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: Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion  (Read 1589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 01, 2015, 08:53:05 PM
Read 1589 times

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1033
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« on: February 01, 2015, 08:53:05 PM »
I think Too Great and Terrible is malfunctioning, but I'd be interested to hear a ruling. The Card reads:

Maneuver: Spot a Nazgul to wound Gandalf twice. The Free Peoples player may discard two [Gandalf] cards from hand to prevent this.

I've played several games in which Too Great and Terrible was played at Steward's Tomb, and yet the Free Peoples player was still able to prevent the two wounds by discarding two [Gandalf] cards.

I also spoke to MarcinS briefly on facebook regarding the glitch for My Cards leagues. He says as best he can tell from the code, it should be functioning correctly. I also told him about My Cards tournaments appearing as All Cards tournaments. He asks one of you to send him an email regarding the specifics of this and any other current bug problems.
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

February 01, 2015, 11:23:44 PM
Reply #1

bibfortuna25

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1531
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2015, 11:23:44 PM »
The wounds aren't being prevented by discarding the 2 [Gandalf] cards. It's preventing the action of the card itself. It's basically saying "Do this unless FP does this."
All cards do what they say, no more, no less.

February 02, 2015, 12:09:02 AM
Reply #2

Durin's Heir

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Ranger
  • Posts: 854
  • #AlexJonesWasRight
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2015, 12:09:02 AM »
Bib, that's what I thought too. Preventing the "wounding" instead of the eventually resultant "wounds".

February 02, 2015, 10:00:53 AM
Reply #3

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1033
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2015, 10:00:53 AM »
Bib and dh, what is your basis for thinking it prevents the action, and isn't preventing the wounds? Are there similar examples you can point to?
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

February 02, 2015, 10:52:15 AM
Reply #4

Merrick_H

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 545
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2015, 10:52:15 AM »
Quote
CRD 4.0 - effect
A effect of an action could be adding or removing twilight tokens, exerting a character, discarding a card, or any number of other possibilities. The effects of an action are usually listed after the word "to" (so the action takes the form of "pay X to do Y," with X being the cost and Y the effect).

The wording of the card is slightly different, but the outcome is the same as on Morgul Destroyer or Morgul Brute.

"Do X. The Free People's player may do Y instead."



February 02, 2015, 02:47:59 PM
Reply #5

Durin's Heir

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Ranger
  • Posts: 854
  • #AlexJonesWasRight
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2015, 02:47:59 PM »
Bib and dh, what is your basis for thinking it prevents the action, and isn't preventing the wounds? Are there similar examples you can point to?

Quote
CRD 4.0 - effect
A effect of an action could be adding or removing twilight tokens, exerting a character, discarding a card, or any number of other possibilities. The effects of an action are usually listed after the word "to" (so the action takes the form of "pay X to do Y," with X being the cost and Y the effect).
The wording of the card is slightly different, but the outcome is the same as on Morgul Destroyer or Morgul Brute.

"Do X. The Free People's player may do Y instead."

That! "It was right there... on the tip of my tongue!" ;)

I don't know the rules in such detail as Merrick or yourself Sgtdraino, just was providing a logical path I thought was possible to explain the way it behaves by now (instead of just a misprogramming). As such, my voice isn't an authority of any kind. But I support Merrick's thoughts.

I can only think about Strength of Spirit: "preventing the wound token" by "an exertion" differs with "preventing the exertion" itself; the exertion and the resulting wound token are treated as separate things, so the "exertion" and whatever effect may depend on it happen, but no "exertion" token results. If the "wounding" action and the resulting "wound" are treated as different things, Too Great and Terrible would be working correctly. Strength of Spirit prevents the effect and not the action, Too Great and Terrible would prevent the action and then the effect wouldn't occur.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2015, 02:52:49 PM by Durin's Heir »

February 02, 2015, 07:29:06 PM
Reply #6

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1033
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2015, 07:29:06 PM »
I'm not seeing it guys. The definition you listed is basically just saying that wounding is one kind of effect. Cards that cancel an event as a whole all specify "cancel" (Wariness, Gandalf, Wise Guide), other cards that prevent a certain effect (wounding, exerting, etc.) all specify "prevent." IMO discarding the two [Gandalf] cards is indeed preventing two wounds, and if your in a situation where preventing wounds is not allowed, discarding the cards should have no effect. Otherwise the card should read "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards to CANCEL this."

It all has to do with "prevent" vs "cancel." The latter stops an action, the former prevents the results of an action.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2015, 07:35:59 PM by sgtdraino »
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

February 03, 2015, 03:12:47 AM
Reply #7

Cthulhu

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 142
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2015, 03:12:47 AM »
If it prevented the wounds themselves it would say "..to prevent those wounds".

Also see Why Shouldn't I Keep It.

My current Gemp Tengwar count: 133 + 4

February 03, 2015, 05:47:09 AM
Reply #8

Merrick_H

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 545
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2015, 05:47:09 AM »
The way it is written it is replacing one effect with another.  As far as I know, the only actions that cancel events are Response: actions on minions, conditions or events.

The way I justify my ruling comes from two places:

The effect rule from the Comprehensive rules:
The effects of an action are usually listed after the word "to" (so the action takes the form of "pay X to do Y," with X being the cost and Y the effect).

The "Playing a Card" entry in the CRD
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.

Since the choice is after the "to" both choices are part of the effect (A OR B).  The card gives the free people's player the choice between the two effects and the free people's player must choose one they can fully complete.

The way the card (and all such cards) should have been worded is "Spot X to make the free people's player choose: A OR B."

February 03, 2015, 06:03:06 AM
Reply #9

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 552
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2015, 06:03:06 AM »
The way it is written it is replacing one effect with another.  As far as I know, the only actions that cancel events are Response: actions on minions, conditions or events.

The way I justify my ruling comes from two places:

The effect rule from the Comprehensive rules:
The effects of an action are usually listed after the word "to" (so the action takes the form of "pay X to do Y," with X being the cost and Y the effect).

The "Playing a Card" entry in the CRD
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.

Since the choice is after the "to" both choices are part of the effect (A OR B).  The card gives the free people's player the choice between the two effects and the free people's player must choose one they can fully complete.

The way the card (and all such cards) should have been worded is "Spot X to make the free people's player choose: A OR B."

I have to agree. And in the case at the tomb, it should be even more clear. You are preventing the EVENT not the WOUNDING. The event is "spot this to do that", as the FP player you aren't preventing wounds, you are preventing "spot this to do that".

February 03, 2015, 06:10:55 AM
Reply #10

Valtor

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Orc
  • Posts: 34
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2015, 06:10:55 AM »
I think Merrick, dmaz et al are correct. In case it helps:

The way I understand it, no doubt imperfectly :-[, until the text options in the card itself have been exhausted, the effect (2 wounds on Gandalf) is not active. So if the FP player discards 2 cards he prevents the event from resolving into a play effect. At no time are there any wounds requiring prevention.

Whereas Intimidate states: "Response: If a companion is about to take a wound, spot Gandalf to prevent that wound."
Gandalf is not about to take a wound if the FP player discards 2 cards using the text in Too Great and Terrible. No Intimidate needed, and also Steward's Tomb has no effect.
Gandalf is about to take wounds if the FP player does not discard and allows Too Great and Terrible to have its effect. Intimidate needed but Steward's Tomb would negate the wound prevention (as indeed it does).

February 03, 2015, 07:05:15 AM
Reply #11

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1033
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2015, 07:05:15 AM »
I still disagree. I think what you guys are thinking of, are cards in which one effect can be replaced by another effect, as Merrick says. But when that happens, the word "instead" is used in the text of the card. This is referenced in Comprehensive Rules under "response":

Quote
Typically, only one such response can be performed in a
given situation, because its effect will "prevent" that situation or replace it with another effect "instead."

As you can see, the rules differentiate between "prevent" and "instead." That's why at Steward's Tomb you can still take burdens "instead" of wounds using The One Ring, but if you were trying to "prevent" the effect of taking wounds using a card, it would not work.

I also think there is a distinction in the rules between "prevent" and "cancel." "Prevent" generally refers to specific kinds of effects, whereas "cancel" is the only thing that does what you guys are talking about: Killing the card as a whole. That's why Storied Homestead can stop Shotgun Enquea at Steward's Tomb, but Narsil, Blade of the Faithful cannot. In fact, let's compare the wording of Narsil to Too Great and Terrible:

Narsil:

Quote
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, exert 2 [Gondor] Men to prevent that.

Clearly "that" is a pronoun referring to the effect of a wound that the bearer is about to take.

Too Great and Terrible:

Quote
Maneuver: Spot a Nazgul to wound Gandalf twice. The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand to prevent this.

Clearly "this" is a pronoun referring to the effect of two wounds that Gandalf is about to take. Too Great and Terrible basically just has a built-in response action that is worded similarly to Narsil, Blade of the Faithful. It isn't replacing one effect with another, it's attempting to "prevent" an effect. In this case, Steward's Tomb shouldn't let you prevent this effect, because it says "Wounds cannot be prevented."

Again, if Too Great And Terrible had read, "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand to cancel this," it would work at Steward's Tomb. If the card had read, "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand instead of this," it would work at Steward's Tomb. But because it specifies "prevent," it should not work at Steward's Tomb.

"All cards do what they say, no more, no less."
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 07:32:59 AM by sgtdraino »
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

February 03, 2015, 10:20:44 AM
Reply #12

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 552
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2015, 10:20:44 AM »
Narsil:

Quote
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, exert 2 [Gondor] Men to prevent that.

Clearly "that" is a pronoun referring to the effect of a wound that the bearer is about to take.

Too Great and Terrible:

Quote
Maneuver: Spot a Nazgul to wound Gandalf twice. The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand to prevent this.

Clearly "this" is a pronoun referring to the effect of two wounds that Gandalf is about to take. Too Great and Terrible basically just has a built-in response action that is worded similarly to Narsil, Blade of the Faithful. It isn't replacing one effect with another, it's attempting to "prevent" an effect. In this case, Steward's Tomb shouldn't let you prevent this effect, because it says "Wounds cannot be prevented."

Again, if Too Great And Terrible had read, "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand to cancel this," it would work at Steward's Tomb. If the card had read, "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand instead of this," it would work at Steward's Tomb. But because it specifies "prevent," it should not work at Steward's Tomb.

"All cards do what they say, no more, no less."

This is a well organized argument for the other side. I'm not so sure about where I stand now XD
Logically, you are right, sgtdraino. Pointing out the correlation between Narsil's text and TGAT puts it in a different light for me.

We need some more expertise :)

ADDED:
I think the kicker to your argument lies in Gandalf, Wise Guide's gametext. Before I was arguing that the discarding of the two Gandalf cards was canceling the event NOT actually preventing the wounds. However the wording in Gandalf's text (and Strength of Kings for that matter) clearly states "cancel" when talking about stopping an event.

After fully reading that card, it looks like what is happening is this.
1. I spotted the Nazgul. The two wounds are happening.
2. I can prevent the two wounds from happening by discarding the cards.

IF you used Gandalf, Wise Guide I'm assuming that would work for keeping him being wounded? (although the result would be exactly the same lol)

I liked that you used bibfortuna's little tagline there to show the logical breakdown of your argument. I'm still not 100% sure what's going on there, but your argument makes more sense for sure when you apply it to the "just do what the cards say" rule.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 11:44:32 AM by dmaz »

February 03, 2015, 11:53:14 AM
Reply #13

Valtor

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Orc
  • Posts: 34
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2015, 11:53:14 AM »
Too Great and Terrible basically just has a built-in response action that is worded similarly to Narsil, Blade of the Faithful.

There is not a correlation between Narsil and TGAT because there is an important difference.

Narsil does not itself cause wounds. Its only function is to prevent wounds to be inflicted unconditionally by another source. "that" is the prevention of a wound about to be inflicted by the other source.

TGAT has wording that will, but for the second sentence, cause wounds. The discarding of 2 cards in accordance with that second sentence is integral to the operation of TGAT as an event. The event action has not been completed until the FP player chooses not to discard the 2 cards. Until then no wounds are triggered.

"this" in TGAT refers to the operation of the event, not the wounds themselves.

That said, TGAT does use the word "prevent", one of the actions prohibited by Steward's Tomb. I just think that what is being prevented is not wounds, but one possible outcome of an event that is in course of being played, but has not yet been completed.

February 04, 2015, 03:15:28 AM
Reply #14

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 552
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2015, 03:15:28 AM »
There is not a correlation between Narsil and TGAT because there is an important difference.

Narsil does not itself cause wounds. Its only function is to prevent wounds to be inflicted unconditionally by another source. "that" is the prevention of a wound about to be inflicted by the other source.

...

"this" in TGAT refers to the operation of the event, not the wounds themselves.

That said, TGAT does use the word "prevent", one of the actions prohibited by Steward's Tomb. I just think that what is being prevented is not wounds, but one possible outcome of an event that is in course of being played, but has not yet been completed.

I'm still not convinced though...

If you don't like Narsil's text, we can look at Morgul Brute.

"When you play this minion, you may spot a Nazgul to add a burden. The Free Peoples player may wound the Ring-bearer to prevent this."

Would the wounding of the Ringbearer "prevent"  the minion from being played? No, it prevents the burden.

I was at first arguing that the option to discarding the 2 gandalf card was "preventing" a card not the wounds, but after carefully reading all of the rules found that Merrick and others posted, there's actually nothing there to substantiate that claim at all. It's all just about steps taken when cards are played.

After reading through some other cards, it's pretty clear that Decipher had some sort of a pattern with their wording which can't be denied.

In terms of stopping things from happening within the game:

Events are "cancelled"
Burdens and Wounds are "prevented"
Minions, possession, and conditions are "discarded"

Every card I've found so far follows this. Thus if you say that you can't "prevent" the burdens from Morgul Brute, you shouldn't be able to "prevent" the wounds from TGAT.

There are other game dynamics that can be "prevented" as well such as raising or lowering move limit (see Rapt Hillman).