New Errand debate!

[bibfortuna25]

So MarcinS and I are having a dispute about what constitutes a "character losing a skirmish." Specifically, the card that's causing the headache is New Errand.

Here is the situation:

Faramir, armed with Faramir's Bow, is skirmishing two or more minions, one of whom is an Easterling Skirmisher (1 vitality). New Errand is played on the Easterling Skirmisher, and he then uses the bow to kill that Easterling.

Now the question is, should New Errand trigger immediately upon the Easterling being killed, or should it trigger after the skirmish finishes normally with Faramir comparing his strength to the leftover minion(S)?

[Elgar]

The trigger for wining and losing a skirmish happen after the resolution of the skirmish, therefore the later of your timings would be the correct one.

[TelTura]

While the dead easterling is now counted as being a loser (being dead), the skirmish as a whole ends all at once, one side being declared the winner and the other the loser at that time and not before; not as several mini-skirmishes ending each in turn as minions die or otherwise become unassigned. 

[FM]

On the other hand, I thought the rules specified that removing a side from a skirmish counts as a win for the remaning side. By this definition, if one side wins, the other loses, so, removing a side from a skirmish makes that side lose, there and then.
Assuming the same applies, it could be argued that, since one minion was removed from the skirmish, THAT minion lost the skirmish, and that would trigger New Errand imediatly.

However, it could also be argued that, since you skirmish all enemies as an "entity" of sorts, combining strength and damage bonuses, I think removing A minion from that side should not even mean that minion lost the skirmish, it was just killed by an ability, BEFORE the skirmish ever occured, resulting in a net "loss" of power from the "entity" the character was skirmishing.

[TelTura]

From the Comprehensive Rules 4.0:

A losing character is any character on the losing side in a skirmish when it resolves. Also, any character removed during his or her skirmish is a losing character, even if that character's side eventually wins. That character is not wounded (or overwhelmed) when the skirmish resolves.

Boromir, bearing a Blade of Gondor ("Skirmish: Exert Boromir to wound an Orc or Uruk-hai he is skirmishing."), faces two Uruk-hai who each have only 1 vitality remaining. Boromir exerts once to use the Blade and kill one of the Uruk-hai. That Uruk-hai is a losing character. If the surviving Uruk-hai goes on to win the skirmish, Boromir will be a losing character, and that second Uruk-hai will be a winning character.

I can see where the debate would be coming from, but I think the phrase "when it resolves" is enough to establish a firm timing.

[FM]

By definition it does seem New Errand should trigger immediately, since the minion is a losing character the moment he's removed from the skirmish.

[bibfortuna25]

Yeah, the rules clearly state that the removed minion is a losing character, so there is no doubt there. And I can't find anything in the rules that differentiates a "losing character" and a "character losing a skirmish."

I mean, in the situation the rules describe, Uruk A lost, Uruk B won and Boromir lost. But Uruk A lost well before the other two resolved anything.

It's quite confusing.

[TelTura]

This is just the sort of thing that we need to decide and stick with it.  I'm personally of the opinion that we should follow the "when it resolves" clause, but I'd be okay either way.

[Ringbearer]

My hunch would be that the character is removed from the skimish, and when the skirmish ends, when there is checked for winning/losing, then it is considered a losing character.

[Elessar's Socks]

I think that passage may have been intended to clarify "Is this minion considered to have lost a skirmish when it resolves?" as opposed to "When is this minion considered to have lost a skirmish?" Meaning before it was introduced, there may have been arguments over whether Gleaming Spires Will Crumble should be discarded, and not so much at what stage should it be discarded.

About the "losing" situation--maybe "losing character" can be thought of as a tag. Characters on the losing side after strength is compared get this tag, as well as characters removed during the skirmish. But, the actual trigger of "loses this skirmish" doesn't happen until the skirmish resolves. Then each "losing character" counts as having lost the skirmish.

Not sure if that holds up to scrutiny (actually, not sure if the rulebook was intended for our level of scrutiny), but that was by the seat of my pants. IMO the skirmish section deserves a rewrite.

[MarcinS]

About the "losing" situation--maybe "losing character" can be thought of as a tag. Characters on the losing side after strength is compared get this tag, as well as characters removed during the skirmish. But, the actual trigger of "loses this skirmish" doesn't happen until the skirmish resolves. Then each "losing character" counts as having lost the skirmish.

Not sure if that holds up to scrutiny (actually, not sure if the rulebook was intended for our level of scrutiny), but that was by the seat of my pants. IMO the skirmish section deserves a rewrite.

This is exactly what happens at the moment in Gemp-LotR. All characters removed from skirmish are marked as "losing" for that skirmish. And once the skirmish ends, due to all players passing consecutively, or due to any side having no characters, "win" and "lose" skirmish triggers are fired at the same time, including for each removed ("losing") character. Please note, that "losing" due to being removed from skirmish characters are no longer "involved" in the skirmish.

[FM]

Maybe it's my MtG mind, but since the losing minion was removed at that time, he lost THERE AND THEN, at least it's how it seems to me. So yes, the trigger would actually trigger at that moment, and not after the skirmish with the remaining minion ended, because if you think a skirmish "resolves" only after comparing strengths, no matter what happend earlier to any sides, you could argue that if only ONE minion was skirmishing Faramir, then that skirmish would NEVER "resolve" since the minion was removed.
I think that, since the minion was removed from the skirmish, it should actually be treated as a subskirmish that resolved the moment he was removed, with him losing, thus triggering New Errand immediately (triggered abilities ARE treated as "responses" anyway, meaning they kick in right there and then, instead of waiting for other stuff to happen).

[MarcinS]

Maybe it's my MtG mind, but since the losing minion was removed at that time, he lost THERE AND THEN, at least it's how it seems to me. So yes, the trigger would actually trigger at that moment, and not after the skirmish with the remaining minion ended, because if you think a skirmish "resolves" only after comparing strengths, no matter what happend earlier to any sides, you could argue that if only ONE minion was skirmishing Faramir, then that skirmish would NEVER "resolve" since the minion was removed.
I think that, since the minion was removed from the skirmish, it should actually be treated as a subskirmish that resolved the moment he was removed, with him losing, thus triggering New Errand immediately (triggered abilities ARE treated as "responses" anyway, meaning they kick in right there and then, instead of waiting for other stuff to happen).

No, I think the win/lose triggers trigger, not when you compare strength (I never said that), but when skirmish is getting resolved, which can happen in 2 cases:
- all players consecutively pass during a skirmish,
- one side has no characters left.