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

Author Topic: Skirmish Wound Prevention  (Read 25503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

September 22, 2017, 10:43:19 AM
Reply #30

Legion

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Horseman
  • Posts: 343
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2017, 10:43:19 AM »
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.

September 22, 2017, 12:22:26 PM
Reply #31

Zurcamos

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 124
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2017, 12:22:26 PM »
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.

September 22, 2017, 04:24:51 PM
Reply #32

Phallen Cassidy

  • ****
  • Information Online
  • Bowman
  • Posts: 493
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2017, 04:24:51 PM »
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.

September 27, 2017, 04:22:25 AM
Reply #33

Dictionary

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 526
  • Duplicitous Deckbuilder
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #33 on: September 27, 2017, 04:22:25 AM »
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)?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 04:24:12 AM by Dictionary »
Visit LOTR TCG wiki for strategy articles and extra card details, contributed by various community members. All set 1 cards finished.

September 27, 2017, 07:43:17 AM
Reply #34

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2017, 07:43:17 AM »
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.
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

September 28, 2017, 05:42:29 PM
Reply #35

Phallen Cassidy

  • ****
  • Information Online
  • Bowman
  • Posts: 493
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2017, 05:42:29 PM »
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

October 04, 2017, 01:11:46 AM
Reply #36

Valtor

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Orc
  • Posts: 34
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2017, 01:11:46 AM »
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

October 04, 2017, 04:27:33 AM
Reply #37

Zurcamos

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 124
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2017, 04:27:33 AM »
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

November 06, 2017, 06:39:49 AM
Reply #38

bibfortuna25

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1531
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2017, 06:39:49 AM »
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.
All cards do what they say, no more, no less.

November 06, 2017, 12:08:45 PM
Reply #39

Zurcamos

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 124
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2017, 12:08:45 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 07:40:29 PM by Zurcamos »

April 22, 2018, 04:58:09 AM
Reply #40

Phallen Cassidy

  • ****
  • Information Online
  • Bowman
  • Posts: 493
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2018, 04:58:09 AM »
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..." ;)

April 22, 2018, 06:47:12 AM
Reply #41

Tbiesty

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 561
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2018, 06:47:12 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2018, 06:55:03 AM by Tbiesty »

May 05, 2018, 03:01:20 PM
Reply #42

Phallen Cassidy

  • ****
  • Information Online
  • Bowman
  • Posts: 493
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #42 on: May 05, 2018, 03:01:20 PM »
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.

May 07, 2018, 11:33:55 AM
Reply #43

Tbiesty

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 561
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2018, 11:33:55 AM »
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).
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 12:52:24 PM by Tbiesty »

May 09, 2018, 02:15:31 PM
Reply #44

Phallen Cassidy

  • ****
  • Information Online
  • Bowman
  • Posts: 493
Re: Skirmish Wound Prevention
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2018, 02:15:31 PM »
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.