Slaked Thirsts vs. Pippin WoBaS

[Kralik]

Looking at Pippin, WoBaS and exhausta-minion yet again...

"6. Perform effects of The Card. This includes choosing cards to be affected, if necessary."

Choosing the roaming minion to be affected obviously has to come before wounding said minion. Is the minion able to be wounded? If so, you may choose it. If not, you may not.

"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.)"

Now the effect of WoBaS may be broken into two actions:

(Spot a roaming minion that can be wounded).
1) Wound the roaming minion.
2) Wound the roaming minion again.

The effect requires you to perform action 1. So you do. The effect now requires you to perform action 2. You cannot, but you've done as much as possible and thus followed the rules.

EDIT: Or maybe you can look at it as:

1) Spot a roaming minion that can be wounded. Wound it.
2) Wound the minion from #1 again.

By the time you reach #2 you can't change your choice even if it's impossible to wound the chosen minion.

[Elgar]

Be default you do all of what the card says.

You do as much of the effect as possible... but you still can choose the initial target of the effect as long as it's not illegal. Are you completely unwilling to agree that even if the rules are somewhat ambiguous, the cards were meant to allow the player a choice?

You do as much of the effect as possible only "If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to perform an action and you cannot"  Players do have a choice.  *Choosing* is part of performing the effect by rule. However you have to choose a card to affect that you are able to perform the [entire] effect on.  

I'm fine saying that you can perform a "wound twice" action on a 1 vitality character, becuase there is no rule prohibiting it.

WRT intent: Just because a card is intended to work one way doesn't mean that it actually does.  I agree that T&E was likely meant to kill Nazgul.  That doesn't mean that the rules make it function differently than intended.  

[Elgar]

Looking at Pippin, WoBaS and exhausta-minion yet again...

"6. Perform effects of The Card. This includes choosing cards to be affected, if necessary."

Choosing the roaming minion to be affected obviously has to come before wounding said minion. Is the minion able to be wounded? If so, you may choose it. If not, you may not.

"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.)"

Now the effect of WoBaS may be broken into two actions:

(Spot a roaming minion that can be wounded).
1) Wound the roaming minion.
2) Wound the roaming minion again.

The effect requires you to perform action 1. So you do. The effect now requires you to perform action 2. You cannot, but you've done as much as possible and thus followed the rules.

EDIT: Or maybe you can look at it as:

1) Spot a roaming minion that can be wounded. Wound it.
2) Wound the minion from #1 again.

By the time you reach #2 you can't change your choice even if it's impossible to wound the chosen minion.

We're getting closer.
Choosing is part of performing the effect.
Here's a rewrite of your algorithm
(Spot a roaming minion that's allowed to be wounded twice).
1) place a wound on the roaming minion.
2) place a wound on the roaming minion.

[Kralik]

However you have to choose a card to affect that you are able to perform the [entire] effect on.

You are saying this rule is implied and I'm saying that it is not explicit, therefore I'm not going to take it as a rule.

I'm fine saying that you can perform a "wound twice" action on a 1 vitality character, becuase there is no rule prohibiting it.

There is no rule prohibiting an "exert twice" effect on a 2 vitality character or "heal twice" effect on a 1-wound character. There is only a rule prohibiting extra exertions as a cost.

WRT intent: Just because a card is intended to work one way doesn't mean that it actually does.  I agree that T&E was likely meant to kill Nazgul.  That doesn't mean that the rules make it function differently than intended.

Intent most certainly does matter, which is why Decipher issued clarifications when the intent was not clear, and is why we allow RB cancel in Fellowship/Towers/TS even though it's technically against the rules.

Over the years we've discovered many rules questions that Decipher never addressed. Were they still around, they probably would clarify things,* but as they are not, we must go with what makes the most sense and seems to be closest to the intent of the card designers.

*Well, maybe not, considering what Decipher was like in their later stages.

[Kralik]

I'm just going to put both relevant rules sentences together to show how I'm reading them, with the clarification that you must choose a card before you can perform the effect on that card. Therefore, with this timeline, we have:

"Perform effects of The Card. This includes choosing cards to be affected, if necessary. If [then] the effect of [The Card] requires you to perform an action and you cannot, you must perform as much as you can and ignore the rest."

As I said, I'm not seeing Elgar's implied rule in there at all.

[Elgar]

However you have to choose a card to affect that you are able to perform the [entire] effect on.

You are saying this rule is implied and I'm saying that it is not explicit, therefore I'm not going to take it as a rule.

There's a lot of things that are no implicit in this game.  If I can choose to only do part of effects whenever I want to, then why have the words on the cards.  The cards do what they say, and when you play one, you do it to the best of you ability which includes choosing the card affected.

I'm fine saying that you can perform a "wound twice" action on a 1 vitality character, becuase there is no rule prohibiting it.

There is no rule prohibiting an "exert twice" effect on a 2 vitality character or "heal twice" effect on a 1-wound character. There is only a rule prohibiting extra exertions as a cost.

Sure, I except that those effects would also fall into the same bucket.

WRT intent: Just because a card is intended to work one way doesn't mean that it actually does.  I agree that T&E was likely meant to kill Nazgul.  That doesn't mean that the rules make it function differently than intended.

Intent most certainly does matter, which is why Decipher issued clarifications when the intent was not clear, and is why we allow RB cancel in Fellowship/Towers/TS even though it's technically against the rules.

Over the years we've discovered many rules questions that Decipher never addressed. Were they still around, they probably would clarify things,* but as they are not, we must go with what makes the most sense and seems to be closest to the intent of the card designers.

*Well, maybe not, considering what Decipher was like in their later stages.

Intent does matter, as you say, for motivation for clarifications.  However, before those clarifications are made, you have to play the card with the rules as written as different people can have different opinions on the intent of the card.
For example, what was the intent for the original Sting?  To look and study an opponents hand?  Or to remove twillight based on the orcs in hand?  I would think the later, but it sure was used for the former moreso.

[Kralik]

There is no rule prohibiting an "exert twice" effect on a 2 vitality character or "heal twice" effect on a 1-wound character. There is only a rule prohibiting extra exertions as a cost.

Sure, I except that those effects would also fall into the same bucket.

Wait... so what are we arguing over exactly?!

For example, what was the intent for the original Sting?  To look and study an opponents hand?  Or to remove twillight based on the orcs in hand?  I would think the later, but it sure was used for the former moreso.

Which is part of why they banned it.

[Elgar]

There is no rule prohibiting an "exert twice" effect on a 2 vitality character or "heal twice" effect on a 1-wound character. There is only a rule prohibiting extra exertions as a cost.

Sure, I except that those effects would also fall into the same bucket.

Wait... so what are we arguing over exactly?!

I think what you quoted is something we agree upon, which, as an effect, you *can* wound heal or exert something X times, even if it doesn't have X Vit, X Wounds or X+1 Vit (except exerting when X=0).  I have been brought over to thinking this way.

I think part of what we are arguing over what is the exact process of resoving the effect of a card or ability works.  My arguement is that a card does what it says.  When performing an action (be it the effects of an ability or a card, or otherwise), you must choose card(S) to affect that the action is allowed to affect if you can, otherwise absurdism abounds.

[Kralik]

I think what you quoted is something we agree upon, which, as an effect, you *can* wound heal or exert something X times, even if it doesn't have X Vit, X Wounds or X+1 Vit (except exerting when X=0).  I have been brought over to thinking this way.

If you *can* do this--i.e. it's not against the rules--then all of the discussed usages of Slaked Thirsts, WoBaS and Hard Choice-style cards are valid. Namely, if it's legal to exert/wound/heal once then it's legal to exert/wound/heal twice, even if the second one fails. I see this as fitting perfectly within the "Performing effects of The Card" rules, as I wrote above (#65, but perhaps you didn't see it in the mess of posts).

[Kralik]

Maybe we can find a middle ground:

Kralik: I think you should be able to target anyone with WoBaS whether they can be wounded or not.
Elgar: I think you can only target minions that may be wounded twice.

...discussion/arguments for many posts...

Kralik: 'OK, WoBaS cannot be used on an unwoundable minion'
Elgar: 'I'm fine saying that you can perform a "wound twice" action on a 1 vitality character, becuase there is no rule prohibiting it.'

Proposed middle ground: Above post.

[Elgar]

I think what you quoted is something we agree upon, which, as an effect, you *can* wound heal or exert something X times, even if it doesn't have X Vit, X Wounds or X+1 Vit (except exerting when X=0).  I have been brought over to thinking this way.

If you *can* do this--i.e. it's not against the rules--then all of the discussed usages of Slaked Thirsts, WoBaS and Hard Choice-style cards are valid. Namely, if it's legal to exert/wound/heal once then it's legal to exert/wound/heal twice, even if the second one fails. I see this as fitting perfectly within the "Performing effects of The Card" rules, as I wrote above (#65, but perhaps you didn't see it in the mess of posts).

I did see post 65 and was trying to come up with a good response.
I'm not quite sure it's perfectly fitting, but it is very close.  Maybe something about choosing an applicable card to be affected.  I'm not comforable about the "then" part of your "rule".  I feel that choosing a card to affect is conditional on the effect (it must match the object and must not be forbidden).

[Elgar]

Maybe we can find a middle ground:

Kralik: I think you should be able to target anyone with WoBaS whether they can be wounded or not.
Elgar: I think you can only target minions that may be wounded twice.

...discussion/arguments for many posts...

Kralik: 'OK, WoBaS cannot be used on an unwoundable minion'
Elgar: 'I'm fine saying that you can perform a "wound twice" action on a 1 vitality character, becuase there is no rule prohibiting it.'

Proposed middle ground: Above post.

lol agreed.

[Kralik]

  ... I think.

[Kralik]

I feel that choosing a card to affect is conditional on the effect (it must match the object and must not be forbidden).

Agree.

[bibfortuna25]

So this all seems fair to me, then. New question: can an exhausted Boromir BOC choose the wounding option and then put on the Ring/ use Sapling or Intimidate?