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]   Go Down
Print

Author Topic: Eomer, HtM + Rohan Stable Master  (Read 466 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dictionary
Bowman
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Dictionary
Formats: Expanded and Towers Standard
Posts: 483


Duplicitous Deckbuilder


« on: August 15, 2019, 05:05:26 AM »

Does Heir to Meduseld get a Damage bonus from his text while bearing Rohan Stable Master?

Unlike Rider's Spear he talks about mounts rather than being mounted.

I'm inclined to think not, but when discussing with gemp players a while back there was disagreement.
Logged

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


leokula
Ranger
*****
Offline Offline

GCCG: leokula
Formats: Expanded and Standard
Posts: 855



« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2019, 05:35:08 AM »

Does Heir to Meduseld get a Damage bonus from his text while bearing Rohan Stable Master?

No. I don't think anybody can make a reasonable case that would say otherwise.

If a companion bears a mount, it is mounted.

However, with Rohan Stable Master, the companion becomes mounted via gametext, but doesn't bear a mount. It would be a big stretch IMO to say that when a companion gains "mounted", it also means it is bearing a mount.
Logged
Phallen Cassidy
Villager
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Phallen
Formats: Towers Standard, King Standard
Posts: 240



« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2019, 08:18:19 PM »

The confusion comes from the rule entry, I think.

Quote from: Comprehensive Rules 4.0
mounted

A mounted character means one who is "bearing a possession with the class of mount." (See bearer.)

So then Rohan Stable Master would read "Bearer is considered to be mounted bearing a possession with the class of mount." There are two questions that I have from this. First, what's the rule saying: if mounted, then bearing a mount; or if bearing a mount, then mounted (or both)? It's obviously meant to define the term "mounted," but it's almost written as a response for Jeopardy.

Second, is "considered to be" good enough for Eomer? That weird phrasing could limit the application of the card, since saying "bearer is mounted" is just as achievable and far more straightforward. I was solidly for Eomer's text being triggered, but I'm seeing the other side more easily now than I had before.
Logged
leokula
Ranger
*****
Offline Offline

GCCG: leokula
Formats: Expanded and Standard
Posts: 855



« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2019, 05:42:43 AM »

First, what's the rule saying: if mounted, then bearing a mount; or if bearing a mount, then mounted (or both)?

Being mounted is the consequence / result of bearing a mount, I don't think it's any more complicated than this.

Rohan Stable Master provides the status of being mounted without the need for the character to bear a mount. If it said "Rohan Stable Master counts as a possession of class mount", then yes, Éomer would get the bonus because he'd be "bearing a possession with the class of mount". That would also make him "mounted".

I'm sure Decipher didn't think about the implications of adding such an effect, but without any further clarifications, by the wording of both cards as they are today, I don't think it's reasonable to give Éomer the damage bonus.

The wording of Éomer is kinda funny... this is Bloodlines (13) and Rohan Stable Master is Hunters (15), we have to at least consider there was some thought behind this and that Éomer was worded specifically to not work with Rohan Stable Master.
Logged
Phallen Cassidy
Villager
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Phallen
Formats: Towers Standard, King Standard
Posts: 240



« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2019, 11:02:20 AM »

Being mounted is the consequence / result of bearing a mount, I don't think it's any more complicated than this.

I'm sure you're right that it shouldn't be any more complicated than this and that I'm splitting hairs. You seem to be reading the rule one way and I'm reading it another, and while I want to agree with you I also want to make sure it's right. Of course the rule was created to define which characters are mounted (the ones with mounts) and which aren't. It's just that the way it was done leaves ambiguity if a character can ever become mounted without a mount. The way it should have been written is "A character bearing a mount is said to be mounted" or "A character is mounted if it is bearing a mount." Instead, doesn't the rule seem to say that a mounted character is, by definition, bearing a mount? That being mounted is sufficient for bearing a mount, rather than the other way 'round?
 
If it said "Rohan Stable Master counts as a possession of class mount", then yes, Éomer would get the bonus because he'd be "bearing a possession with the class of mount". That would also make him "mounted".

With the definition Decipher gave us, can you say that Rohan Stable Master doesn't effectively mean this? See my strike-out above. If A = B and B = C, then A = C is what I'm saying. I'm aware that the transitive property can be misused -- I just want someone to point out why I'm wrong here Tongue

The wording of Éomer is kinda funny... this is Bloodlines (13) and Rohan Stable Master is Hunters (15), we have to at least consider there was some thought behind this and that Éomer was worded specifically to not work with Rohan Stable Master.

Interesting. Most people, or at least most people who are vocal about it, seem to believe the opposite: that because these are cards released in later sets, there was no real thought behind them and how they might interact with other cards. But that's the second question I'm trying to answer -- does it matter whether being mounted means bearing a mount if Eomer is only considered mounted? Asked another way, is that word considered the one that causes it to fall apart, rather than bearing a mount vs mounted? That might be where I land, I'd need to look over any cards with similar language and see how they're handled.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 03:16:14 PM by Phallen Cassidy » Logged
leokula
Ranger
*****
Offline Offline

GCCG: leokula
Formats: Expanded and Standard
Posts: 855



« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2019, 06:00:31 AM »

Instead, doesn't the rule seem to say that a mounted character is, by definition, bearing a mount?

The way you have to see this, IMO, is that Rohan Stable Master slightly bends the rules.

If you go strictly by the literal definition of mounted in the rules, then Rohan Stable Master can't even work, because mounted means bearing a mount, so how come the character can become mounted without bearing a mount? So strictly by the definition of the rules, he's not mounted, even with Rohan Stable Master.

I still think this is all too much of a strech... Rohan Stable Master says "considered to be mounted", to me that's more than enough to mean that the character is not even mounted, he's considered to be mounted for cards that check that. Eomer, Heir to Meduseld doesn't check that.
Logged
Phallen Cassidy
Villager
****
Offline Offline

Gemp: Phallen
Formats: Towers Standard, King Standard
Posts: 240



« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2019, 05:41:26 PM »

Well, the way it would have to work is that by making a character mounted, that character is implicitly bearing a possession with the class of mount. But I think there's enough for me to side with you. As Dictionary tried to explain to me a year ago:
I had thought that saying "Considered to be mounted" meant no mount - it's just acting as if it were there.

Your last paragraph explains it nicely: because of the qualifier "considered," he's only mounted for cards that check specifically for that keyword. I prefer this explanation and now I think I can live with it, haha.

Logged
leokula
Ranger
*****
Offline Offline

GCCG: leokula
Formats: Expanded and Standard
Posts: 855



« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2019, 05:56:13 AM »

now I think I can live with it, haha.

Haha cheers Thumbs Up

And also, I think if there was such a thing as a LOTR TCG counsel and they decided to make a clarification that Eomer would benefit from Rohan Stable Master, then I still think it would totally make sense. My argument is just that with the current wording, I think it's fair that he doesn't benefit.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: