The Last Homely House
Middle-Earth => Archives of Minas Tirith => Topic started by: Phallen Cassidy on August 28, 2017, 05:44:46 PM
-
There are a handful of scenarios involving wounds in a skirmish that I'm looking for some more clarification for. The two cards I'll be looking at are Swiftly and Softly used in a Hobbit's skirmish (outside of Tower's Block) and King's Mail played via Gamling, Warrior of Rohan's text.
So, consider the following scenarios:
The card is played at the Free People's first opportunity (right after the skirmish begins) in a skirmish involving Desert Warrior, who has used his ability
The card is played after the Shadow Player uses Whirling Strike
In each scenario, the companion loses the skirmish without an overwhelm. How many wounds does the Hobbit have, and how many does Gamling have?
I'll go ahead and give my take on these as well. Since King's Mail says "during each skirmish phase," it seems clear to me that it would prevent any wounds after the first regardless of when it appeared in the skirmish. It's measuring the skirmish phase itself, which doesn't change. Swiftly and Softly, lacking any sort of clear measure, would seem to prevent the first wound *after* it has been played, meaning a Hobbit could still take a wound even if he'd been wounded before in the same skirmish. Thoughts?
-
I'd agree it doesn't matter when it's used, since wounds are still being counted regardless of when the effect appears. Naturally if you go over the limit (e.g. Transfer Armor after Red Wrath) you'll have taken 2 wounds instead of one, because the effect wasn't in place to stop the additional wounds before.
I don't see why Swiftly and Softly should be different to Armor. Phase actions last until the end of the phase they're played in, so its effect would still last until the end of that skirmish - if he's already taken a wound in that skirmish, it will prevent him from taking anymore.
-
I don't see why Swiftly and Softly should be different to Armor. Phase actions last until the end of the phase they're played in, so its effect would still last until the end of that skirmish - if he's already taken a wound in that skirmish, it will prevent him from taking anymore.
Well, there are several differences between Swiftly and Softly and Armor, besides card type. The biggest difference is in the wording. Armor specifies that "Bearer takes no more than one wound during each skirmish phase." We obviously agree that King's Mail should consider wounds acquired in the same skirmish, and I contend it's because of the wording.
Swiftly and Softly, a skirmish phase event, says "Prevent a hobbit from taking more than 1 wound." Again we agree that effect lasts until the end of the skirmish phase, so until the end of that skirmish if the Hobbit would take more than one wound, further wounds are prevented. But why should that consider wounds that took place before the event was played?
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Swiftly and Softly should only consider wounds placed after the event has been played.
-
Well, there are several differences between Swiftly and Softly and Armor, besides card type. The biggest difference is in the wording. Armor specifies that "Bearer takes no more than one wound during each skirmish phase." We obviously agree that King's Mail should consider wounds acquired in the same skirmish, and I contend it's because of the wording.
Armor is a possession that is there all the time, so "during each skirmish phase" makes sense. Swiftly and Softly is an event that lasts for only 1 phase, so naturally that wording would be different.
Swiftly and Softly, a skirmish phase event, says "Prevent a hobbit from taking more than 1 wound." Again we agree that effect lasts until the end of the skirmish phase, so until the end of that skirmish if the Hobbit would take more than one wound, further wounds are prevented. But why should that consider wounds that took place before the event was played?
It doesn't say "Prevent all wounds to a hobbit after the first", it says "prevent a hobbit from taking more than one wound". That's an important distinction, since it's not the wounds being prevented directly (Similar to Too Great and Terrible). Since it applies for the phase it is played in, I still don't see why it should function any differently to Armor.
-
Armor is a possession that is there all the time, so "during each skirmish phase" makes sense. Swiftly and Softly is an event that lasts for only 1 phase, so naturally that wording would be different.
Which is why I wanted us to consider King's Mail played on Gamling - the possession isn't there all the time. I know it's usually there, but the fact remains that there's a distinction between the text of the two cards even when played in the same circumstance. Now, perhaps naturally because the two cards are different the text should be different, but that doesn't mean the effects should be the same. You can argue Decipher's intent, but that hasn't mattered for any other card or ruling: we've got to go on what they said.
It doesn't say "Prevent all wounds to a hobbit after the first", it says "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound". That's an important distinction, since it's not the wounds being prevented directly (Similar to Too Great and Terrible). Since it applies for the phase it is played in, I still don't see why it should function any differently to Armor.
I would argue that "Prevent all wounds to a Hobbit after the first" and "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound" are exactly similar (same goes for Armor), but I'd like for you to elaborate on the distinction first. I don't see the connection to Too Great and Terrible. You're quite right, the card says "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound," but it doesn't say to include wounds taken before that event was played. In fact, to do so would be unprecedented. "Each skirmish action lasts only for a single skirmish," but that determines when an event stops working, not when it starts. Every event starts working when it is played: pay the costs, preform the effects. I see no reason why Swiftly and Softly should be different. The effect is not to prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound this phase, it's to prevent a hobbit from taking more than one wound and the event is played in a skirmish phase.
-
Which is why I wanted us to consider King's Mail played on Gamling - the possession isn't there all the time.
Ah sorry, just noticed I've been talking about Armor this whole time, even though the example was King's Mail. Aside from the fact that King's Mail is easier to bounce in and out, I think we agreed on the application of this though right?
I would argue that "Prevent all wounds to a Hobbit after the first" and "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound" are exactly similar (same goes for Armor), but I'd like for you to elaborate on the distinction first. I don't see the connection to Too Great and Terrible.
Consider these hypothetical effects:
"Prevent all wounds to Gandalf until the Regroup phase"
"Prevent Gandalf from taking wounds until the Regroup phase"
The former prevents wounds as they are being dealt to Gandalf. The latter prevents Gandalf from being eligible to take wounds. I referenced TGaT because it prevents the effect, not the wounds. In other words, just because the word "prevent" was used, it does not mean that wounds are being prevented (Which has a specific meaning with regards to effects like Steward's Tomb). It is likely Decipher tried to avoid using prevent in such contexts because of potential confusion, and used things like "unable" and "cannot" instead.
You're quite right, the card says "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound," but it doesn't say to include wounds taken before that event was played.
But whether or not a wound has been taken already is not tied to the event, it is simply a fact. The event isn't responding to that wound or doing anything with it.
Every event starts working when it is played: pay the costs, preform the effects. I see no reason why Swiftly and Softly should be different.
It's not different, if I play Red Wrath before Swiftly and Softly is played, playing it afterwards won't magically heal a wound.
The effect is not to prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound this phase, it's to prevent a hobbit from taking more than one wound and the event is played in a skirmish phase.
But it is for this phase, because that's how long effects last for. If I make Legolas strength + 2, it lasts for the duration of this phase. Not all phase effects need to specify a time constraint - Gimli's Helm for instance, does not specify how long it lasts for, but we know it know it lasts until the end of the skirmish phase.
-
Ah, I'm afraid you're missing my point and I'm missing yours.
Ah sorry, just noticed I've been talking about Armor this whole time, even though the example was King's Mail. Aside from the fact that King's Mail is easier to bounce in and out, I think we agreed on the application of this though right?
Quite right, which is why I hadn't bothered to correct you until then.
Consider these hypothetical effects:
"Prevent all wounds to Gandalf until the Regroup phase"
"Prevent Gandalf from taking wounds until the Regroup phase"
The former prevents wounds as they are being dealt to Gandalf. The latter prevents Gandalf from being eligible to take wounds. I referenced TGaT because it prevents the effect, not the wounds. In other words, just because the word "prevent" was used, it does not mean that wounds are being prevented (Which has a specific meaning with regards to effects like Steward's Tomb). It is likely Decipher tried to avoid using prevent in such contexts because of potential confusion, and used things like "unable" and "cannot" instead.
Sure, and I understand the distinction between being unable to take a wound and preventing a wound from being taken. I don't understand how that plays into this discussion, except that a Hobbit absorbs extra wounds rather than avoiding them entirely.
But whether or not a wound has been taken already is not tied to the event, it is simply a fact. The event isn't responding to that wound or doing anything with it.
It's not different, if I play Red Wrath before Swiftly and Softly is played, playing it afterwards won't magically heal a wound.
I agree entirely, and that's my argument. "The event isn't ... doing anything with it." And of course, as with King's Mail or anything else in the game, a new restriction doesn't hinder an old effect. But if Swiftly and Softly were to prevent all future wounds in that skirmish if a Hobbit was wounded before the event was played, wouldn't that be "doing something" with a wound which you agree isn't tied to the event?
But it is for this phase, because that's how long effects last for. If I make Legolas strength + 2, it lasts for the duration of this phase. Not all phase effects need to specify a time constraint - Gimli's Helm for instance, does not specify how long it lasts for, but we know it know it lasts until the end of the skirmish phase.
I know how long the effect lasts, which is why I included a quote from the rules on how long effects last. An effect lasting for a phase is distinct from an effect being over that whole phase. My initial question (and now position) is on when an effect should start taking effect. It would be unprecedented to say that the effect takes place before it was played unless the card specifically stated that, wouldn't you agree?
I think I can summarize my stance this way: Armor provides a restriction on the number of wounds bearer takes in a given skirmish phase. Swiftly and Softly doesn't provide a skirmish-phase restriction, it provides a restriction which begins in a skirmish phase. To me, these appear to be unequal sentences.
-
But whether or not a wound has been taken already is not tied to the event, it is simply a fact. The event isn't responding to that wound or doing anything with it.
It's not different, if I play Red Wrath before Swiftly and Softly is played, playing it afterwards won't magically heal a wound.
I agree entirely, and that's my argument. "The event isn't ... doing anything with it." And of course, as with King's Mail or anything else in the game, a new restriction doesn't hinder an old effect. But if Swiftly and Softly were to prevent all future wounds in that skirmish if a Hobbit was wounded before the event was played, wouldn't that be "doing something" with a wound which you agree isn't tied to the event?
Looks like it is time for the handy, dandy Snapshot Rule!
Some event cards affect only cards that are currently in play, even though their effects might seem to apply to cards played later in the same turn. These events take a "snapshot" of the current game state, and only those cards are affected.
Eregion's Trails ("Maneuver: Exert a ranger to make each roaming minion strength –3 until the regroup phase.") affects only minions that are roaming when that event is played.
Deft in Their Movements (Regroup: "Spot 2 Hobbits to make each site's Shadow number –2 until the end of the turn.") affects only sites that are in play when it is played.
Naturally, as expressed, Swiftly and Softly would not heal a wound from the aforementioned Red Wrath if played afterwards.
Now here is where the card comes into question. When Swiftly and Softly is played in the aforementioned scenario, the Hobbit had taken a wound in the skirmish via Desert Spearman's game text. The wound is there and Swiftly and Softly prevents more than one wound, so Whirling Strike or a skirmish won (without an overwhelm) do not place the wound on the hobbit.
I think, if we want to get technical about the wording of Swiftly and Softly, here we go:
1. It is a skirmish event. It lasts until the end of the particular skirmish.
2. At any other site, prevent the hobbit from taking more than one wound. In theory, the event does not take into account whether the hobbit has been wounded in the skirmish, the event takes into account whether the hobbit has been wounded at that site in that skirmish.
In theory, you could use Swiftly and Softly on a ring-bearer Frodo to prevent wounds that may come from the Witch-King, Lord of the Nazgul winning a skirmish against, say, Aragorn or more than one threat being assigned, etc.
-wtk
-
I thought someone might bring up the Snapshot Rule ;) However, I don't think it applies here.
Some event cards affect only cards that are currently in play, even though their effects might seem to apply to cards played later in the same turn. These events take a "snapshot" of the current game state, and only those cards are affected.
Eregion's Trails ("Maneuver: Exert a ranger to make each roaming minion strength –3 until the regroup phase.") affects only minions that are roaming when that event is played.
Deft in Their Movements (Regroup: "Spot 2 Hobbits to make each site's Shadow number –2 until the end of the turn.") affects only sites that are in play when it is played.
The infamous Snapshot Rule prevents future changes from altering effects played previously. I'm having a lot of trouble saying that the length of Swiftly and Softly's effect is not what I'm bringing into question here. Once played, it lasts until the end of the skirmish. This we all agree on, I'm not disputing when the event ends. But when does it begin?
Now here is where the card comes into question. When Swiftly and Softly is played in the aforementioned scenario, the Hobbit had taken a wound in the skirmish via Desert Spearman's game text. The wound is there and Swiftly and Softly prevents more than one wound, so Whirling Strike or a skirmish won (without an overwhelm) do not place the wound on the hobbit.
How does Swiftly and Softly know how to distinguish between a wound from archery and a wound from a skirmish? We all agree that effect is to prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound, not prevent a hobbit from having more than one wound. If, as with every other event, the effect begins when the card is played, I don't see how it could know the difference - previous wounds are just previous wounds.
In theory, the event does not take into account whether the hobbit has been wounded in the skirmish, the event takes into account whether the hobbit has been wounded at that site in that skirmish.
I'm having a lot of trouble trying to differentiate between "wounded in the skirmish" and "wounded at that site in that skirmish," so before I respond here I'll ask you to expand.
-
Sure, and I understand the distinction between being unable to take a wound and preventing a wound from being taken. I don't understand how that plays into this discussion, except that a Hobbit absorbs extra wounds rather than avoiding them entirely.
Because I argued that the results of Swiftly and Softly and Armor (Or King's Mail) are more or less the same (Aside from one being an event and the other being a permanent). You argued that they are different.
My initial question (and now position) is on when an effect should start taking effect. It would be unprecedented to say that the effect takes place before it was played unless the card specifically stated that, wouldn't you agree?
I'm having a lot of trouble saying that the length of Swiftly and Softly's effect is not what I'm bringing into question here. Once played, it lasts until the end of the skirmish. This we all agree on, I'm not disputing when the event ends. But when does it begin?
How does Swiftly and Softly know how to distinguish between a wound from archery and a wound from a skirmish?
When you break down Swiftly and Softly mechanically, the effect is to "Prevent a Hobbit from taking wounds". It does this based on whether or not they have taken a wound already. We all agree the effect does not apply until you play it (Red Wrath example) so I'm not sure what you're arguing here - Are you saying events can't reference things in the past? Look at Final Shot; would you say it can't know whether the fellowship has moved more than once? Or are you saying the event's wording is not clear? This is why we keep reiterating that it's a skirmish event; it lasts for the phase it's played in.
But if Swiftly and Softly were to prevent all future wounds in that skirmish if a Hobbit was wounded before the event was played, wouldn't that be "doing something" with a wound which you agree isn't tied to the event?
No, I wouldn't. The wound needn't even be there anymore; it could've been healed with Stout and Sturdy. I bring up Final Shot again; it references a past truth-based condition, but it doesn't affect the move limit. Its effect is a mere strength boost.
-
When you break down Swiftly and Softly mechanically, the effect is to "Prevent a Hobbit from taking wounds". It does this based on whether or not they have taken a wound already.
I disagree entirely. It doesn't do this based on whether or not they have taken a wound already - it does this based on whether or not they take a wound. That's an important distinction, and my point entirely.
We all agree the effect does not apply until you play it (Red Wrath example) so I'm not sure what you're arguing here - Are you saying events can't reference things in the past? Look at Final Shot; would you say it can't know whether the fellowship has moved more than once? Or are you saying the event's wording is not clear? This is why we keep reiterating that it's a skirmish event; it lasts for the phase it's played in.
Final Shot explicitly references a previous event. If Swiftly and Softly read "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound this skirmish" or "Prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound (or prevent all wounds, if that Hobbit has taken a wound in this skirmish)," there would be no question. This is why I keep reiterating that "lasts for the phase" does not mean "starts in the phase."
Consider the fantasy event "Until the regroup phase, make a companion strength +1 for each wound he or she takes." Consider being able to play it in any given phase - should that consider previous wounds in the same phase? If played in the Maneuver phase after being hit by Hate, should that companion be strength +1 from that wound? I would argue not. The length of the effect is until the Regroup phase, but that doesn't mean the event encompasses the phase it's played in - it starts when it starts, and it ends at the end of the specified phase.
My understanding of your argument is that it starts at the beginning of the phase it's played in. That's the only way I can make Swiftly and Softly consistent with retroactively checks for wounds. I argue that an event starts when it is played, and that would mean past wounds are simply past wounds for Swiftly and Softly.
The wound needn't even be there anymore; it could've been healed with Stout and Sturdy. I bring up Final Shot again; it references a past truth-based condition, but it doesn't affect the move limit. Its effect is a mere strength boost.
An excellent note about Final Shot, and perhaps the crux of our communication barrier. I don't see Swiftly and Softly checking for a truth-based condition (which Final Shot explicitely does), but creating one. It does not check true/false for whether a wound has been sustained, it begins checking for a wound. When that wound is placed, Swiftly and Softly then prevents all others. I don't think it should start checking for a wound before it's been played.
-
I can see what you're arguing. I think you're right that we're reading the event differently. Makes me consider when a strength increasing event is played, does it make the companion stronger "from this point onwards" or are they now simply stronger "for this whole skirmish".
Sorry for the delayed reply. Was hoping this thread might have sparked more discussion.
-
I don't see how the "start" of the event makes any difference. The event is not requiring the Hobbit to take a wound after being played (i.e. "any wounds after the next 1 are prevented"), it is preventing more than 1 during that entire skirmish - which includes any they have already received, since they were part of that skirmish.
-
I don't see how the "start" of the event makes any difference. The event is not requiring the Hobbit to take a wound after being played (i.e. "any wounds after the next 1 are prevented"), it is preventing more than 1 during that entire skirmish - which includes any they have already received, since they were part of that skirmish.
But the event doesn't say that. If Swiftly and Softly read "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound this skirmish" or "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound (or prevent all wounds, if that Hobbit has taken a wound in this skirmish)," there would be no question. Because the event does not say either of these things, the scope of the event makes all the difference and when an event's effects begin matters a lot. I think the event does, in fact, effectively read "any wounds after the next 1 are prevented." This is because I'm arguing an event's scope is from when it is played to the end of the proper phase (the event's phase, unless otherwise stated), and it logically follows (for me) that previous wounds are irrelevant - they're outside the scope of the event.
The wound is part of that skirmish, but the event isn't. The only way I can make sense of Swiftly and Softly retroactively checking for wounds is if events take effect at the start of the phase they're played in, rather than exactly when they're played. I can't think of any other event where this would amount to much of anything, which is why I invented the event to make a companion strength +1 for every wound that companion takes. I couldn't imagine that event retroactively adding strength for wounds taken in the same phase, it's backwards to me. If you can explain it, or offer an alternative to how it could work, I'm all ears.
Now, that said... I see what ket meant when he said this:
2. At any other site, prevent the hobbit from taking more than one wound. In theory, the event does not take into account whether the hobbit has been wounded in the skirmish, the event takes into account whether the hobbit has been wounded at that site in that skirmish.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I think he's taken "At any other site, prevent a Hobbit from taking more than 1 wound." to indicate the scope of the event - any other site. Since it's a skirmish action, the effect ends at the end of the skirmish it has been played in, but the check for wounds is site-wide. This is a very attractive explanation for how Swiftly and Softly could check previous skirmish wounds for blocking, but I still have a problem with it: the scope is *too* big. If it's a site-wide action, should a Hobbit take a wound in the archery phase at that site (or maneuver, or shadow, or even another skirmish), all wounds should be blocked in a skirmish, not all but one.
The argument could be made for this to be how the event should work, and if anyone would like to take up the position I'm interested to hear it. Until then, I choose to think that "At any other site" is an indicator for which effect to use rather than how long an effect should last. That is, the effect is reduced (outside of sites 1T-5T) to simply "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than 1 wound."
-
I think I would compare Swiftly and Softly to the way the skirmish action on Gimli's Helm works. Once you use it, Gimli's Helm creates a situation where, for the rest of the skirmish, every wound that comes at him is prevented. Swiftly and Softly, once you use it, creates a situation where, for the rest of the skirmish, every wound that comes at him except for the next one is prevented. It doesn't matter how many wounds the character took before you used that skirmish ability. The skirmish action sets conditions for the remainder of that skirmish phase.
-
But the event doesn't say that. If Swiftly and Softly read "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound this skirmish" ... there would be no question.
But the card does say that - we have all agreed that "this skirmish" is implied because it is a skirmish event. Having those words printed on the card would not change that.
I can't think of any other event where this would amount to much of anything, which is why I invented the event to make a companion strength +1 for every wound that companion takes. I couldn't imagine that event retroactively adding strength for wounds taken in the same phase, it's backwards to me. If you can explain it, or offer an alternative to how it could work, I'm all ears.
You are exactly right in that, if you played an event that gives +1 for each wound, the event takes a snapshot of the game state and gives +1 for every wound that exists at the time it is played - does not add more later if the character gets wounded later. Each event does what it says at the time it is played - and I realize this is the crux of your argument. But your argument is also that you are pretending the Hobbit didn't get wounded in the skirmish prior to playing the event, when the fact remains that they did. Regardless of when you think the event "starts" you still have to recognize that the Hobbit was already wounded at least once this skirmish.
I believe both King's Mail and Swiftly and Softly would do exactly the same thing in these scenarios.
-
I believe both King's Mail and Swiftly and Softly would do exactly the same thing in these scenarios.
I agree... but in my opinion, if somehow you were to put King's Mail on a character in the middle of that character's skirmish phase, the text of King's Mail would only apply to things that happen after it enters play. It doesn't matter what happened before it was put on the character. I don't think the snapshot rule applies to either of these cards, the wording does not seem like the wording used for cards using the snapshot rule.
-
I believe both King's Mail and Swiftly and Softly would do exactly the same thing in these scenarios.
I agree... but in my opinion, if somehow you were to put King's Mail on a character in the middle of that character's skirmish phase, the text of King's Mail would only apply to things that happen after it enters play. It doesn't matter what happened before it was put on the character. I don't think the snapshot rule applies to either of these cards, the wording does not seem like the wording used for cards using the snapshot rule.
Gamling, Warrior of Rohan can do that.
-
But your argument is also that you are pretending the Hobbit didn't get wounded in the skirmish prior to playing the event, when the fact remains that they did. Regardless of when you think the event "starts" you still have to recognize that the Hobbit was already wounded at least once this skirmish.
The problem is Swiftly and Softly hasn't started looking for a wound yet. It's sitting in your hand, waiting to start looking, but hasn't had the opportunity because it hasn't been played.
I agree... but in my opinion, if somehow you were to put King's Mail on a character in the middle of that character's skirmish phase, the text of King's Mail would only apply to things that happen after it enters play. It doesn't matter what happened before it was put on the character. I don't think the snapshot rule applies to either of these cards, the wording does not seem like the wording used for cards using the snapshot rule.
King's Mail specifically tells you "Bearer takes no more than 1 wound during each skirmish phase." It doesn't matter when it was played, since it's telling you to look at the skirmish phase as a whole.
-
So, based on the Gemp discussion, let me come at this from another angle.
Firstly, we've mentioned several times that the card could've been worded more clearly - it is somewhat ambiguous. It doesn't say "during this skirmish" even though it could have done (Then there'd be no debate, right?) nor does it say "from this point on".
If that's the case, I'd say Phallen's view is a very literal reading of exactly what is written there. This is not a bad thing per say; we can and do read most of the cards literally because that's how the game works. I presume (Correct me if wrong) that Phallen would argue the rest of us "assume" it lasts for the skirmish, right?
I mentioned Depart Silently and Rosie Cotton on Gemp though. Rosie is clarified, but I would argue that she almost didn't need to be; it should be clear what Decipher meant when they wrote the card what she does.
This brings us to cards like Depart Silently, Whisper in the Dark and White Hand Sieger. We don't interpret any of these cards literally because it's obvious what Decipher's intentions were. Perhaps with S&S, it's less obvious, which is the problem. Perhaps I'm mistaken (Either side could argue that they're not "assuming" anything), But I wanted to bring this up as a minor point in case the rest of you feel it has some relevance to the current discussion?
One more thing, if we can extrapolate "until the regroup phase" from the first part of DS to the second part, can we do the same for S&S? Probably not, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
-
Well if you take it literally, I feel that the event should only look forwards. When you play Swiftly and Softly, you prevent a Hobbit from taking more time one wound. It doesn't make me think that previous wounds should matter to this. King's Mail mentions the whole phase, so that's fine: no more wounds.
But then I still claim that One Good Turn Deserves Another cannot be put back into your hand if played with Dammed Gate Stream as it has never been in your hand to go back there.
-
Posted the Gemp discussion about this card. (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,11257.0.html)
-
Firstly, we've mentioned several times that the card could've been worded more clearly - it is somewhat ambiguous. It doesn't say "during this skirmish" even though it could have done (Then there'd be no debate, right?) nor does it say "from this point on".
I don't even think it's ambiguous anymore. No event says "from this point on," they tell you when the effect ends. Because nobody has taken up the "events take effect at the start of the phase in which they are played" sword, it seems we all agree events take effect when they are played - i.e., "from this point on."
If that's the case, I'd say Phallen's view is a very literal reading of exactly what is written there. This is not a bad thing per say; we can and do read most of the cards literally because that's how the game works. I presume (Correct me if wrong) that Phallen would argue the rest of us "assume" it lasts for the skirmish, right?
Exactly. I don't see any reason to make the assumption. Even when considering...
... cards like Depart Silently, Whisper in the Dark and White Hand Sieger. We don't interpret any of these cards literally because it's obvious what Decipher's intentions were. Perhaps with S&S, it's less obvious, which is the problem. Perhaps I'm mistaken (Either side could argue that they're not "assuming" anything), But I wanted to bring this up as a minor point in case the rest of you feel it has some relevance to the current discussion?
Depart Silently is a glaring error. If someone brought up that "Bilbo" and "Rosie" shouldn't be text that refers to "Bilbo Baggins" and "Rosie Cotton," I don't see how they missed this one. The wording is unprecedented in White Hand Sieger, but that's a card from set 18 (enough said) and I think it can still be taken literally. Same with Whisper in the Dark, can someone help me find what needs to be assumed?
One more thing, if we can extrapolate "until the regroup phase" from the first part of DS to the second part, can we do the same for S&S? Probably not, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
Now, I'm a huge fan of Depart Silently, and it's a big point for the argument that "cards should work how they were meant to" column (see below). It's true that we're assuming "until the regroup phase" carries in the wording because otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense. So lets say we make the same assumption for Swiftly and Softly. The only way anyone can make "a skirmish involving a Hobbit" carry to the bottom phase is if it is not part of the effect itself, and that's another argument I don't think anyone is going to be taking up.
Take Depart Silently. The effects are "prevent Hobbits from being assigned to skirmishes" and "spot Gandalf to make a Hobbit strength +3." These are complete, whole effects (though useless effects in the Maneuver phase alone). After that, the card tells you how long the effect lasts, and that is what we're carrying over. Every* "cancel a skirmish" effect tells you which skirmish you're allowed to cancel (a skirmish involving bearer, a skirmish involving a roaming minion, a skirmish involving Frodo, a skirmish involving a Hobbit, etc.). This isn't a note on the scope of the event just as "any other site" isn't an indicator that you may prevent ALL wounds to a Hobbit if he has taken another wound at any time at this site, it's just a note on which skirmish is valid - it's part of the effect. So what can we carry over? The same implied "lasts until the end of this phase."
So what about Decipher's intent? This is an uphill battle, the biggest reason being that just because there are no other effects like Swiftly and Softly doesn't mean it's wrong. The effect could have easily simply prevented all wounds. They're Hobbits, for Pete's sake, wounds are hardly their concern! If Decipher had opted not to prevent all wounds, what evidence is there that they meant for a Hobbit to take only one for the whole skirmish?
I'm still somewhat intrigued by Durin's Heir's "Sometimes game text is added to a card by an effect, even though that text is not printed on that card" argument. I think it's a far, far stretch, but more realistic than just wanting it to work a certain way.
*Sneaking! actually says "Smeagol's Skirmish," the only exception I can find
-
Depart Silently assists to have a clarification on the Wiki. Not sure if that's an official one, though.
One card that is similarly flavoured is The Tale of the Great Ring. The fact that Decipher felt they needed the "(or was)" suggests that actions only look at future effects unless otherwise stated.
-
Just a minor reply today. I recall you may have said that you couldn't see how the opposing point of view comes together? Correct me if wrong.
I don't even think it's ambiguous anymore. No event says "from this point on," they tell you when the effect ends. Because nobody has taken up the "events take effect at the start of the phase in which they are played" sword, it seems we all agree events take effect when they are played - i.e., "from this point on."
It bothers me that you'd make this point after all the discussion that's been had. Everyone arguing for it counting wounds from earlier in the skirmish has also argued that this aspect is not part of the effect. If it were, S&S would also have to prevent wounds from before it's played, which is ludicrous. Just because it comes after the "to" part of the card (i.e. pay Y to do X) doesn't make it an effect. How can "More than 1 wound" be an effect all on its own? That doesn't even make sense.
People have argued as to whether the "more than 1 wound" part is a trigger, or a conditional etc. but what's not clear is whether it applies to past or present events. It's not explicit, like Final Shot or The Tale of the Great Ring. That is why it's ambiguous.
EDIT: I liked Durin's Heir's point too. I also like Legion's point about The Tale of the Great Ring in the last post. I think most of my arguments are getting pretty repetitive at this point, hence the slower posting.
-
I still say cards to not generally have any retro-active effect from before they enter play. Pretty much all cards can be said to apply "from this point on."
-
I still say cards to not generally have any retro-active effect from before they enter play. Pretty much all cards can be said to apply "from this point on."
I think I'm in agreement. If Gamling, Warrior of Rohan gets hit by Red Wrath, and then puts on King's Mail during a skirmish, you either heal the second Red Wrath wound from before, or you only look at damage after it's played. The additional wording doesn't change the meaning, in my opinion. You either look backward, or you don't. The Tale of the Great Ring is an excellent example of a card that DOES look backward (thanks, Legion). It does because IT SAYS IT DOES. Nobody has given me a source saying that you look backward without a card telling you to do so. Rules tell you what you can do. It's not "everything goes" until a rule specifically says you can't. Otherwise, I'm going to learn to code and add "Zurcamos can't lose the game, and Zurcamos' opponent(s) can't win the game" to every card in Gemp, because the rules don't say I can't.
In other words...
Swiftly and Silently: Skirmish: At sites 1T to 5T, cancel a skirmish involving a Hobbit. At any other site, prevent a Hobbit from taking more than 1 wound.
Gimli's Helm: Skirmish: Discard Gimli's Helm to prevent all wounds to him.
Swiftly and Silently, once used, prevents all wounds but one.
Gimli's Helm, once used, prevents all wounds.
I think we would all agree that Gimli's Helm does not prevent any wounds that occurred before that ability was used. Whatever effect it has, applies from the point at which you activate it, for the rest of that phase. For me, the simplest and most logical interpretation is that Swithly and Silently works the same way: Whatever affect it has, only applies from the point at which you activate it, for the rest of that phase. I think that could be applied to pretty much every other phase action.
This.
-
I think I'm in agreement. If Gamling, Warrior of Rohan gets hit by Red Wrath, and then puts on King's Mail during a skirmish, you either heal the second Red Wrath wound from before, or you only look at damage after it's played. The additional wording doesn't change the meaning, in my opinion. You either look backward, or you don't.
I don't think I follow. Do you mean that even King's Mail should only prevent more than 1 wound from when it was played? King's Mail specifically says "during each skirmish phase," so it absolutely requires you to look at the entire phase - including "backwards," if need be. It cannot remove wounds, only prevent them, so even a wound which could have been prevented must remain. The key difference between this and Swiftly and Softly is that King's Mail does tell you to look at more than just "from this point on."
-
I don't think I follow. Do you mean that even King's Mail should only prevent more than 1 wound from when it was played? King's Mail specifically says "during each skirmish phase," so it absolutely requires you to look at the entire phase - including "backwards," if need be. It cannot remove wounds, only prevent them, so even a wound which could have been prevented must remain. The key difference between this and Swiftly and Softly is that King's Mail does tell you to look at more than just "from this point on."
I absolutely believe that King's Mail enters with a blank slate, just as much as S&S does. It doesn't matter if previous wounds are from archery, exertions during the fellowship phase, or from Red Wrath. They're just wounds.
-
So what we actually have now are 3 different possibilities right? We know they don't start negating wounds until they are played, but we debate whether or not they can count wounds that happened before they were played. So we get these:
1) Swiftly and Softly and King's Mail both can count wounds that occurred before they are played.
2) King's Mail counts wounds before it is played; Swiftly and Softly doesn't.
3) Neither Swiftly and Softly nor King's Mail count wounds from before they were played.
I don't suppose any would argue 4) S&S counts wounds but King's Mail doesn't. Maybe a poll would be useful, even it it's not final.
-
Based on the wordings, I'd lean towards option 2. Definitely not 3, as I feel the way King's Mail was worded definitely makes it count wounds placed before it was played in a similar way to Hamstrung looks at the actions before. To me Swiftly and Softly does not try to do that.
-
Based on the wordings, I'd lean towards option 2. Definitely not 3, as I feel the way King's Mail was worded definitely makes it count wounds placed before it was played in a similar way to Hamstrung looks at the actions before. To me Swiftly and Softly does not try to do that.
That's twice now that people have compared movement, which IS tracked at all times, to cards knowing how wounds were placed earlier in the game, which absolutely no one has produced a rule even hinting at being an option. To me, it's about as apples and oranges as it gets.
I told Phallen that I didn't think anyone would agree with him on his point of view on the two cards. It appears I was very wrong. I'm completely baffled. All I can figure, at this point, is that there are English-speaking places that have their own cultural meaning of "each" that is not mentioned in any dictionary I've looked at.
-
I don't even think it's ambiguous anymore. No event says "from this point on," they tell you when the effect ends. Because nobody has taken up the "events take effect at the start of the phase in which they are played" sword, it seems we all agree events take effect when they are played - i.e., "from this point on."
It bothers me that you'd make this point after all the discussion that's been had. Everyone arguing for it counting wounds from earlier in the skirmish has also argued that this aspect is not part of the effect. If it were, S&S would also have to prevent wounds from before it's played, which is ludicrous. Just because it comes after the "to" part of the card (i.e. pay Y to do X) doesn't make it an effect. How can "More than 1 wound" be an effect all on its own? That doesn't even make sense.
People have argued as to whether the "more than 1 wound" part is a trigger, or a conditional etc. but what's not clear is whether it applies to past or present events. It's not explicit, like Final Shot or The Tale of the Great Ring. That is why it's ambiguous.
I certainly didn't mean to bother you. The same point was made much better than I can manage by sgtdraino, as Zurcamos quoted:
I think we would all agree that Gimli's Helm does not prevent any wounds that occurred before that ability was used. Whatever effect it has, applies from the point at which you activate it, for the rest of that phase. For me, the simplest and most logical interpretation is that Swithly and Silently works the same way: Whatever affect it has, only applies from the point at which you activate it, for the rest of that phase. I think that could be applied to pretty much every other phase action.
The reason I'm saying it isn't ambiguous is exactly because it doesn't say anything explicit - which is interesting, since that's why you say it is ambiguous. In order to tease a trigger or conditional phrase out of the meaning, you'd have to really twist and distort the sentence. The best I can do is make "prevent a Hobbit from taking ... wound" the effect and "... more than 1..." the trigger. I think that makes as much sense as calling "more than 1 wound" the effect.
To make sense out of it for that purpose, I have to add words or let words mean more than one thing at one time. "Prevent a Hobbit from more than 1 wound" would be the effect and "more than 1 wound" would be the trigger. Here, how can a phrase be both the trigger for an effect and the effect itself? I admit, this is only the best I can do, and I don't see the other side as clearly as I'd like. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
-
Been digesting a lot of the discussion recently. Pretty sure my logic for 1 must be wrong at this point, even if my conclusion somehow isn't. I'm still pretty ??? on the whole thing to be honest.
I reread some of Phallen's and Zurcamos' discussion on gemp recently. This was primarily based on King's Mail - Why can King's Mail look back if S&S can't, especially when the snapshot rule doesn't apply?
How would the King's Mail example compare to Citadel of Minas Tirith being (somehow) played after a skirmish was lost?
I might raise a similar question - what happens if King's Mail is transferred to and fro mid-skirmish (Surrendered Weapons), or discarded from play and replayed (Swordthain)?
-
With the Surrendered Weapons example, I'd say there's still no difference. As far as the card is concerned, the tally of wounds is a blank slate until the bearer becomes the bearer. I think that's the simplest and most consistent interpretation that works across a wide variety of cards. Anything else, you risk going down a rabbit hole of hypotheticals.
Also, mostly just a side note, King's Mail doesn't actually prevent wounds.
-
So what we actually have now are 3 different possibilities right? We know they don't start negating wounds until they are played, but we debate whether or not they can count wounds that happened before they were played. So we get these:
1) Swiftly and Softly and King's Mail both can count wounds that occurred before they are played.
2) King's Mail counts wounds before it is played; Swiftly and Softly doesn't.
3) Neither Swiftly and Softly nor King's Mail count wounds from before they were played.
I don't suppose any would argue 4) S&S counts wounds but King's Mail doesn't. Maybe a poll would be useful, even it it's not final.
Been digesting a lot of the discussion recently. Pretty sure my logic for 1 must be wrong at this point, even if my conclusion somehow isn't. I'm still pretty ??? on the whole thing to be honest.
I reread some of Phallen's and Zurcamos' discussion on gemp recently. This was primarily based on King's Mail - Why can King's Mail look back if S&S can't, especially when the snapshot rule doesn't apply?
How would the King's Mail example compare to Citadel of Minas Tirith being (somehow) played after a skirmish was lost?
I might raise a similar question - what happens if King's Mail is transferred to and fro mid-skirmish (Surrendered Weapons), or discarded from play and replayed (Swordthain)?
If it helps, I can simplify my stance in three points now:
• Swiftly and Softly and King's Mail have different text
• We have no right to give Swiftly and Softly text it doesn't have
• The additional text in King's Mail means something
Perhaps an oversimplification, but it's the basis of my view. Point 1 is obvious to everyone, but doesn't prove anything alone. While point 2 goes pretty much uncontested (someone will let me know if I'm wrong), it easily counts out the first possibility to me. I haven't seen a compelling reason for me to believe that the event can take into account things which have already happened if it doesn't say that it can, and there's no basis for arguing anything which isn't explicitly prohibited is allowed. The trigger phrase argument needs more words and other arguments aren't explained well enough for me to understand them - a personal failing, I suppose.
Point 3 is the one doing all the heavy lifting - if they aren't worded the same and they don't mean the same thing they can't do the same thing, leaving only the second possibility. The main argument in favor of the first possibility (as I understand it) is that one is an event and one is a possession, so they have to be written differently for the meaning to be the same. As a skirmish event, various people have said, its scope is a skirmish phase and spelling that out would be pointless. While it is potentially true that they would have to be written differently for the same effect, there isn't much reason for me to think that this is the way to do it. The best I can do to make this argument work is to say that event order doesn't really matter - every event is played in a skirmish phase and lasts for that phase, beginning to end. Whirling Strike and then Swiftly and Softly is the same as Swiftly and Softly and then Whirling Strike. Unfortunately, Legion made an excellent point which doesn't give that defense an leg to stand on.
One card that is similarly flavoured is The Tale of the Great Ring. The fact that Decipher felt they needed the "(or was)" suggests that actions only look at future effects unless otherwise stated.
If skirmish order truly didn't matter, "is played" would be the same thing as "was played." Indeed, there would be no reason to ever say "was" in a skirmish phase (or any phase) because everything may as well happen all at once. The only way around this is to violate point 2 and give the event text it simply doesn't have.
Lastly, I'll try to present a coherent argument against the third possibility by highlighting the meaningful difference:
Swiftly and Softly: Stealth. Skirmish: At sites 1T to 5T, cancel a skirmish involving a Hobbit. At any other site, prevent a Hobbit from taking more than 1 wound.
•King's Mail: Bearer must be a [Rohan] Man. Bearer takes no more than 1 wound during each skirmish phase. If bearer is Theoden, he may not take wounds except during a skirmish involving him.
The reason King's Mail is able to "look back" while Swiftly and Softly is not is because of the scope of King's Mail's effect. During tells you when the effect takes place, each tells you how many times, and skirmish phase tells you what. The important thing is that any given skirmish phase minus any part of that skirmish phase is no longer a skirmish phase. It's part of a skirmish phase, maybe even most of one, but not a skirmish phase and not the scope of King's Mail. It didn't help much last time, but there is a basis for my argument in the rules:
Skirmish Phase Summary
Free Peoples player chooses a skirmish.
Players perform skirmish actions.
Resolve that skirmish and assign wounds.
If any skirmishes are unresolved, repeat this procedure.
A skirmish phase is that series of steps - exclude any of those steps and you've destroyed it. A skirmish phase is not a length of time, though a length of time can be used to describe how long a skirmish phase is lasting. If King's Mail didn't "look back," it wouldn't be able to fulfill its effect. It absolutely has to look at all of a skirmish phase in order to look at a skirmish phase, which the card does tell us to do. Herein lies the problem for the third possibility.
As far as I can tell, the logic here applies consistently for any card. So Citadel of Minas Tirith must consider the turn as a whole (meaning it couldn't heal even if it were somehow played after a skirmish loss), because otherwise it wouldn't be considering the turn. I'm confident that this line of thinking can handle any rabbit hole of hypotheticals without becoming inconsistent with the rest of the game.
Because King's Mail is a possession, its text stays with it. If any [Rohan] companion took a wound in a skirmish and had King's Mail transferred to it, all future wounds would have to be blocked. If King's Mail were then transferred to some other companion, wounds would be fair game on that companion again. So Gamling could play King's Mail on himself after being wounded by Desert Soldier's text, negate the wound from a Whirling Strike, transfer King's Mail, and die to Red Wrath all in the same skirmish.
-
Copied from hall chat:
[Oct 4 09:05:55] Valtor: On the Swiftly and Softly issue, I agree with bib that the card seems to say that the number of wounds the selected Hobbit will suffer is limited to one wound in the relevant skirmish phase. Unless that Hobbit has already received more than one wound by the time SandS is played, in which case it will keep those wounds but not suffer any more wounds.
[Oct 4 09:06:29] Valtor: So if the Hobbit is wounded by Desert Warrior or Desert Spearman using their start of skirmish ability, and SandS is then played, the Hobbit will not receive any further wounds.
[Oct 4 09:08:12] Valtor: In any event, that is the way the card works on Gemp, which for practical purposes is all that is relevant to players. See the site 4 skirmishes on both sides in test game http://www.gempukku.com/gemp-lotr/game.html?replayId=Valtor$jwr5cbeqnpqzquuy
-
Copied from hall chat:
[Oct 4 09:05:55] Valtor: On the Swiftly and Softly issue, I agree with bib that the card seems to say that the number of wounds the selected Hobbit will suffer is limited to one wound in the relevant skirmish phase. Unless that Hobbit has already received more than one wound by the time SandS is played, in which case it will keep those wounds but not suffer any more wounds.
[Oct 4 09:06:29] Valtor: So if the Hobbit is wounded by Desert Warrior or Desert Spearman using their start of skirmish ability, and SandS is then played, the Hobbit will not receive any further wounds.
[Oct 4 09:08:12] Valtor: In any event, that is the way the card works on Gemp, which for practical purposes is all that is relevant to players. See the site 4 skirmishes on both sides in test game http://www.gempukku.com/gemp-lotr/game.html?replayId=Valtor$jwr5cbeqnpqzquuy
Again, unless you, bib, or anyone else can quote a rule saying cards know what happened earlier in the game, there's absolutely no reason to believe that they can. Gemp is a program. It only works correctly if it is coded correctly. It isn't an employee of Decipher, nor any other sapient being. It's not the authority on what is relevant for all players, and neither are you. [-X
-
Cards have to have memory of previous game states, otherwise Citadel of Minas Tirith and The Tale of the Great Ring can't work. I'm sure there are other such cards, but I can't recall them at the moment.
-
Cards have to have memory of previous game states, otherwise Citadel of Minas Tirith and The Tale of the Great Ring can't work. I'm sure there are other such cards, but I can't recall them at the moment.
Citadel of Minas Tirith and The Tale of the Great Ring are in play for those previous game states, and the latter specifically says that it can look backward. At best, it says nothing for your point of view, and at worst, it proves you wrong. The reason those two examples came to mind is they are the same examples that keep getting brought up. There's no evidence that either card knows what happened before it was played (which is what we're discussing here). I asked for a rule; you haven't provided one. Can we move on yet?
-
Hello everyone! I'm back to try and settle at least half of this discussion with a new question: what if Swiftly and Softly had said "At any other site, prevent a Hobbit from taking more than 1 wound until the regroup phase"? Do you think that all wounds would be prevented (provided that the Hobbit took a wound already in that skirmish), or that all wounds after the next one would be prevented?
I hope you see why I'm asking. If all wounds would be prevented, that implies that all skirmish actions (indeed, all phase actions) effectively begin taking place at the start of that phase, rather than when you play the event (unless someone can explain otherwise to me) -- a position nobody's tried to argue yet. If all wounds after the next one would be prevented, then simply take off "until the regroup phase" and you have what I see as our current effect: all wounds after the next one would be prevented for the current phase.
Now I say half because this only speaks to Swiftly and Softly. I hadn't intended to challenge what King's Mail would do, but "the best laid plans of mice and men..." ;)
-
Cards have to have memory of previous game states, otherwise Citadel of Minas Tirith and The Tale of the Great Ring can't work. I'm sure there are other such cards, but I can't recall them at the moment.
This is correct. Cards can know about game states before they were in play.
Calling out the lack of an explicit rule stating this is not going to really help, as sometimes Decipher didn’t provide rules technicalities at the necessary level of detail at times. It can be inferred by cards such as Citadel of Minas Tirith and Final Shot that cards have access to any previous knowledge if they require it to enforce their game texts.
Therefore, I would conclude that cards like Gimli’s Helm, King’s Mail, and Swiftly and Softly can have knowledge of previously taken wounds, since that knowledge is required to enforce their game texts in full.
-
I guess nobody else was willing to get back in the trenches on this :P
Cards can know about game states before they were in play.
Calling out the lack of an explicit rule stating this is not going to really help, as sometimes Decipher didn’t provide rules technicalities at the necessary level of detail at times. It can be inferred by cards such as Citadel of Minas Tirith and Final Shot that cards have access to any previous knowledge if they require it to enforce their game texts.
Therefore, I would conclude that cards like Gimli’s Helm, King’s Mail, and Swiftly and Softly can have knowledge of previously taken wounds, since that knowledge is required to enforce their game texts in full.
It seems like a big assumption to me to say that Swiftly and Softly can't fully enforce its game text without knowledge of what's already happened. Gimli's Helm and King's Mail explicitly say "during each skirmish phase," but I don't see where Swiftly and Softly tells us to look back.
-
I guess nobody else was willing to get back in the trenches on this :P
It seems like a big assumption to me to say that Swiftly and Softly can't fully enforce its game text without knowledge of what's already happened. Gimli's Helm and King's Mail explicitly say "during each skirmish phase," but I don't see where Swiftly and Softly tells us to look back.
For example, if Orc Cutthroat is used during a skirmish to wound Merry at site 6T, then Swiftly and Softly is played, it would prevent Merry from taking any more wounds during that skirmish. This would require Swiftly and Softly to know about any wounds taken before it was played. This would allow the FP player to bait Orc Cuttroat (if Merry has 2 vitality left) to use its skirmish ability against Merry first, and then after the 1st wound is taken, the FP player plays Swiftly and Softly to prevent Merry from taking any more wounds (as the previous wound is included in the wound count).
-
But it doesn't say "Prevent a Hobbit from taking wounds." That's the issue, I don't believe the event can or should consider previous wounds because it doesn't say to. I don't see anything wrong with the effect "Prevent a Hobbit from taking more than 1 wound" starting once the event is played, as nearly every other effect from an event works.
-
Looks like a consensus was never reached on this. Mind if I stir the hornet's nest a little?
First I would like to agree with everyone who is pointing out that events can "look back" to previous stimuli. I would like to agree very specifically that events can refer back to previous stimuli. In much the same way possessions and conditions can be transferred between eligible bearers in the middle of a skirmish and cards can be played from the draw deck or discard pile. Possessions can be transferred in a skirmish phase because of the wording of cards like Sundered Weapons, not because of something innate to possessions. Likewise Brought Down from Inside can be transferred during a skirmish phase because of its specific wording. It does not make conditions universally transferable without specific perimeters being set by active game text.
A card like The Tale of the Great Ring looks as far back as the beginning of the skirmish because of a very specific part of its game text. That does not mean that every event gets that ability. The event needs at least fairly precise wording in order to do so. Conveniently we have a card that has the exact wording Swiftly and Softly would need in order to do that- on King's Mail. I can't see why it would "look back" without setting up the perimeter at the beginning of the skirmish by saying "during this skirmish."