Slaked Thirsts vs. Pippin WoBaS

[Kralik]

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?

Really? You think it's fair?  I'm... astonished!  That's great!

Regarding Boromir... I used to think that he couldn't use Sapling but somewhere recent I heard that he could? At least, that is how it plays on Gemp. I think it came down to the wounds being assigned (even if prevented/converted to burdens) and it doesn't fall in the same scenario as the rulebook's Sapling/ Morgul Destroyer example. I'm assuming you mean the Ring of Rings.

[Elgar]

Regarding Boromir... I used to think that he couldn't use Sapling but somewhere recent I heard that he could?

If the ring is already on, you can't use a sapling.  Otherwise, barring corner cases, it's fine.

[bebpc]

so in the end what was the conclusion on slaked thirst?Can you choose a minion with 2 vitality to exert even if there is a minion with 3 of life?
and the same result will be affect on mumak commander or denethor right?

[ANGRY]

You can't use either of them ever again.

[Phallen Cassidy]

It's time for a revival!

I had a very similar question to Kralik and luckily other people have already debated this one! I encourage any rules-minded individuals to read through the discussion and post your thoughts with my question in mind: How does this apply to Deathless Lord? I believe that the Shadow player can always choose to wound an ally if there's an ally which can take wounds, even if not all companions are exhausted. This gets into a little more gray area with one of the argument posts (context of the rules), I admit, but I believe once we establish that you can choose to wound/exert/heal a character fewer times than printed on the card as an effect it logically follows. I did have an argument prepared but I don't think it's necessary. Dissenters, do speak! I think this rule has been misapplied and I want to change the way Gemp uses it, but not before we have some agreement.

[Dictionary]

Personally I've always gone with Bibfortuna's interpretation on this; I don't see how you can exert someone twice if they have only 2 vitality, unless there are no other options available. I'm hazier on wounding, and I'll need some time to digest this whole thread.

I'd be wary about hastily changing this rule; its effects are more resounding than one would expect. There may not even be a 100% answer that satisfies everyone. Think of it this way: you could change Gemp to no longer allow RB skirmish cancelling in any format, and it wouldn't be wrong rules-wise. Neither is the current implementation, but Gemp has to do one or the other.

[Phallen Cassidy]

After talking about it in the game hall, I see that this does not extend to making The Witch-king, Deathless Lord more useful. I managed to overlook that this wounding does involve the rule in question:

If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to choose one of two different actions, you must choose an action that you are fully capable of performing (if possible).

Similarly, an exhausted Boromir, Bearer of Council cannot elect to wound himself twice because he, too, is inherently unable to be wounded twice and always able to fully perform the other action. Using Sapling prevents the wound entirely, so under no circumstance can a character with 1 vitality ever take more than 1 wound. A character can "absorb" more than one wound by having any number of wounds prevented, but that character never actually takes any of those wounds and so is never actually wounded. For the sake of comprehensiveness, if Boromir has 2 vitality, he can still opt to take wounds and then those wounds can be prevented without ill effect because we are not "preventing a prevention" as with Sapling and Morgul Destroyer. Once a player chooses one of the two effects, that is the only effect which will take place.

As was mentioned before, Strength of Spirit cannot be used to allow a character to exert more times than the character has in vitality because the rules are specifically against this:

If the cost of an action requires a character to exert X times, then that character must have X+1 or more vitality or that action cannot be performed.

To answer bebpc's question, I still see no reason to believe that Mumak Commander, Giant Among the Swertings and Denethor, Last Ruling Steward could not be use to exert a character with 2 vitality even if a valid target with 3 vitality is on the table. I don't imagine it will ever come up, but I may as well note that you cannot elect to exert a character with 1 vitality if there exists a target with 2 or more vitality in order to pay the costs without following through with the effect (e.g., use GAtS to gain the wound tokens for extra strength from Seasoned Leader and then choose to exert an already-exhausted Wraith instead of a healthier one), because an exhausted character is never a valid target for an exertion. You can, however, pay the costs even if there are no valid targets.

To sum everything up, whenever an effect is simply to exert, wound, or heal something more than once, any valid target is always a valid target. You do not have to pick the character which allows you to most fully apply the effect.

And that is my revised outlook on this. Ready to hear more disagreements! "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."

[Dictionary]

You're saying GatS can prioritise someone with 2 health even though they can't be exerted twice, but he can't prioritise someone with 1 health because they can't be exerted? That seems inconsistent to me...

I find the idea that GatS could just choose someone without 3 vitality to target (Over those that actually have 3 vitality) truly perplexing. Why would cards like HtGG even need to say "Up to 2 times" in that case?

[Phallen Cassidy]

An exhausted character can't be exerted. A character with more than 1 vitality can.

As for why some cards are written one way or another, I can't give you a satisfactory answer about why Decipher did much of anything. Why does Dwarven Heart say "up to 2 times?" Its text is only effective after the condition is played, so all it does is allow a player to elect not to heal his Dwarf. Task Was Not Done allows a player to discard "up to 2 minions," but how often would a player want to keep a minion on the table? This is the effect, again, so "up to" is trivial here. HtGG can be used to heal himself once and discard a copy from hand to heal him again, for example.

If I had to guess, I'd say "exert a companion up to 2 times" is clunkier than "exert a companion twice." As I'm sure you know, I am not going to argue that Decipher meant "up to" and said "twice." I don't think that is altogether relevant, either. I just don't see any reason to believe that if the card doesn't choose between two effects, applying an effect twice is any different from applying an effect up to 2 times to the same target.

I could ask you similar questions which, I believe, are even harder to answer. Why do the rules say "If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to choose one of two different actions ..." rather than "one of several different actions ..."? Why does it say "one of two different actions ..." rather than simply "one of two actions ..."? After all, if the common argument is true and choosing between different targets is choosing different actions, when is a choice between actions ever between two similar actions?

Merrick brought up an excellent point in the game hall that I want to address concerning step 6 of the "playing a card" sequence:

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.

According to this, isn't "choosing cards" part of the effect, therefore choosing one card is a different effect than choosing another? I don't think so. I believe choosing a card is part of performing the effect, but the effect itself (exert, wound, heal, discard, etc.) remains unaltered.

I do appreciate that this goes against what has been LotR TCG canon for potentially 15 years, and I think any opposition is reasonable. But if I apply the rules here with the same scrutiny that I apply the rules in any other scenario, I can't arrive at the old conclusion any more.

Interestingly enough, Zorbec's and the "Game Text:" section of the wiki say "you may spot an ally whose home is site 3 to heal that ally twice." Presumably, that means that some source used to have that as the game text. Why was it revised? I don't think it's relevant, but maybe it's something to consider.