The Last Homely House

Middle-Earth => Archives of Minas Tirith => Topic started by: Zoskan on January 21, 2009, 04:08:57 PM

Title: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: Zoskan on January 21, 2009, 04:08:57 PM
Bill Ferny, Swarthy Sneering Fellow game text says: Nazgûl are not roaming. What happen then if Faramir, Bearer of Quality wounds himself to make a Nazgûl roaming when Bill is in play? Is the the Nazgûl gonna be roaming or not???
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: Kralik on January 21, 2009, 04:56:31 PM
It's the paradox of the millennium!

The solution? Don't play Expanded. :P
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: TheJord on January 21, 2009, 05:08:04 PM
I think this particular quandry is similar to the question not long ago about 'preventing' wound and 'not being able to take' wounds.

Bill Ferny, SSF says Nazgul cant be roaming. Faramir pays the cost of his action, but his effect is nullified by SSF.
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: Zoskan on January 21, 2009, 05:45:54 PM
I'm thinking too that Bill should nullified Faramir's special ability if he targets a Nazgûl but I can't find a specific rule to support that theory. At least, Faramir could always make Bill roaming.
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: FM on January 21, 2009, 06:03:24 PM
Don't they have yes-no interaction? I recall it existed bck in the day... Basically, when two abilities say "yes" and "no" to something, the "no" prevails. So if a minion is unable to gain fierce and you play a card that says it makes it fierce, it won't be fierce. If a card says to wound and they can't take wounds, they don't take wounds. Same with Bill.
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: Elf_Lvr on January 21, 2009, 06:20:24 PM
I guess since Bill just says "Nazgul are not roaming" you could really make one roaming - it'd just be un-roaming-ed immediately after.
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: Elessar's Socks on January 21, 2009, 06:26:32 PM
I'd use what FM was saying, although the rulebook might not explicitly cover it. Tossing another example in there, if Shelob HL prevents a companion from being assigned to a skirmish, Mauhur RH won't be able to assign himself to that companion. So my feeling is that, based on precedence, the "no" from Ferny will also stand.
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: lem0nhead on January 22, 2009, 12:50:21 AM
It doesnt really matter if the effect occurs whilst Ferny is on the table. He flatly stops nazgul from roaming and nothing can prevent that. Its like having something out that says your conditions cant be discarded and then you play a card that says discard a condition. You cant overule a card unless it specifically says you can, i dont think.
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: Gil-Estel on January 22, 2009, 03:08:44 AM
Line of Defense and Greenleaf
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: Vroengard on January 23, 2009, 04:46:45 AM
OK, but this is definetly more clear than the original comparison, I mean, when you cannot wound, you cannot wound. This does not leave space for discussions. But thanks for the original question GIl- Estel. Good to know
Title: Re: Bill Ferny, SSF vs Faramir, Bearer of Quality
Post by: Pepin The Breve on January 23, 2009, 07:22:15 AM
  Bill have an active text that states that Nazgul are not roaming. As long as Ferny´s text still there (and active) there is no way that Nazgul can be roaming cause he insert a new condition (state) to the game. If some card nullifies Ferny´s text (like Phial of Galadriel, SG) then Nazgul can become roaming, cause that condition no longer exist.