The Last Homely House
Middle-Earth => Archives of Minas Tirith => Topic started by: Gwaihir on March 22, 2010, 09:53:25 PM
-
Say you have Frodo, Sam, some threats, gollum and promise keeping all in play. Frodo dies in a skirmish with gollum or shelob. Ring goes to Sam, threats have to be assigned and promise keeping adds exertions. The question is, in what order is this all done?
I'm fairly sure that the ring gets transferred before anything. My guess is that all threat wounds are assigned and then promise keeping goes off, but i'm not sure of that. Perhaps it goes threat, promise keeping, threat, promise keeping until the end.
Who knows?
-
Threat, exertion, threat, exertion, threat, ...
-wtk
-
i think it's separate because the wounds are added one at a time; thus exertions are one at a time.
-
Say you have Frodo, Sam, some threats, gollum and promise keeping all in play. Frodo dies in a skirmish with gollum or shelob. Ring goes to Sam, threats have to be assigned and promise keeping adds exertions. The question is, in what order is this all done?
I'm fairly sure that the ring gets transferred before anything. My guess is that all threat wounds are assigned and then promise keeping goes off, but i'm not sure of that. Perhaps it goes threat, promise keeping, threat, promise keeping until the end.
Who knows?
The response action for transferring the ring is an optional action, whereas threats being triggered and Promise Keeping are required actions. Consequently, it looks to me like it goes: threat, exertion, threat, exertion... etc. and at the end, Sam gets the Ring.
A bit weird timing but I think that's right.
Thranduil
-
I'd say promise keeping comes before threats and the Ring, because Frodo takes a wound immediately before he's killed.
-
You have to take Promise Keeping exertions for each wound you take from threats.
-wtk
-
Ah, in that case, yeah, they'd alternate.
-
Promise Keeping doesn't exert for threat wounds, they are not made during a skirmish involving a [Gollum] minion.
-
Threat wounds are a part of the skirmish, and Promise Keeping would trigger for each threat wound assigned.
-
The response action for transferring the ring is an optional action, whereas threats being triggered and Promise Keeping are required actions.
I've been thinking about this and I'm not convinced. How is taking the ring optional and Promise Keeping mandatory. Both use the same language saying essentially do it, not you may do it. Isn't it the same as healing at a sanctuary when blade tip is in play. You get to heal before the wound. How is this different.
The rules say that you lose the game if your ringbearer is killed. So if Frodo is killed, it is game over. The only way the game can continue is if Sam takes the ring. Sam taking the ring should have priority over anything else because the game is over if he doesn't take it. Assigning threat wounds or promise keeping exertions when the ring bearer is dead, is playing after the game is over.
So if Frodo is killed, I think there are two options. Either Sam takes the ring and the game continues, or Sam doesn't take the ring and the game is over.
-
The response action for transferring the ring is an optional action, whereas threats being triggered and Promise Keeping are required actions.
I've been thinking about this and I'm not convinced. How is taking the ring optional and Promise Keeping mandatory. Both use the same language saying essentially do it, not you may do it. Isn't it the same as healing at a sanctuary when blade tip is in play. You get to heal before the wound. How is this different.
The rules say that you lose the game if your ringbearer is killed. So if Frodo is killed, it is game over. The only way the game can continue is if Sam takes the ring. Sam taking the ring should have priority over anything else because the game is over if he doesn't take it. Assigning threat wounds or promise keeping exertions when the ring bearer is dead, is playing after the game is over.
So if Frodo is killed, I think there are two options. Either Sam takes the ring and the game continues, or Sam doesn't take the ring and the game is over.
That was my issue by that timing as well, but it actually looks strictly right. Response actions are always optional - you don't have to use them, just like any other special ability. Sam's ability to take the Ring is a response action, so it seems to happen after any other required actions for a companion dying have taken place. Weird, but that's what it looks like to me.
Thranduil
-
Ok, I see that distinction now. Promise keeping doesn't have the key word response and Sam does.
But, I'm still stuck on the game over situation. The rules say if the ringbearer is killed the game is over. It doesn't make sense to assign wounds and threats when the game is over. Sam is responding to the game being over and that response is necessary for the game to continue. I would argue that placing wounds and exertions, is playing the game, but you can't play the game if it is over.
Otherwise the situation seems to be the game is over, but we'll keep playing wounding, etc, to see if it is really over. ???
-
Threat wounds are apart of the skirmish, and Promise Keeping would trigger for each threat wound assigned.
You may want to edit that to "a part," not "apart."
Anyways, to the first point:
Here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,3491.0.html), more specifically here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,3491.msg41848.html#msg41848), again stated here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,3491.msg41938.html#msg41938). You can also cross-check here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,317.msg9024.html#msg9024).
In short, threats do cause Promise Keeping exertions.
-wtk
-
Anyways, to the first point:
Here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,3491.0.html), more specifically here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,3491.msg41848.html#msg41848), again stated here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,3491.msg41938.html#msg41938). You can also cross-check here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,317.msg9024.html#msg9024).
In short, threats do cause Promise Keeping exertions.
-wtk
Holy sh... I mean, Holy Cow!! That is so wrong... so evil... did I mention it's wrong! ...
I haven't quite decided whether to thank you or not for clearing that up for me. I think I was happier before I knew that ;)
Or, maybe Kralik, Heije, Lurtzy, ES, MuadDib, TheJord (where has he been?!) and some other respected members of the community can assert to my correctness.
-wtk
Are you saying that other member (myself included) are not respected??? How dare you?! ;)
Just kidding (I respect myself and that's enough for me) ;)
Anyway, thank you for going out of your way to enlighten me and other disrespected members ;) :gp:
-
...and some other respected members of the community can assert to my correctness.
Again, not a comprehensive list and no offense meant to those of you who aren't there.
Anyways, no problem. Promise Keeping is pretty devastating in the right deck!
-wtk
-
Threat wounds are apart of the skirmish, and Promise Keeping would trigger for each threat wound assigned.
You may want to edit that to "a part," not "apart."
Good catch :)
-
Oh and, thanks for pointing me out as a respected member.....Finally, recognition! But I agree with the whole Promise Keeping point. We had some great debates with YaLaaT included :lol: oh and not to forget, Incited.
-
Ok, I see that distinction now. Promise keeping doesn't have the key word response and Sam does.
But, I'm still stuck on the game over situation. The rules say if the ringbearer is killed the game is over. It doesn't make sense to assign wounds and threats when the game is over. Sam is responding to the game being over and that response is necessary for the game to continue. I would argue that placing wounds and exertions, is playing the game, but you can't play the game if it is over.
Otherwise the situation seems to be the game is over, but we'll keep playing wounding, etc, to see if it is really over. ???
This is a valid argument, but the MtG concept of The Stack can help clear this out. You see, you'll be losing, so you announce you'll use Sam's ability to keep on playing (otherwise, you could simply wrap up and lose, you are not required to keep playing as long as possible - you can always concede at any time, for instance). However, since the game will go on, there are mandatory actions that must be resolved, so you resolve those, and then the optional action takes place.
-
From previous discussions on the stackness of LotR (or lack thereof), in particular when applied to a dying character (killed but not quite dead), I think the happiest approach would be to accept it's possible to momentarily not have a Ring-bearer.
-
Perhaps an appropriate clarification of the game-ending rule would be:
"If there is no Ring-bearer and no player has an available response action remaining, the Free Peoples' player loses."
-
So to clarify:
Frodo dies, ring goes to Sam, use promise keeping (for Frodo's death wound), threat wound, use promise keeping, threat wound, use promise keeping etc..
At least that's how I would play it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I am not 100% sure.
Promise Keeping + They Stole It + Her Ladyship = Pain.
-
The question about Sam's text versus threat wounds depends on whether threats are a mandatory response to Frodo dying (in which case they come before Sam's text) or whether they're the next step in the game after Frodo dies (in which case they come after Sam's text). Can anyone clarify this?
-
The question about Sam's text versus threat wounds depends on whether threats are a mandatory response to Frodo dying (in which case they come before Sam's text) or whether they're the next step in the game after Frodo dies (in which case they come after Sam's text). Can anyone clarify this?
I'm pretty sure they're a mandatory trigger. But others (I'm looking at you ES!) are much better at this sort of stuff than I am.
Thranduil
-
The condition for threats triggereing:
"When a companion or ally is killed and that card is placed in the dead pile, the Free Peoples player counts the number of threats on the dead pile and then removes them..."
This implies that being killed and being placed in the dead pile are separate steps (ie a companion could be killed but not placed in the dead pile) I would argue that a companion would have to have been killed before being placed in the dead pile. Therefore, its possible to have to use Sam's ability before Frodo is placed in the dead pile.
-
So you're saying they are responding to different triggers: Sam's ability to Frodo being killed, and threats wounds to Frodo being placed in the dead pile.
Interesting.
I don't know enough about these obscure corners of the rules to give a good opinion on this, but I like it in principle!
Thranduil
-
In my opinion a response can take place anytime on an action; So if Frodo's killed then Sam can take the ring but then you still have to do the remaining threat-wounds. And if Frodo's killed in a skirmish then on every threatwound you devide your opponent is allowed to make an exertion as the treatwounds are still a result of Frodo's skirmish.
-
So you're saying they are responding to different triggers: Sam's ability to Frodo being killed, and threats wounds to Frodo being placed in the dead pile.
More or less, yes. At least according to the rules, there are 2 conditions for threats to be triggered ( 1)a companion or ally is killed and 2) that character is put into the dead pile)
-
In my opinion a response can take place anytime on an action; So if Frodo's killed then Sam can take the ring but then you still have to do the remaining threat-wounds. And if Frodo's killed in a skirmish then on every threatwound you devide your opponent is allowed to make an exertion as the treatwounds are still a result of Frodo's skirmish.
Except mandatory responses (threats) MUST come before optional responses (Sam's ability). The only way Sam's ability comes before threats, is if threats aren't a response to Frodo being killed.
Fwiw, I remember hearing awhile back (Sent Back?) that killed=placed in dead pile, so that distinction doesn't work.
-
In my opinion a response can take place anytime on an action; So if Frodo's killed then Sam can take the ring but then you still have to do the remaining threat-wounds. And if Frodo's killed in a skirmish then on every threatwound you devide your opponent is allowed to make an exertion as the treatwounds are still a result of Frodo's skirmish.
Except mandatory responses (threats) MUST come before optional responses (Sam's ability). The only way Sam's ability comes before threats, is if threats aren't a response to Frodo being killed.
Fwiw, I remember hearing awhile back (Sent Back?) that killed=placed in dead pile, so that distinction doesn't work.
The distinction was that if you are placed in dead pile, you have been killed. The distinction didn't cover being killed and not being placed in the dead pile.
For example, if you had an event that said "Response: If a companion is killed, place him in your discard pile rather than your dead pile." threats would not trigger.
-
The condition for threats triggereing:
"When a companion or ally is killed and that card is placed in the dead pile, the Free Peoples player counts the number of threats on the dead pile and then removes them..."
This implies that being killed and being placed in the dead pile are separate steps (ie a companion could be killed but not placed in the dead pile) I would argue that a companion would have to have been killed before being placed in the dead pile. Therefore, its possible to have to use Sam's ability before Frodo is placed in the dead pile.
I think this is not what's it meant. A comp can be killed and not be placed in the dead pile because of cards like: The Dead City.
-
I think I misunderstood Elgar, because he's actually saying the same. Why don't you people learn dutch! GRRR :) ](*,) :) I thought he meant that you still could give Frodo threatwounds while he's not yet placed in the dead pile...
-
I think this is not what's it meant. A comp can be killed and not be placed in the dead pile because of cards like: The Dead City.
I disagree. In the case of The Dead City, Smeagol is about to be killed, but you discard him instead of killing him (thereby preventing him from being killed). Smeagol isn't killed if you use The Dead City, just as the Ring-bearer isn't wounded if he uses The One Ring.
-
Any game-breakers if killed characters remained in play until responses resolve? (IMO it would be full of geeky win if they were temporarily sent to the void, but that's some serious last resort business.)