The Last Homely House
Undying Lands => Valinor => Topic started by: sgtdraino on February 01, 2015, 08:53:05 PM
-
I think Too Great and Terrible is malfunctioning, but I'd be interested to hear a ruling. The Card reads:
Maneuver: Spot a Nazgul to wound Gandalf twice. The Free Peoples player may discard two [Gandalf] cards from hand to prevent this.
I've played several games in which Too Great and Terrible was played at Steward's Tomb, and yet the Free Peoples player was still able to prevent the two wounds by discarding two [Gandalf] cards.
I also spoke to MarcinS briefly on facebook regarding the glitch for My Cards leagues. He says as best he can tell from the code, it should be functioning correctly. I also told him about My Cards tournaments appearing as All Cards tournaments. He asks one of you to send him an email regarding the specifics of this and any other current bug problems.
-
The wounds aren't being prevented by discarding the 2 [Gandalf] cards. It's preventing the action of the card itself. It's basically saying "Do this unless FP does this."
-
Bib, that's what I thought too. Preventing the "wounding" instead of the eventually resultant "wounds".
-
Bib and dh, what is your basis for thinking it prevents the action, and isn't preventing the wounds? Are there similar examples you can point to?
-
CRD 4.0 - effect
A effect of an action could be adding or removing twilight tokens, exerting a character, discarding a card, or any number of other possibilities. The effects of an action are usually listed after the word “to” (so the action takes the form of “pay X to do Y,” with X being the cost and Y the effect).
The wording of the card is slightly different, but the outcome is the same as on Morgul Destroyer or Morgul Brute.
"Do X. The Free People's player may do Y instead."
-
Bib and dh, what is your basis for thinking it prevents the action, and isn't preventing the wounds? Are there similar examples you can point to?
CRD 4.0 - effect
A effect of an action could be adding or removing twilight tokens, exerting a character, discarding a card, or any number of other possibilities. The effects of an action are usually listed after the word “to” (so the action takes the form of “pay X to do Y,” with X being the cost and Y the effect).
The wording of the card is slightly different, but the outcome is the same as on Morgul Destroyer or Morgul Brute.
"Do X. The Free People's player may do Y instead."
That! "It was right there... on the tip of my tongue!" ;)
I don't know the rules in such detail as Merrick or yourself Sgtdraino, just was providing a logical path I thought was possible to explain the way it behaves by now (instead of just a misprogramming). As such, my voice isn't an authority of any kind. But I support Merrick's thoughts.
I can only think about Strength of Spirit: "preventing the wound token" by "an exertion" differs with "preventing the exertion" itself; the exertion and the resulting wound token are treated as separate things, so the "exertion" and whatever effect may depend on it happen, but no "exertion" token results. If the "wounding" action and the resulting "wound" are treated as different things, Too Great and Terrible would be working correctly. Strength of Spirit prevents the effect and not the action, Too Great and Terrible would prevent the action and then the effect wouldn't occur.
-
I'm not seeing it guys. The definition you listed is basically just saying that wounding is one kind of effect. Cards that cancel an event as a whole all specify "cancel" (Wariness, Gandalf, Wise Guide), other cards that prevent a certain effect (wounding, exerting, etc.) all specify "prevent." IMO discarding the two [Gandalf] cards is indeed preventing two wounds, and if your in a situation where preventing wounds is not allowed, discarding the cards should have no effect. Otherwise the card should read "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards to CANCEL this."
It all has to do with "prevent" vs "cancel." The latter stops an action, the former prevents the results of an action.
-
If it prevented the wounds themselves it would say "..to prevent those wounds".
Also see Why Shouldn't I Keep It.
-
The way it is written it is replacing one effect with another. As far as I know, the only actions that cancel events are Response: actions on minions, conditions or events.
The way I justify my ruling comes from two places:
The effect rule from the Comprehensive rules:
The effects of an action are usually listed after the word "to" (so the action takes the form of "pay X to do Y," with X being the cost and Y the effect).
The "Playing a Card" entry in the CRD
6. Perform effects of The Card. This includes choosing cards to be affected, if necessary. If initiative is a requirement for an effect, you cannot count The Card. If an effect takes a card into your hand from your discard pile, The Card is not there yet.
Since the choice is after the "to" both choices are part of the effect (A OR B). The card gives the free people's player the choice between the two effects and the free people's player must choose one they can fully complete.
The way the card (and all such cards) should have been worded is "Spot X to make the free people's player choose: A OR B."
-
The way it is written it is replacing one effect with another. As far as I know, the only actions that cancel events are Response: actions on minions, conditions or events.
The way I justify my ruling comes from two places:
The effect rule from the Comprehensive rules:
The effects of an action are usually listed after the word "to" (so the action takes the form of "pay X to do Y," with X being the cost and Y the effect).
The "Playing a Card" entry in the CRD
6. Perform effects of The Card. This includes choosing cards to be affected, if necessary. If initiative is a requirement for an effect, you cannot count The Card. If an effect takes a card into your hand from your discard pile, The Card is not there yet.
Since the choice is after the "to" both choices are part of the effect (A OR B). The card gives the free people's player the choice between the two effects and the free people's player must choose one they can fully complete.
The way the card (and all such cards) should have been worded is "Spot X to make the free people's player choose: A OR B."
I have to agree. And in the case at the tomb, it should be even more clear. You are preventing the EVENT not the WOUNDING. The event is "spot this to do that", as the FP player you aren't preventing wounds, you are preventing "spot this to do that".
-
I think Merrick, dmaz et al are correct. In case it helps:
The way I understand it, no doubt imperfectly :-[, until the text options in the card itself have been exhausted, the effect (2 wounds on Gandalf) is not active. So if the FP player discards 2 cards he prevents the event from resolving into a play effect. At no time are there any wounds requiring prevention.
Whereas Intimidate states: "Response: If a companion is about to take a wound, spot Gandalf to prevent that wound."
Gandalf is not about to take a wound if the FP player discards 2 cards using the text in Too Great and Terrible. No Intimidate needed, and also Steward's Tomb has no effect.
Gandalf is about to take wounds if the FP player does not discard and allows Too Great and Terrible to have its effect. Intimidate needed but Steward's Tomb would negate the wound prevention (as indeed it does).
-
I still disagree. I think what you guys are thinking of, are cards in which one effect can be replaced by another effect, as Merrick says. But when that happens, the word "instead" is used in the text of the card. This is referenced in Comprehensive Rules under "response":
Typically, only one such response can be performed in a
given situation, because its effect will “prevent” that situation or replace it with another effect “instead.”
As you can see, the rules differentiate between "prevent" and "instead." That's why at Steward's Tomb you can still take burdens "instead" of wounds using The One Ring, but if you were trying to "prevent" the effect of taking wounds using a card, it would not work.
I also think there is a distinction in the rules between "prevent" and "cancel." "Prevent" generally refers to specific kinds of effects, whereas "cancel" is the only thing that does what you guys are talking about: Killing the card as a whole. That's why Storied Homestead can stop Shotgun Enquea at Steward's Tomb, but Narsil, Blade of the Faithful cannot. In fact, let's compare the wording of Narsil to Too Great and Terrible:
Narsil:
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, exert 2 [Gondor] Men to prevent that.
Clearly "that" is a pronoun referring to the effect of a wound that the bearer is about to take.
Too Great and Terrible:
Maneuver: Spot a Nazgul to wound Gandalf twice. The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand to prevent this.
Clearly "this" is a pronoun referring to the effect of two wounds that Gandalf is about to take. Too Great and Terrible basically just has a built-in response action that is worded similarly to Narsil, Blade of the Faithful. It isn't replacing one effect with another, it's attempting to "prevent" an effect. In this case, Steward's Tomb shouldn't let you prevent this effect, because it says "Wounds cannot be prevented."
Again, if Too Great And Terrible had read, "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand to cancel this," it would work at Steward's Tomb. If the card had read, "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand instead of this," it would work at Steward's Tomb. But because it specifies "prevent," it should not work at Steward's Tomb.
"All cards do what they say, no more, no less."
-
Narsil:
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, exert 2 [Gondor] Men to prevent that.
Clearly "that" is a pronoun referring to the effect of a wound that the bearer is about to take.
Too Great and Terrible:
Maneuver: Spot a Nazgul to wound Gandalf twice. The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand to prevent this.
Clearly "this" is a pronoun referring to the effect of two wounds that Gandalf is about to take. Too Great and Terrible basically just has a built-in response action that is worded similarly to Narsil, Blade of the Faithful. It isn't replacing one effect with another, it's attempting to "prevent" an effect. In this case, Steward's Tomb shouldn't let you prevent this effect, because it says "Wounds cannot be prevented."
Again, if Too Great And Terrible had read, "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand to cancel this," it would work at Steward's Tomb. If the card had read, "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards from hand instead of this," it would work at Steward's Tomb. But because it specifies "prevent," it should not work at Steward's Tomb.
"All cards do what they say, no more, no less."
This is a well organized argument for the other side. I'm not so sure about where I stand now XD
Logically, you are right, sgtdraino. Pointing out the correlation between Narsil's text and TGAT puts it in a different light for me.
We need some more expertise :)
ADDED:
I think the kicker to your argument lies in Gandalf, Wise Guide's gametext. Before I was arguing that the discarding of the two Gandalf cards was canceling the event NOT actually preventing the wounds. However the wording in Gandalf's text (and Strength of Kings for that matter) clearly states "cancel" when talking about stopping an event.
After fully reading that card, it looks like what is happening is this.
1. I spotted the Nazgul. The two wounds are happening.
2. I can prevent the two wounds from happening by discarding the cards.
IF you used Gandalf, Wise Guide I'm assuming that would work for keeping him being wounded? (although the result would be exactly the same lol)
I liked that you used bibfortuna's little tagline there to show the logical breakdown of your argument. I'm still not 100% sure what's going on there, but your argument makes more sense for sure when you apply it to the "just do what the cards say" rule.
-
Too Great and Terrible basically just has a built-in response action that is worded similarly to Narsil, Blade of the Faithful.
There is not a correlation between Narsil and TGAT because there is an important difference.
Narsil does not itself cause wounds. Its only function is to prevent wounds to be inflicted unconditionally by another source. "that" is the prevention of a wound about to be inflicted by the other source.
TGAT has wording that will, but for the second sentence, cause wounds. The discarding of 2 cards in accordance with that second sentence is integral to the operation of TGAT as an event. The event action has not been completed until the FP player chooses not to discard the 2 cards. Until then no wounds are triggered.
"this" in TGAT refers to the operation of the event, not the wounds themselves.
That said, TGAT does use the word "prevent", one of the actions prohibited by Steward's Tomb. I just think that what is being prevented is not wounds, but one possible outcome of an event that is in course of being played, but has not yet been completed.
-
There is not a correlation between Narsil and TGAT because there is an important difference.
Narsil does not itself cause wounds. Its only function is to prevent wounds to be inflicted unconditionally by another source. "that" is the prevention of a wound about to be inflicted by the other source.
...
"this" in TGAT refers to the operation of the event, not the wounds themselves.
That said, TGAT does use the word "prevent", one of the actions prohibited by Steward's Tomb. I just think that what is being prevented is not wounds, but one possible outcome of an event that is in course of being played, but has not yet been completed.
I'm still not convinced though...
If you don't like Narsil's text, we can look at Morgul Brute.
"When you play this minion, you may spot a Nazgul to add a burden. The Free Peoples player may wound the Ring-bearer to prevent this."
Would the wounding of the Ringbearer "prevent" the minion from being played? No, it prevents the burden.
I was at first arguing that the option to discarding the 2 gandalf card was "preventing" a card not the wounds, but after carefully reading all of the rules found that Merrick and others posted, there's actually nothing there to substantiate that claim at all. It's all just about steps taken when cards are played.
After reading through some other cards, it's pretty clear that Decipher had some sort of a pattern with their wording which can't be denied.
In terms of stopping things from happening within the game:
Events are "cancelled"
Burdens and Wounds are "prevented"
Minions, possession, and conditions are "discarded"
Every card I've found so far follows this. Thus if you say that you can't "prevent" the burdens from Morgul Brute, you shouldn't be able to "prevent" the wounds from TGAT.
There are other game dynamics that can be "prevented" as well such as raising or lowering move limit (see Rapt Hillman).
-
Narsil and TGaT are NOT the same, for the same reason that has been mentioned by several people in this thread. Perhaps I can explain it differently.
All examples that you are using that "prevent" wounds are RESPONSE actions, meaning the card is already in play, the action has already been paid for, and the results are about to be carried out. The RESPONSE action then prevents the wound from happening.
The card TGaT (and the others like it from RoTEL) actually allows itself to be prevented, NOT through a RESPONSE action, but as it is being played. This distinction is very important, because it means the EVENT is prevented, and the effects never happen. You are not preventing the wounds from TGaT but you are preventing the event itself from carrying out. I know this sounds like splitting hairs. SgtDraino has assumed that the words "to prevent this" on TGaT refers to the act of wounding, but many people have pointed out that it refers to the resolving of the card, which if the FP player does not discard two Gandalf cards, will THEN result in two wounds, to which the FP player could use a RESPONSE action to try to prevent (and fail when at Steward's Tomb).
The fact that the FP is not responding to the event is the key here, because it means the event is still being played and we have not yet come to actually resolve the effect of the event (i.e. the wounding). In all the examples being given where a FP card "cancels" something, it is actually already in play, because the FP is RESPONDING to the event/action/etc. TGaT hasn't come into play when you are "preventing" it from coming into play. (You can't cancel something that hasn't been played).
-
Narsil and TGaT are NOT the same, for the same reason that has been mentioned by several people in this thread. Perhaps I can explain it differently.
All examples that you are using that "prevent" wounds are RESPONSE actions, meaning the card is already in play, the action has already been paid for, and the results are about to be carried out. The RESPONSE action then prevents the wound from happening.
The card TGaT (and the others like it from RoTEL) actually allows itself to be prevented, NOT through a RESPONSE action, but as it is being played. This distinction is very important, because it means the EVENT is prevented, and the effects never happen. You are not preventing the wounds from TGaT but you are preventing the event itself from carrying out. I know this sounds like splitting hairs. SgtDraino has assumed that the words "to prevent this" on TGaT refers to the act of wounding, but many people have pointed out that it refers to the resolving of the card, which if the FP player does not discard two Gandalf cards, will THEN result in two wounds, to which the FP player could use a RESPONSE action to try to prevent (and fail when at Steward's Tomb).
The fact that the FP is not responding to the event is the key here, because it means the event is still being played and we have not yet come to actually resolve the effect of the event (i.e. the wounding). In all the examples being given where a FP card "cancels" something, it is actually already in play, because the FP is RESPONDING to the event/action/etc. TGaT hasn't come into play when you are "preventing" it from coming into play. (You can't cancel something that hasn't been played).
This explanation is fine, but from a strict rules standpoint it's more personal interpretation, which is a little different for everyone.
The full basis for the argument for it being able to work at the tomb is merely "Events have a Pay X to do Y format" and "The way the card (and all such cards) should have been worded is "Spot X to make the free people's player choose: A OR B.""
It's more speculation to say that "this" refers to resolving the card as opposed to "preventing" the wounds.
Also there's a bit of a contradiction between your reasoning (which seems sound) compared to my above quotes from Merrick. If the event is "Pay X to do Y" then you have "Spot a Nazgul - Pay X, to wound Gandalf - Do Y. According to this the requirements have been paid and the card has been played.
You could further argue (though there is no actual basis in the rules for it) that "preventing" the wounds is resolving the card, but it still wouldn't matter if you were, as wounds can't be "prevented" at the tomb.
I think that the big issue is getting lost in the details:
Whether or not you are "resolving a card" it you are still "preventing" wounds as stated on the card, which isn't allowed at the tomb.
To say that something "should have been worded" that way (as above) in order to try to fit a tough situation into a mold that we have created, is just more twisting and speculation.
I wouldn't call myself an expert at all, I know there's players like Merrick and Bib who have played far more (and played other games as well) who has more experience....but it's just my opinion that the situation is clearer than we're making it. There's no specific ruling, as it applies to this context, about whether event wounding can be "prevented" and game text wounding/burden addition (like morgul brute) can't. So why try to redefine what prevent means here? It says they can't be prevented. The card says you can do something to prevent them, just like Morgul Brute, which you could do at any other site. But you are at the tomb. They can't be prevented.
If we're actually supposed to just do what the card say (which is what I learned is the golden rule of CCGs from people here :) ) then let's just do what it says.
-
How would Gemp treat it if you have 2 [Gandalf] cards in hand and also have Eowyn LoR in play? Would you get the option to use Eowyn before or after the option to discard the 2 [Gandalf] cards? That should resolve this issue once and for all.
If the choice to use Eowyn comes before (or at the same time as) the option to discard the 2 cards, then discarding the 2 counts as preventing wounds, and thus can't be used at the Tomb. However, if her ability triggers after you decline to discard the 2, then it's obvious that discarding the 2 isn't preventing a wound.
-
How would Gemp treat it if you have 2 [Gandalf] cards in hand and also have Eowyn LoR in play? Would you get the option to use Eowyn before or after the option to discard the 2 [Gandalf] cards? That should resolve this issue once and for all.
If the choice to use Eowyn comes before (or at the same time as) the option to discard the 2 cards, then discarding the 2 counts as preventing wounds, and thus can't be used at the Tomb. However, if her ability triggers after you decline to discard the 2, then it's obvious that discarding the 2 isn't preventing a wound.
I don't really think this resolves it. It's simply more play-order rhetoric :/
The card has an option built into it to prevent the Y effect. As you guys stated X is the cost (spotting the Nazgul), Y is the effect, wounding Gandalf. The event itself has an alternate option built into it, which would of course play out before Eowyn responds. The problem is this option is doing X to prevent Y. What is Y? Wounding Gandalf. Thus you are preventing wounding. I don't see how this isn't so obvious...
I guess the major thing I'm stuck on is how we're making the jump to assume that discarding the two Gandalf cards is canceling or "resolving" the event as opposed to "preventing" wounds, which is how it's written on the card...I really think that if we are just doing what the cards say, you're trying to prevent wounds...
-
Compare it to Intimidate, which specifically says to prevent the wound. If this card was giving the option to prevent the wounds, why wouldn't it use the same language? This is my (personal) basis for assuming that "this" refers to the playing of the event and not the wounding.
-
Compare it to Intimidate, which specifically says to prevent the wound. If this card was giving the option to prevent the wounds, why wouldn't it use the same language? This is my (personal) basis for assuming that "this" refers to the playing of the event and not the wounding.
Thanks :)
After chatting more with bib about it too, I can see that argument in better light.
Since there's an option within the event itself that creates an outcome different than wounding, it must be decided before it's known that wounds will go out.
-
I still don't see where this idea is coming from that discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards can be doing anything else other than preventing wounds, no matter how the timing works. I think it's a real stretch to try to argue that discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards somehow isn't preventing wounds. Of course it is! Again, where is there any basis in the rules to say otherwise? Let's see some references and/or examples from the CRs or CRDs.
Thanks for the support dmaz, no gold for you! ;)
-
I still don't see where this idea is coming from that discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards can be doing anything else other than preventing wounds, no matter how the timing works. I think it's a real stretch to try to argue that discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards somehow isn't preventing wounds. Of course it is! Again, where is there any basis in the rules to say otherwise? Let's see some references and/or examples from the CRs or CRDs.
Thanks for the support dmaz, no gold for you! ;)
No more gold! D:
With this whole thing, I've gotten to the point where I'm at least satisfied with the alternate argument.
It makes sense to me that since you need to decide which happens in the event, there IS a possible outcome in the event that results in no wounds.
The reason I'm still not 100% sure is because I still feel like there is a reasonable amount of speculation surrounding this whole "well you need to resolve the card before the companion is 'about to take a wound', and since he's not 'about to take a wound' you aren't technically preventing wounds."
While I see the logic in this now, I still honestly don't see the hard evidence for it in the rules.
The only actual evidence we've seen from the rules is just order of play and cost/effect...not anything that actually applies to the REAL issue at hand...so I agree, sgtdraino...lets see some more from the actual rules :)
The more simple (and obvious) logic to me here is "well...it says prevent...thus despite all the rhetoric and mumbo jumbo, you are STILL preventing wounds".
I dunno....I conceded to the local experts that we have...though I still have a feeling if you brought this to the original game designers it's possible it wouldn't be exactly the way the majority is ruling it...
-
This is from the current rulings.
instead
When a card uses the phrase “instead” or
“instead of”, the stated effect is replaced with
a different effect. This does not mean that the
original effect is prevented. If the second effect
cannot happen for any reason, then the original
effect occurs.
From looking at this, it appears that this is the exact thing Merrick and bib are arguing for the whole "you aren't preventing because it's as if the wounds never happened".
Well if that was the case, by the rules the card would have said "the FP player may discard 2 Gandalf cards instead".
But it says "prevent"....hmmmm
-
If it's wording consistency that is tripping you up, then I'll reiterate: if it was preventing the wounds, why wouldn't it say "to prevent those wounds" just like Intimidate?
-
If it's wording consistency that is tripping you up, then I'll reiterate: if it was preventing the wounds, why wouldn't it say "to prevent those wounds" just like Intimidate?
Because cards don't need to say that, in order to be preventing wounds. See Huorn, among others we could pull out....the issue here is the usage of the word "prevent" rather than "instead".
The foundation of the argument that you are not actually preventing wounds was this:
You are given this event with two options: either wound gandalf or discard 2 cards.
However, according to Decipher's ruling on the word "instead", the card would read "instead" if you were actually being given two options, in which neither option is preventing the other.
-
I have to agree with Dmaz and Sgtdraino here:
The foundation of the argument that you are not actually preventing wounds was this:
You are given this event with two options: either wound gandalf or discard 2 cards.
The way it behaves in Gemp is indeed that: a Shadow card that forces the FP player to choose 1 of 2 pathways; before the decision is taken nothing happens (1st you spot a Nazgul; 2nd the FP player chooses; 3rd the wounding or [Gandalf] cards discarding action takes place). But the way the card is written, a Shadow card that wounds Gandalf twice and THEN the FP player can prevent those wounds; the wounds and the prevention aren't a fork on the road but the prevention is a possible reaction AFTER the wounding path is taken (1st you spot a Nazgul; 2nd the wounding action takes place; 3rd the wounds may be prevented before they are assigned to Gandy).
So it must be a misprogramming, a difference between what the digital card does and what the physical card says. In the physical card, the decision of wounding Gandalf was never in the hands of the FP player.
-
In the physical card, the decision of wounding Gandalf was never in the hands of the FP player.
This is essentially the main thrust of the opposing argument.
To say that you are choosing an alternate option over wounding, though can be reasonable and logical, is just speculation...and further doesn't have any backing in the rules, when you consider that in all such circumstances Decipher created the wording "instead" to handle situations such as that.
Another point made was that "well Gandalf isn't 'about to take' wounds", as it states in some cards, so you aren't preventing wounds.
1. We already know from other cards that this wording isn't always used when wounding or preventing wounds (also common sense dictates that it just sounds stupid for the card to say "spot a nazgul. Gandalf is about to take 2 wounds").
2. It's additionally unfounded to say that because TGAT doesn't say he's about to take wounds, or states the word "wound" again (remember Huorn, and other cards don't anyway) that you aren't preventing them. The card still says "prevent" regarding a prior statement. Effect of the prior statement was wounding.
ADDED:
Here are what cards look like when they are giving a player two different options. There are so many that it's pretty clear if the case was a choice of two things and not prevention, as the card even states, it would have been worded differently by Decipher:
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?
I'm sure there are more, but these are just the ones that popped into mind, at hand.
There are also events that use the word "prevent". It is pretty obvious in these cases that the opposing player is not given an option of things to "choose" from. They are only given a means to "prevent" it.
-
Great examples, dmaz.
Perhaps this would be clearer for people if we broke it down into algebra. We know that, generally speaking, event cards break down into cost and effect, pay X to do Y. If we applied this to Too Great and Terrible, it would look like this:
Maneuver: Pay X to do Y. The Free Peoples player may do Z to prevent Y.
X = Spot a Nazgul
Y = Wound Gandalf twice
Z = Discard 2 [Gandalf] cards.
So, clearly (at least to me) discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards is preventing 2 wounds to Gandalf. What else could it be preventing?
-
Great examples, dmaz.
Perhaps this would be clearer for people if we broke it down into algebra. We know that, generally speaking, event cards break down into cost and effect, pay X to do Y. If we applied this to Too Great and Terrible, it would look like this:
Maneuver: Pay X to do Y. The Free Peoples player may do Z to prevent Y.
X = Spot a Nazgul
Y = Wound Gandalf twice
Z = Discard 2 [Gandalf] cards.
So, clearly (at least to me) discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards is preventing 2 wounds to Gandalf. What else could it be preventing?
Bib's argument is that the "this" is referring to the act of the event wounding Gandalf rather than wounding Gandalf... Though I found it to also be logical there is no backing in the rules for it. The wording in TGAT is exactly the same as other cards which are known to prevent wounding, and subsequently do not work at the tomb.
-
Split the topic into a rules discussion thread so as not to clutter up the GEMP Bug reporting thread too much.
I'll have a response to the latest assertions in a bit. Still reading through some cards.
Merrick_H
-
Bib's argument is that the "this" is referring to the act of the event wounding Gandalf rather than wounding Gandalf... Though I found it to also be logical there is no backing in the rules for it. The wording in TGAT is exactly the same as other cards which are known to prevent wounding, and subsequently do not work at the tomb.
Seems like splitting hairs to me. I don't see how the event wounding Gandalf is any different than any other wounding of Gandalf. Is there any distinction made in the rules indicating that there is a difference between these two things? Bib seemed to indicate that the timing of the actions/effects somehow clarified this issue, but again I don't know what rules he's talking about.
So, according to bib's view, how would the card break down algebraically?
Split the topic into a rules discussion thread so as not to clutter up the GEMP Bug reporting thread too much.
lol. I was just hitting refresh on the "Bug" thread, so I was pretty confused for a little bit there!
ETA: I went back and looked at bib's initial response:
The wounds aren't being prevented by discarding the 2 Gandalf cards. It's preventing the action of the card itself.
Okay, I did find some basis for bib's idea that it is possible to prevent an entire action, rather than just an effect; it's listed in the CRD under "Cancel":
When an action (such as playing an event
or using a special ability) is canceled or
prevented, its effects are ignored but its costs
and requirements are still paid. If that action is
playing an event, that event card is discarded.
So under the clarification for "cancel" it does use both the words "canceled" and "prevented" in reference to stopping an action. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a more specific listing for "prevent," only the listing for "cancel..." although other entries do make reference to effects being "prevented." Under "effect" in the CRs:
If something happens to prevent one effect which
in turn would have prevented a second effect, the
second effect is performed.
It still seems to me that, in every case, Decipher used the word "cancel" when you were stopping an entire action, and used "prevent" when you were preventing a particular effect. I can't find any card that seems worded contrary to this. Anybody got one?
And even it if is possible to "prevent" an action as a whole, there is still the issue with Too Great and Terrible as to whether "this" refers to wounding Gandalf twice, or whether "this" refers to the entire action of playing the card. To me, it still looks like it's referring specifically to the wounds. If it referred to preventing the entire card, it would also negate the very text that allows you to prevent it!
It's basically saying "Do this unless FP does this."
No, it's definitely not saying that. We have cards that use the "unless" wording, this is not one of them.
-
I went through all of the cards that have the word "prevent" in their game text and discovered two cycles of cards that were very interesting and relevant, one from Mines of Moria and one from Realms of the Elf Lords.
All of these cards follow the pattern:
(pay cost) X to Y. Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this.
Mines of Moria
Tidings of Erebor
Dismay our Enemies
Wielder of the Flame
Flee in Terror
Hobbit Sword-play
Realms of the Elf Lords
Can You Protect Me From Yourself?
Such a Little Thing
Too Great and Terrible
Terrible as the Dawn
Why Shouldn't I Keep It?
Saruman, Servant of the Eye
Keep in mind I eliminated any card that had "prevent" as a Response: action as those respond to a particular situation occurring, rather than being a part of the effect of the card.
Here are some rules that I would keep in mind:
effect - The effects of an action are usually listed after the word “to” (so the action takes the form of “pay X to do Y,” with X being the cost and Y the effect).
response - A special ability or event labeled with the word “Response:” indicates that you may perform that action
whenever the trigger described in its game text happens.
playing a card -
5. Respond to the playing of The Card (and to losing initiative if necessary). Responses or triggered actions that respond to the playing of The Card happen now. If The Card has game text on it that triggers “When you play...” The Card, it happens now. Other cards may respond to the card being played as well. These are handled in the manner described under actions and action procedure. If The Card was a Free People’s card and it leaving your hand causes you to lose initiative, each player may respond to you losing initiative now.
6. Perform effects of The Card. This includes choosing cards to be affected, if necessary. If initiative is a requirement for an effect, you cannot count The Card. If an effect takes a card into your hand from your discard pile, The Card is not there yet.
So, lets look at the facts as I see them:
- The "Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this." is not a Response: action as defined by the response rules, so it does not fall under step 5 of "playing a card".
- It is after the "to", therefore it is part of the effect of the card.
- Since it is a part of the effect of the card, it is resolved in step 6 of "playing a card".
- The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z. Only one effect is carried out, not both.
-
It's basically saying "Do this unless FP does this."
No, it's definitely not saying that. We have cards that use the "unless" wording, this is not one of them.
Or the word "instead" or "either" (see my previous comments about Decipher current ruling inclusion on the word "instead").
I understand Bib's and Merrick's leaning towards this interpretation, right off the cuff; there are many event that are presented in exactly this way ("do this unless FP does this"). But as you pointed out, draino, Decipher defined specific wording to surround such cases...it doesn't appear that this is one of those cases...
-
- The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.
I think we can all agree the FP player has a preventive action as an alternative...that is clear. The point is that we have established that the effect of the card is being carried out. That's progress at least...before some weren't sure whether the card was even considered played or in the effect phase until some "decision" was made :) The card is in play. The effect is being carried out.
Your statement above, I feel doesnt have enough backing within the rules when applied to the situation. The effect is in fact carried out in the wounding of Gandalf. One can just as easily view the effect as two-fold...I will read through more cards, but there are many with effects that involve multiple things.
I feel that your statement above is true for:
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?
This is because the choice is directly given in the card. For the "temptation" cards, the effect says that it does the negative thing, while the FP has the option to prevent. whether or not the preventing is happening while "resolving" a card, you are still preventing something. I think to deny that would be to dismiss all of Decipher's work to wording the cards that specifically, as well as making specific ruling regarding phrases such as "instead". If it wasn't preventing they wouldn't have used that word, I think.
ADDED:
While I am defending that those are actual wounds that are being prevented I'm still not certain :/
I understand your argument Merrick, and I think if it ended up coming down to pure game vernacular, so to speak, there is agruments for both sides.
Example:
It says prevent "this" - singular.
If we split hairs and were talking about preventing real wounds then it might say "prevent those" instead.
Thus your argument, which I still find logical, is that we are preventing "wound Gandalf twice".
What I'm stuck on is if that still means you are preventing wounds...it seems like it does...
-
I went through all of the cards that have the word "prevent" in their game text and discovered two cycles of cards that were very interesting and relevant, one from Mines of Moria and one from Realms of the Elf Lords.
All of these cards follow the pattern:
(pay cost) X to Y. Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this.
Great examples. And in all those examples, I'd say that you could replace "this" with "Y," in your equation.
Keep in mind I eliminated any card that had "prevent" as a Response: action as those respond to a particular situation occurring, rather than being a part of the effect of the card.
I'm not sure that's relevant. What does it matter as to whether the "prevent" is happening as a result of a Response action, or whether the "prevent" is happening as a result of being part of the game text of the card?
I'd also argue that in the case of Too Great and Terrible (and the other examples you listed), the "prevent" isn't part of the effect of the card, rather it is a triggered action built into the card, which may (or may not) prevent the effect. See below.
playing a card -
5. Respond to the playing of The Card (and to losing initiative if necessary). Responses or triggered actions that respond to the playing of The Card happen now. If The Card has game text on it that triggers “When you play...” The Card, it happens now. Other cards may respond to the card being played as well.
So this indicates that in addition to Response actions, we also have things called triggered actions, and the timing for them is the same as the timing for Response actions. It's basically what I said it was: A built-in Response action.
So, lets look at the facts as I see them:
- The "Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this." is not a Response: action as defined by the response rules, so it does not fall under step 5 of "playing a card".
It's not a Response action, but it is a triggered action. It gives the player a chance to take an action wherein they pay X to do Y, and in this case, the "do Y" of the triggered action, is preventing the effect of the first action.
- It is after the "to", therefore it is part of the effect of the card.
- Since it is a part of the effect of the card, it is resolved in step 6 of "playing a card".
I don't think it's part of the effect, it's a triggered action.
- The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z. Only one effect is carried out, not both.
It's not presenting a choice of two effects. The card presents a single effect (wound Gandalf twice), then initiates a triggered action wherein the Free People's player may prevent the wounds.
-
- The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.
I feel that your statement above is true for:
Tidings of Erebor
Dismay our Enemies
Wielder of the Flame
Flee in Terror
Hobbit Sword-play
This is because the choice is directly given in the card. For the "temptation" cards, the effect says that it does the negative thing, while the FP has the option to prevent. whether or not the preventing is happening while "resolving" a card, you are still preventing something. I think to deny that would be to dismiss all of Decipher's work to wording the cards that specifically, as well as making specific ruling regarding phrases such as "instead". If it wasn't preventing they wouldn't have used that word, I think.
If you think that it is true for the cards listed above (Mines of Moria Cycle) then it has to be true for the Realms of the Elf Lords Cycle. The format for the wording is exactly the same:
(pay cost) X to Y. Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this.
-
I don't think it's part of the effect, it's a triggered action.
- The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z. Only one effect is carried out, not both.
It's not presenting a choice of two effects. The card presents a single effect (wound Gandalf twice), then initiates a triggered action wherein the Free People's player may prevent the wounds.
That's interesting...But I'm not sure if it's a triggered action though...triggered actions are more like cards such as GKOMP or Relentless Uruk, where it automatically happens. This is a preventative option that is presented only after the effect goes into play.
-
- The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.
I feel that your statement above is true for:
Tidings of Erebor
Dismay our Enemies
Wielder of the Flame
Flee in Terror
Hobbit Sword-play
This is because the choice is directly given in the card. For the "temptation" cards, the effect says that it does the negative thing, while the FP has the option to prevent. whether or not the preventing is happening while "resolving" a card, you are still preventing something. I think to deny that would be to dismiss all of Decipher's work to wording the cards that specifically, as well as making specific ruling regarding phrases such as "instead". If it wasn't preventing they wouldn't have used that word, I think.
If you think that it is true for the cards listed above (Mines of Moria Cycle) then it has to be true for the Realms of the Elf Lords Cycle. The format for the wording is exactly the same:
(pay cost) X to Y. Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this.
Sorry, I copy pasted the wrong stack...these are the events I was talking about. I'll edit my original post.
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?
-
dmaz, Response actions themselves operate on a "trigger":
A special ability or event labeled with the word
“Response:” indicates that you may perform that
action whenever the trigger described in its game
text happens.
The rules are simply saying that there are other triggered actions in addition to Response actions.
Looking through, I still feel like I'm seeing a definite pattern with the cards, in which "prevent" always seems to be in reference to an effect, while "cancel" seems to be more powerful, able to take out an entire action:
Orc Ambusher
Orc Scout
Gandalf, Wise Guide
Storied Homestead
Furious Hillman
Time for Food
Seeking It Always
Relentless
And of course the many cards that cancel skirmishes. As you can see, other than skirmishes, the "cancel" word is most often used in reference to killing events.
-
Keep in mind I eliminated any card that had "prevent" as a Response: action as those respond to a particular situation occurring, rather than being a part of the effect of the card.
I'm not sure that's relevant. What does it matter as to whether the "prevent" is happening as a result of a Response action, or whether the "prevent" is happening as a result of being part of the game text of the card?
The reason it matters is Response: actions can only take place after the event that they are responding to takes place. You cannot discard Dwarven Bracers to prevent a wound until the wound is about to be taken in the first place. In this case I'm arguing that the format is replacing the effect - therefore no wounds are placed and you could not use intimidate or other such Response: cards.
I'd also argue that in the case of Too Great and Terrible (and the other examples you listed), the "prevent" isn't part of the effect of the card, rather it is a triggered action built into the card, which may (or may not) prevent the effect. See below.
playing a card -
5. Respond to the playing of The Card (and to losing initiative if necessary). Responses or triggered actions that respond to the playing of The Card happen now. If The Card has game text on it that triggers “When you play...” The Card, it happens now. Other cards may respond to the card being played as well.
And this is where I think you are wrong. Triggered actions are things that would be dealt with in step 5 such as Goblin Armory. As this is part of the effect (it is after the "to") it is not resolved until step 6 when effects are performed.
So this indicates that in addition to Response actions, we also have things called triggered actions, and the timing for them is the same as the timing for Response actions. It's basically what I said it was: A built-in Response action.
There is no construct defined in the rules as a "Built in response action". There are costs, effects, triggered actions (on external cards that respond to a particular scenario happening) and response actions. Don't try to fabricate rules here :-)
-
dmaz, Response actions themselves operate on a "trigger":
A special ability or event labeled with the word
“Response:” indicates that you may perform that
action whenever the trigger described in its game
text happens.
The rules are simply saying that there are other triggered actions in addition to Response actions.
Looking through, I still feel like I'm seeing a definite pattern with the cards, in which "prevent" always seems to be in reference to an effect, while "cancel" seems to be more powerful, able to take out an entire action:
Orc Ambusher
Orc Scout
Gandalf, Wise Guide
Storied Homestead
Furious Hillman
Time for Food
Seeking It Always
Relentless
And of course the many cards that cancel skirmishes. As you can see, other than skirmishes, the "cancel" word is most often used in reference to killing events.
Major exception that nobody would argue is on Warg, War-Warg and Sharku's Warg. Costs are still paid, but the effect of the special ability is cancelled.
-
From the comprehensive rules under "cost"
If an action is prevented, its effects are ignored
but its costs and requirements are still paid.
According to the rules if something gets "prevented" there is an effect that is is preventing, which is then ignored. Preventing something does not mean that it cancels any effect or creates some alternate effect. I think this should solve quite a bit.
A way to continue to argue this, which has already been done is to say "well 'prevent' in these specific events means something different than 'prevent' in all other cases", but there's no foundation to assume Decipher wanted it to mean something different...
-
The reason it matters is Response: actions can only take place after the event that they are responding to takes place.
Again, I disagree. Response actions happen whenever the circumstances that trigger them occur. For example, Dwarven Bracers doesn't kick in until a wound is about to happen, but Orc Ambusher triggers as soon as an event is played.
In this case I'm arguing that the format is replacing the effect - therefore no wounds are placed and you could not use intimidate or other such Response: cards.
The format for replacing an effect is well-established. That's not what Too Great and Terrible is doing.
There is no construct defined in the rules as a "Built in response action". There are costs, effects, triggered actions (on external cards that respond to a particular scenario happening) and response actions. Don't try to fabricate rules here :-)
Triggered actions are not fabricated, and there is no rule that says a triggered action has to come from an external card.
Major exception that nobody would argue is on Warg, War-Warg and Sharku's Warg. Costs are still paid, but the effect of the special ability is cancelled.
This is not an exception, it's all covered in the CRD under "Cancel."
A way to continue to argue this, which has already been done is to say "well 'prevent' in these specific events means something different than 'prevent' in all other cases", but there's no foundation to assume Decipher wanted it to mean something different...
Exactly.
-
The reason it matters is Response: actions can only take place after the event that they are responding to takes place.
Again, I disagree. Response actions happen whenever the circumstances that trigger them occur. For example, Dwarven Bracers doesn't kick in until a wound is about to happen, but Orc Ambusher triggers as soon as an event is played.
Exactly what I meant. I shouldn't have used the word "event", rather I should have said trigger.
In this case I'm arguing that the format is replacing the effect - therefore no wounds are placed and you could not use intimidate or other such Response: cards.
The format for replacing an effect is well-established. That's not what Too Great and Terrible is doing.
The cards previously mentioned:
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?
don't replace an effect, they allow a player to choose the effect after the costs are paid.
There is no construct defined in the rules as a "Built in response action". There are costs, effects, triggered actions (on external cards that respond to a particular scenario happening) and response actions. Don't try to fabricate rules here :-)
Triggered actions are not fabricated, and there is no rule that says a triggered action has to come from an external card.
There are select things that can cause a trigger (triggered action) -
Each time - description of the trigger followed by a comma.
When - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
While - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
"Response:" - A special type of triggered action
Winning/losing a skirmish
Moving (move from, move, move to)
Free People's Player Death - Threats
This does not fall into any of those categories.
Major exception that nobody would argue is on Warg, War-Warg and Sharku's Warg. Costs are still paid, but the effect of the special ability is cancelled.
This is not an exception, it's all covered in the CRD under "Cancel."
You specifically said "as you can see the word cancel is most often used in reference to killing events". I was pointing out the main "canceling special abilities" use of the word cancel.
A way to continue to argue this, which has already been done is to say "well 'prevent' in these specific events means something different than 'prevent' in all other cases", but there's no foundation to assume Decipher wanted it to mean something different...
Exactly.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the way the cards are structured with this being in the Effect section of the card, it is internally consistent with replacing one effect with another prior to the resolution of the effect.
-
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the way the cards are structured with this being in the Effect section of the card, it is internally consistent with replacing one effect with another prior to the resolution of the effect.
I definitely get that. This statement is basically why I conceded before... But after all these new findings in the rules, and after reading more cards, in seeing that there just isn't enough evidence backing this assertion in the rules. It's a theory based on reasoning. It makes sense. But so does the fact that prevent means prevent regardless of the details surrounding the circumstance. I'm becoming more predisposed to the latter as it involves less conjecture.
-
Exactly what I meant. I shouldn't have used the word "event", rather I should have said trigger.
It boils down to this: Response actions are one kind of "triggered action," but there are other "triggered actions" that aren't Response actions. And they all work the same: Triggered actions happen whenever the trigger happens.
The cards previously mentioned:
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?
don't replace an effect, they allow a player to choose the effect after the costs are paid.
I agree. But those cards are worded differently than Too Great And Terrible, which neither directs the player to choose the effect, nor does it replace an effect.
There are select things that can cause a trigger (triggered action) -
Each time - description of the trigger followed by a comma.
When - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
While - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
"Response:" - A special type of triggered action
Winning/losing a skirmish
Moving (move from, move, move to)
Free People's Player Death - Threats
This does not fall into any of those categories.
Unless you can show me these categories in the rules, I'd say they are too limited. Yes, all of the above are "triggered actions," but "triggered actions" are not limited to the above. A "triggered action" is any action that is triggered when certain conditions occur, either by text on a card or rules of the game. Specific words are not necessary. IMO "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards to prevent this" is a "triggered action," it has a cost and an effect all its own.
You specifically said "as you can see the word cancel is most often used in reference to killing events". I was pointing out the main "canceling special abilities" use of the word cancel.
I think it's most used in regards to canceling skirmishes. I'd say events is the second-most used. Wargs might be third, depends on how many Warg cards there are.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the way the cards are structured with this being in the Effect section of the card, it is internally consistent with replacing one effect with another prior to the resolution of the effect.
I definitely get that.
I don't. It's not replacing one effect with another. The second part of the card is a "triggered action" that gives the Free Peoples player the option of preventing the effect of 2 wounds. In LOTRTCG, "prevent" is totally different than "replace." If it was replacing one effect with another, the card wouldn't say "prevent."
But after all these new findings in the rules, and after reading more cards, in seeing that there just isn't enough evidence backing this assertion in the rules. It's a theory based on reasoning. It makes sense. But so does the fact that prevent means prevent regardless of the details surrounding the circumstance. I'm becoming more predisposed to the latter as it involves less conjecture.
Thank you.
-
There are select things that can cause a trigger (triggered action) -
Each time - description of the trigger followed by a comma.
When - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
While - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
"Response:" - A special type of triggered action
Winning/losing a skirmish
Moving (move from, move, move to)
Free People's Player Death - Threats
This does not fall into any of those categories.
Unless you can show me these categories in the rules, I'd say they are too limited. Yes, all of the above are "triggered actions," but "triggered actions" are not limited to the above. A "triggered action" is any action that is triggered when certain conditions occur, either by text on a card or rules of the game. Specific words are not necessary. IMO "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 [Gandalf] cards to prevent this" is a "triggered action," it has a cost and an effect all its own.
Those are all the situations described when searching for the word "trigger" in the comprehensive rules 4.0. If you find another one, please let me know.
-
I still think my Eowyn example is relevant. Wounds can only be prevented if they are about to be placed. It is only until FP declines to discard the Gandalf cards that the wounds are "next on the stack," as it were. If FP does decide to toss the cards, then the wounds are never pending. You don't even get the option to use Eowyn.
As far as I can tell, every single wound prevention card in the game uses the phrase "is about to take a wound." TGAT does not, nor do any of the other "temptation" cards from ROTEL. That right there is enough to prove to me that they function differently.
-
I still think my Eowyn example is relevant. Wounds can only be prevented if they are about to be placed. It is only until FP declines to discard the Gandalf cards that the wounds are "next on the stack," as it were. If FP does decide to toss the cards, then the wounds are never pending. You don't even get the option to use Eowyn.
It is a good example, Bib. I'm still a little unsure as to whether it's applicable to the fact that you are still preventing wounds.
The Eowyn example itself also functions the way it does under the pretense of the current GEMP coding, which is what is being reviewed.
What we're saying here is that there are more statements being thrown around that aren't founded in the rules for the pro-function at Tomb argument as opposed to the anti-function at the Tomb argument.
I'm saying that the way the cards are structured with this being in the Effect section of the card, it is internally consistent with replacing one effect with another prior to the resolution of the effect.
Wounds can only be prevented if they are about to be placed.
I understand the reasoning surrounding these arguments, but the problem is I can't find any proof in the rules whatsoever regarding these assertions of what "prevent" actually means.
What I did find was this:
instead
When a card uses the phrase "instead" or
"instead of", the stated effect is replaced with
a different effect. This does not mean that the
original effect is prevented. If the second effect
cannot happen for any reason, then the original
effect occurs.
This is basically word-for-word what you are trying to argue about what "prevent" means here. I argue that if Decipher didn't want TGAT and all of the other cards to actually be preventing the wounds/exhaustion/discarding, they would have used the wording "instead" or "either". I have to go with what has more proof in the rules at this point...
-
As far as I can tell, every single wound prevention card in the game uses the phrase "is about to take a wound." TGAT does not, nor do any of the other "temptation" cards from ROTEL. That right there is enough to prove to me that they function differently.
I already mentioned Huorn twice, he just says "prevent that" similar to these events...I'll see if I can find more and list them here.
Before when I was talking about this, I pointed out how awkward it would have been for Decipher to use that phrasing in this specific context.
"Spot a Nazgul to make Gandalf be about to be taking 2 wounds"....I can see why they didn't use it...
-
I'd also like to add the comparison to Merry, Learned Guide and Pippin, Woolly-footed Rascal. The wording is "...to discard Merry. Any Shadow player may remove 2 to prevent this." Same wording as TGaT, right? So why then does Treebeard, Earthborn not allow you to stack your Hobbit? The answer is because your Hobbit is NOT about to be discarded, until the Shadow player chooses not to remove the twilight. Same thing with TGaT, Gandalf is NOT about to take a wound until the FP player chooses not to discard 2 Gandalf cards. Preventing the effect from happening is not the same thing as preventing the wounds themselves.
Think about a bizarre real-world scenario, where you are pointing a gun at someone who is pointing a gun at you. You can shoot the gun out of their hand (assuming you are that awesome) to prevent them from even firing at you. If you don't shoot the gun out of their hand, they will fire at you, and inflict a gunshot wound. If you happened to be wearing a kevlar vest, it would prevent the actual wound, even though they still fired their gun at you. Now imagine this scenario standing in Steward's tomb. You could still shoot the gun out of their hand. However, your kevlar vest wouldn't work because Denethor removed all the kevlar before you put it on, so if you got fired upon you would definitely take a wound.
-
Huorn still says "is about to take a wound." So does Narsil, Sapling, Intimidate, Eowyn or any other wound preventer you can name. I acknowledge the fact that not all preventers say "prevent that wound."
-
I'd also like to add the comparison to Merry, Learned Guide and Pippin, Woolly-footed Rascal. The wording is "...to discard Merry. Any Shadow player may remove 2 to prevent this." Same wording as TGaT, right? So why then does Treebeard, Earthborn not allow you to stack your Hobbit? The answer is because your Hobbit is NOT about to be discarded, until the Shadow player chooses not to remove the twilight. Same thing with TGaT, Gandalf is NOT about to take a wound until the FP player chooses not to discard 2 Gandalf cards. Preventing the effect from happening is not the same thing as preventing the wounds themselves.
Think about a bizarre real-world scenario, where you are pointing a gun at someone who is pointing a gun at you. You can shoot the gun out of their hand (assuming you are that awesome) to prevent them from even firing at you. If you don't shoot the gun out of their hand, they will fire at you, and inflict a gunshot wound. If you happened to be wearing a kevlar vest, it would prevent the actual wound, even though they still fired their gun at you. Now imagine this scenario standing in Steward's tomb. You could still shoot the gun out of their hand. However, your kevlar vest wouldn't work because Denethor removed all the kevlar before you put it on, so if you got fired upon you would definitely take a wound.
All this tells me is that the shadow player has the option to prevent the discarding. Let's say he did remove 2....what did he just do? He prevented the discarding.
Apply your example to TGAT. I discarded the two Gandalf cards...what did I just do? I prevented two wounds.
All of this rhetoric about play order and "about to" stuff just doesn't have any actual basis in the rules as is applies to the phrase "prevent"...
It just makes more sense to me that Decipher intended prevent to mean prevent, instead to mean instead (I posted a quote from the rulings regarding this), and simply used different phrasing in different places as it was convenient and sounded right. "Spot a Nazgul to make Gandalf be about to take 2 wounds" or "Spot a Nazgul. Gandalf is about to take 2 wounds" ....this should be a no-brainer XD
-
No, I will reiterate, that preventing the ACTION of wounding is not the same as preventing the WOUND. My real-world example was meant to convey that message.
If it was preventing the wounds, and not the wounding, it would have said "discard 2 Gandalf cards to prevent those wounds" just like EVERY other wound prevention card in Fellowship block, and quite a number beyond.
-
No, I will reiterate, that preventing the ACTION of wounding is not the same as preventing the WOUND. My real-world example was meant to convey that message.
I understood. It's a really good analogy, but the problem I'm still stuck with, as I mentioned before, is that the argument everyone is making here is that Decipher wanted for the "prevent" here, in this situation involving wounds, to mean something different than any other situation involving "prevent" and wounds. I found no basis for this in the rules at all.
The argument is logical. But it also follows exactly what Decipher iterated in their description of the word instead (posted above). I think that if it means what you think it means, they would have used the word instead rather than prevent...
instead
When a card uses the phrase "instead" or
"instead of", the stated effect is replaced with
a different effect. This does not mean that the
original effect is prevented. If the second effect
cannot happen for any reason, then the original
effect occurs.
Lying Counsel
The first stated effect was replaced with a different effect. The word prevent was not used and the original effect wasn't prevented.
Unreasonable Choice
The option to prevent was there. The FP player wasn't not given a choice to do something "instead", only to "prevent". If the second effect happened then the first was prevented.
TGAT does not say "may discard 2 Gandalf cards instead", it says "to prevent this".
-
I understood. It's a really good analogy, but the problem I'm still stuck with, as I mentioned before, is that the argument everyone is making here is that Decipher wanted for the "prevent" here, in this situation involving wounds, to mean something different than any other situation involving "prevent" and wounds. I found no basis for this in the rules at all.
TGAT does not say "may discard 2 Gandalf cards instead", it says "to prevent this".
I am not arguing what "prevent" means, but arguing that you are not preventing the wounds. This is different than any other situation involving "prevent" and wounds, because every other situation says "to prevent that wound" rather than "to prevent this".
-
Arod and Huorn, among countless others drop "wound" in their description of prevention.
I just went through cards throughout the game and it appears there is a pattern.
If the card has a global effect whereas it can come into play whenever a wound is going out, it uses the phrase "when X is about to take a wound"...then followed by prevent that (sometimes "wound" is added after "that").
In regards to preventing situations such as exhausting/discarding/liberating sites etc, and multiple wounds or burdens being dished out, it uses the phrase "prevent this". The point here is that you are still preventing whatever was going to happen. If it was wounding you are preventing wounds. If it was burdens then you are preventing burdens. You prevented them.
Look at Melilot Brandybuck, Merry Dancer and Sam, Samwise the Brave. The prevention clause in Sam is the same as the temptation cards but you still prevented burdens.
-
Those are all the situations described when searching for the word "trigger" in the comprehensive rules 4.0. If you find another one, please let me know.
There's lots of stuff not covered in the CRs. Just because your search only turned up the word "trigger" for those specific items, doesn't mean that there are no triggered actions besides those.
As far as I can tell, every single wound prevention card in the game uses the phrase "is about to take a wound." TGAT does not, nor do any of the other "temptation" cards from ROTEL. That right there is enough to prove to me that they function differently.
Bib, I think the only reason those various cards have "about to take a wound" on them, is to make it clear what the trigger condition is for the Response action. Too Great And Terrible doesn't require this, because it's already clear from the context of the card. And there is at least one wound-preventing card that doesn't specify "about to":
Gimli's Helm
I don't see anything in the rules that indicates the timing for preventing effects is different just because it does or doesn't say "about to." The only thing the CRs say, is:
Some responses are performed when a described
situation is “about to” happen. Typically,
only one such response can be performed in a
given situation, because its effect will “prevent”
that situation or replace it with another effect
“instead.”
...so the only difference with "about to" Responses, is that you can probably only respond once. Also, under the definition of "Wound" we have this:
When you “wound a character,” you place only
one wound.
So, "wound Gandalf twice" means "place 2 wounds on Gandalf." As soon as you read that, the wounds are on the way... unless they are prevented.
I'd also like to add the comparison to Merry, Learned Guide and Pippin, Woolly-footed Rascal. The wording is "...to discard Merry. Any Shadow player may remove 2 to prevent this." Same wording as TGaT, right? So why then does Treebeard, Earthborn not allow you to stack your Hobbit? The answer is because your Hobbit is NOT about to be discarded, until the Shadow player chooses not to remove the twilight.
OR maybe it just means that triggered actions on the self-same card being played go off before optional actions
Preventing the effect from happening is not the same thing as preventing the wounds themselves.
Not if that effect is wounding somebody. IMO, of course.
-
Gimli's Helm
I don't see anything in the rules that indicates the timing for preventing effects is different just because it does or doesn't say "about to." The only thing the CRs say, is:
Some responses are performed when a described
situation is “about to” happen. Typically,
only one such response can be performed in a
given situation, because its effect will “prevent”
that situation or replace it with another effect
“instead.”
...so the only difference with "about to" Responses, is that you can probably only respond once. Also, under the definition of "Wound" we have this:
I did think of Gimli's Helm and Faramir, WP. Like you said, if we tried to squish TGAT into some kind of box by making a claim that "if wounds are being prevented it has to say they are 'about to take' the wounds or it's not prevention" (again, we can't find a foundation for that in the rules), then we would have no answer whatsoever for these cards.
It's basically saying that Gimli's Helm isn't preventing wounds unless it reads "each time Gimli is about to take a wound, prevent that wound". Yet is just says "prevent" which means all you need is that word.
I think this combined with Samwise the Brave sums it up nicely. Another argument founded on conjecture was that because it says "prevent this" the "this" is referring the "act of wounding Gandalf" and not the wounding itself. In other cards "this" is referring to a situation (move limit changes/discarding/exhaustion/etc etc), in some of the temptation cards it's referring to multiple wounds being placed. In the case of Samwise the Brave it's one or multiple burdens being added.
But they all have one thing in common. They are all prevention of the previously stated effect.
My view might be wrong, but this just makes much more sense than than the opposing view, and seems to follow the rules much closer.
-
It seems like maybe this is all talked out. Shall we do a poll? Or are the powers-that-be just going to decide how they want the card to work?
-
I had this same type of discussion about Neekerbreeker's Bog and Harrowdale, with people on both sides of the coin, and nothing changed. I think unless you can clearly identify that there is truly a problem or incorrect rules implementation then Gemp is not going to be changed. A poll is a decent idea though.
-
Yeah....even though the evidence from the rules appears to be more clearly in favor of changing the current coding, we'll need to go to MarcinS with all of the evidence.
I also think the poll would be good, presenting the facts from both arguments and letting the players themselves decide.
-
Poll up!
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,9228.0.html (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,9228.0.html)
-
I wouldnt go with a poll since its a technical thing, not somethign that anyone can answer. It will just often lead to the person who shouts the hardest. From my experience during the days it prevents the action, and I have played quit ethe DGMA events.
-
Two things - nobody has properly addressed the fact that the "prevent" language is still a part of the effect that cannot be properly resolved until step 6 of "Playing a Card".
Also, I would like to assert, in reference to Sgtdraino's quote:
"There's lots of stuff not covered in the CRs. Just because your search only turned up the word "trigger" for those specific items, doesn't mean that there are no triggered actions besides those."
In the tournament director's information, Decipher stated that the only things a tournament director needed in order to make a ruling during a tournament was the latest CRD and the latest Comprehensive rules document. If I'm looking for information on triggers, those are the only things that are directly mentioned as triggers. Note that they include Response: actions, which ALL of your previous examples including Sam and Treebeard are.
Given that the prevent language is in the effect, I'm standing my ground saying that the intent was a replacement of the effect, especially given the design of all similar cards up to that point.
-
Note that they include Response: actions, which ALL of your previous examples including Sam and Treebeard are.
This is because the arguments for it not being actual prevention to the point of grasping at straws, where Bib was saying it had to do with wording. Those were examples where the wording using "prevent" were actual prevention and contrary to the assumption that "prevention" is not used in any other context or phraseology.
-
I wouldnt go with a poll since its a technical thing, not somethign that anyone can answer.
The ruling should make sense, and to some degree be intuitive to the average player. In that regard, I think the views of all players have merit on the poll.
Two things - nobody has properly addressed the fact that the "prevent" language is still a part of the effect that cannot be properly resolved until step 6 of "Playing a Card".
I have addressed it. IMO it is not part of the effect, it is a triggered action. It has its own separate cost and effect.
In the tournament director's information, Decipher stated that the only things a tournament director needed in order to make a ruling during a tournament was the latest CRD and the latest Comprehensive rules document.
Sure they say that. But then they also have to update the CRs and the CRDs because, guess what, the old ones didn't quite cover everything. The last ones Decipher put out STILL don't cover everything, as has been plain on many of these various rules issues.
If I'm looking for information on triggers, those are the only things that are directly mentioned as triggers.
The rules establish the concept of "triggered actions." They do not specify that those are the only ones there are. I'm not sure why you see the second part of the text as an effect rather than a triggered action, since it clearly has it's own cost, followed by its own effect.
Given that the prevent language is in the effect, I'm standing my ground saying that the intent was a replacement of the effect, especially given the design of all similar cards up to that point.
...and it DEFINITELY isn't "replacing" anything. I don't know how anyone could think that it's "replacing" something. "Prevent" is not "replace." The most it can be doing, is preventing the action as a whole.
But this is like talking to a wall. You are going to do it however you want to do it.
-
Another argument founded on conjecture was that because it says "prevent this" the "this" is referring the "act of wounding Gandalf" and not the wounding itself.
This is not conjecture. The rulebook actually identifies that assigning wounds and placing wounds are, in fact, two distinctly different things. Quote from the Comprehensive Rules 4.0:
"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 other words, the "act of wounding" is not the same as placing the wound tokens. Which brings me back to my original point, you can shoot the gun out of someone's hand to prevent the assigning of wounds, which is NOT the same thing as preventing the wounds themselves.
For those still stuck on the term "prevent", the CRD says the following things:
"prevent
See cancel, cost, effect, preventing effects.
cancel
When an action (such as playing an event or using a special ability) is canceled or prevented, its effects are ignored but its costs and requirements are still paid. If that action is playing an event, that event card is discarded.
See cost, effect.
cost
If an action is prevented, its effects are ignored but its costs and requirements are still paid."
Thus the term "prevent" is very closely associated with the word "cancel", and the rules actually say cancel and prevent in reference to both abilities and events. This contradicts the argument that "cancel" is only used when referring to events and "prevent" for abilities. The definition of "cost" also uses the word "prevent". So I once again will make the statement that these "temptation" cards are allowing the prevention of the action stated - with the action stated on TGaT being the wounding of Gandalf and not the actual placement of said wounds.
-
I think you just solved it, BigRedMF. TGAT assigns two wounds to Gandalf, and tossing the 2 cards from hand prevents those wounds from being assigned. If FP declines to discard the cards, the wound assignment proceeds and now there are two wound tokens that need to be placed. It is only at this point that cards that prevent wounds can be used.
-
This is not conjecture. The rulebook actually identifies that assigning wounds and placing wounds are, in fact, two distinctly different things. Quote from the Comprehensive Rules 4.0:
"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."
Nice find! The discussion in this thread has been very beneficial for me, regardless of how the card is ruled.
Is the prevented "this" the spotting action "Spot a Nazgul to do X," the assignment of wounds (which can be prevented), or the placing of 2 wound tokens (which cannot be prevented)?
-
Is the prevented "this" the spotting action "Spot a Nazgul to do X," the assignment of wounds (which can be prevented), or the placing of 2 wound tokens (which cannot be prevented)?
The majority argues that the "this" means the assignment of wounds....though they still haven't showed any proof from the rules that that's what "this" means...nor have they provided enough evidence from the rules to show that the wounds still aren't considered prevented.
The examples that BigRedMF gave are a enormous stretch to try to make it fit their view when compared to the CR example of the words usage "instead" (it's basically their exact argument, but that's being ignored).
Also if you want to see the word "this" used in a prevention situation (in this case preventing of adding burdens as you would wounds) see Sam, Samwise the Brave...he functions the same as Melilot Brandybuck, but everyone here has tried to say that this difference in wording as applied to TGAT and other cards makes it something completely different. There's no reason to think it's not different.
So far the only person on the other side of the argument who really took a look from both sides and is actually interested in hearing an opinion other than their own is probably BigRedMF. Like sgtdraino pointed out, for most of these guys it's talking to a brick wall XD
-
So far the only person on the other side of the argument who really took a look from both sides and is actually interested in hearing an opinion other than their own is probably BigRedMF. Like sgtdraino pointed out, for most of these guys it's talking to a brick wall XD
And this is what doesnt make it worth discussing this openly, becasue it turns into flaming with such posts. I am disappointed it has come to this.
-
So far the only person on the other side of the argument who really took a look from both sides and is actually interested in hearing an opinion other than their own is probably BigRedMF. Like sgtdraino pointed out, for most of these guys it's talking to a brick wall XD
And this is what doesnt make it worth discussing this openly, becasue it turns into flaming with such posts. I am disappointed it has come to this.
This is a pretty weak definition of flaming. If it's an attempt to attack our character as an alternate to actually debating, I understand completely.
sgtdraino and I are merely pointing out that all of our arguments are being lost on minds that are otherwise predisposed, nothing more. Not everyone speaks in feckless approbations, but if that's what's required for a debate, so be it :P
Thus the term "prevent" is very closely associated with the word "cancel", and the rules actually say cancel and prevent in reference to both abilities and events. This contradicts the argument that "cancel" is only used when referring to events and "prevent" for abilities. The definition of "cost" also uses the word "prevent". So I once again will make the statement that these "temptation" cards are allowing the prevention of the action stated - with the action stated on TGaT being the wounding of Gandalf and not the actual placement of said wounds.
This, connected with the definitions you provided, is probably the most logical and rule-based argument we've seen yet, and does sum up exact what Bib and Merrick were originally arguing.
As I mentioned before, I'm pretty certain I'll end up having to concede to this as the answer, and I'm OK with that...I just like exhausting the options we have, since it still feels like preventing is preventing.
As a general question: you mentioned in your summation for the card, that, in your model, TGAT prevents the action of "wounding of Gandalf", and not "placement of wounds on Gandalf". Where can we surmise that preventing an action who's effect is "wounding X" is not still preventing wounds?
What I meant by conjecture was that the evidence we have to run on was exactly what you gave: assigning wounds and wounding are not the same thing. But considered it conjecture or stretching to apply this to our current puzzle with this card. All we know now is that if Gandalf had some global effect that said he "could not take wounds" then the card wouldn't work, but for an entirely different reason.
-
This is not conjecture. The rulebook actually identifies that assigning wounds and placing wounds are, in fact, two distinctly different things. Quote from the Comprehensive Rules 4.0:
"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 other words, the "act of wounding" is not the same as placing the wound tokens.
First, I'm not sure what you're quoting when you say, "the act of wounding." The rules say that "wound a character" means "place a wound on that character." The section you are referring to is just breaking it down into the procedure for doing that, for purposes of understanding why things like "Consorting with Wizards" may make a character not a legal target for wounding. There is nothing to indicate that Too Great And Terrible is preventing the assignment of wounds, rather than preventing wounds, particularly with all the other similarly-worded cards that deal with things that aren't broken down any further (like exerting or adding burdens).
cancel
When an action (such as playing an event or using a special ability) is canceled or prevented, its effects are ignored but its costs and requirements are still paid. If that action is playing an event, that event card is discarded.
See cost, effect.
cost
If an action is prevented, its effects are ignored but its costs and requirements are still paid."
Thus the term "prevent" is very closely associated with the word "cancel", and the rules actually say cancel and prevent in reference to both abilities and events. This contradicts the argument that "cancel" is only used when referring to events and "prevent" for abilities.
"Prevent" and "cancel" do very similar things in theory. The difference is mainly in the words themselves, and how they are put into practice:
If you're trying to "prevent" something, but a card says you can't "prevent" something, you're screwed.
If you're trying to "cancel" something, but a card says you can't "prevent" something, then you can still "cancel," because "cancel' is not quite the same as "prevent."
In theory, if you're trying to "prevent" something, but a card says you can't "cancel" something, you can still "prevent" it, for the same reasons listed above... however I don't think any such situation exists in LOTRTCG, because generally "cancel" seems to be used in a more powerful way than "prevent." In fact, are there any "may not cancel" cards in the game at all? The only thing I can think of, is the rule where Ring-bearer skirmishes may not be canceled, but that's a rule, not a card.
So I once again will make the statement that these "temptation" cards are allowing the prevention of the action stated - with the action stated on TGaT being the wounding of Gandalf and not the actual placement of said wounds.
Wounding Gandalf is not an action, it's an effect. Playing the event is an action.
I think you just solved it, BigRedMF. TGAT assigns two wounds to Gandalf, and tossing the 2 cards from hand prevents those wounds from being assigned.
This sounds like wishful thinking to me. There is nothing anywhere to indicate that the second part of the text of Too Great And Terrible has anything to do with preventing the assignment of wounds. "Assign" is not on the card. Again, the "prevent this" text is worded almost the same as things like Narsil (which certainly isn't preventing the assignment of wounds) and Why Shouldn't I Keep It (which is preventing something that doesn't even involve assignment).
-
First, I'm not sure what you're quoting when you say, "the act of wounding."
I am referring to a post by dmaz where he quoted the phrase.
The rules say that "wound a character" means "place a wound on that character." The section you are referring to is just breaking it down into the procedure for doing that, for purposes of understanding why things like "Consorting with Wizards" may make a character not a legal target for wounding. There is nothing to indicate that Too Great And Terrible is preventing the assignment of wounds, rather than preventing wounds, particularly with all the other similarly-worded cards that deal with things that aren't broken down any further (like exerting or adding burdens).
I quoted the entire section about wounds, but the key part of that section (to me) is that it clearly separates assigning wounds from placing the wounds that result. They are not one in the same. "This prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir, not the assignments themselves." This tells me that there are two possible things that could be prevented: the wounds themselves (a la cards like Intimidate), OR the assigning of those wounds. Why else would the rules make such a distinction? Think about what that sentence says and tell me why it is necessary, if preventing wounding (the verb) and preventing wounds (the noun) are one in the same?
Wounding Gandalf is not an action, it's an effect. Playing the event is an action.
My use of the word "action" was really just a way to reference the wounding as a verb rather than a wound as a noun, not as a defined term from the rulebook.
The majority argues that the "this" means the assignment of wounds....though they still haven't showed any proof from the rules that that's what "this" means...nor have they provided enough evidence from the rules to show that the wounds still aren't considered prevented.
I completely agree, there is nowhere concrete that provides a true answer to the question about "this". As much as it may seem funny, I am not 100% convinced of my own argument here. But after finding that statement in the rules distinguishing between wounding and wounds I am definitely on this side of the fence. As with a few other debates I've been a part of, I don't think we will ever truly know what was intended. It is interesting to hear what Ringbearer had to say about his tournament, however.