Such a weight to carry

[macheteman]

if i have the one ring, such a weight to carry, can i add a burden to wear the one ring. and then pay the cost again even though i can't use the effect? and again and again and again?

-mm

[ket_the_jet]

Yes. Have fun with your Shire Countryside deck.
-wtk

[Kralik]

Indeed.

Same with Answer to All Riddles.

[Witchkingx5]

When I saw this topic, I remember an old MtG Card, which says:
" (...): You may make the opponent next move. (You're opponent doesn't loose life with Mana Brun and you can't resign for your opponent."

Would be nice to have such a card in LotR, too!!!

[Marcoliboar]

Yes. Have fun with your Shire Countryside deck.
-wtk

That can't be right.

If he's wearing the one ring he can't wear it again...

Just my opinion.

[jdizzy001]

No, he can't wear it again, but you can add burdens since it is a maneuver action.  We've had discussions similar to this before.

[Marcoliboar]

Well, then there should be some kind of ruling against this.

[ket_the_jet]

Well, then there should be some kind of ruling against this.

Why? He is paying the cost of something for no effect. This happens all the time. Most of the time it takes place with the playing of a card for no effect, example:

Maneuver: Spot an Orc, play Terrible As the Dawn (whether or not you can spot Galadriel).

Great for cycling...because it is a maneuver action, you are welcome to add a burden to put on the Ring (and then subsequently add burdens for no effect) as much as you want.
-wtk

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

Yeah, I use Foes of Mordor in my wraith deck to get unlimited exertions, even if there are no minions in play.

[Kralik]

Exactly. Pay cost, no effect. Why should there be a ruling against it?

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

Now I do suspect that if you use an action with no cost and no effect, that constitutes stalling. Specifically, I heard a ruling a while back saying that you can't use Sam, FC to repeatedly try to play Bill the Pony from your draw deck when you don't have Bill the Pony in your draw deck (Elven telepathy decks used to do this for the free shuffle). Presumably, events are okay because they have the implicit cost of discarding the event (and thus can't be repeated ad infinitum).

But as long as there's a cost of some sort, I don't think there's a problem.

[jdizzy001]

Ha ha, Sam, FC for infinite shuffling.  That's funny.

[macheteman]

i think he was being sarcastic. observe the *knowing wink*

[sharkey]

I think it is fine.

[sharkey]

I heard a ruling a while back saying that you can't use Sam, FC to repeatedly try to play Bill the Pony from your draw deck when you don't have Bill the Pony in your draw deck.

"Maybe there will be a Bill this time!"

[ket_the_jet]

But you can use Sam, Faithful Companion to search infinitely for Bill the Pony.

"If a loop contains one or more optional actions and one player controls them all, that player chooses a number. The loop is treated as repeating that number of times, or until another player intervenes with his own action, whichever comes first.

A player wishes to repeatedly use the ability of Sam, Faithful Companion ("Fellowship: Play Bill the Pony from your draw deck."). He chooses a number of times this action will take place. The action is treated as repeating that number of times unless another player intervenes with a different action."

-wtk

[Witchkingx5]

Of course you can, this reminds me to Yu-Gi-Oh! where you can play a Spell: "Add 1 Warrior-type (...) from your Deck to your Army (RotA) and you actually CAN play this one even if you know that there's no such card. In that case, your opponent has to go through your whole deck and check if there aren't any possible cards.

[Smeagollum]

Yeah but an infinnite loop is not allowed !

[legolas3333]

yes they are, think of erkenbrand's horn, sam, faithful companion and the bridge of khazad-dum*, they let you infinitely search through your draw deck even if you have no followers, balrogs or bill the pony.

[TheJord]

These are not infinite loops. Smeagol, Slinker and Anduin Banks* is. Searching your deck for nothing is not an infinite loop as there is no outcome to loop.

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

yes they are, think of erkenbrand's horn, sam, faithful companion and the bridge of khazad-dum*, they let you infinitely search through your draw deck even if you have no followers, balrogs or bill the pony.

On the contrary, that is precisely the action that was banned as "stalling" in the ruling I heard earlier.

[Smeagollum]

yes they are, think of erkenbrand's horn, sam, faithful companion and the bridge of khazad-dum*, they let you infinitely search through your draw deck even if you have no followers, balrogs or bill the pony.

On the contrary, that is precisely the action that was banned as "stalling" in the ruling I heard earlier.

2nd

But Jord, wouldn't it be an idea to see if we can contact Dan or Jan Bonawolski. On those days he was the brandmanager if I remember correctly. Maybe he can give intel on some rullings? And maybe he would like to help the pc. If we don't ask we never know right?

[HawkeyeSPF]

Dan Bojanowski?

[Smeagollum]

Dan Bojanowski?

That could be him.. didn't remember his correct name

[TheJord]

Stalling and infinite loops are two very different things.

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

Stalling and infinite loops are two very different things.

That's what I thought when the ruling first came out, but apparently Decipher thought otherwise. I think they just wanted to stop Sam, FC from being abused in telepathy decks, and instead of adding a new rule dealing with ineffective "play from draw deck" actions (which is what they should have done), they decided to bend the rule against stalling to get the result they wanted without having to complicate the game with a new rule. 

[Elessar's Socks]

The shuffling could serve a legitimate purpose with Forewarned, but I doubt it's fun watching your opponent shuffle all game, or dealing with situations where one player wants to just grab the target card, whereas his opponent (in the lead) wants the game to go to time by not skipping steps.

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

The shuffling could serve a legitimate purpose with Forewarned

Yeah, that's precisely the purpose that Decipher apparently didn't consider legitimate (maybe they thought it was overpowered).

[Smeagollum]

Well we could ask right?

http://www.facebook.com/danbojo

[TelTura]

the rulebook says that there's no penalty for even "choosing not to play a card you find" when searching through the draw deck...

There is no penalty if you don't find (or choose not to play) a card you are looking for in your draw deck.

was this ever reversed?

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

I don't think the problem was simply not finding the card, so much as repeatedly searching for a card that you knew wasn't going to be there.

[TelTura]

right, but it says "no penalty", even if the card is not found....I realize that the problem is people searching when they KNOW it's not there, but unless this decision was reversed, I would take it like it says in black and white.

[Smeagollum]

Actually there is a penalty...

To my understanding if there's no card found the other player is allowed to see your drawdeck as well.
And if you that repeatidly then you've proof that the other person is stalling.

[Kralik]

To my understanding if there's no card found the other player is allowed to see your drawdeck as well.

Where is this ruling? Straight from the rule book:

Some cards allow you to play a card directly from
your draw deck. You must still pay any costs
and meet requirements necessary for playing
that card. When you finish looking through it,
reshuffle it and give the player to your right the
opportunity to cut it. There is no penalty if you
don't find (or choose not to play) a card you are
looking for in your draw deck.

Note that you can even choose NOT to play a card that IS there after looking at the draw deck. No penalties either way.

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

I think that line from the rulebook was designed for the situation where you tried to play a card from your draw deck only to find you didn't have any of the cards you were supposed to play (or any that you wanted to play). In short:
 - Going to play a card from your draw deck and deciding you don't have any you want to play, the first time: an honest mistake.
 - Using the same action to repeatedly try to play a card from your draw deck to no effect: "stalling."

I think it's the repeated aspect that changes it from the standard case (covered by the ruling about Sam,FC) to stalling. I suspect that repeatedly taking any action to no effect would be considered stalling, regardless of whether there is anything wrong with that action in and of itself.

[Elessar's Socks]

No penalty in this game, as quoted. Unlike in, say, ST1E, where a download failure means your opponent can search your hand, draw deck, Q's Tent, Zalkonian Storage Capsule, or any other sources. Ouch.

[Smeagollum]

Maybe got confused with SW CCG... but then Sam, Great Elf Warrior is right in my opinion: It would be stalling. But still there's a penalty...., but it seems that this penalty is that the acting player don't get a penalty, which is a penalty to his opponent though...

Star wars was a better game... But not so much fun as lotr Man the headaches I had with star wars........

[Smeagollum]

Kralik in which document did you find that and on which page, can't find it..... Or I overlook it (say about 4 times each document)....

[Kralik]

Kralik in which document did you find that and on which page, can't find it..... Or I overlook it (say about 4 times each document)....

Comprehensive Rulebook 4.0 under draw deck.

[Smeagollum]

thx, found it 

Is there also a section somewhere about what is concidered stalling?

[Kralik]

The word "stall" or any form of it does not occur in the CR 4.0. Here's a note on Bill the Pony under loops:

A player wishes to repeatedly use the ability of Sam,
Faithful Companion ("Fellowship: Play Bill the
Pony from your draw deck."). He chooses a number
of times this action will take place. The action is
treated as repeating that number of times unless
another player intervenes with a different action.

As you can see, no penalty for using Faithful Companion many times if you want... except you only end up doing it once. Not sure how it works when you use, say, Faithful Companion followed by Forewarned followed by Faithful Companion followed by...

[ket_the_jet]

Not sure how it works when you use, say, Bill the Pony followed by Forewarned followed by Bill the Pony followed by...

Agh! You ruined the trick of my five star deck on GCCG.
-wtk

[Smeagollum]

But there are penalties for stalling right (and then I don't mean this situation, but for example somebody is taking about 10 minutes to assign one minion on table to with str 4 to any companion who's stronger)?

[ket_the_jet]

But there are penalties for stalling right (and then I don't mean this situation, but for example somebody is taking about 10 minutes to assign one minion on table to with str 4 to any companion who's stronger)?

No, except I will kick your #$&*@! if I was playing against you and you were stalling for the sake of timing out a round.
-wtk

[Smeagollum]

Are you sure.. I remember tournaments that people got a warning for stalling. I'll ask Mark Hameleers when I see him. He should know as ex D'agent and rider of rohan.

Ket You wouldn't have a chance. Most times I'm the first who's reached site 9 and survive;) Propably I would ask the judge to warn you for being slow

[Kralik]

Perhaps the penalties you are thinking of apply only to tournaments, at the discretion of the tournament judge/host. Something along the lines of "Hey, knock it off, bozo."

[Elessar's Socks]

As you can see, no penalty for using Faithful Companion many times if you want... except you only end up doing it once. Not sure how it works when you use, say, Faithful Companion followed by Forewarned followed by Faithful Companion followed by...

I'd still treat this as a loop under one player's control. I suppose someone could try to shake up the order of actions, but IMO that would go against the rule's intent.