Crashing Cavalry

[Thranduil]

I'm sure that the characters in that skirmish can use neither their own special abilities as well as special abilities from other cards.

Characters don't "use" special abilities on other cards; players do. Cards can only "use" abilities that are printed on them.

Thranduil

[Elrohir]

Furious Uruk tells us that possesions also seem to have special abilities...  So, according to this, Elrond WtH may discard Vilya Ring of Air, although he was assigned by crashing cavalary. 

[Thranduil]

Furious Uruk tells us that possesions also seem to have special abilities...  So, according to this, Elrond WtH may discard Vilya Ring of Air, although he was assigned by crashing cavalary. 

Yes, I agree. He would not be able to put an card on top of your draw deck, but Vilya can still use its special ability.

Thranduil

[Elessar's Socks]

You can't tell me that SoAM stops you from using any special abilities in play?

IMO applying the other Crashing Cavalry interpretation to other phases would open up a can of worms. You can't exert a Grima'ed Dwarf for Shoulder to Shoulder, because a Dwarf is "doing something," but you can spot a Grima'ed Man for Arrow-slits, because it's the player who's doing something? An implicit "in his or her game text" would sidestep the whole issue.

[Lord_Burke81]

Either way you look at it - Crashing Cavalry stops the use of any Skirmish Special Ability, anywhere, during a Skirmish involving those characters (the same result of Faramir, SoD).  The card would be worded differently, such as "may not use THEIR skirmish special abilities", and since it is not worded that way - it is a Global Effect - just like every other game Decipher makes. 


 

Furious Uruk tells us that possesions also seem to have special abilities...  So, according to this, Elrond WtH may discard Vilya Ring of Air, although he was assigned by crashing cavalary. 

Yes, I agree. He would not be able to put an card on top of your draw deck, but Vilya can still use its special ability.

Thranduil

This is not the case, neither card may be used for its effect, as it is a skirmish special ability.   

If this came up at a tourney or ToC I was running (in the past), that is how I would rule.   I could be wrong, but since I dont talk to Mike Girard or Dan Bojo anymore I cant really ask a rules expert... 

[Elessar's Socks]

Still curious about SoAM, then. When does the affected character "use" a non-skirmish phase ability? For example, There and Back Again--does the Hobbit ignore the strength +2 bonus? If Hawk keeps with his ruling, then that's how I roll, although non-skirmish phases don't seem so clear-cut to me.

[Lord_Burke81]

Still curious about SoAM, then. When does the affected character "use" a non-skirmish phase ability? For example, There and Back Again--does the Hobbit ignore the strength +2 bonus? If Hawk keeps with his ruling, then that's how I roll, although non-skirmish phases don't seem so clear-cut to me.

See, this is what happens when you try and push sets out to make money when your loosing a liscense.  They make cards, and dont see how they will fit into the rules, because they dont care - and we never got a Players committee to errata stuff!

Of course these two cards would never come to into question in a standard event (only open), but I would have to rule that "There and Back again" could still be used. 

I think, that the idea was for Grima to be designed to target a character's specific ability - not global like Faramir.  I think better wording for Grima would have been "their special abilities, until regroup phase". 

all in all, just an opinion of a retired dAgent - which isnt much

-Mike

[Thranduil]

You can't tell me that SoAM stops you from using any special abilities in play?

IMO applying the other Crashing Cavalry interpretation to other phases would open up a can of worms. You can't exert a Grima'ed Dwarf for Shoulder to Shoulder, because a Dwarf is "doing something," but you can spot a Grima'ed Man for Arrow-slits, because it's the player who's doing something? An implicit "in his or her game text" would sidestep the whole issue.

Shoulder to Shoulder is not a character using an ability, it's you as a player using a special ability. If Crashing Cavalry said "Conditions cannot use special abilities" could you use StS? Of course not. The source of an ability is the card that the ability is printed on, not any guy which you exert or spot to play it.

Thranduil

[Elessar's Socks]

Point is, Crashing Cavalry, SoAM, or the phrasing in general will need some kind of clarification.

If the ruling goes that "characters cannot use skirmish special abilities" = "no skirmish special abilities in their skirmish phases", then that applies to any skirmish special ability. It has to by definition, regardless of how we think it should work.

SoAM knocks this out of whack. Substitute another phase in there and you'd get "characters cannot use maneuver phase special abilities" = "no maneuver phase abilities in their maneuver phases", which is nonsensical. Either you somehow limit the characters involved, for example with this global/targeted stuff (introducing a new concept to LotR), or Grima shuts down all maneuver phase abilities, which I doubt is what Decipher intended.

Like I said, I think limiting this to the affected card's game text would solve the problem (or just errata Grima as Burke suggested), but that doesn't carry any weight.

[Olorin]

is there a difference between sauron's gaze and crashing cavalry?

I would say no special abilities may be used - neither the character nor his artifacts, possessions he/she bears nor another one in the support area, etc. may be used...

[TheJord]

Look I think we need to take the "spirit" of the card.

Crashing Cavalry says characters assigned to each other by its ability cannot use special abilites.

SoAM prevents characters using special abilities, so any ability that says "to make that companion...", "to do X to a minion skirmishing that companion".

This would seem the most intentful interpretation of the idea of these cards.

[Anvar]

No, a character using a special ability is when there is a special ability on the character. An ability on a card is not a character using an ability though it may affect any number of characters.

Anvar

[Thranduil]

is there a difference between sauron's gaze and crashing cavalry?

There is no difference. It's certainly very clear that Sauron's Gaze only negates special abilities on the character in question, and it proves my point about players "using" abilities on their cards. Cards, however, can only "use" abilities that are printed on them.

I am so 100% certain about this one, more than I've ever been about an arguable ruling before.

Thranduil

[Lord_Burke81]

Point is, Crashing Cavalry, SoAM, or the phrasing in general will need some kind of clarification.

If the ruling goes that "characters cannot use skirmish special abilities" = "no skirmish special abilities in their skirmish phases", then that applies to any skirmish special ability. It has to by definition, regardless of how we think it should work.

SoAM knocks this out of whack. Substitute another phase in there and you'd get "characters cannot use maneuver phase special abilities" = "no maneuver phase abilities in their maneuver phases", which is nonsensical. Either you somehow limit the characters involved, for example with this global/targeted stuff (introducing a new concept to LotR), or Grima shuts down all maneuver phase abilities, which I doubt is what Decipher intended.

Like I said, I think limiting this to the affected card's game text would solve the problem (or just errata Grima as Burke suggested), but that doesn't carry any weight.

I agree with this entire statement, in the past and this "characters cannot use skirmish special abilities" = "no skirmish special abilities in their skirmish phases" is how the card has been ruled to be.   Thus, IMHO, the only thing you can do during a skirmish involving this phrase is play events & such from hand - you cannot use any SKIRMISH gametext on any card on the table.  But, you can use "response" cards

As far as Sauron's Gaze - the idea is the same, but it specifically targets the character's PRINTED abilities, not his weapons/conditions/etc. 
A character does not gain abilities from his weapons/artifacts/conditions/etc, they are their own separate card.  They are not the bearer of Sauron's Glaze, the character is.  Now - if sauron's glaze played on a condition/weapon/artifact/ect - this would be different.


-Mike

[MR. Lurtzy]

I agree with Thranduil, as usual he is completely right.