LotR TCG Wiki → Card Sets:  All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 → Forums:  TLHH CC

Welcome, guests!

Join our growing LotR community today and you'll get:

  • Access to special members only-forums.
  • A great way to connect and hook up with other players.
  • Removal of advertisements in the forums and wiki.
  • The ability to list cards you want to trade or sell.
  • ...And much more!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All   Go Down
Print

Author Topic: Skirmish Wound Prevention  (Read 11430 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BigRedMF
Tracker
**
Offline Offline

Gemp: bigredmf
Formats: Sealed, Movie Block
Posts: 114


« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2017, 03:19:02 PM »

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.
Logged


sgtdraino
Knight
*****
Offline Offline

Gemp: sgtdraino
Formats: Expanded, Movie
Posts: 1021


Ranger of Ecthelion


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2017, 05:27:15 PM »

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.
Logged

"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir
Zurcamos
Tracker
**
Offline Offline

Gemp: Zurcamos
Formats: Fellowship, TT Block & Standard, RotK & Movie Blocks
Posts: 116



« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2017, 06:28:53 PM »

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.
Logged
Phallen Cassidy
Villager
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Phallen
Formats: Towers Standard, King Standard
Posts: 236



« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2017, 07:25:13 PM »

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.
Logged
Dictionary
Bowman
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Dictionary
Formats: Expanded and Towers Standard
Posts: 482


Duplicitous Deckbuilder


« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2017, 03:11:14 AM »

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.
Logged

Visit LOTR TCG wiki for strategy articles and extra card details, contributed by various community members. All set 1 cards finished.
Legion
Villager
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Legion
Formats: Block-FotR, TTT, even (especially!) King and WotR
Posts: 288


« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2017, 02:31:02 PM »

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.
Logged
Dictionary
Bowman
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Dictionary
Formats: Expanded and Towers Standard
Posts: 482


Duplicitous Deckbuilder


« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2017, 05:14:06 PM »

Posted the Gemp discussion about this card.
Logged

Visit LOTR TCG wiki for strategy articles and extra card details, contributed by various community members. All set 1 cards finished.
Phallen Cassidy
Villager
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Phallen
Formats: Towers Standard, King Standard
Posts: 236



« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2017, 08:32:14 AM »

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
Logged
Legion
Villager
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Legion
Formats: Block-FotR, TTT, even (especially!) King and WotR
Posts: 288


« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2017, 10:35:58 AM »

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.
Logged
Dictionary
Bowman
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Dictionary
Formats: Expanded and Towers Standard
Posts: 482


Duplicitous Deckbuilder


« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2017, 02:33:07 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 02:38:36 AM by Dictionary » Logged

Visit LOTR TCG wiki for strategy articles and extra card details, contributed by various community members. All set 1 cards finished.
sgtdraino
Knight
*****
Offline Offline

Gemp: sgtdraino
Formats: Expanded, Movie
Posts: 1021


Ranger of Ecthelion


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2017, 08:55:51 AM »

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."
Logged

"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir
Zurcamos
Tracker
**
Offline Offline

Gemp: Zurcamos
Formats: Fellowship, TT Block & Standard, RotK & Movie Blocks
Posts: 116



« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2017, 08:32:41 AM »

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.
Logged
Phallen Cassidy
Villager
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Phallen
Formats: Towers Standard, King Standard
Posts: 236



« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2017, 02:58:29 PM »

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."
Logged
Zurcamos
Tracker
**
Offline Offline

Gemp: Zurcamos
Formats: Fellowship, TT Block & Standard, RotK & Movie Blocks
Posts: 116



« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2017, 05:50:08 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 05:56:47 PM by Zurcamos » Logged
Dictionary
Bowman
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Dictionary
Formats: Expanded and Towers Standard
Posts: 482


Duplicitous Deckbuilder


« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2017, 06:05:01 AM »

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.
Logged

Visit LOTR TCG wiki for strategy articles and extra card details, contributed by various community members. All set 1 cards finished.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: