For the Watch and Intercept Orders interaction

[bohms27]

Curious on how this interaction works. Card was already attached to a unit. I claim swords with an NCU, target the unit with For the Watch attached. Replace the zone first (simultaneous action with intercept orders trigger), then Intercept Orders takes place.


1.) Since for the watch states "This unit" will intercept orders do anything?
2.) If Intercept Orders can force me to target a different unit, must that unit have For The Watch! attached?
3.) If the answer to #1 is Yes and the answer to #2 is no, then it must be a unit that can perform a legal charge, correct? Since it says "Performs a charge action" and not "May perform a charge action"
4.) Follow up to 3, if there's no legal charge other than the unit who has the card, what happens?

 

[TheRedGod]

This is a great question! Once For The Watch has replaced the effect, it reads like the NCU would be the one charging!

 

[Bluetate]

Quote from a previous Dev's answer:

...For The Watch triggers when the unit is targeted by the effect of the zone, whatever it may be. This is a very technical difference, but matters in some specific contexts. One example would be the Targaryen card "Field Control", which switches the, usually beneficial effect, to a negative. This is done when an NCU Claims the zone. In that specific event, Field Control would replace the zone effect upon being Claimed. If Jon's unit was subsequently targeted for the effect, it would then be (again) replaced by the For The Watch effect, effectively bypassing the Field Control negative.


Again, that is a technical example and really only becomes the case when a negative zone replacement effect comes into play, but still using as an example as to why the technical difference in steps matters.

Link to answer from another thread:
http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/showthread.php?69582-For-the-Watch-(Jon-Snow-Tactic-Card)


So to answer your questions:
1.) Since for the watch states "This unit" will intercept orders do anything? "Intercept order" happens before "For the watch" ever comes into play.
2.) If Intercept Orders can force me to target a different unit, must that unit have For The Watch! attached? No
3.) If the answer to #1 is Yes and the answer to #2 is no, then it must be a unit that can perform a legal charge, correct? Since it says "Performs a charge action" and not "May perform a charge action" No, "For the watch" changes the zone's effect for the unit it is attached to only. BUT, lets say you have 2 different units who have 'For the watch attached', you may target this other unit to trigger that unit's "For the watch" card and 'may replace that zone's effect' with the charge, with 'may' being the keyword; that unit does NOT have to charge and can instead choose to use the original effects of the swords or horse tactics zone. If there is no valid charge target, you cannot choose the charge option (pg. 16 of the rule book).
4.) Follow up to 3, if there's no legal charge other than the unit who has the card, what happens? To reiterate #3, you're forgetting the "May replace that zone's effect" trigger and are focusing on the latter part of it's ruling "This unit performs 1 charge action". The unit can still choose to "may make a free attack" or "may make a free maneuver/retreat".

 

[Yelraek]

Bluetate,

Your answer is all based on the premise that "when targets" is before "is targeted". I would say they are simultaneous but from different perspectives. Which puts the rest of your answer into question.

The answer is to please keep this forum for answers from CMON.

We have created a fan made area for players to discuss rulings, found on the Discord.

Cheers

 

[bohms27]

Agreed thanks Yelraek!

 

[Bluetate]

Welcome to the official Rules Questions Forum for A Song of Ice and Fire: The Tabletop Miniatures Game.

Before posting, please note the following:

• Community Members are encouraged to interact and provide answers as they please (though we suggest citing relevant Rulebook/FAQ entries).

Just interacting and providing relevant ruling from a previously answered thread by a dev, no less. I can see why these forums are empty :/

 

[Yelraek]

Just interacting and providing relevant ruling from a previously answered thread by a dev, no less. I can see why these forums are empty :/

My apologies if I made the community seem unwelcoming, I don't want that to be the case at all.

These forums are fairly empty right now because they just underwent a resurrection. The previous ones got a little bit chaotic. We love discussion and banter in the Discord. I just think a lot of the community wants to keep this area easy to reference.

Cheers