Ratatoskr said:

However, if people argue with that reasoning in the scenario you describe, just tell them you are playing "Little and Less" in the Response Step of the "change active player" framework action window.

I believe it skips all the way down to the Framework Action "Active player is finished with challenges".    You cannot enter Framework Action windows that are dependent on preceding actions I believe, otherwise removing all attacking characters from a challenge before Stealth is declared would still allow you to declare defenders(or a challenge fizzling will still allow you to respond to challenge resolution).  Consider the challenge resolution window.  It has an arrow pointing up to the top Player Action.  If you declare no challenge, then you would reach this window and thus be able to have another Challenge opportunity by following the arrow.  You cannot follow this arrow if this Framework Action window is skipped by not declaring a challenge type and attackers.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain the act of "declaring no challenge" just skips you down to the "Active player is finished with challenges" window.

Bomb said:

ktom said:

That doesn't work if the Active Player is the First Player, though, does it? There is no distinct FAW in which the FP becomes the Active Player; he does so during the "Beginning of the Phase" FAW.

Ratatoskr said:

Maybe I misunderstood your example. What I thought you were going for was this:

1. FAW for "Challenge Phase Begins" (you could use Little and Less here, but no one does) - First Player is Active Player
2. Player Action Window: No one triggers anything (so no Step 5 - "Little and Less" cannot be triggered)
3. FAW for "Active Player Initiates Challenge" - Active Player says "no challenge"

Now, if we assume that FAWs where nothing is initiated don't happen (which is probably not the case, but we're pretending), when the Active/First Player says "no challenge" in #3, not only is there no Step 5, but there are no challenges. If you PASS on an opportunity to declare a challenge, that's it: You don't get any more challenges during that phase. So the next FAW you get to (we're assuming no Player Actions) is "Active Player done, next player becomes active player."

That FAW will have a Step 5. You can play "Little and Less" as the status of Active Player transitions from the first player to the next. But the First Player is done with challenges. Isn't that you you were going for? First Player declares no challenges, but Little and Less is played before the next player has a chance to declare attackers in their first challenge? (Because with my luck, they'd attack with Brienne….)

ktom said:

but someone told me that  "little and less" only prevent  the Event Cards , they have received the mail form ffg

snowfrost said:

There has been quoted a message from Damon in this very thread that says otherwise (reply #7). I suggest you post the exact queation that was asked and the exact answer here. Until then, this is just hearsay.

 reply from ffg:

It only prevents the player from playing responses, that is triggering a response effect from hand. Any response ability on a card in play is still able to be triggered.

Then FFG needs to figure it out amongst themselves and answer the question again because that is in direct conflict to the answer FFG sent to Bomb.

 Who from FFG replied with that answer? I still have my email from Damon Stone if you would like me to forward it to you.

Damon Stone just emailed me this today without me asking for the correct interpretation:

"Sorry I should have been more clear when I sent this to you, this is specifically from hand.

You play cards from your hand that covers all "using, triggering, activating" etc. common words that might be associated with the act. Cards are played or put into play. This term only ever refers to a card that originates from your hand."

So, snowfrost has received the correct interpretation from FFG.  I literally quoted both my original question and the reply I received from Damon earlier on in this thread so I guess it wasn't entirely clear to any of us here.  It's a good thing snowfrost asked again.

That being said, my new opinion of Little and Less is that it is now only about 30% as effective as my original opinion of it.  This will only limit response events and cards like Catelyn Stark(LoW), Blood Riders, Khal Drogo(core).   Sure, this is anti-Stark murder and anti-Martell revenge, and I think it's still excellent protection in a Melee game, but this is no longer a card to strongly consider for deck building in Joust.  Maester decks will still be able to capitalize on chain attachments.

 wow I'm so disappointed with this. 

Bomb said:

Sorry about this.  She's not a response so I made a mistake.  You get my point though…..

So Little and Less would prevent Ser Aerys Oakheart's response, correct?  But anything already in play is fair game?  Like Samwell Tarly?  How about Castellan, I assume it couldn't trigger off itself, but any other Lanny character or location played after the Castellan is in play can trigger him?

@Bomb: Catelyn Stark (LoW) doesn't have a response, but a "Challenges" action.

@Crevic: it wouldn't prevent any of these, as these cards are already in play when the response is triggered.