Slaked Thirsts vs. Pippin WoBaS

[bibfortuna25]

Implied or not, a choice is still a choice. Unless a card specifically tells you who to heal/wound/boost strength/whatever, you have to choose which card will receive that effect.

The ruling applies to all cards which make you choose which card(S) will receive a given effect, even if the word "choose" is not printed on the card.

[Kralik]

So you're choosing who receives the effect, not the action. To put it in terms of English grammar, you are choosing the direct object (the receiver of the action of the verb) not the verb (the action). Note that in dozens of cards you choose from one or two distinctly different actions. And the choice is... Printed. On. The. Card.

Bib, why is this so hard for you to acknowledge? You're seriously going to argue that a player can't used WoBaS versus a roaming exhausted Castamir if there's some vitality 2 Corsair available? That Slaked Thirsts has to be used on Shelob in a Dark as Darkness/Shelob pair? That I can't heal my wounded Legolas if my Aragorn signet Frodo has two wounds? *facepalm*

[bibfortuna25]

Yes I am going to seriously argue that, because that is the correct interpretation of the rules. You can disagree all you want, but that's how it is.

[Kralik]

Yes I am going to seriously argue that, because that is the correct interpretation of the rules. You can disagree all you want, but that's how it is.

You are adding to the rules. There is no choice printed on those cards. Period.

[bibfortuna25]

The word "choose" does not have to be printed on the card. Anytime the effect of an action makes you choose between two or more different targets, you are making a choice. How hard is this to understand?

And what is this nonsense of "the action is already set?" No, it's not set. When you use WOBAS, you are given the choice:

1) Wound Castamir twice
2) Wound Corsair Marauder twice

If one of them can't be wounded twice (i.e., exhausted), then you have to choose the other one.

Such a choice is fundamentally no different than the choice offered by DDOTR. Just because Pippin's two choices are similar does not stop them from actually being choices.


Let me ask you this. Is using Athelas a choice? The word "choose" is not printed on the card, but you are still choosing to heal a companion or discard a Shadow condition borne by a companion. If there is no Shadow condition, you have to heal someone if possible. Likewise, if everyone is healthy, you have to discard a Shadow condition if possible.`

[Not a Zombie]

I'm actually with Kralik on this one. The rules say you have to choose the action that you can most complete, not the target of the action that makes the action most complete-able. Basically that rule (as I see it) applies to which action you choose, not which target you select for that action.

[bibfortuna25]

But you are still choosing between two different actions when you use WOBAS:

1) Wound Castamir twice
2) Wound Corsair Marauder twice

So which one can you wound twice? The one who's not exhausted.

[Kralik]

Such a choice is fundamentally no different than the choice offered by DDOTR. Just because Pippin's two choices are similar does not stop them from actually being choices.

Let me ask you this. Is using Athelas a choice? The word "choose" is not printed on the card, but you are still choosing to heal a companion or discard a Shadow condition borne by a companion. If there is no Shadow condition, you have to heal someone if possible. Likewise, if everyone is healthy, you have to discard a Shadow condition if possible.`

It is a choice because two different actions are printed on the card separated by the conjunction or.


Compare:


Athelas:

Cost	Action One	or	Action Two
Discard this possession to	heal a companion	or	[to] remove a Shadow condition from a companion.

DDotR:

Trigger	Action One	or	Action Two
Each time bearer is assigned to a skirmish, the Free Peoples player chooses to	discard 3 cards from hand	or	[to] add a burden.

Saruman's Reach:

Trigger	Action One	or	Action Two
Exert an Uruk-Hai to make the opponent choose to either	exert 2 companions	or	make the Ring-bearer put on The One Ring until the regroup phase.

Gimli, Bearer of Grudges:

Trigger	Action One	or	Action Two
While Gimli is the Ring-bearer, at the start of each skirmish involving him,	add 2 burdens	or	[add] 2 threats.

Versus:


Slaked Thirsts:

Cost	Action
Spot a dwarf companion and discard this event to	exert a minion twice.

Pippin WoBaS:

Cost	Action
If Pippin is not assigned to a skirmish, return him to your hand to	wound a roaming minion twice.

Hard Choice:

Cost	Action
Spot Aragorn to	heal a companion who has the Aragorn signet twice.

Saying that there is an implied choice of actions (though I would argue that it's an implied choice of characters) falls flat when faced with the following arguments:

1) Argument from context. What is the surrounding context of the ruling? What was it meant to address? Discussed in a previous post (making sure you can't "dodge" bad effects/choices by choosing an action you cannot complete).
2) Argument from a literal reading. What do the cards literally say? Is a choice literally printed on the card?
3) Argument from common sense. Players don't feel that Slaked Thirsts is being played correctly on Gemp.

I would go further to add, though I can't prove it,

4) Argument from design. Was it Decipher's intention when creating these cards (WoBaS, Slaked Thirsts, Hard Choice, etc.) to limit the player's choices of the receiving character? Especially when it would hurt their strategic options? Highly doubtful.

EDIT: Bib has as his central argument:

1) Argument from implication. Even though normally "all cards do what they say, no more, no less" we are meant to assume "more" is implied in this particular case. I see this is an interpretation not supported by the rulebook. Also, I could point to a recent "ruling" by Bib regarding playing stacked minions and a certain card where he "ruled" that we should not make these sorts of jumps regarding implications that are not clearly spelled out in the rulebook.

[dethwish07]

I usually revere Bib's word as lotr tcg law. However, i'm with Kralik on this one. He has given an effective argument with great examples to contrast slaked thirst, wobas, and the like (one action; choice of targets), to cards that actually offer a choice (forced or not) between two actions. I wonder what Marcin would make of your argument, Kralik... Hopefully he weighs in.

[Elgar]

I am actually with Bib on this one. 
By rule, when performing an action, you must do as much of the effect as possible. 
This means that you (the "controller" of the effect) must choose "targets" of the effect that completely fullfill the effect first.
Most of the time the current conversation doesn't come up because things are singlular (wound a minion [once])  In those situations, it's obvious that minions that can't take a wound can't be the "target" of the effect and another minion must be chosen.
If we change the effect to wound a minion twice and the ability to can't take more than 1 wound, shouldn't we come to the same conclusion?

[leokula]

I'm gonna be with Kralik since I've never seen anybody play slaked thirsts or wobas like that, or hard choice for that matter.

I'm gonna go and say that if you said "wobas CANT wound exhausted minions at all" then I would think it makes more sense than "you can only do this if there's no other minions with more vitality"... seems foolish.

[Kralik]

This means that you (the "controller" of the effect) must choose "targets" of the effect that completely fullfill the effect first.

Try to find a section of the rulebook that says this.

[Elgar]

This means that you (the "controller" of the effect) must choose "targets" of the effect that completely fullfill the effect first.

Try to find a section of the rulebook that says this.

That's fair.  I find it easily deductucted from:
"If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to perform an action and you cannot, you must perform as much as you can and ignore the rest. (See limit.)"

that you must first try to permorm that action to its fullest.  Choosing cards to affect is part of performing the effects of a card.

"6. Perform effects of The Card. This includes
choosing cards to be affected, if necessary. If
initiative is a requirement for an effect, you
cannot count The Card. If an effect takes a card
into your hand from your discard pile, The Card
is not there yet."

[Kralik]

Imagine this scenario:

At site two your opponent plays Wulf, Freca and Hides. Can WoBaS be used against Freca? According to Bib's line of reasoning, you cannot target Freca because it is impossible to wound him twice. But on the other hand, what if your opponent uses Hides? You have no way of knowing whether they will or not use Hides in advance. If they were going to use Hides, then Pippin could wound Freca twice (but one wound would be prevented). So you actually can't know if it's legal to target Freca or not. Misapplying the rule creates a logical conundrum.

Furthermore, if we keep misapplying the rule we're going to have to look critically at several more cards and twist them from their original design to do something else. For example: Terrible and Evil. You would not be able to use it to kill an exhausted Nazgul if a non-exhausted Nazgul or a non-Nazgul minion was on the table.

Just saw Elgar's reply:

That's fair.  I find it easily deductucted from:
"If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to perform an action and you cannot, you must perform as much as you can and ignore the rest. (See limit.)"

that you must first try to permorm that action to its fullest.  Choosing cards to affect is part of performing the effects of a card.

"6. Perform effects of The Card. This includes
choosing cards to be affected, if necessary. If
initiative is a requirement for an effect, you
cannot count The Card. If an effect takes a card
into your hand from your discard pile, The Card
is not there yet."

I see nothing in this that says you must choose a card that allows you to perform the action to the fullest. In fact, it says, "you must perform as much as you can and ignore the rest."

Remember that in English the concept of action is directly tied to the verbal part of a sentence. For example:

Pippin wounds Castamir and Pippin wounds Corsair Marauder

Have the same action. The target (or direct object) is different, but the action is fundamentally the same.

By the way, thanks for doing some rulebook research. I appreciate it.

[Elgar]

If you "must perform as much as you can and ignore the rest", then "performing as much as you can" completely and absolutely follows. 

If you must perform as much as you can, and part of performing an action is choosing a card to affect, then you must choose a card that you can perform as much of the effect on.  Therefore if you choose a card to affect that you cannot perform the action when there is a card you can perform the action, *you are not perorming as much as you can* because you acould have chosen that other card.


In other words, say there is an effect of a card that requires you to perform an action and:
a) there are cards that you can perform the action and
b) cards that you cannot
you have to choose a card from set a).

Example: "Shadow player wounds a minion."  In this case, the shadow player can't choose to wound a minion that cant take wounds (say it's the manuever phase and a minion has riders gear and is mounted) and have it be a null effect.  The shadow player must choose a different minion that can be wounded.

WRT actions.  Pippin wounds Castimir and Pippin wounds Corsair Maurader are 2 different actions based on the definitiion below:
"action
Nearly everything that occurs during the game is some kind of action. Players perform actions to play cards, use special abilities, move their fellowships, reconcile, and so on.
Every action is either optional or required. An optional action is defined as: an action that uses the word "may," an event, or a special ability. All other actions are required actions."