type. Logical win.

Citation :

If it says "lose all keywords" that means one copy of each keyword is lost. If it says "lose all non-immunity keywords"(non-immunity is a subset of keywords), it literally means all copies of those keywords are wiped out even if you have more than 1 on a character.

Après, c'est un joueur qui dit ça, donc j'attends confirmation dans les FAQ ou errata divers

On fait simplement le compte des mots-clef : Si j'ai 2 fois renom et que je le perd une fois, il me le reste encore une fois. Comme pour la force ou les icônes.

Le ruling officiel est que tous les mots-clés non-immunités sont perdus, y compris ceux gagnés plusieurs fois.

Je vous invite à lire le poste de Ktom du 10 septembre 2012 à ce sujet:

Citation :

Sorry. This issue gets confusing because FFG has ruled it a number of ways in a number of situations and it gets confusing trying to keep them straight.

For example, we know that "gains all traits" is "gains each trait 1 time," not "gains each trait enough times that the card always has that effective trait." We know this because a "loses X trait" will counter-balance the character if it only has X trait by virtue of Rhaegar's Harp.

Similarly, we know there is a difference between "loses stealth" and "loses all stealth." The first can be overcome by enough "gains stealth" effects, the second cannot. (IIRC, there was a CCG card that really did say "loses all stealth.")

We also know that when a card like CS-Arya says "loses those keywords," referring to Stealth and Renown, that the character only loses once instance of the keyword and can be overcome by enough "gains stealth" or "gains renown" effects. (Relevance: what if she instead said "loses all those keywords"?)

However, we know that "loses all immunities" on cards like Den of the Wolf results in no immunity whatsoever, and cannot be overcome by any amount of "gains immunity" effects.



The common thread defining the difference seems to be what the "all" is referring to. If "all" is referring to a specific keyword or trait (ie, "immunity" - which really is a single keyword in the Core Set rule book, even though it comes in different "flavors" or variations on the cards), then the card keeps losing instances of that specific keyword so that it never has that effective keyword. However, if "all" is referring to keywords or traits as a collective "class" of card effects or characteristics, the card only loses a single instance, allowing the loss to be overcome with enough "gains" effects.

Condemned is kind of a pain because "all" modifies "traits" and "immunities" in different ways. It modifies "traits" as a collective, meaning that the card can "regain" a trait, but it modifies "immunities" specifically, or "individually" if you like, so that the card can never "regain" immunity.

The ruling on Balon's Host also creates a weird situation. Effectively, FFG has said that because it refers to "non-immunity keywords," that is specific enough to "single out" every keyword that is not immunity - resulting in the loss of keywords that cannot be overcome.

In short, I see a difference between Balon's Host and Pentoshi Manor. Balon's Host separates and singles out some keywords from others ("non-immunity"), then says to lose "all" of those particular keywords - so it cannot be overcome by any amount of "gains". The fact that the Manor lacks any sort of modification that singles out one or more particular keywords from "all keywords" means that it will act more like "all traits," which can be overcome by enough "gains".

Granted, I could be wrong, and it may be a mistake to look at "all (non-specific) keywords" the way that we would look at "all (non-specific) traits." But that's my reasoning. It might be a good idea to send it to FFG for an official word, given the difference in the way that "all traits" and "all keywords" have been treated historically.