The Last Homely House
Middle-Earth => Lothlórien => Topic started by: sgtdraino on October 17, 2012, 07:47:21 PM
-
Recently I bumped up against a wicked Ninja Gollum deck that just seemed unstoppable to me. Normally with such decks, my defense is to get rid of all those conditions Gollum relies on, and then (on top of that) avoid skirmishing him as much as possible... because in my experience with Ninja Gollum decks, if Gollum ever skirmishes your guys, BAD STUFF is going to happen.
BUT this deck incorporated multiple copies of Deceit (I'm surprised I haven't seen it more often) which makes it all but impossible to get rid of his conditions.
So what are some strategies/cards that people can use to help protect their freeps from Ninja Gollum?
I'd like this thread to be a repository for such strategies. Your help is appreciated!
-
Armor, if you're playing [Gondor]
Vilya can send a key condition back to hand.
Clever Hobbits can also be useful, even if Deceit is out.
Ithilien Blade can deal with Shelob.
And I've found that Fates Entwined can be really helpful if you're running mostly Hobbits.
-
Armor, if you're playing [Gondor]
Good point. I actually stock Armor, I just never drew it either game. And he didn't seem to have any possession removal. Maybe I should add more.
Vilya can send a key condition back to hand.
At one point he had at least three Deceit out, so that wouldn't be enough. I guess I could temporarily rid myself of one for one turn, but the downside of having to get out both Elrond and Vilya to do this seems like a lot of work for little payoff.
Clever Hobbits can also be useful, even if Deceit is out.
That's not bad if there is little or no twilight. My current method is Deep in Thought, but then you've got at least 8 twilight in there, 8 conditions he can protect. And my deck generates a lot of twilight. Generally, there is probably going to be too much in there to nail them, even with the cheaper Clever Hobbits. Plus I hate to stock a card that only works on Gollum stuff unless it's a sure bet.
Ithilien Blade can deal with Shelob.
My deck is an Ithilien Blade deck, and Shelob is generally no problem (except for preventing guys from Skirmishing). Gollum though... see below.
And I've found that Fates Entwined can be really helpful if you're running mostly Hobbits.
Meh. I just don't like them.
Gollum has a really good counter to Ithilien Blade: Final Strike. This mostly limits me to events in terms of countering him. The best defense I currently have is What Are They? That works great, because if I'm not adding threats, Gollum is. For most of the game it's pretty easy to keep him roaming, until he starts killing off my guys and removing the threats. The problem arises when I run out of What Are They? and he gets out Final Strike... or I just don't get a good draw, of course. It seems like once one guy goes down, the rest follow pretty quickly. He is of course using Promise Keeping, Fat One Wants It, Not Easily Avoided, Not This Time!, They Stole It, Web, Captured By the Ring and a variety of ways to keep playing Gollum every turn. He also uses hardcore site manipulation to repeatedly play sites that wound my guys or prevent healing every time I move.
I guess Armor is a pretty good defense against fighting, although he'll also use Horribly Strong and Little Snuffler to wound guys during Shadow, and Unseen Foe to nail all of my strong guys in Regroup. If I haven't managed to get rid of Gollum prior to Skirmish, he's probably surviving until Regroup, because naturally Shelob has prevented my best guy from fighting him... and Gollum is often moderately strong to start with due to various other actions. Eventually he'll pop a guy, often in the Shadow or Regroup phase, where the One Ring I use won't let me take the threats as burdens (assuming I'm not already heavily burdened from previous threats). I could switch to The One Ring, The Ring of Rings, but I think that would leave my ring-bearer too weak to a lot of other deck strategies.
My deck is Gondor/Gandalf cuture, with a Frodo Ring-bearer. Here are some strategies I'm considering:
I run Grimbeorn with his Beorning Axe, so theoretically I can keep retrieving [gandalf] cards over and over. So I'm considering:
-Terrible and Evil: A costlier Gandalf version of What Are They? Can't really use this much before the cost becomes too high, though.
-Keep Your Forked tongue: This would let me skirmish Gollum with impunity, but he can still nail me during Shadow and Regroup.
-Citadel to Gate: This would get the threats off and heal my guys, but the cost is high, and it also defeats the general strategy of my deck to keep threats on.
-Final Account: This is probably my best bet overall. It would let me get back my What Are They?, as well as a decent minion to either play on his guys or use with Grimbeorn. I've previously been using On Your Doorstep, but that means I most likely won't get it back until the following turn. So, maybe I should swap out On Your Doorstep with Final Account!
I'm also considering Aragorn's Bow to use with Aragorn, Thorongil, who can add threats to exert Gollum down to one, and then smite him with the Bow... but the more I think about it, Final Account may well be my best bet!
ETA: WHOOPS! Final Account is X-listed. Back to the drawing board!
I still feel like my best bet is to cycle What Are They? somehow... maybe On Your Doorstep coupled with Elrond, Lord of Rivendell?
-
99% of the time you should use Vilya to get rid of Promise Keeping. It is unique so there will be no multiple copies out. You have to get Elrond, but 3 copies of him should give decent chance of this. And Vilya can be downloaded via The Binding Ring (which is probably quite good idea to play anyway, as in some cases you may want to get Narya or Ring of Barahir quickly).
BTW, Gondor/Gandalf should definitely use Boromir ring-bearer. This way you can start with Denethor, LoMT and get the [Gondor] cards you need the most at site 3 - so if you play against Ninja Gollum, you always have Armor out early.
-
99% of the time you should use Vilya to get rid of Promise Keeping. It is unique so there will be no multiple copies out.
Hmmm. I guess that would keep it off my back for a while. Yet still, Promise Keeping is only a small part of the problem.
You have to get Elrond, but 3 copies of him should give decent chance of this. And Vilya can be downloaded via The Binding Ring (which is probably quite good idea to play anyway, as in some cases you may want to get Narya or Ring of Barahir quickly).
I don't run any of those other rings, and right now that feels like too much real estate.
BTW, Gondor/Gandalf should definitely use Boromir ring-bearer. This way you can start with Denethor, LoMT and get the [Gondor] cards you need the most at site 3 - so if you play against Ninja Gollum, you always have Armor out early.
At this point you've had a chance to kinda see how my deck operates. I think you'd agree that Boromir ring-bearer doesn't really work with it. Besides, I make great use out of the Boromir that can heal himself every turn.
For now, the countermeasure I took is to add Elrond, Lord of Rivendell, so that I can immediately retrieve a card I cycle with On Your Doorstep. In theory that could get me back one What Are They per turn. Of course, that is IF I find Elrond first. Not a perfect solution, but all I've got for now.
Still considering whether or not to add Vilya.
-
I almost forgot, Sapling of the White Tree can be really helpful too.
-
Spirit of the White Tree works fine against most builds. Although I personally pack my ninja gollum shadow with Buckland Homestead, Nelya, Third of the Nine Riders, Lemenya, ET and a shotgun Enquea to remove annoying conditions like that or Namarie.
-
Good suggestions guys! I've especially made use of Spirit of the White Tree.
-
and yet here is one more reason I don't play anything after shadows ;) tough luck sgt. What about something that discards all conditions simultaneously? Would that work, something like grown suddenly tall?
-
What about something that discards all conditions simultaneously? Would that work, something like grown suddenly tall?
Good question! I have wondered about that myself. Putting aside the issue that you'll be bombing your own conditions as well as your opponent's, the main issue I see is that Deceit doesn't have to spot Gollum in order to work, and Grown Suddenly Tall costs 5 twilight. If my understanding of the timing issues is correct, you would have to pay 5 to play Grown Suddenly Tall, and then your opponent would, at a minimum, be able to take out 5 twilight to prevent 5 conditions of his choice from being discarded. He'll be able to save all of his most important ones, it seems to me.
You'd need something that can discard conditions for free, like Namarie.
-
You'd need something that can discard conditions for free, like Namarie.
Which, as we all know, is a completely over-powered card. I think Sleep Caradhras would work better, as it only let's him keep 3 conditions, though that is not great. If I remember correctly, you can use clever hobbits repeatedly until he runs out of pool, though I'm not certain.
-
clever hobbits would be vile to use against deceit. however, I dont see a reason to pack a card that you MIGHT use. Then again, I just played against someone who packed 2 anti galadriel cards "just in case." Of course I myself am considering stacking Stand Against Darkness to counter the Sauron's I have been encountering as of late. The last 2 movie block games I played were lost due to a site 9 Sauron.
-
Deceit prevents even when all conditions go at once.
And Clever Hobbits is an event so a one time use.
IMHO Spirit of the white tree and Realms Vilya are the best options.
-
Which, as we all know, is a completely over-powered card.
Meh. In this case, since Namarie works during maneuver, the opponent could just make sure to leave enough twilight to protect his guys. Usually not a problem with ninja gollum.
I think Sleep Caradhras would work better, as it only let's him keep 3 conditions, though that is not great.
Meh. I agree, better, but not that great.
If I remember correctly, you can use clever hobbits repeatedly until he runs out of pool, though I'm not certain.
That might work, but it's usefulness is pretty limited for anything other than ninja gollum. Still, looks like you don't need to play smeagol in order to play the card, so this might be the best bet. I wonder if, for "any number," you can choose a number greater than the number of conditions that are on the table? I might have to try that.
clever hobbits would be vile to use against deceit. however, I dont see a reason to pack a card that you MIGHT use.
Depends on how powerful you think the strategy is, and how often you think you'll encounter it. I pack a couple Ships of Great Draught in my deck, just in case I encounter Madril.
Deceit prevents even when all conditions go at once.
And Clever Hobbits is an event so a one time use.
Yeah, but the card says discard "any number" of gollum conditions. If you choose the number 999, there's no way he can remove enough twilight to prevent that.
The issue is whether or not you can choose a number greater than the number of conditions on the table. I'd like to see a ruling on that.
-
You can't discard more [Gollum] conditions than there are in play.
-
I think that you could just splash a copy of Faramir, SoD in order to stop They Stole It. It will also help you if you encounter Easterling Captain.
-
Shelob, Her Ladyship will target Faramir exclusively in that situation, however.
-
You can't discard more [Gollum] conditions than there are in play.
Granted. But if the opponent uses Deceit to remove a twilight and prevent you from discarding one of those conditions, do you think you should be able to keep trying to discard it until the twilight is gone, since the card says "discard any number," and gollum conditions are still in play?
-
I would argue that Deceit "saves" the condition, and Clever Hobbits can't target it again, unless of course you play a second Clever Hobbits.
-
I would argue that Deceit "saves" the condition, and Clever Hobbits can't target it again, unless of course you play a second Clever Hobbits.
According to the Archives, this is not the case:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,7172.0.html (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,7172.0.html)
so i think i can use clever hobbits and discart my oponet gollum condition right?but how it works if the oponet have a deceit in play?
Also, you could play Clever Hobbits and then continually attempt to discard a [Gollum] condition until they ran out of twilight.
thats is what i want to know i can discart one , he prevent, discart it again, he prevent until runs all the pool?
Yes.
I can't find anything definitive in comprehensive rules or current rulings, though.
-
I'm thinking back to the Fortress Never Fallen example in the CRD and wondering if that can be applied here. FNF also involves being able to choose several conditions to discard, which are then discarded simultaneously. If simultaneous discarding is also the case with Clever Hobbits, then I'd argue--since there's only one sweep--it can't needle a condition out of existence.
-
When you play Clever Hobbits, you choose a number up to X, where X is the number of [Gollum] conditions in play. The actual process of discarding them goes one at a time, so Deceit can respond to each one in turn, but you still can't select the same condition more than once.
-
I think the issue is that cards like Fortress Never Fallen and Saruman's Power define a number to be discarded when they are activated, while Clever Hobbits states "any number." I think the real consideration is whether or not you can set a number that is higher than the number of conditions out on the table. Taking your Fortress Never Fallen example, it seems like the answer to that question is "yes." Fortress Never Fallen might have 9 tokens on it, so by the wording of the card, when activated, it will discard 9 shadow conditions. But if there are only 3 shadow conditions on the table, it will discard those, and that will be the end of it. I see it as being a bit similar to assigning threat wounds: Suppose my fellowship has only three vitality remaining, and I have to assign 9 threat wounds. Suppose I prevent three of those wounds from hitting my guys, by whatever means. I'd still have 6 more I have to prevent, or I'm dead.
I couldn't find the CRD reference to Fortress Never Fallen you were talking about. Can you point me to it? If FNF can have 9 tokens on it, and Deceit can prevent it from discarding its total of 3 conditions by just taking out 3 twilight, then it seems to me that Clever Hobbits would be equally ineffective.
There's also the issue of where the "single sweep" idea comes from. Can you point me to it, in the CRD or CR?
When you play Clever Hobbits, you choose a number up to X, where X is the number of [Gollum] conditions in play. The actual process of discarding them goes one at a time, so Deceit can respond to each one in turn, but you still can't select the same condition more than once.
I think this is key... but where are you getting that? What rule states that X can't be a number higher than the number of conditions you can spot? FNF seems like it violates that.
-
FNF and Clever Hobbits have different wordings. The wording on the card is always the most important thing.
FNF targets one Shadow condition at a time up until the amount of tokens on it are exhausted, or there are no more Shadow conditions available. Clever Hobbits is worded completely differently.
-
FNF and Clever Hobbits have different wordings. The wording on the card is always the most important thing.
Agreed. However, in this case, I think we're going to need some actual CRD/CR citations, and so far I haven't seen any.
FNF targets one Shadow condition at a time up until the amount of tokens on it are exhausted, or there are no more Shadow conditions available.
Your statement is contrary to this:
I'm thinking back to the Fortress Never Fallen example in the CRD and wondering if that can be applied here. FNF also involves being able to choose several conditions to discard, which are then discarded simultaneously. If simultaneous discarding is also the case with Clever Hobbits, then I'd argue--since there's only one sweep--it can't needle a condition out of existence.
So, which one of you is right? And where's the actual CRD/CR reference?
Clever Hobbits is worded completely differently.
Clever Hobbits states "any number." I've heard that X can't be more than you can spot, I've heard you can only do "one sweep," I've heard that one activation of Deceit protects a condition for the duration of the entire discarding action... but I have not yet heard where it is the rules actually confirm this to be the case. I think it's time to see some actual citations.
-
FNF says to "discard a Shadow condition for each token here." So if there are 5 tokens there, you actually undertake 5 individual actions of discarding a single Shadow condition, each of which can be responded to when appropriate. If something prevents discarding one condition, you can still target that condition again, assuming you have more tokens you haven't "used up."
Clever Hobbits asks you to choose a number of [Gollum] conditions to discard. Since you can't spot, discard or otherwise do anything to cards that are not in play, with some obvious exceptions, the context of Clever Hobbits clearly indicates that number is limited by the amount of conditions in play. Now once you have chosen the number, say 4, Clever Hobbits then becomes "Discard 4 [Gollum] conditions." And then it becomes no different than any other card that can discard multiple conditions. If you play Secret Sentinels, you would choose your two conditions first, then Deceit can respond to one or both of them. You can't pick the same condition twice.
Anytime you have a rules question, it can almost always be solved simply by reading the words that are printed on the card.
-
FNF says to "discard a Shadow condition for each token here." So if there are 5 tokens there, you actually undertake 5 individual actions of discarding a single Shadow condition, each of which can be responded to when appropriate. If something prevents discarding one condition, you can still target that condition again, assuming you have more tokens you haven't "used up."
I wouldn't be so sure. You are referring (I assume) to the "For each" entry in the Comprehensive Rules, however it clearly states, that it only applies to exerting, wounding or healing.
To provide a counter-example, if always discarding of multiple cards was done one-by-one (choose one, discard, choose another, discard, etc.) then the card Siege Engine would not be usable, as it clearly refers to "If one or more machines are about to be discarded".
-
FNF says to "discard a Shadow condition for each token here." So if there are 5 tokens there, you actually undertake 5 individual actions of discarding a single Shadow condition, each of which can be responded to when appropriate. If something prevents discarding one condition, you can still target that condition again, assuming you have more tokens you haven't "used up."
But the important bit, is that FNF sets the number at 5, even if there are only 2 conditions on the table. X can be higher than the number of conditions out there, and from that point on it's simply a matter of:
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.
Deceit does not protect a condition for the duration of the entire action, it only protects it from one discard. If there are still discards left to be performed, and no more twilight to be taken out by Deceit, then it seems to me the rest of FNF's action trumps Deceit. The same should go for Clever Hobbits.
Clever Hobbits asks you to choose a number of [Gollum] conditions to discard.
Clever Hobbits says to choose any number.
Since you can't spot, discard or otherwise do anything to cards that are not in play, with some obvious exceptions, the context of Clever Hobbits clearly indicates that number is limited by the amount of conditions in play.
I disagree. The FNF example already demonstrates that X can be greater than the number of conditions on the table, and once X is defined, the effects of the card must be carried out to the fullest extent possible. I see nothing that says you cannot pick a number higher than the number of conditions you can spot. The word "spot" is nowhere on the card.
Suppose, for example, the card did set a specific number (as many condition-discarding cards do). It is entirely possible for that number to be higher than the number of conditions on the table, and the effects of the card must be carried out as completely as possible. The rules state that cards are discarded one at a time, just as wounds are applied one at a time. If you have a character with 2 vitality, it is possible to target that character with 8 wounds, and if 2 of them are prevented, the character still dies, because X = 8. The same should apply to discarding cards: if X=8, but there are only 2 cards out there, preventing 2 cards from being discarded means that 6 more must still be discarded.
Now once you have chosen the number, say 4, Clever Hobbits then becomes "Discard 4 [Gollum] conditions."
True, except I don't see where I couldn't choose 40 instead of 4.
And then it becomes no different than any other card that can discard multiple conditions. If you play Secret Sentinels, you would choose your two conditions first, then Deceit can respond to one or both of them. You can't pick the same condition twice.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Secret Sentinels discards 10 conditions instead of 2. Wouldn't the effects of that card need to be carried out to the fullest extent possible? Even with Secret Sentinels, it's possible for X to be greater than the number of conditions on the table.
Anytime you have a rules question, it can almost always be solved simply by reading the words that are printed on the card.
Most of the time. :)
To provide a counter-example, if always discarding of multiple cards was done one-by-one (choose one, discard, choose another, discard, etc.) then the card Siege Engine would not be usable, as it clearly refers to "If one or more machines are about to be discarded".
Well, CR states:
discard
The default meaning of the word “discard”
discard from play.” Discarding from othe
ocations (such as from your hand or from
op of your draw deck) is always specified.
Cards are discarded one at a time so all players
can see which cards are being discarded.
-
Not all cards that discard multiple conditions work the same way. Sleep, Caradhras, FNF and Clever Hobbits all can discard multiple conditions, but are vastly different in their actual function
Siege Engine can protect multiple other machines from Sleep, but not from FNF. And if Siege Engine happened to be in the [Gollum] culture, it could protect them from Clever Hobbits.
"For each" doesn't just apply to wounds or heals; it applies in every other similar situation in the game. Otherwise, Curse Their Foul Feet wouldn't work.
-
Well, CR states:
discard
The default meaning of the word “discard”
discard from play.” Discarding from othe
ocations (such as from your hand or from
op of your draw deck) is always specified.
Cards are discarded one at a time so all players
can see which cards are being discarded.
So, how is the Siege Engine working in this case? I'm FP player and I have an effect that says - "discard 3 shadow conditions".
1. I choose non-engine condition, you can't prevent me from discarding, it's discarded.
2. I choose engine condition, you use Siege Engine and prevent me from doing that, Siege Engine is discarded.
3. I choose engine condition, you can't use Siege Engine anymore, as it is already discarded, and you have failed preventing me from discarding "any number of Engines".
Long time I highlighted that problem when I started working on Gemp-LotR, that rules are inconsistent in that point, and postulated (that's how it's done in Gemp-LotR) that whenever you do X things (except for exert/wound/heal "for each") you choose all the affected cards, then any "is about it" happen, then you proceed with the effect, unless the effect was prevented in whole, or you just prevented part of the effect, in that case only non-prevented affected cards had the effect done on them. This is both intuitive and at all possible to implement. I'm afraid rules (and cards) are contradicting each other, hence no perfect solution can be made.
-
"For each" doesn't just apply to wounds or heals; it applies in every other similar situation in the game. Otherwise, Curse Their Foul Feet wouldn't work.
All rules do what they say, no more, no less.
When an effect wounds (or exerts or heals) characters using the phrase “for each,” you may wound (or exert or heal) a character more than once.
-
Siege Engine can protect multiple other machines from Sleep, but not from FNF.
I disagree. As soon as FNF is activated, you are about to discard X conditions, where X is the number of tokens on FNF. Siege Engine should prevent them all.
And if Siege Engine happened to be in the [Gollum] culture, it could protect them from Clever Hobbits.
I agree, because (like Clever Hobbits) there is no upper limit to the number of discardings it can prevent.
"For each" doesn't just apply to wounds or heals; it applies in every other similar situation in the game. Otherwise, Curse Their Foul Feet wouldn't work.
I believe the "for each" entry in CR also makes reference to Anduin Banks, so clearly it applies to more than just exerting, healing, and wounding.
-
"For each" doesn't just apply to wounds or heals; it applies in every other similar situation in the game. Otherwise, Curse Their Foul Feet wouldn't work.
I believe the "for each" entry in CR also makes reference to Anduin Banks, so clearly it applies to more than just exerting, healing, and wounding.
If I wanted to be literal, I can stretch the "for each" to effects that:
- exert/wound/heal,
- have "for each companion over X" in their text.
FNF matches neither of those criteria.
Also, when I referred to the "for each" rule, what I meant, is that you can't choose to discard the same card multiple times with FNF like effects, as you can do the same effect on the same card (due to "for each") only if the effect is healing, wounding or exerting.
-
So, how is the Siege Engine working in this case? I'm FP player and I have an effect that says - "discard 3 shadow conditions".
If it's a single effect, then it's a single action. 3 of your conditions "is about to" be discarded, so IMO Siege Engine should prevent all 3. The way the card is worded prevents them all, because there is no upper limit, and all count as "is about to" actions.
Deceit, like Siege Engine, is also a response action that keys off "is about to" actions, but it does them one at a time with a cost involved. Each use of Deceit is a separate response action, and they only protect one card at a time, and only for that one part of the bigger action trying to discard it. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates the card is then protected from any further attempts to discard it occuring later in the same action.
Long time I highlighted that problem when I started working on Gemp-LotR, that rules are inconsistent in that point, and postulated (that's how it's done in Gemp-LotR) that whenever you do X things (except for exert/wound/heal "for each") you choose all the affected cards, then any "is about it" happen, then you proceed with the effect, unless the effect was prevented in whole, or you just prevented part of the effect, in that case only non-prevented affected cards had the effect done on them. This is both intuitive and at all possible to implement.
I think you have the right interpretation. The question with implementing Clever Hobbits, is whether upon playing the card, you start by selecting the number of Gollum conditions you want to discard, or whether you move directly to selecting the specific conditions you want to discard. The former would permit X to be higher than the number of conditions on the table, the latter would limit you to selecting only what's there. In my view, you should be able to choose "any number" to be X. I think that's what the rules support, and I also think that would bring a bit more balance to ninja gollum.
-
The 8/9/2005 CRD (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,605.0.html) has the Fortress Never Fallen entry:
"The effect of this condition’s special ability when the card has more than one token is simultaneous. Several conditions are discarded at the same time. Siege Engine responds to these discards by preventing all of them.
You have three tokens on Fortress Never Fallen when you use its special ability. You select three Shadow conditions to be discarded (including my Siege Engine), and discard Fortress Never Fallen. I use the response special ability on Siege Engine, which technically saves all three conditions, but then I discard Siege Engine to pay its own cost."
Granted, maybe too much is riding on that entry, but I figure Clever Hobbits could likewise work as "I'll choose these conditions to discard, care to respond?" The selected conditions are all in the "about to be discarded" stage, so Deceit can respond as able to each one. Once responses are over, any conditions not protected will be discarded.
-
The 8/9/2005 CRD (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,605.0.html) has the Fortress Never Fallen entry:
Interesting, I wasn't aware until now that previous CRDs contain things the current one does not! Must download.
"The effect of this condition’s special ability when the card has more than one token is simultaneous. Several conditions are discarded at the same time. Siege Engine responds to these discards by preventing all of them.
You have three tokens on Fortress Never Fallen when you use its special ability. You select three Shadow conditions to be discarded (including my Siege Engine), and discard Fortress Never Fallen. I use the response special ability on Siege Engine, which technically saves all three conditions, but then I discard Siege Engine to pay its own cost."
Makes sense. That was my interpretation as well.
Granted, maybe too much is riding on that entry, but I figure Clever Hobbits could likewise work as "I'll choose these conditions to discard, care to respond?" The selected conditions are all in the "about to be discarded" stage, so Deceit can respond as able to each one. Once responses are over, any conditions not protected will be discarded.
The issue is what happens after Deceit has done it's thing, but the original effect still dictates more conditions must be discarded.
For example, with the FNF example, suppose FNF has 5 tokens on it. The opponent only has 3 conditions: Two copies of Deceit, and one copy of Final Strike. There are 3 twilight in the twilight pool. FP activates FNF, which sets X at 5. SP uses Deceit three times, removes three twilight, and prevents his 3 conditions from being discarded. There is now no twilight left. But the effect of FNF mandates that 5 conditions be discarded, only 3 discards were prevented, and there are three conditions still on the table. So, in this case, does the SP now have to discard two of his conditions? Or are the last two discards ignored?
I think the answer to this question, will also give us our answer for Clever Hobbits.
-
For example, with the FNF example, suppose FNF has 5 tokens on it. The opponent only has 3 conditions: Two copies of Deceit, and one copy of Final Strike. There are 3 twilight in the twilight pool. FP activates FNF, which sets X at 5. SP uses Deceit three times, removes three twilight, and prevents his 3 conditions from being discarded. There is now no twilight left. But the effect of FNF mandates that 5 conditions be discarded, only 3 discards were prevented, and there are three conditions still on the table. So, in this case, does the SP now have to discard two of his conditions? Or are the last two discards ignored?
I think the answer to this question, will also give us our answer for Clever Hobbits.
I think it goes like this, you use the card, choose X=5, select 5 conditions (or as many you can if there is less) and say "I discard those", your opponent can then pay twilight to prevent the discard 3 times, thus essentially prevent any discard at all. You can't choose the same one multiple times.
-
"For each" doesn't just apply to wounds or heals; it applies in every other similar situation in the game. Otherwise, Curse Their Foul Feet wouldn't work.
All rules do what they say, no more, no less.
When an effect wounds (or exerts or heals) characters using the phrase “for each,” you may wound (or exert or heal) a character more than once.
Gandalf FOTSF
curse their foul feet
Death to the strawheads
All of these cards use for each and don't reference heals or wounds.
-
For example, with the FNF example, suppose FNF has 5 tokens on it. The opponent only has 3 conditions: Two copies of Deceit, and one copy of Final Strike. There are 3 twilight in the twilight pool. FP activates FNF, which sets X at 5. SP uses Deceit three times, removes three twilight, and prevents his 3 conditions from being discarded. There is now no twilight left. But the effect of FNF mandates that 5 conditions be discarded, only 3 discards were prevented, and there are three conditions still on the table. So, in this case, does the SP now have to discard two of his conditions? Or are the last two discards ignored?
I think the answer to this question, will also give us our answer for Clever Hobbits.
I think it goes like this, you use the card, choose X=5, select 5 conditions (or as many you can if there is less) and say "I discard those", your opponent can then pay twilight to prevent the discard 3 times, thus essentially prevent any discard at all. You can't choose the same one multiple times.
If that is the case, I think it also applies to Clever Hobbits. However, I still have yet to see something from a CRD or CR that confirms this to be how it works. To my mind, the CR states that the effect must be carried out to the fullest extent possible. Furthermore, the effect of discarding conditions constitutes a single action, lotr does not break that action down into any sub-phases of targeting and then discarding. The only thing breaking up this single action would be response actions, and then the original effect action continues, to the fullest extent possible.
-
Further to the "for each" discussion above, the purpose of that ruling is to illustrate that Wingfoot can wound the same minion more than once, if you choose. So the same logic can be applied to FNF, since that old ruling is no longer in the CRD.
-
Also, since Clever Hobbits has discarding the conditions as a cost of its action, it doesn't fall under the "do as much as you can and ignore the rest" clause.
-
Easy way to solve this, replicate the situation on Gemp, then see what it lets you do :P
-
I haven't played the card on Gemp yet, but I can imagine when you use it, you will select each card you want to discard. Then Deceit can respond to each one individually, if applicable.
-
Further to the "for each" discussion above, the purpose of that ruling is to illustrate that Wingfoot can wound the same minion more than once, if you choose. So the same logic can be applied to FNF, since that old ruling is no longer in the CRD.
Just because the ruling doesn't appear in the most recent CRD, I don't think that means we can ignore it. It's the only official ruling we have on the matter, and it was never reversed. Plus, other official rules which are still in effect (such as the Movie Block X-list) appear in older CRDs but not the most recent one. So, just because it isn't in the latest CRD, doesn't mean it's no longer in effect.
And if you're drawing a Wingfoot comparison with "for each" actions, Clever Hobbits is also a "for each" action, which would seem to indicate the card can attempt to discard the same condition more than once.
Also, since Clever Hobbits has discarding the conditions as a cost of its action, it doesn't fall under the "do as much as you can and ignore the rest" clause.
I was about to say you have a brilliant point there... but then I saw this under "costs" in CR:
If a player is paying costs for a card and a
response action occurs which modifies those
costs, that player must continue to pay as many
costs as he can, even if it is no longer possible to
pay them all.
Easy way to solve this, replicate the situation on Gemp, then see what it lets you do :P
Ha! I am quite certain Haszor is being facetious. Gemp does whatever MarcinS tells it to.
ETA: I'm looking though the CR and the various CRDs to see if any other related rulings may shed some light on this. Here's one that is interesting to me (from CR):
PLUNDERED ARMORIES 1 C 193
If a minion bearing a ? weapon is discarded
due to losing a skirmish, Plundered Armories
takes effect before optional actions triggered by
winning/losing that skirmish occur.
When an effect discards “all” minions (thereby
discarding their weapons), they are discarded
at the same time. None of those minions may
have weapons played on them with Plundered
Armories.
It seems like a comparison could be drawn to cards that discard "all" conditions, or "all" shadow conditions (such as Deep in Thought, Saruman's Power, etc.).
Here is the aforementioned ruling on FNF:
FORTRESS NEVER FALLEN 4 U 276
The effect of this condition’s special ability
when the card has more than one token is
simultaneous. Several conditions are discarded
at the same time. Siege Engine responds to these
discards by preventing all of them.
You have three tokens on Fortress Never Fallen
when you use its special ability. You select three
Shadow conditions to be discarded (including my
Siege Engine), and discard Fortress Never Fallen.
I use the response special ability on Siege Engine,
which technically saves all three conditions, but
then I discard Siege Engine to pay its own cost.
-
It's easy the "if for each is in text, each of the actions is a separate one" applies only to exert/heal and wound - as the rule states.
The second paragraph of "for each" applies to static abilities, as in example - adding Archery, as it's not an action, just as Galadriel, Bearer of Wisdom "for each" is not an action.
-
On an unrelated note, the CR ruling on O Elbereth! Githoniel!:
O ELBERETH! GITHONIEL! 2 R 108
As skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer
cannot be cancelled, the skirmish action of this
condition can only be used to take off The One
Ring.
...would seem to indicate that skirmishes with the Ring-bearer cannot be cancelled in any format. I believe Gemp still allows these to be cancelled in certain formats.
-
On an unrelated note, the CR ruling on O Elbereth! Githoniel!:
O ELBERETH! GITHONIEL! 2 R 108
As skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer
cannot be cancelled, the skirmish action of this
condition can only be used to take off The One
Ring.
...would seem to indicate that skirmishes with the Ring-bearer cannot be cancelled in any format. I believe Gemp still allows these to be cancelled in certain formats.
I believe that ruling was made for the movie format, so that the alternate ring-bearers wouldn't use stuff like Voice of Nimrodel, Boromir's Gauntlets, etc. So, in any format prior to that, the card can cancel the skirmish.
-
I believe that ruling was made for the movie format, so that the alternate ring-bearers wouldn't use stuff like Voice of Nimrodel, Boromir's Gauntlets, etc. So, in any format prior to that, the card can cancel the skirmish.
The ruling does not make reference to any particular format. It appears in the CR, as well as every version of the CRD. Additionally, the CR has this general definition and clarification on the term "Ring-bearer":
Ring-bearer
One Free Peoples character always begins the
game as your Ring-bearer. (See building your
deck.) He bears The One Ring for you, much as
when Frodo carried the Ring in his pocket or on
a chain around his neck.
If a character other than Frodo is your Ring-bearer, you cannot play any version of Frodo
with the Ring-bearer keyword during the game.
While wearing The One Ring, your Ring-bearer
can perform all normal actions such as moving
and skirmishing. He may defend against
attacking minions as usual.
The Ring-bearer cannot be discarded or returned
to your hand, and skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer cannot be cancelled.
There do not appear to be any exceptions to this, for any format.
-
sgtdraino, you are technically correct. I believe that during the creation of Gemp, the majority of players wanted the older formats (Fellowship Block, Towers Block, Towers Standard) to have the skirmish cancelling rule that existed at that time. And so Gemp plays that way as an explicit exception. It's not completely consistent, but it makes Hobbits much more playable in those formats.
-
sgtdraino, you are technically correct. I believe that during the creation of Gemp, the majority of players wanted the older formats (Fellowship Block, Towers Block, Towers Standard) to have the skirmish cancelling rule that existed at that time. And so Gemp plays that way as an explicit exception. It's not completely consistent, but it makes Hobbits much more playable in those formats.
<shrug> I have no particular problem with that. But that does mean that Gemp is already operating under a pretty major unofficial "house rule" contrary to what Decipher handed down. Gemp formats that allow Ring-bearers to cancel skirmishes are therefore not really operating in an official capacity. Perhaps this can open the door to additional Gemp house rules that serve to improve the playability of various formats.
-
So, going back to Clever Hobbits, here is how I believe the scenario works:
1) FP plays Clever Hobbits from hand, adding 2 twilight.
2) FP chooses which conditions he would like to discard.
3) Those conditions enter the "about to be discarded" state.
4) Deceit can then respond to each attempted discard, depending on how much twilight is available.
5) Any conditions Deceit does not protect get discarded, and Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
6) Clever Hobbits is placed in the FP's discard pile.
Any comments?
-
So, going back to Clever Hobbits, here is how I believe the scenario works:
1) FP plays Clever Hobbits from hand, adding 2 twilight.
2) FP chooses which conditions he would like to discard.
3) Those conditions enter the "about to be discarded" state.
4) Deceit can then respond to each attempted discard, depending on how much twilight is available.
5) Any conditions Deceit does not protect get discarded, and Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
6) Clever Hobbits is placed in the FP's discard pile.
Any comments?
I think my issue with the above, is that (to my knowledge) regarding a single action which discards multiple conditions, Decipher never broke that action down into any sort of "targeting phase" or "discarding phase" (after which you can no longer target). I posted over in archives what I think are the relevant issues regarding this, but got no response. Here it is again:
Also, you could play Clever Hobbits and then continually attempt to discard a [Gollum] condition until they ran out of twilight.
I'd like to continue the discussion on whether or not the above actually does hold true or not. For starters, here is the official ruling on Fortress Never Fallen from the CRD:
FORTRESS NEVER FALLEN 4 U 276
The effect of this condition's special ability
when the card has more than one token is
simultaneous. Several conditions are discarded
at the same time. Siege Engine responds to these
discards by preventing all of them.
You have three tokens on Fortress Never Fallen
when you use its special ability. You select three
Shadow conditions to be discarded (including my
Siege Engine), and discard Fortress Never Fallen.
I use the response special ability on Siege Engine,
which technically saves all three conditions, but
then I discard Siege Engine to pay its own cost.
The first issue being whether Clever Hobbits discards conditions one at a time, or simultaneously. It seems to me that the FNF ruling makes it more likely that Clever Hobbits discards simultaneously, UNLESS a response action breaks up this process.
The second issue has to do with what happens (or doesn't happen) when X is greater than the number of conditions on the table. For example, suppose FNF has 5 tokens on it, and the only conditions on the table are two copies of Deceit, and one copy of Final Strike. 3 twilight in the pool. FNF is activated, X=5, the card says discard 5 conditions. Deceit is used to prevent three discards, but once that is done, FNF still mandates that 2 more conditions be discarded, and 3 conditions can still be spotted in play. Must two more conditions still be discarded? Or are the three conditions still protected for the remainder of the action by Deceit?
Why, or why not?
Third issue: When using a card that discards multiple conditions, I find that many players have a tendency to believe there is only a "single sweep," or that the action is broken down into sub-phases where you first target all the conditions you can target, then you attempt to discard them, and then you aren't able to target any more. The question is, is this actually based on any sort of rule or ruling? As far as I can tell, it is not. The act of playing or using a card that discards multiple conditions in a single action is just that: A single action. During the course of that action players might do things one at a time for the sake of expediency (it is difficult to literally pick up 12 cards simultaneously), but so far as the game is concerned, everything is conceptually happening at once, and a response action simply pauses that single action, which then continues after the response action ends. Is my understanding correct? Why or why not?
Issue 4: Clever Hobbits says, "Discard any number of Gollum conditions." At what point is X defined in this equation? Is it defined at the start of the action? If so, can I declare some ridiculously high number, like 40, to make sure I get rid of them all? Why or why not? OR is X variable during the course of the entire action? Do I just keep discarding Gollum conditions until I decide to stop? Why or why not?
Issue 5: Some conditions, such as Deep in Thought or Saruman's Power, discard ALL conditions. Conceptually this happens simultaneously, even though the cards are actually discarded one at a time for expediency. What happens when an action like this is interrupted by a response that prevents a condition (or more than one condition) from being discarded? One "sweep" is made, and at the end of it conditions can still be spotted on the table... yet the effect of the card says to discard ALL of them. The Comprehensive Rules say:
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.
So, do the remaining conditions on the table still get discarded to satisfy the "all" requirement of the effect? Or does the response action that prevented the conditions from being discarded earlier continue to protect those conditions for the remainder of the action? Why, or why not?
Issue 6: Response actions which prevent a card from being discarded. Does such an action literally only prevent a card from being discarded one time, or does such an action prevent a card from being discarded for the duration of the entire action attempting to discard it? Why, or why not?
When addressing Issue 6, it may also be useful to think about response actions which prevent other things from happening. Do such actions protect cards from the entirety of an action, or from the specific part of that action they are preventing?
I'm really looking to see lots of references to the official Comprehensive Rules and Current Rulings Documents as people address these issues. If we can nail down specific answers to these, grounded upon official rulings, I think it will form a consistent basis of how many condition discarding cards (as well as response actions) are meant to be interpreted. Thanks in advance for the help.
-
So, going back to Clever Hobbits, here is how I believe the scenario works:
1) FP plays Clever Hobbits from hand, adding 2 twilight.
2) FP chooses which conditions he would like to discard.
3) Those conditions enter the "about to be discarded" state.
4) Deceit can then respond to each attempted discard, depending on how much twilight is available.
5) Any conditions Deceit does not protect get discarded, and Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
6) Clever Hobbits is placed in the FP's discard pile.
Any comments?
This seems quite reasonable to be. Makes sense.
-
Okay, this may simplify things considerably. From CR 3.0:
Response actions
Response is a timing word that means
that you may play an event (or use a
special ability) whenever the situation
described in its game text happens.
You may respond more than once to the
same situation.
Sometimes a response action interrupts
another action to cancel it before it
resolves. when this happens, that other
action does not have its effect, but its
costs and requirements are still paid.
This was reworded somewhat with CR 4.0. But if we take this as gospel, it seems to mean that a response action affects the entire action it is interrupting, not just part of that action. To me, this means that if a response action prevents part of an action from affecting a card in some way, that card remains protected from that action for the entire duration of the action. That would apply to an action trying to discard a card, but it would also apply to an action attempting to do something else to a card. For example, if a single action attempts to wound a single character multiple times, a response action preventing a wound on that character should prevent that single action from affecting it again for the duration of the action. Now, the big question is, are there any rulings that conflict with this interpretation? If so, then we're back to square one.
-
If an effect requires a companion to be wounded twice and you play Intimidate on the first wound, the second wound will still go through. Net result, only 1 wound is placed on the companion.
The rules segment you quoted refers to a situation like Grishnakh, Orc Captain and Unheeded. If Unheeded responds to his first exertion, Grishnakh's effect doesn't take place because he didn't exert twice.
-
If an effect requires a companion to be wounded twice and you play Intimidate on the first wound, the second wound will still go through. Net result, only 1 wound is placed on the companion.
Are you certain? Can you point to where the rules back this up? If so, it would mean that a response action does not protect a card from the entirety of an action.
-
Intimidate only prevents one wound, not two. That's all there is to it. There doesn't need to be a rules segment backing this up because that's simply how it works. If not, then everyone has been using Intimidate wrongly all these years when using it on a companion who loses a skirmish to an Uruk.
-
I'm with Bib on his one sgt (speaking specifically for intimidate), Intimidate blocks 1 wound, it does not cancel all wounds. Look at Gimli's Helmet, it specifically states prevent ALL wounds.
If memory serves, when addressing wounds, they are placed one at a time, that is why promise keeping is such a horrid card to have used against you when you have a pile of threats which become activated due to a companion death.
Another example would be using terrible and evil. If I exert gandalf 3x to wound a Nazgul 3x + 1 and the shadow player uses His Terrible Servants to cancel it, the shadow must respond for each wound not the event. They will have to remove twilight for each wound so 4. It would be pretty cheese if they could respond by removing (1) and cancel the whole thing.
-
Conversely, Intimidate can't be used on Morgul Brute or Morgul Destroyer, at least not without the default effect of the burden/threat being added.
-
Okay, I think this is progress. I particularly like the Intimidate example, because it is worded very similarly to Deceit.
Intimidate:
Response: If a companion is about to take a wound, spot Gandalf to prevent that wound.
Deceit
Response: If a free people player's card is about to discard your other Gollum condition, remove 1 twilight to prevent that.
If there is general agreement that a single response action from Intimidate does not protect a card from being wounded for the entire duration of an action, is there also general agreement that a single response action from Deceit does not protect a card from being discarded for the entire duration of an action?
-
Two different situations, sgtdraino.
In the Intimidate-vs-Uruk example, two wounds are directed at the companion, and each one will go through its own action procedure and be placed and/or responses to individually.
For Deceit-vs-Clever Hobbits, it's not so simple. Each condition is only being attempted to be discarded once. FP selects the conditions he wants to discard, then Deceit can respond to each one individually. By the time Deceit has saved a condition, you have already passed the point where you can remake that selection.
Same thing with Deep in Thought. Deceit can save as many conditions as it is able to. So the result will be all Shadow conditions except the saved ones will be discarded.
Edit: I just thought of something. The effect of an Uruk winning is "wound the loser twice." So an analogous situation to that would be a card that says "discard a condition twice." Now we all know how silly that phrase sounds, but that does help illustrate that, to use SAT terminology, Uruk:Intimidate is not comparable to Clever Hobbits:Deceit.
Like I said before, when you play Clever Hobbits, you choose which conditions you want to discard. Once you've made the choice, then Deceit can save as many as it is able to. You can't go back to choose those ones again, because you only make the choice once.
-
For Deceit-vs-Clever Hobbits, it's not so simple. Each condition is only being attempted to be discarded once. FP selects the conditions he wants to discard, then Deceit can respond to each one individually. By the time Deceit has saved a condition, you have already passed the point where you can remake that selection.
This goes back to the third issue I raised, which has yet to be addressed:
Third issue: When using a card that discards multiple conditions, I find that many players have a tendency to believe there is only a "single sweep," or that the action is broken down into sub-phases where you first target all the conditions you can target, then you attempt to discard them, and then you aren't able to target any more. The question is, is this actually based on any sort of rule or ruling? As far as I can tell, it is not. The act of playing or using a card that discards multiple conditions in a single action is just that: A single action. During the course of that action players might do things one at a time for the sake of expediency (it is difficult to literally pick up 12 cards simultaneously), but so far as the game is concerned, everything is conceptually happening at once, and a response action simply pauses that single action, which then continues after the response action ends. Is my understanding correct? Why or why not?
Like I said before, when you play Clever Hobbits, you choose which conditions you want to discard. Once you've made the choice, then Deceit can save as many as it is able to. You can't go back to choose those ones again, because you only make the choice once.
Can you point to where the rules support what you say?
-
Like I said before, when you play Clever Hobbits, you choose which conditions you want to discard. Once you've made the choice, then Deceit can save as many as it is able to. You can't go back to choose those ones again, because you only make the choice once.
Can you point to where the rules support what you say?
Just an example on how the game would work going by the opposite logic:
Greenleaf attempts to wound Freca and the opponent is using Hides to prevent it, Greenleaf can chose a new target for free. [-X I doubt that they include common sense like that in the rulebook, but I hope I'm wrong, so you can have a satisfying answer.
-
It's not so much the rules having something to say, but common sense. Anytime you are choosing multiple cards for whatever purpose, the first thing you do is identify which cards you are doing it to.
The Trees Are Strong makes FP wound companions based on the number of Orcs discarded. So FP chooses, say, Gimli, Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn. Each person is scheduled to be wounded once. Intimidate can respond to any of the wounds. If you prevent Aragorn's wound, the remaining wounds still have to be placed on Gimli, Frodo and Gandalf. You can't choose Aragorn again.
Same thing goes for Clever Hobbits. You choose which ones you want to discard, and that's it. You only make the choice once.
-
You're issue 3 echoes back to the wound issue. Technically a dmg +1 character who wins a skirmish deals both wounds at once, yet intimidate would only cancel 1 wound. Or as pointed out, hides would only cancel 1 wound. If someone wants to cancel the second wound they wound need to play a second copy of intimidate or remove more twilight for hides. It is likewise for conditions. Yes, they are all being discarded at once, but each condition has a separate window in which it can respond to the action discarding it.
So if you play deep in thought and I use deceit to save my conditions I have to save each one separately thus expending more resources.
I see what you are getting at and i give you kudos for thinking outside the box, but your intellect is clearly beyond the capacity of us mere mortals ;)
-
Just an example on how the game would work going by the opposite logic:
Greenleaf attempts to wound Freca and the opponent is using Hides to prevent it, Greenleaf can chose a new target for free. [-X I doubt that they include common sense like that in the rulebook, but I hope I'm wrong, so you can have a satisfying answer.
This isn't a good example, because Greenleaf only deals one wound per action. If the wound is prevented, no one is suggesting Greenleaf could choose a new target for free. The wound is prevented, so the action is over. The issue is what happens when the number of cards to be discarded (or number of wounds to be dealt) exceeds the number of discards (or wounds) that can be prevented.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that one Greenleaf action deals 3 wounds instead of one. Obviously a single use of Hides isn't going to prevent all 3 wounds.
It's not so much the rules having something to say, but common sense. Anytime you are choosing multiple cards for whatever purpose, the first thing you do is identify which cards you are doing it to.
That may be the way you do it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the way the rules dictate it be done. Who's to say I can't point at them one at a time, even though they are conceptually all being discarded at once? Find me where the rules say you target once, and then you cannot target again, and the issue will be resolved.
The Trees Are Strong makes FP wound companions based on the number of Orcs discarded. So FP chooses, say, Gimli, Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn. Each person is scheduled to be wounded once. Intimidate can respond to any of the wounds. If you prevent Aragorn's wound, the remaining wounds still have to be placed on Gimli, Frodo and Gandalf. You can't choose Aragorn again.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, the SP discards 8 Orcs for The Trees Are Strong. The card dictates that 8 characters be wounded. Say you use Intimidate to prevent a wound to Aragorn, then you wound Gimli, Frodo and Gandalf. Great! But there's still 4 more wounds incoming, and one character on the table (Aragorn) who has not yet been wounded, because you prevented the wound he would have taken. If you had just wounded him and not prevented it, he wouldn't have taken any more than that, because the card only wounds each character once. But until that happens, the effect is still trying to resolve itself with a character on the table who has not yet been wounded.
Same thing goes for Clever Hobbits. You choose which ones you want to discard, and that's it. You only make the choice once.
If that is true, it shouldn't be that hard to point to some kind of related ruling or rule that dictates all targeting for discards (or wounding) can only be done at the front of the action. So far, I still haven't seen that. So far, what I've seen is, "well, this is the way we've always done it." Bib, your sig says "All cards do what they say, no more, no less." Well, if The Trees Are Strong says wound 8 characters, and you've still got a character on the table yet who hasn't been wounded, and not all 8 of those wounds have yet been prevented or assigned, then the card has not yet done what it says.
You're issue 3 echoes back to the wound issue. Technically a dmg +1 character who wins a skirmish deals both wounds at once, yet intimidate would only cancel 1 wound. Or as pointed out, hides would only cancel 1 wound. If someone wants to cancel the second wound they wound need to play a second copy of intimidate or remove more twilight for hides. It is likewise for conditions. Yes, they are all being discarded at once, but each condition has a separate window in which it can respond to the action discarding it.
Agreed. The issue is what happens when a condition is prevented from being discarded once, when there are still discard attempts remaining in the action, and no other conditions left on the table.
I'll go back to the FNF example: Say FNF has 5 tokens on it, SP only has three conditions on the table: Two copies of Deceit, and one copy of Final Strike. There are only 3 twilight in the pool. FNF is activated, and its effect becomes "discard 5 conditions." SP uses Deceit three times (taking out three twilight) to prevent his three conditions from being discarded. However, once those response actions have been taken, the original action continues. Since only 3 discards were prevented, the effect now continues as "discard 2 conditions," and three conditions can still be spotted on the table. As best I can tell, there is no rule anywhere which says those three conditions are protected for the remainder of the action, no rule anywhere that says I can't now target two more for discard, no rule anywhere that says the rest of FNF's text doesn't continue to the fullest possible extent that it can. On the contrary:
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.
In this case the effect of FNF was "discard 5 conditions," only 3 of those discards were prevented, and 3 conditions can still be spotted on the table.
To top it off, we already have a ruling (admittedly unofficial) on this issue over in Archives, made by "High King of Rules" forum administrator TheJord, who stated in no uncertain terms that Clever Hobbits could indeed target the same condition over and over again until all the twilight is gone.
-
If The Trees Are Strong discards more Orcs than the number of companions, then the extra Orcs don't do anything. It doesn't specify that 8 wounds must be placed; it specifies that 8 companions must be wounded. If there are not 8 companions in play, you do what you can and ignore the rest.
It doesn't matter what TheJord said. ANY card that specifies multiple targets selects all of those targets before you actually perform the action to them. I don't know how to make this any clearer. Clever Hobbits chooses its conditions once, then Deceit saves some, then Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
-
This isn't a good example, because Greenleaf only deals one wound per action. If the wound is prevented, no one is suggesting Greenleaf could choose a new target for free. The wound is prevented, so the action is over. The issue is what happens when the number of cards to be discarded (or number of wounds to be dealt) exceeds the number of discards (or wounds) that can be prevented.
It is a perfect example in my opinion, but if you prefer Fires and Foul Fumes vs Intimidate then have it your way. From my point of view you are questioning something that should be common sense, hoping to convince the community to give you a silver bullet against something you hate to play against.
-
I think you mean The Trees Are Strong vs Intimidate.
Sgtdraino doesn't seem to understand the difference between:
Wound X companions
Wound a companion X times
Place X wounds on companions
The Trees Are Strong uses the first method.
Red Wrath uses the second method.
Archery fire uses the third method.
All condition discarding cards use the first method, for what I hope are obvious reasons. That's why Clever Hobbits chooses its conditions first, then Deceit can save some, then Smeagol gets his bonus.
-
Sgt, (for clarity's sake) are suggesting that if I use secret sentinels to discard 2 conditions I can target the same condition 2x instead of targeting two condition once?
I think Decipher would have spelled that out clearly in their rules if that were the case.
Again, Kudos for thinking outside the box, but methinks you're incorrect on this one. No, I don't have a rule which I can cite to back up my claim, but I do not interpret the ruling you cited the same as you.
So unless you can convince the entire community we've been playing LOTR wrong for the last 10 years (during which time Decipher had plenty of time and tournaments to correct such an error), I don't see anyone caving on this.
Sorry pal.
-
If The Trees Are Strong discards more Orcs than the number of companions, then the extra Orcs don't do anything. It doesn't specify that 8 wounds must be placed; it specifies that 8 companions must be wounded. If there are not 8 companions in play, you do what you can and ignore the rest.
Right. BUT, if you only have 4 companions in play, and the card says wound 8 companions, and one of those companions hasn't yet been wounded (because you prevented it with a response action), then in my view the effects of the card have not yet been carried out to the fullest extent possible. Once all four have been wounded once, then the rest of the effects can be ignored.
It doesn't matter what TheJord said. ANY card that specifies multiple targets selects all of those targets before you actually perform the action to them. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
You can make it clearer by actually referencing where the rules or rulings in any way back up what you say. Usually you are quite good at that, but as of right now, what you say means no more (and possibly less) than what TheJord said.
Clever Hobbits chooses its conditions once, then Deceit saves some, then Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
Based on what? What is your basis for believing that conditions are only targeted at the front of the effect, and cannot be targeted again for the duration, regardless of response actions?
It is a perfect example in my opinion, but if you prefer Fires and Foul Fumes vs Intimidate then have it your way.
Still not germane, since Fires and Foul Fumes only targets a single character per action. And I'm sure we both agree that Intimidate does not protect that target from all the wounds being dealt.
From my point of view you are questioning something that should be common sense, hoping to convince the community to give you a silver bullet against something you hate to play against.
Certainly I would like that, since I believe Deceit is overpowered. Yet it was *I* who found and quoted the section from CR 3.0, thinking that would resolve the issue via nerfing Clever Hobbits. It was Bib who demonstrated that the section (which had since been reworded) definitely does not hold true.
I think you mean The Trees Are Strong vs Intimidate.
I agree, that is a good comparison.
Sgtdraino doesn't seem to understand the difference between:
Wound X companions
Wound a companion X times
Place X wounds on companions
The Trees Are Strong uses the first method.
Red Wrath uses the second method.
Archery fire uses the third method.
All condition discarding cards use the first method,
No, I understand this just fine. The rest of the effect is ignored once each card in question has been dealt a blow. The issue is what happens when there are still blows to be dealt, and one card hasn't yet taken one (because you prevented it before with a response action).
for what I hope are obvious reasons.
"It's common sense" and "it's obvious" do not constitute evidence. Neither does, "we played this way for 10 years." Bib, you were one of the people who tried to tell me that it was still officially legal to cancel Ring-bearer skirmishes in Fellowship Block. You tried to argue that the CR doesn't apply or support formats other than Standard or Expanded. I had to walk you through the rules to show you that this was not the case. And that is what matters: What the rules say, and what the cards say. Please try to stick to that. This notion of yours that conditions are only targeted at the front is not in the rules, and it's not on the cards.
Sgt, (for clarity's sake) are suggesting that if I use secret sentinels to discard 2 conditions I can target the same condition 2x instead of targeting two condition once?
Ordinarily, no. But it depends on what happens while you're taking the action. If there is only one condition on the table, and Secret Sentinels allows you to discard two conditions, and your opponent takes a response action that prevents that one condition from being discarded once, then once that response action has resolved, the effect of your original action continues. That original effect was "discard two conditions," and what do you know, you can still see a condition on the table that has not been discarded yet.
I think Decipher would have spelled that out clearly in their rules if that were the case.
If Decipher had intended that conditions to be discarded could only be targeted at the start of the action, and at no other point during the action, THAT is what they would have spelled out clearly in their rules. They didn't. Nor in any other related ruling that I've been able to find. On the contrary, the official rules do not break down these actions into any subsections or steps. An action that discards multiple conditions at once conceptually occurs all at once, and that includes targeting and discarding. The cards are selected and discarded one at a time simply for the sake of expediency. The part of such an action that occurs before a response action is taken, is no different than the part of the action that resumes after a response action is taken. It's all one action, and if there are still viable targets on the table to discard, and an effect that says to discard more cards, then the action resumes doing precisely that. Obviously I can't keep discarding conditions if there are no conditions left on the table, but in this case, when earlier discards were prevented via response actions, conditions remain... and the CR says the effect should be carried out to the fullest extent possible.
Again, Kudos for thinking outside the box, but methinks you're incorrect on this one. No, I don't have a rule which I can cite to back up my claim, but I do not interpret the ruling you cited the same as you.
I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the ruling I cited. Show me how it is possible to interpret it differently.
So unless you can convince the entire community we've been playing LOTR wrong for the last 10 years (during which time Decipher had plenty of time and tournaments to correct such an error), I don't see anyone caving on this.
People will do what they want to do, I have no illusions about that. But if it was really as clear-cut as you think, that the "entire community" has been playing this way for 10 years, then why did TheJord say differently?
-
You keep asking for rules documents to back up our side. Well, where does it say in the rules that you can choose the condition again if Deceit saves it? It makes much more sense with my interpretation, and since that's how Gemp does it, and no one other than you has a problem with it, you are the one who is required to cite sources, not me.
-
I think I figured out where you're coming from, sgt.
You are treating condition discarding like archery fire: you have X scheduled discards, and you keep going until X runs out or all available conditions are gone. The problem is, there is nothing in the rules to back up your claim. In all instances of choosing X cards to be affected by Y effect, you choose all of them at once, and then they receive their effect.
-
Sgt:
I don't understand why you think that the fact that some effect has multiple targets changes that you have to declare those target(s) the time you play that effect... I think your confusion is coming from Boromir, BoC + Armor/ Ring of Rings ruling, which is a different case.
-
Bib, you were one of the people who tried to tell me that it was still officially legal to cancel Ring-bearer skirmishes in Fellowship Block. You tried to argue that the CR doesn't apply or support formats other than Standard or Expanded. I had to walk you through the rules to show you that this was not the case. And that is what matters: What the rules say, and what the cards say.
No one, not even Decipher, has the right to change the way the game was played in the past. What "Fellowship Block" means is playing the game as it was played when the first three sets were the standard environment. If Decipher released a CR today (and technically they could) saying that the only legal ring-bearer is Bearer of Council, and now you can cancel his skirmishes, would I follow it? Absolutely not. Would you?
-
Zurcamos has a point. When we play Fellowship or TS block what we are doing is simulating the way the rules used to play. Regardless of what the rules say now. Its the same as if we use a card that has been banned … like anything from the first 6 sets. Is it "right" by how the CRD's read? Who cares, it is meant to simulate older conditions. :)
As for the other things we spoke of previously, I will post that when I have a bit more time. I am off for work at the moment and only had time to post a brief comment. ;)
-
i've been consulting my LOTR rule books, and the response rule, which seems to be troubling us, is the rule in question. If the rule was interpreted in a vaccum I think sgt would have a point. However, the rules are not subject to a vaccum and must be looked at as a whole. Timing rules from the rulebooks I looked at (FOTR, MoM, ROTEL, and Hunters) indicate that the action of a card can be performed only once per copy of the card played and the effects of the card last the duration of the current phase (drawing from the secret sentinals example, 2 conditions may be discarded). provided cost has been played the freeps may target 2 conditions. if the shadow responds with deceit and removes 1 twilight they may cancel 1 discard. Timing rules indicate that the discarding caused by sentinels can only occur 1 time, therefore after the freeps player has selected 2 conditions they cant reactivate their decision soley because deceit was used to cancel 1 of the discards.
the cost and effect rules also play into this. the freeps player paid to discard 2 conditions and the shadow player paid to "save" 1 condition, thus 1 condition must still be discarded, regardless of the response rules because the effect paid for was not fulfilled to its fullest. that is how i interpret the rules of response, timing, and cost & effect.
also, i mentioned earlier that wounds are applied at the same time. why didnt anyone call me on that? I stand (self) corrected, wounds are applied 1 at a time as per every rule book produced.
-
You keep asking for rules documents to back up our side. Well, where does it say in the rules that you can choose the condition again if Deceit saves it?
"All cards do what they say, no more, no less."
It makes much more sense with my interpretation,
Interpretation of what? As far as I can tell, you aren't "interpreting" anything, you're abiding by some imaginary rule.
and since that's how Gemp does it,
Meaningless.
and no one other than you has a problem with it,
Apparently TheJord has a problem with it. I sure wish he'd weigh in on this discussion!
you are the one who is required to cite sources, not me.
As I've long said, Gemp has the power to do what it wants, Decipher be damned. But I believe MarcinS does want to play it as by-the-book official as he can.
*I* have cited sources, the CRs, the CRDs, and even the ruling given in Archives. I would prefer that Clever Hobbits be a viable answer to Deceit, but I *am* strictly by the book. You are a smart guy, Bib, but ultimately your opinion is meaningless unless you can support what you say via official documents or official sources. If you can do that, I would happily consider the matter to be settled. This isn't about winning the argument, this is simply about determining what the rules for these type of actions actually are. "Because I say so" and "because we always played it like that" are not valid responses to this issue.
I think I figured out where you're coming from, sgt.
You are treating condition discarding like archery fire:
That's not exactly correct, but you're in the ballpark, because I think the same mechanic also works with multiple characters wounded at once, and (probably) with adding multiple threats simultaneously as well. With multiple character wounding, the difference is that once each character has taken 1 hit, any overage is then ignored. That's different than archery fire. The same concept applies to condition discarding, except that you can't really discard a condition more than once, because once it's gone, it's gone.
you have X scheduled discards, and you keep going until X runs out or all available conditions are gone.
Correct. "All cards do what they say, no more, no less."
The problem is, there is nothing in the rules to back up your claim.
Of course the rules back up my claim, as I have repeatedly cited.
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.
If a player is paying costs for a card and a
response action occurs which modifies those
costs, that player must continue to pay as many
costs as he can, even if it is no longer possible to
pay them all.
In all instances of choosing X cards to be affected by Y effect, you choose all of them at once, and then they receive their effect.
That's all well and good for you to say... it simply doesn't seem to be what the rules reflect. When you play a card, you first pay the costs, and then the card has its effects. Choosing to discard cards, and then discarding those cards, are not separate phases or steps, they are all part of the effect (or, in the case of Clever Hobbits, the cost). The choosing and the discarding, in terms of game play, all happen simultaneously. If you interrupt that action with a response action, then once your response action concludes, the original action resumes. You didn't somehow place your response action between the choosing and the discarding, because there is no "between" the choosing and the discarding. It all happens at the same time, according the the official rules of the game.
ETA: Actually, i have to back off this position a bit, due to the FNF ruling (see bottom of post).
you choose all of them at once, and then they receive their effect.
Choosing cards to be discarded is by definition part of the effect.
Sgt:
I don't understand why you think that the fact that some effect has multiple targets changes that you have to declare those target(s) the time you play that effect...
Assuming those targets are not part of the costs, then declaring targets and applying the effect to whatever targets you declared is all part of the same effect. In terms of gameplay, it happens simultaneously.
I think perhaps some people are a bit biased because they've become accustomed to the mechanics that Gemp currently employs. Gemp is fantastic! But it's not perfect, and it's not official.
I think your confusion is coming from Boromir, BoC + Armor/ Ring of Rings ruling, which is a different case.
That is a different case, however it may be useful to examine that: The ruling you speak of, is that if Armor or Ring of Rings prevents Boromir from taking 2 wounds, then (logically) Boromir was not wounded twice, and consequently the other part of his text triggers.
A response action which prevents an effect happening to a card a single time, does not continue to prevent additional effects from happening to that card for the duration of the original action or the phase. I think we're all agreed on that, with the Intimidate example.
And if a response action prevents an effect from happening to a card, then (obviously) that effect did not happen to that card.
Check this out: From CR 4.0 on Wound:
When a character is wounded by an enemy
attack, his vitality is depleted. Place a wound
token on the character to illustrate this. Glass
beads (preferably blood red) make good tokens
for this purpose.
Wounds are always placed on a character one at
a time.
When you “wound a character,” you place only
one wound.
If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).
A wounded character is a character who has at
least one wound token.
If a character cannot take wounds, wounds
cannot be assigned to that character. However,
if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character.
Faramir, Wizard’s Pupil reads: “Skirmish: Exert
Gandalf to prevent all wounds to Faramir.” This
prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.
So, for the sake of argument, suppose The Trees are Strong worked during the skirmish phase. You could use Faramir's text or Gimli's Helm to have a single character absorb all of those wounds, because preventing a wound means the character was never wounded in the first place, and the prevention only prevents the wounds, not the assignments. The rules above explicitly state that a card like The Trees are Strong requires you to wound different characters, but it does not require you to choose different characters if those characters don't actually get wounded.
Logically, the same applies to condition discarding. Yes, when you "discard a card," you only discard it once, because once it's discarded, it's not there anymore. But if a response action prevents the card from being discarded, then it was never discarded. Such actions prevent a card from being discarded, but they do not prevent the assignments themselves. If a card's effect says "discard 8 conditions," then you must either discard 8 conditions, prevent 8 conditions from being discarded, or discard all of the conditions on the table, and ignore the rest of the effects. If you still see a condition out on the table, and your card's effects tell you to keep discarding conditions, then that is what you do.
No one, not even Decipher, has the right to change the way the game was played in the past.
You're right! But since nobody's invented a time machine yet, good luck traveling back in time to 2003.
What "Fellowship Block" means is playing the game as it was played when the first three sets were the standard environment.
"Fellowship Block" is an official Decipher format for playing the game, and it abides by whatever rules Decipher establishes to play that format. When Decipher changed the rules, people had to abide by those changes... or else they were no longer really playing the official format. Decipher decided that Ring-bearer skirmishes could no longer be canceled, period. They applied that rule to every official format.
If Decipher released a CR today (and technically they could) saying that the only legal ring-bearer is Bearer of Council, and now you can cancel his skirmishes, would I follow it? Absolutely not. Would you?
Probably not... but then I am in favor of house rules. I would play in the manner that was most fun for me to play, but I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that I was playing according the the official rules.
When we play Fellowship or TS block what we are doing is simulating the way the rules used to play. Regardless of what the rules say now. Its the same as if we use a card that has been banned … like anything from the first 6 sets. Is it "right" by how the CRD's read? Who cares, it is meant to simulate older conditions. :)
And that's cool! It's just not official. But back to the topic at hand: As best I can tell, what Bib has suggested regarding condition discarding was never a rule.
i've been consulting my LOTR rule books, and the response rule, which seems to be troubling us, is the rule in question. If the rule was interpreted in a vaccum I think sgt would have a point. However, the rules are not subject to a vaccum and must be looked at as a whole.
I really appreciate the effort.
Timing rules from the rulebooks I looked at (FOTR, MoM, ROTEL, and Hunters) indicate that the action of a card can be performed only once per copy of the card played and the effects of the card last the duration of the current phase (drawing from the secret sentinals example, 2 conditions may be discarded). provided cost has been played the freeps may target 2 conditions. if the shadow responds with deceit and removes 1 twilight they may cancel 1 discard. Timing rules indicate that the discarding caused by sentinels can only occur 1 time, therefore after the freeps player has selected 2 conditions they cant reactivate their decision soley because deceit was used to cancel 1 of the discards.
I agree! But then we're not talking about re-assigning a target from one card to another, we're talking about what happens to "overage" when a response action prevents part of an effect from happening. Yes, if the player in question truly had selected the two conditions he wanted discarded, then he can't change his mind in the middle of the action. But, as in the Faramir example from the CR, preventing part of an effect does not prevent the assignment, because if the effect was prevented, it never happened in the first place. If you do prevent a condition from being discarded, the rules say I can choose that same condition again.
the cost and effect rules also play into this. the freeps player paid to discard 2 conditions and the shadow player paid to "save" 1 condition, thus 1 condition must still be discarded, regardless of the response rules because the effect paid for was not fulfilled to its fullest. that is how i interpret the rules of response, timing, and cost & effect.
Right. Which means if you only have one condition on the table, I play a card that discards two conditions, and you prevent your one condition from being discarded once, then your condition is still vulnerable to being targeted with a second discard attempt. Because my card says "discard 2 conditions," only one discard was prevented, and there is still one condition on the table.
ETA: BUT, just to muddy the waters yet again, I DO see where Bib's thought processes may be coming from after all! Again, from the 08/09/2005 CRD (not the most recent):
FORTRESS NEVER FALLEN 4 U 276
The effect of this condition's special ability
when the card has more than one token is
simultaneous. Several conditions are discarded
at the same time. Siege Engine responds to these
discards by preventing all of them.
You have three tokens on Fortress Never Fallen
when you use its special ability. You select three
Shadow conditions to be discarded (including my
Siege Engine), and discard Fortress Never Fallen.
I use the response special ability on Siege Engine,
which technically saves all three conditions, but
then I discard Siege Engine to pay its own cost.
This was the ruling that was subsequently removed from later CRDs, and left out of the CR, but it does mention selecting multiple conditions first, and then responding after multiple conditions have been selected. However, it still does not address the issue of overage, nor does it say that conditions cannot be selected again, if (once response actions have concluded) FNF's effects still dictate that more discards occur.
ETA some more: I mentioned earlier that I believe this mechanic most likely also applies to threats being added. Suppose you have 9 companions and 5 threats. Your opponent plays a card that adds 5 threats. If you do nothing, you would add 4 threats, because you can't add threats more than the number of companions you have out. BUT if you take a response action that prevents one of the threats from being added, then you still add 4 threats, because the effect was to add 5, you prevented one of them, but there's nothing stopping you from still taking 4 more.
ETA yet again: Here's an idea: what rulings do we have regarding actions that discard "all" conditions? Because in theory, "all" would set X to infinity, which would also mean infinite overage. If I use response actions to prevent a couple of conditions from being discarded, then after my responses are done, we still have the "discard all conditions" effect trying to resolve itself, with conditions that are still out on the table. Are there any rules or rulings that clarify the effect doesn't try to finish the job? If there are, then that would affirm the "single sweep" position.
-
okay, i'm on the same page now. i felt like i was shooting in the dark. I understand the point you are trying to make. The way i understand the timing rules as per the timing words section of the rule book, the text of a card can only be applied once per copy of the card played. Therefore if the freeps tries to use sentinels to discard 2 conditions and only 1 condition is in play, they can only target the single condition. if deceit is used to prevent it then another condition removing card should be played.
"the game text on that event may be performed only once for each copy of that event played." (pg. 16, rotel)
so when you play sentinels in our example the "overage" is irrelevant.
under effects on page 31 of rotel we read the discard from hand example, "if the effect of an event requires you to discard 2 cards from hand and you only have 1 card in hand, just discard the 1 card and ignore the rest."
i think this is applicable to our debate. once you play sentinels you must first select your 1 or 2 conditions then forget the rest. the shadow player may then save or discard their conditions.
-
okay, i'm on the same page now. i felt like i was shooting in the dark. I understand the point you are trying to make. The way i understand the timing rules as per the timing words section of the rule book, the text of a card can only be applied once per copy of the card played. Therefore if the freeps tries to use sentinels to discard 2 conditions and only 1 condition is in play, they can only target the single condition. if deceit is used to prevent it then another condition removing card should be played.
"the game text on that event may be performed only once for each copy of that event played." (pg. 16, rotel)
I'm not sure that applies here, because we're still only talking about performing the game text once (e.g. "discard 8 conditions.").
so when you play sentinels in our example the "overage" is irrelevant.
I'm not seeing how the rules you are referencing applies to overage. The game text is not being performed more than once, it is simply trying to resolve itself completely a single time, in a case where cards can still be spotted which seem like they would be viable targets for the effect.
under effects on page 31 of rotel we read the discard from hand example, "if the effect of an event requires you to discard 2 cards from hand and you only have 1 card in hand, just discard the 1 card and ignore the rest."
Sure. But if, during that effect, a response action causes more cards to be placed in your hand, then you would still have to discard (or prevent) a total of two, because that is what the original effect dictates.
i think this is applicable to our debate. once you play sentinels you must first select your 1 or 2 conditions then forget the rest. the shadow player may then save or discard their conditions.
I'm still not clear on why a condition that has not yet been discarded, would not be discarded when the effect says to discard it, and there are no further response actions preventing that discard from happening.
-
No one, not even Decipher, has the right to change the way the game was played in the past.
You're right! But since nobody's invented a time machine yet, good luck traveling back in time to 2003.
What "Fellowship Block" means is playing the game as it was played when the first three sets were the standard environment.
"Fellowship Block" is an official Decipher format for playing the game, and it abides by whatever rules Decipher establishes to play that format. When Decipher changed the rules, people had to abide by those changes... or else they were no longer really playing the official format. Decipher decided that Ring-bearer skirmishes could no longer be canceled, period. They applied that rule to every official format.
If Decipher released a CR today (and technically they could) saying that the only legal ring-bearer is Bearer of Council, and now you can cancel his skirmishes, would I follow it? Absolutely not. Would you?
Probably not... but then I am in favor of house rules. I would play in the manner that was most fun for me to play, but I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that I was playing according the the official rules.
Deluding? I AM playing by official rules - just from a different snapshot in time, the only time that matters to me: the one where the cards were played as intended. You say I play house rules; I say you play house rules - each defined by Decipher at different times (none of it current, so we are both right). According to 2007 Decipher, Towers Standard and Movie Block don't exist. Their X-lists aren't printed in the final CR or CRD. Do we throw them out? No, we ... wait for it ... play them as they were played at the time. I don't care what you, Decipher, or anyone else has said since then. You can't George Lucas my game! :P
-
"the game text on that event may be performed only once for each copy of that event played." (pg. 16, rotel)
Oh, forgot to ask, what is "rotel?" I'd like to look up what you're specifically looking at.
Deluding? I AM playing by official rules - just from a different snapshot in time, the only time that matters to me: the one where the cards were played as intended. You say I play house rules; I say you play house rules - each defined by Decipher at different times (none of it current, so we are both right).
Fellowship Block is a current format, and current rules apply to it. If you are not abiding by current rules, then you are not playing official Fellowship Block format.
According to 2007 Decipher, Towers Standard and Movie Block don't exist. Their X-lists aren't printed in the final CR or CRD.
There was never any such thing as an official "Towers Standard" format. Never existed. What we refer to as "Towers Standard" is simply Standard Format as it existed prior to the release of King Block cards. "Towers Standard" is not an official format, and never was.
Movie Block I don't know much about, because I wasn't playing the game actively during that time. I'm not sure of the origins of that format, so I don't know if it was ever an official format or not.
Fellowship Block, Towers Block, and King Block (as well as Standard, Expanded, and Open) are all official formats recognized in the LOTR Comprehensive Rules. The rule that Ring-bearer skirmishes cannot be canceled applies to all official formats.
-
rotel = lazy for ROTEL = relm of the elf lords. I've been using the rulesbooks I have in my collection.
now as to why one cant (by my interpretation) utilize "overage," once you play sentinels to discard 2 conidtions and there is only 1 in play, that's it. you can only "target" the one condition because that is active when sentinels is played. to retarget the effects of the event to apply a second time seems to contradict the portion of the rules which say the text can only be applied one time.
now that is just my interpretation and it is consistent with all the other rules regarding "overage" (ie- burdens, wounds, twilight, etc.). overage is ignored, meaning if you can only add 2 threats (due to fellowship size) all extra threats are ignored.
does someone know the in's and out's of the "snap shot" rule? maybe that would help clear up this difference of opinion.
-
Deluding? I AM playing by official rules - just from a different snapshot in time, the only time that matters to me: the one where the cards were played as intended. You say I play house rules; I say you play house rules - each defined by Decipher at different times (none of it current, so we are both right).
Fellowship Block is a current format, and current rules apply to it. If you are not abiding by current rules, then you are not playing official Fellowship Block format.
According to 2007 Decipher, Towers Standard and Movie Block don't exist. Their X-lists aren't printed in the final CR or CRD.
There was never any such thing as an official "Towers Standard" format. Never existed. What we refer to as "Towers Standard" is simply Standard Format as it existed prior to the release of King Block cards. "Towers Standard" is not an official format, and never was.
Movie Block I don't know much about, because I wasn't playing the game actively during that time. I'm not sure of the origins of that format, so I don't know if it was ever an official format or not.
Fellowship Block, Towers Block, and King Block (as well as Standard, Expanded, and Open) are all official formats recognized in the LOTR Comprehensive Rules. The rule that Ring-bearer skirmishes cannot be canceled applies to all official formats.
The game is dead. There are no official formats anymore; none are any more or less so. We all play by old rules. Opinions on which rules are more or less applicable to a given situation are opinions. If Decipher wasn't so good at making terrible decisions, there wouldn't be differences of opinion. I was playing the game, in person, in paper, during Fellowship Block. I was playing in person, in paper, in 2007, but I was playing sets 1-10 with the official rules from when those cards were made. I still am today. You don't need to explain what formats mean; I was there. This site has become a place where people who obviously didn't play the game when it was alive try to tell those of us who did how to play. GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
-
I have to agree with Big Z. A number of us have been playing this game in official sanctioned tournaments, in paper and on decipher's official online site. Sgt, your interpretation goes against 10 years of game play. If your interpretation of the rules is correct, then you are suggesting that Decipher, the makers of the game. permitted their own game to be played incorrectly at their own events and online sites.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but in this case, you are wrong. I say this with all the respect I can, but despite all the rules citations you have made regarding "overage" you have failed to show any ruling that specifically states that overage of condition discarding can be used to "re-target" a condition.
As a final attempt to explain "overage" I would direct your attention to the section of CRD 4.0 describing the snap shot rule. Page 11 under events of the CRD 4.0 reads:
"Some event cards affect only cards that are currently in play, even though their effects might seem to apply to cards played later in the same turn. These events take a “snapshot” of the current game state, and only those cards are affected.
Eregion’s Trails (“Maneuver: Exert a ranger to make each roaming minion strength –3 until the regroup phase.”) affects only minions that are roaming when that event is played.
Deft in Their Movements (Regroup: “Spot 2 Hobbits to make each site’s Shadow number –2 until the end of the turn.”) affects only sites that are in play when it is played."
No, this does not state that you CANT "retarget" but it does emphasize that when an event is played, you cant effect things that aren't in play. Taking from our sentinels example, if only 1 condition is in play you cant use the discard 2 conditions portion of sentinels' text (unless you want to discard your own conditions, say dwarven heart) as there is only 1 condition active when you played it or when the "snap shot" was taken. If the shadow condition is saved, then a second sentinels would need to be played.
I'm sorry Sgt, but the rules regarding "overage" have never been used as you described them, and you have failed to cite anything that says otherwise.
As far as cancelling RB skirmishes, the rules can say what they want, but when I play an FOTR block game, I play by FOTR rules as they were when FOTR block came out. So, yes, that includes cancelling skirmishes for the RB (house rule or not).
-
rotel = lazy for ROTEL = relm of the elf lords. I've been using the rulesbooks I have in my collection.
Aaah, of course.
now as to why one cant (by my interpretation) utilize "overage," once you play sentinels to discard 2 conidtions and there is only 1 in play, that's it. you can only "target" the one condition because that is active when sentinels is played. to retarget the effects of the event to apply a second time seems to contradict the portion of the rules which say the text can only be applied one time.
The thing is, the text on most (if not all) cards that discard conditions does not say anything about targeting, or selecting, or what-not. The text only talks about discarding cards. For a card to be targeted to be discarded, and then for another card to be targeted for discarding, isn't causing the text of the card to be performed twice, because targeting/selecting is quite literally not part of the text of the card. To take your Secret Sentinels example, suppose you can't spot an Orc, so you only get to discard one condition. In order for the text of the card to be performed twice (illegally), you would be discarding two conditions instead of one. The card said discard one, you discarded two. That is what the rules mean by performing the text no more than once per each time the card is used.
In the example of overage, when there are still conditions on the table (because a response action prevented some discards), but your effect says to discard more conditions, this isn't performing the text more than once, this is simply continuing to fulfill the rest of the card's effect (one time) to the extent it is possible to do so. Selecting more conditions to discard isn't re-performing the text, because selecting is not part of the text.
now that is just my interpretation and it is consistent with all the other rules regarding "overage" (ie- burdens, wounds, twilight, etc.). overage is ignored, meaning if you can only add 2 threats (due to fellowship size) all extra threats are ignored.
Overage is ignored when it is no longer possible to continue doing whatever it is (adding threats, wounding companions, discarding conditions). But when a response action prevents a card from feeling some of the effects of an action, that is when overage fills the gap. Because now, thanks to that response action, there is still a card on the table that can be affected by whatever effect it is you are carrying out.
does someone know the in's and out's of the "snap shot" rule? maybe that would help clear up this difference of opinion.
I'm not familiar with this. Perhaps someone can elaborate?
Deluding? I AM playing by official rules - just from a different snapshot in time, the only time that matters to me: the one where the cards were played as intended. You say I play house rules; I say you play house rules - each defined by Decipher at different times (none of it current, so we are both right).
Fellowship Block is a current format, and current rules apply to it. If you are not abiding by current rules, then you are not playing official Fellowship Block format.
The game is dead.
True, insomuch as new cards are no longer being made.
There are no official formats anymore; none are any more or less so.
False. Official formats are those recognized by the entity with authority over the game, that being Decipher. It doesn't matter that new cards are no longer being made, or that new rules are no longer being added.
We all play by old rules.
Rules are only "old" if they have been superseded by rules which are more current. The most current official rules are not "old," they are simply the rules.
I was playing the game, in person, in paper, during Fellowship Block.
As was I.
This site has become a place where people who obviously didn't play the game when it was alive try to tell those of us who did how to play.
My impression is that most of the people weighing in on these rules issues are indeed experienced players from back when the game was being made.
I have to agree with Big Z. A number of us have been playing this game in official sanctioned tournaments, in paper and on decipher's official online site.
As have I... except for the online site. I never paid money to play on that.
Sgt, your interpretation goes against 10 years of game play. If your interpretation of the rules is correct, then you are suggesting that Decipher, the makers of the game. permitted their own game to be played incorrectly at their own events and online sites.
It's possible that this issue has been overlooked, because until near the end, it was extremely unlikely to encounter a situation where "overage" existed, and there were still cards in play (due to response actions) as viable targets for the overage. In such cases, it's not really overage, because there are still cards in play that can be affected.
In any event, I already quoted the section of CR 4.0 which, in no uncertain terms, tells us that this is precisely the way to do it, at least when it comes to wounding multiple characters at a time. Something like Gimli's Helm can absorb each wound, allowing you to target Gimli again and again, in a situation where otherwise you would have been forced to target a separate character each time. In an example such as that, let's say you have a card that tells you to "wound 8 characters," but you only have 5 characters, one of whom is Gimli. You elect to use Gimli's Helm. You could just throw all 8 of those wounds at Gimli. Alternatively, you could wound each of your characters once, and then the one wound aimed at Gimli would be prevented. BUT because Gimli was not wounded (you prevented it), you still have 3 more wounds to assign, and 1 remaining viable target (Gimli, because he hasn't been wounded yet). Preventing an effect does not prevent the assignment. The rules are very clear cut on that issue.
I say this with all the respect I can, but despite all the rules citations you have made regarding "overage" you have failed to show any ruling that specifically states that overage of condition discarding can be used to "re-target" a condition.
What is not forbidden, is permitted. The rules say that overage is ignored once there are no longer any viable targets. If one target was prevented from getting hit by whatever effect it is, it is still a viable target on the table, so technically it isn't overage. It's just fulfilling the effect as completely as possible, which the rules also tell us to do.
As a final attempt to explain "overage" I would direct your attention to the section of CRD 4.0 describing the snap shot rule. Page 11 under events of the CRD 4.0 reads:
"Some event cards affect only cards that are currently in play, even though their effects might seem to apply to cards played later in the same turn. These events take a “snapshot” of the current game state, and only those cards are affected.
Eregion’s Trails (“Maneuver: Exert a ranger to make each roaming minion strength –3 until the regroup phase.”) affects only minions that are roaming when that event is played.
Deft in Their Movements (Regroup: “Spot 2 Hobbits to make each site’s Shadow number –2 until the end of the turn.”) affects only sites that are in play when it is played."
Ah yes, I actually did read that, now that you mention it. However, this is not a blanket rule for all event cards or all actions. As the rule says, some event cards do this. In any event, when we're talking about discarding conditions, generally we are talking about cards that were in play at the time that the discarding action was taken, so I don't think "snapshot" applies here.
No, this does not state that you CANT "retarget" but it does emphasize that when an event is played, you cant effect things that aren't in play.
But the conditions in question were all in play when the card was played.
Taking from our sentinels example, if only 1 condition is in play you cant use the discard 2 conditions portion of sentinels' text (unless you want to discard your own conditions, say dwarven heart) as there is only 1 condition active when you played it or when the "snap shot" was taken.
In the above example, the 1 condition in play was in play when secret sentinels was played, so by the "snapshot" rule, it would most certainly be affected.
I'm sorry Sgt, but the rules regarding "overage" have never been used as you described them, and you have failed to cite anything that says otherwise.
Here it is again...
Check this out: From CR 4.0 on Wound:
When a character is wounded by an enemy
attack, his vitality is depleted. Place a wound
token on the character to illustrate this. Glass
beads (preferably blood red) make good tokens
for this purpose.
Wounds are always placed on a character one at
a time.
When you "wound a character," you place only
one wound.
If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).
A wounded character is a character who has at
least one wound token.
If a character cannot take wounds, wounds
cannot be assigned to that character. However,
if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character.
Faramir, Wizard's Pupil reads: "Skirmish: Exert
Gandalf to prevent all wounds to Faramir." This
prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.
In the above ruling and example, it clearly stipulates that, if you prevent a wound to a character, then that character was not wounded (not even once), and thus remains a viable target for wounds. Thus, something that might have originally been overage (and thus ignored) is instead directed at that viable target. The response action prevents the wound, it does not stop Faramir from being retargeted later in the same action by more wounds.
As far as cancelling RB skirmishes, the rules can say what they want, but when I play an FOTR block game, I play by FOTR rules as they were when FOTR block came out. So, yes, that includes cancelling skirmishes for the RB (house rule or not).
<shrug>
-
Regarding wounds (and I guess by your interpretation conditions[which I'm okay with]), if a card says wound 8 companions, you MUST wound up to 8 companions (any left over wounds are lost IE-there are only 5 comps active), you cant wound 1 comp 2x and and 6 other comps 1x. You cant rewound a companion who has already been assigned a wound by the action.
If this carries over to conditions then once the card has been saved from the discard due to deceit, it can not be assigned to be discarded a second time as the text of sentinels reads "discard 2 conditions."
It is analogous with wound 2 companions. Even if you wound gimli (with helm) and prevent the first wound, he cant be wounded again as he was already assigned one wound (yes he prevented it because he was an eligible candidate to receive a wound, but the effect of the action was wound 2 [or 8] companions).
What you are citing from the CRD: However, if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be assigned to that character. Is discussing the difference between "can not take wounds" and "Prevent the wound."
As per CRD 4.0, and yourself:
If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).
In conclusion, if an action says to wound X companions you must chose X companions. You may prevent any number of those wounds, but that does not mean you can assign a wound to a companion, prevent it, then assign another wound to the character. They may not be chosen multiple times to absorb multiple wounds. If the action says wound 2 companions, you must select 2 different companions, Likewise, if secret sentinels says discard 2 conditions, you must select 2 different conditions, you can not choose 1 condition, prevent the discard, then choose it again because sentinels' text states "discard 2 conditions."
If for some reason you can not wound 2 companions, because there is only 1 companion in play, you must wound the lone companion 1x and the second wound is ignored. Likewise, if you can only discard 1 condition because only 1 condition is in play the second condition discard is ignored (As mentioned previously, you complete the action to the utmost of your ability).
If the single wound is prevented it is prevented. If the single discard is prevented, it is prevented. The wound CRD you and I both cited is very clear.
-
Well, reading the last part, I kinda disagree. It states there that you have to choose different companions each. You cannot choose Faramir in the example twice, cause he was already wounded by the card. That the wound is prevent doesnt matter, he has been targeted, so he cannot be targetted again.
Also, how come that in every big Decipher tournament, as well as online play, this has been the case? Is it true that Decipherv even erred all those time, that indeed the world of LOTR players is wrong and only you are right? Cant it even be posisble that you are wrong?
With the cancel skirmish this is debatable but not clear, I understand your point as much as the others, tho I am a follower of the other persons view.
This however is a thing being used for quite the time, and in several premier series and worlds. I assume the judges at time were all correct, so you cannot retarget.
-
After reviewing the 2007 CRD in regards to cancelling RB skirmishes (I must agree with Sgt), in NO format can an RB skirmish be cancelled. However, as I already mentioned, when I play a casual FOTR game, I like to house rule RB skirmishes can be cancelled.
Official Formats (Sgt was correct): as per 2007 CRD there are only 6 (arguably 7) official formats: FOTR block (1-3), TT block (4-6) ROTK (7,8,10), War of the Ring (11-13) Standard (as listed in the current rulings), and open. The currect rulings 2007 page does indicate the expanded is an official format, but The comprehensive rules 2007 does not. Movie block is NOT an OFFICIAL format (Credit given where credit due ;) ).
The CRD does not specify if RB skirmishes can be cancelled in FOTR or TT format games. Quite the opposite, they indicate that RB skirmishes can not be cancelled in any format. However, as mentioned 2x now, those of us who play FOTR or TS like to allow RB skirmish cancelling as a house rule for nostalgic purposes.
-
When a card says to wound X companions, you must select X different companions to be wounded once each. A character simply cannot be assigned more than 1 wound, even if that wound was prevented.
So apply this same logic to conditions. If you are discarding X conditions, you discard them once each, even if some are prevented.
I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.
-
Regarding wounds (and I guess by your interpretation conditions[which I'm okay with]), if a card says wound 8 companions, you MUST wound up to 8 companions (any left over wounds are lost IE-there are only 5 comps active), you cant wound 1 comp 2x and and 6 other comps 1x. You cant rewound a companion who has already been assigned a wound by the action.
Assigning a companion to be wounded is not the same as wounding a companion. If a wound is prevented, then that companion remains a companion who has not been wounded, and is thus still a viable target to be assigned a wound. The rules specifically support that.
It is analogous with wound 2 companions. Even if you wound gimli (with helm) and prevent the first wound, he cant be wounded again as he was already assigned one wound (yes he prevented it because he was an eligible candidate to receive a wound, but the effect of the action was wound 2 [or 8] companions).
He is not being wounded again, because the first wound is prevented. The only way he would not remain a viable target, is if he had been wounded, or if he was unable to take wounds for some reason.
What you are citing from the CRD: However, if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be assigned to that character. Is discussing the difference between "can not take wounds" and "Prevent the wound."
Correct. And when it comes to preventing wounds, this does not prevent wounds from being assigned.
As per CRD 4.0, and yourself:
If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).
Correct. That bit in the parentheses is meant to clarify the ruling: You cannot wound a single companion more than once. If a wound is prevented though, you aren't wounding that character more than once. He is still only taking one wound, and assignments are irrelevant.
In conclusion, if an action says to wound X companions you must chose X companions. You may prevent any number of those wounds, but that does not mean you can assign a wound to a companion, prevent it, then assign another wound to the character. They may not be chosen multiple times to absorb multiple wounds.
I must completely disagree. I think the ruling says (quite specifically) exactly the opposite.
It states there that you have to choose different companions each.
No, it states you must wound different companions each time.
If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).
The section in parentheses clarifies that the ruling is talking about actually taking wounds, not the assignment part. The later section adds:
If a character cannot take wounds, wounds
cannot be assigned to that character. However,
if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character.
This is then clarified even further with the Faramir example:
Faramir, Wizard's Pupil reads: "Skirmish: Exert
Gandalf to prevent all wounds to Faramir." This
prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.
Note particularly the section, "prevents wounds as they are assigned." This clarifies that assigning a wound is followed immediately by placing a wound, unless that wound is prevented. So, in the previous section:
If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).
...you are not choosing 8 different companions, and only then after your choices are made wounding each one. Wounds are either applied or prevented as they are assigned. Cards like The Trees are Strong require you to wound different companions, but they don't actually require you to make all of your choices before the wounding begins. Again, the only way "prevents wounds as they are assigned" can be accurate, is if each wound is prevented (or placed) immediately after it is assigned.
Perhaps this is what has gotten us all confused, and also why words like "assign" or "target" generally do not appear on cards that wound characters or discard conditions; because pointing at a card and saying "that one" IS wounding the card, or discarding the card... unless of course the wound or discard is prevented. And I think that is the key thing here: Discarding different cards (and not the same card repeatedly) or wounding different cards (and not the same card multiple times) is a function of the rules, not something that actually creates separate phases for "assignment" and then "wounding" or "discarding."
In other words, the reason I can't use The Trees are Strong to wound the same character over and over again, isn't because I have to choose all of my targets before wounds are applied, it's simply because the rules require me to wound a different character each time. Assignments are still made one at a time, and a wound is applied (or prevented) immediately after each assignment.
You cannot choose Faramir in the example twice, cause he was already wounded by the card. That the wound is prevent doesnt matter,
That is absolutely incorrect. If Faramir did not take a wound token, then he was not wounded. From the CR:
When you "wound a character," you place only
one wound.
If you did not actually place a wound on the character, then he was not wounded.
he has been targeted, so he cannot be targetted again.
The cards don't talk about targeting, they only talk about wounding. The rules specifically say:
if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character.
and
This
prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.
Preventing wounds does not prevent assignments, because preventing wounds means the character was never wounded in the first place.
Also, how come that in every big Decipher tournament, as well as online play, this has been the case?
Perhaps this actually was the case, and you just never realized it. Or perhaps a tournament director made a mistake. That does happen, you know. In an actual live tournament (as opposed to computer software), these timing mechanics are often not as clearly delineated as people play. If a timing issue arises, they often have to backtrack to figure out just what the timing is actually supposed to be. Things like Gemp impose a formality to the rules that is often not so clearly enforced or demonstrated when people play for real. And in a real life situation, if you see a player use something like The Trees are Strong, I think you will find that he places the wound tokens at the same time that he picks the characters to be wounded.
Is it true that Decipherv even erred all those time, that indeed the world of LOTR players is wrong and only you are right? Cant it even be posisble that you are wrong?
I think the CR is blessedly clear on this one. Wounds are prevented (or placed) as they are assigned. Preventing a wound does not prevent the assignment. "Wounding a character" means to place a wound on the character. "Wound X companions" means to wound (place one wound on) X different characters. If you don't place a wound on a character (for whatever reason), then that character was not wounded.
-
The character was still assigned a wound, though. The very act of wounding a character means you are assigning a wound to that character. It is impossible for a character to be assigned more than 1 wound when The Trees Are Strong is used.
-
Sgt I have used your own citations and interpreted them 100% the opposite direction. The assignment of a wound fulfills the "wound" requirement and the target can not be selected again. You have added nothing new to your argument and are arguing for arguments sake. Just because you keep a debate moving does not mean you have proved a point. The CRD is clear and you keep bending it to say what you want it to say. You can not reassign a wound to a companion once they have already been assigned a wound from a card. Even the Faramir example dictates that the wound was prevented but the assignment was not. You can not rewound or retarget companions or conditions. The CRD is clear in that fact. The only blogger who vocally sided with you has changed their opinion. I am afraid you are alone in this matter.
As mentioned, unless you manage to convince the entire community that they have been playing LOTR incorrectly for 10 years (half of which Decipher was present for) then you are fighting a losing battle.
I have nothing more to add as you and I are only reciting the same 2 paragraphs from the CRD and interpreting them 100% differently.
People will believe what they want to believe. I have spoken my piece. Good luck.
-
The character was still assigned a wound, though.
No, the character was assigned to be wounded. The CR specifically defines "wounding a character" to be placing a wound on the character. If no wound was placed, the character was not wounded. As the rules say, the assignment of wounds is immaterial to the action (which is probably why none of the cards talk about "assigning" wounds, they just talk about wounding).
It's like your signature says, Bib: "All cards do what they say, no more, no less." What is the text of The Trees are Strong?
"Discard X Isengard Orcs to make the Free Peoples player wound X companions."
What is the definition of "wound?" To place a wound on a character. The card directs you to place wounds on X companions. The CR clarifies that this kind of wording requires you to place each wound on a different character. Does the card say anything about assigning wounds? Targeting wounds? No. "wound X companions," which means "place a wound on X companions." And the Faramir example even clarifies that wounds are prevented as they are assigned. This tells us that each wound is prevented (or placed) immediately after it is assigned. You don't choose all the assignments and then start placing wounds, you place (or prevent) each wound immediately after you assign it. This actually makes good sense, since it means the procedure for playing cards like this, whether they wound one character repeatedly, or multiple characters one time each, is essentially the same across the board. I dare say it's also the way people have always played the game in real life, since it's impractical to point out 8 different targets, and only then start putting tokens on each one.
Sgt I have used your own citations and interpreted them 100% the opposite direction.
I don't see how. The wording is very specific.
The assignment of a wound fulfills the "wound" requirement and the target can not be selected again.
The CR defines "wound" as actually placing a wound, and even reinforces this by saying that preventing the actual placement does not prevent assignment. Because until a wound is placed, a character has not actually been wounded. If you're preventing the wound, this should be kind of obvious.
It's for this reason that, if a Gondor character is wearing Armor, loses a skirmish to a damage +1 minion, and you use a reponse action to prevent one wound, that character is still going to take a wound, because by preventing the first one, he has not yet hit the limit that Armor provides him.
You have added nothing new to your argument and are arguing for arguments sake.
It would be more helpful if you would address my specific points. For example, what is your specific response to the Faramir example given by the CR:
This prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.
Does this not clarify, once and for all, that a wound is prevented (or placed) immediately after it is assigned?
You can not reassign a wound to a companion once they have already been assigned a wound from a card.
The rules say (twice) that assignments are irrelevant. The only thing that counts, is if a wound was actually placed. That is the definition of "to wound."
Even the Faramir example dictates that the wound was prevented but the assignment was not.
Exactly. And also that:
"if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character."
You can not rewound or retarget companions or conditions. The CRD is clear in that fact.
Nobody is "rewounding" anything. The CRD is clear that assignments don't count. Only if a card actually takes a hit, does it count.
The only blogger who vocally sided with you has changed their opinion. I am afraid you are alone in this matter.
I think perhaps this discussion is no longer appropriately titled, and is probably not getting the kind of attention it needs. As best I can tell, only four people are really participating in it. Perhaps it needs a devoted thread in Archives.
In any event, the rules are not a popularity contest, nor are they decided by majority vote. The rules are the rules.
People will believe what they want to believe.
This is certainly true.
Tell ya what: I used to have the occasional back-and-forth with Sandy Wible. I'm going to try to reconnect with him, and see if he can either shed some light on this, or point me in the direction of someone who can.
-
Sigh.
If a card says "wound 3 companions" you select 3 different companions to be wounded once each. Preventing one companion's wound does not permit you to wound that companion again.
If a card says "wound a companion 3 times" you obviously assign 3 wounds to him. If you prevent one wound, you still have to wound the companion 2 more times.
If a card says "place 3 wounds on companions" you place the 3 wounds anywhere you want.
-
If a card tells you to wound a number of companions, you must choose different companions to wound one time each (you cannot wound a single companion more than once).
I'm also satisfied this shows different companions must be selected. The part in parentheses doesn't contradict what comes before; "you cannot wound a companion more than once" in this context is the end result of "you must choose different companions to wound one time each." The alternate interpretation requires that "choose different companions" is actually wrongly worded, which is a rather strong charge to make.
So, going back to Clever Hobbits, here is how I believe the scenario works:
1) FP plays Clever Hobbits from hand, adding 2 twilight.
2) FP chooses which conditions he would like to discard.
3) Those conditions enter the "about to be discarded" state.
4) Deceit can then respond to each attempted discard, depending on how much twilight is available.
5) Any conditions Deceit does not protect get discarded, and Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
6) Clever Hobbits is placed in the FP's discard pile.
Any comments?
This is what I'd think as well.
-
Ah, I finally see where sgt is coming from. He's taking the "character whose wound is prevented can be wounded again" clause and misinterpreting it. That rule applies to situations where the character is actually capable of being wounded multiple times, such as when losing to an Uruk or when threats are exploding. But the rules clearly spell out that when you are wounding a specific number of companions, a character can only be selected to be wounded once.
So go back to my earlier example with The Trees Are Strong. Aragorn, Frodo, Gandalf and Gimli are selected. You prevent Aragorn's wound, but then Gimli's wound kills him and threats are exploding. Aragorn is still eligible to receive any of the threat wounds. But he is not eligible to receive anymore wounds from The Trees Are Strong.
-
It seems we are at an impasse, until I can get word from somebody more official.
"wound X companions" means wound X companions. Simple as that. Selecting somebody who ultimately doesn't take a wound, does not constitute wounding them.
If a card says "wound 5 companions," and I wound 3 companions, and prevent a wound on the fourth companion, I have only wounded 3 companions, and prevented 1 wound. 4 companions have not been wounded, let alone 5.
-
until I can get word from somebody more official.
LOL
-
"If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once)."
There it is, in plain simple English. This proves that the choosing of the targets happens before the actual action happens to them.
You are wrong, sgt, I can't state it any clearer than that.
-
I don't want to meddle things too much (as I have not read all the responses), but there is quite clear distinction in rules, between "wound/heal/exert X [qualifier]" and "for each ... wound/heal/exert [qualifier]" and these are played differently:
"Wound/heal/exert X [qualifier]":
1. Determine the X.
2. Select X number of distinct [qualifier] (if there is less in play, select all).
3. All of the selected X become "about to be wounded/healed/exerted".
4. Perform any prevention responses.
5. Wound/heal/exert all of the X, that did not have the action prevented on them.
"for each ... wound/heal/exert [qualifier]":
1. Determine the X.
2. For 1 to X execute loop:
2a. Select a [qualifier] (if any is in play at this time)
2b. Selected [qualifier] becomes "about to be wounded/healed/exerted".
2c. Perform any prevention responses.
2d. Wound/heal/exert the selected [qualifier].
HOWEVER, the "for each" rule does not apply to cards being discarded, as it is not listed in the "for each" entry of Comprehensive Rules, which allows selecting the same card multiple times for the action (only wound/heal/exert effects fall in that category). Therefore, no matter how the discarding effect is worded ("discard X", or "for each X - discard"), you can't retry discarding the same card multiple times, if a previous attempt was prevented. So, for all intends and purposes any flavour of discard effects can be played using the first flow (as described above).
-
Selecting somebody who ultimately doesn't take a wound, does not constitute wounding them.
The selection remains made, however, which is where the "you must choose different companions to wound one time each" part comes into play. If I choose to wound Gandalf, and prevent that wound, I can't choose to wound Gandalf again (in the context of "wound X companions"), because I would not be choosing a different companion to wound.
-
Bib are Elessar are right Mr.draino
-
I still disagree with the above interpretations, but none of the ex-Decipher people I have contacted were interested in weighing in on the matter. So, I guess the ruling is whatever those who control Gemp want it to be.
Back to the topic at hand (anti-Gollum strategies), I did finally find an effective counter to Deceit. Rather simple really: Gladden Homestead. Used in conjunction with other condition removal (e.g. Deep In Thought), of course.