Candidates for a CRD - rules issues

[Elessar's Socks]

This thread is to track CRD candidates, specifically those that clarify issues with the rules themselves.

Terms

- follower
--- Allow followers to bear cards
- Golden Rules (resolve contradictions between rules and cards)
- leaving play
--- Clarify which triggers in a card's text resolve as the card is leaving play
--- Clarify at what point a card that leaves play is placed in the ending location
- playing a card
--- Clarify timing/resolution issues with "When you play..."
- prevent
--- Clarify prevention of "illegal" effects
- Ring-bearer
--- Clarify legality of canceling the RB's skirmishes in certain formats
--- Prevent removal of Ring-bearer and Ring-bound keywords (see Helpless)
- roaming
--- Clarify the lack of a roaming limit
- skirmish
--- Clarify default wounds as required actions or step
--- Clarify order of kill/win triggers if a character is killed before strength has been totaled
--- Clarify when the skirmish winner is determined for overwhelms
----- Alternatively clarify order of kill/win triggers if a character is overwhelmed
- transfer
--- Clarify when "Bearer must be..." text is overridden
----- Possible errata instead to relevant cards: Rabbit Stew, (?) (see Rabbit Stew)
- trigger
--- Clarify simultaneity of triggers
--- Clarify "While" priority
--- Clarify action resolution after card leaves play
- unique
--- Close loophole
- use
--- Clarify the scope of this term (see Crashing Cavalry)

Individual Card Rulings

- Crashing Cavalry: Reword to change scope
- Final Triumph: Clarify scope
- Held: Ambiguity on Frodo, Frenzied Fighter
- Helpless: Ambiguity on Sam, Bearer of Great Need
- Neekerbreekers' Bog: Clarify "each other character"
- One Last Surprise: Clarify scope
- Rabbit Stew: Reword to clarify transfer

X-Lists & Restricted Lists

- Clarify legality of all sets

---

Edit 7/24 - Terms: added "trigger" entry; details added for "leaving play" entry (see second post). ICR: added "Final Triumph" and "One Last Surprise" entries.

Edit 7/22 - Terms: addition to "Ring-bearer" entry. ICR: added "Crashing Cavalry" and "Rabbit Stew" entries.

Edit 7/21 - Terms: added "leaving play" and "playing a card" entries; additions to "skirmish" and "transfer" entries.

[Elessar's Socks]

Thoughts on the matter:

Terms

follower

Followers can bear cards that specifically allow its bearer to be a follower.

Golden Rules

Whenever a card's game text contradicts a rule, the card takes precedence.
Exception: Skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer cannot be canceled by a card.
Whenever a card's game text contradicts another card's game text, the "not" situation takes precedence.
Faramir, Bearer of Quality uses his skirmish special ability ("...make a minion... roaming...") on a Nazgûl while Bill Ferny, Swarthy Sneering Fellow ("Nazgûl are not roaming.") is in play. Since Ferny represents the "not" situation, the Nazgûl will remain not roaming.

leaving play
A card does not leave play until all actions triggered by the card leaving play have resolved.
Theoden, Tall and Proud is killed in his skirmish. He is not placed in the dead pile until all actions triggered by him leaving play (such as him being killed) have resolved.

prevent

[Version 1]
An illegal effect may be prevented.
If Why Shouldn't I Keep It? is played when Bilbo is the Ring-bearer, the Free Peoples player may discard 2 Free Peoples conditions to prevent the effect, even though it is illegal for a Ring-bearer to be discarded.

[Version 2]
An illegal effect cannot be prevented.
If Why Shouldn't I Keep It? is played when Bilbo is the Ring-bearer, the Free Peoples player cannot discard 2 Free Peoples conditions to prevent the effect, since it is illegal for a Ring-bearer to be discarded.

Ring-bearer

[Version 1]
Skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer can be canceled in Fellowship block and Tower block formats.

[Version 2]
Skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer cannot be canceled, including in any block format.

The Comprehensive Rulebook "replaces and supersedes all previous rulebooks." Determines whether exceptions to the no-cancel should be created.

The Ring-bearer's Ring-bearer and Ring-bound keywords cannot be removed or made to not apply.
[see Helpless]

roaming

A minion's site number does not have a limit. If a minion is at site 9 and has a site number higher than 9, that minion is roaming.

skirmish phase(S)

The default wound(S) placed on the characters of the losing side is a required action triggered by losing the skirmish.
A Dwarf wins a skirmish against an Orc, and Let Them Come! is in play. Since placing wounds on the Orc and discarding it with Let Them Come! are both required actions, the Free Peoples player chooses the order to resolve them.

If the last character of one side is killed before strength has been totaled, actions triggered by the character being killed happen before actions triggered by winning/losing the skirmish.
A Shadow player uses They Stole It to kill a companion in Gollum's skirmish. Threat wounds must be assigned before the Shadow player can play You're a Liar and a Thief.

If the total strength of one side is at least double the total strength of the other side, the losing side is overwhelmed (killed) before actions triggered by winning/losing the skirmish happen.

transfer

If a card's game text states what characters it can be transferred to, those characters become eligible bearers of the card, regardless of "Bearer must be..." text.
Rabbit Stew reads: "Bearer must be a companion. Each time bearer wins a skirmish, you may transfer this condition to a fellowship companion." Although it must be played on a companion, it can be transferred to non-[Shire] fellowship companions.
[see Rabbit Stew]

trigger

If multiple actions would trigger at the same time, those actions trigger simultaneously, but are resolved one at a time using the action procedure.
Exception: Actions using "While" always have priority over other actions. If multiple actions using "While" are triggering, they continue to resolve until the game state does not change.
See infinite loops with no voluntary actions.

If an action in a card's game text is triggered, the card must be in play for the action to resolve.

unique

When a card is in play and currently active, you cannot play another card that has the same title if either one of them is unique.

The original wording allows a unique card to be played after a non-unique card of the same title, as in the case of Mumak Commander and Mumak Commander, Giant Among the Swertings.

use

Characters "use" only special abilities in their own game text.
The characters affected by Crashing Cavalry cannot use skirmish special abilities in their own game text, but skirmish special abilities on other cards may be used.
[see Crashing Cavalry]

Individual Card Rulings

Crashing Cavalry
Erratum:
Assignment: Discard this from play and assign a minion to an companion.
Skirmish special abilities cannot be used in skirmishes involving those characters until the start of the regroup phase.

Final Triumph
Clarification:
The effect of this card changes the value used to resolve a skirmish (from strength to vitality) only for those characters using strength to resolve that skirmish.

Held
Clarification:
Bearer must be Frodo.
Each time Frodo is about to be killed by a wound, add a burden instead.
When the fellowship moves to any site 9, if Frodo is the Ring-bearer, Frodo is corrupted.
Regroup: If you can spot no minions, discard this condition.

Ambiguity when Held is played on Frodo, Frenzied Fighter.

Helpless [Version 1]
Erratum:
To play, spot Frodo and a Nazgûl.
Plays on Sam, if Sam is not the Ring-bearer.
Sam's game text does not apply.

Helpless [Version 2]
Erratum:
To play, spot Frodo and a Nazgûl.
Plays on Sam.
Except for his Ring-bearer and Ring-bound keywords, Sam's game text does not apply.

Ambiguity when Helpless is played on Sam, Bearer of Great Need while he is the Ring-bearer (his Ring-bearer keyword also does not apply).

Neekerbreekers' Bog
Clarification:
The "each other character" referred to on this card is any character with resistance 4 or less.

One Last Surprise
Clarification:
The effect of this card changes the value used by the companion to resolve his or her skirmish (from strength to Gandalf's resistance) only if that companion is using strength to resolve that skirmish.

Rabbit Stew
Erratum:
Bearer must be a fellowship companion. When you play this condition, its bearer must be a companion.
Each time bearer wins a skirmish, you may transfer this condition to a fellowship companion.
Each time this condition is transferred to a companion, heal that companion.

X-Lists & Restricted Lists

Reflections

Legal in: Standard, Expanded, Open, Movie
Banned in: Fellowship, Tower, King, War of the Ring, Hunters

Expanded Middle-earth Deluxe Box

Legal in: Standard, Expanded, Open
Banned in: Fellowship, Tower, King, War of the Ring, Hunters, Movie

The Wraith Collection

Legal in: Standard, Expanded, Open
Banned in: Fellowship, Tower, King, War of the Ring, Hunters, Movie

Age's End

Legal in: Standard, Expanded, Open
Banned in: Fellowship, Tower, King, War of the Ring, Hunters, Movie

Weta Collection (0P56 - 0P60)

Legal in: Standard, Expanded, Open
Banned in: Fellowship, Tower, King, War of the Ring, Hunters, Movie

0P62 - 0P67

Legal in: none

---

Edit 7/24 - Terms: added "leaving play" and "trigger" entries; modified "skirmish" (overwhelm) entry. ICR: added "Final Triumph" and "One Last Surprise" entries.

Edit 7/22 - Terms: additions to "prevent" and "Ring-bearer" entries. ICR: added "Crashing Cavalry", "Helpless (ver. 2)", and "Rabbit Stew" entries.

[Thranduil]

transfer

If a card's game text states what characters it can be transferred to, those characters become eligible bearers of the card, regardless of "Bearer must be..." text.
Rabbit Stew reads: "Bearer must be a companion. Each time bearer wins a skirmish, you may transfer this condition to a fellowship companion." Although it must be played on a companion, it can be transferred to non-[Shire] fellowship companions.

I don't like this ruling - I understand it's correct as the rules currently stand, but I think it's messy, and it I think may be worth looking into ways to change cards that depend on this rule (like the Wargs) to work more cleanly without it.

use

Characters "use" only special abilities in their own game text.
The characters affected by Crashing Cavalry cannot use skirmish special abilities in their own game text, but skirmish special abilities on other cards may be used.

Nice one! Number of times that comes up...

Neekerbreekers' Bog
Clarification:
The "each other character" referred to on this card is any character with resistance 4 or less.

This is still ambiguous. You need to specify that this includes (or doesn't include - I'm not certain which is correct, but I think I'm right) minions.

All good work!

Thranduil

[Elgar]

Golden Rules
Whenever a card's game text contradicts a rule, the card takes precedence.
Exception: Skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer cannot be canceled by a card.

Whenever a card's game text contradicts another card's game text, the "not" situation takes precedence.
Faramir, Bearer of Quality uses his skirmish special ability ("...make a minion... roaming...") on a Nazgûl while Bill Ferny, Swarthy Sneering Fellow ("Nazgûl are not roaming.") is in play. Since Ferny represents the "not" situation, the Nazgûl will remain not roaming.

I prefer " Whenever a card's game text explicitly and directly contradicts a rule, the card takes precedence.  Otherwise, whenever a card's game text contradicts another card's game text or rule, the "not" situation takes precedence."  This fixes most of the skirmish cancelling problems (only one I can think of is OEG, which was errata'd.

skirmish phase(S)

The default wound(S) placed on the characters of the losing side is a required action triggered by losing the skirmish.
A Dwarf wins a skirmish against an Orc, and Let Them Come! is in play. Since placing wounds on the Orc and discarding it with Let Them Come! are both required actions, the Free Peoples player chooses the order to resolve them.

I don't agree with this.  Wounds placed because of a skirmish resolution isn't triggered, but a step in the resolution process.

If the total strength of one side is at least double the total strength of the other side, actions triggered by winning/losing the skirmish happen before the losing side is overwhelmed (killed).

My previous comment fixes this, as the step in skirmish resolution determining winner happens before the step to check for overwhelming, which happens before the check for wounding.

Helpless
Erratum:
To play, spot Frodo and a Nazgûl.
Plays on Sam, if Sam is not the Ring-bearer.
Sam's game text does not apply.

Ambiguity when Helpless is played on Sam, Bearer of Great Need while he is the Ring-bearer (his Ring-bearer keyword also does not apply).

I'd prefer it be:
b]Helpless[/b]
Erratum:
To play, spot Frodo and a Nazgûl.
Plays on Sam.
Except for Ringbearer, Sam's game text does not apply.

I think Helpless should be allowed to be played even if RBer Sam is being used.

[Olorin]

I am happy to see guys are using the wise way to get tricky things fixed --> I mean we are on the right way if we start at the base, the rules, the understanding, etc.

I will review all that ideas - with special thanks to ES - and give my comments. 

[Elessar's Socks]

transfer

If a card's game text states what characters it can be transferred to, those characters become eligible bearers of the card, regardless of "Bearer must be..." text.
Rabbit Stew reads: "Bearer must be a companion. Each time bearer wins a skirmish, you may transfer this condition to a fellowship companion." Although it must be played on a companion, it can be transferred to non-[Shire] fellowship companions.

I don't like this ruling - I understand it's correct as the rules currently stand, but I think it's messy, and it I think may be worth looking into ways to change cards that depend on this rule (like the Wargs) to work more cleanly without it.

How would you change Rabbit Stew to make it more clear? Actually even if the rule is kept, the rule may have to be reworded depending on how Strange-Looking Men / Rabbit Stew should be handled.

Neekerbreekers' Bog
Clarification:
The "each other character" referred to on this card is any character with resistance 4 or less.

This is still ambiguous. You need to specify that this includes (or doesn't include - I'm not certain which is correct, but I think I'm right) minions.

I reasoned that since minions don't have resistance, they don't qualify as "resistance 4 or less" (just as companions don't qualify as "site number 4 or higher").

On my end I've thought the implication was that all affected characters must have resistance; the site rewards high-resistance characters and punishes low-resistance ones. Characters who don't have resistance to begin with don't fall under its "intent".

Golden Rules
Whenever a card's game text contradicts a rule, the card takes precedence.
Exception: Skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer cannot be canceled by a card.

Whenever a card's game text contradicts another card's game text, the "not" situation takes precedence.
Faramir, Bearer of Quality uses his skirmish special ability ("...make a minion... roaming...") on a Nazgûl while Bill Ferny, Swarthy Sneering Fellow ("Nazgûl are not roaming.") is in play. Since Ferny represents the "not" situation, the Nazgûl will remain not roaming.

I prefer " Whenever a card's game text explicitly and directly contradicts a rule, the card takes precedence.  Otherwise, whenever a card's game text contradicts another card's game text or rule, the "not" situation takes precedence."  This fixes most of the skirmish cancelling problems (only one I can think of is OEG, which was errata'd.

How would you describe "explicitly and directly"? I originally had "directly" in there myself, but then wondered if that really cleared up what a contradiction meant. The use of "contradiction" is a bit vague.

This is actually the main reason I added the follower entry. I'm not sure "Bearer must be a follower" (Whisper in the Dark) directly contradicts "Followers can't bear other cards"; a direct contradiction to my mind would be "Followers can bear other cards." Similarly, Delving can't break the Rule of 4 unless its game text specifically allows the rule to be broken. So the method I chose was to modify the follower rule itself.

skirmish phase(S)

The default wound(S) placed on the characters of the losing side is a required action triggered by losing the skirmish.
A Dwarf wins a skirmish against an Orc, and Let Them Come! is in play. Since placing wounds on the Orc and discarding it with Let Them Come! are both required actions, the Free Peoples player chooses the order to resolve them.

I don't agree with this.  Wounds placed because of a skirmish resolution isn't triggered, but a step in the resolution process.

If wound placement is not a required action but a step, then it seems like all actions triggered by winning/losing the skirmish would happen before the placement (like in a cost/effect situation, where all actions triggered by the costs are performed before the effects).

If that's the implication there would be some odd situations. For example, say Gollum wins a skirmish (through strength) against an exhausted companion. You play YaLaaT to kill another companion, triggering threats. If YaLaaT could be played before the default wound is placed, then the Free Peoples player could burn one of the threat wounds to kill the companion Gollum is skirmishing, since he'd die anyway.

I think the correct order is to place the default wound before YaLaaT could be played, and one way to get that is to have the placement be a required action triggered by losing the skirmish.

Helpless
Erratum:
To play, spot Frodo and a Nazgûl.
Plays on Sam, if Sam is not the Ring-bearer.
Sam's game text does not apply.

Ambiguity when Helpless is played on Sam, Bearer of Great Need while he is the Ring-bearer (his Ring-bearer keyword also does not apply).

I'd prefer it be:
b]Helpless[/b]
Erratum:
To play, spot Frodo and a Nazgûl.
Plays on Sam.
Except for Ringbearer, Sam's game text does not apply.

I think Helpless should be allowed to be played even if RBer Sam is being used.

That could work. I'd allow the Ring-bound keyword as well (otherwise it'd be too strange in my opinion). That makes:

Helpless
Erratum:
To play, spot Frodo and a Nazgûl.
Plays on Sam.
Except for his Ring-bearer and Ring-bound keywords, Sam's game text does not apply.

[Disco Stu]

another issue:
skirmish resolution including cards like final triumph, one last surprise and bounder

the steps of the skirmish resolution (mandatory wound, responses, ...) is well ruled, and i like it. there may be weird situations possible (twilight witch-king wins a skirmish, but before he can react, the wound is placed, threats are triggered, théoden, tall and proud is killed, and rohirrim army is played discarding the witch-king), but so be it.

[jdizzy001]

Quote from: Thranduil on July 17, 2009, 11:19:48 AM
Quote from: Elessar's Socks on July 17, 2009, 05:51:40 AM
transfer

If a card's game text states what characters it can be transferred to, those characters become eligible bearers of the card, regardless of "Bearer must be..." text.
Rabbit Stew reads: "Bearer must be a Shire companion. Each time bearer wins a skirmish, you may transfer this condition to a fellowship companion." Although it must be played on a Shire companion, it can be transferred to non-[Shire] fellowship companions.
I don't like this ruling - I understand it's correct as the rules currently stand, but I think it's messy, and it I think may be worth looking into ways to change cards that depend on this rule (like the Wargs) to work more cleanly without it.
How would you change Rabbit Stew to make it more clear? Actually even if the rule is kept, the rule may have to be reworded depending on how Strange-Looking Men / Rabbit Stew should be handled.

As much as I want to use rabbit stew with WTG and Little master, the current rulings from decipher say that "bear must be..." are always in effect.  I am not opposed to alteration, despite my distaste towards erratas, purely on the grounds that cards in Age's End are very situational and seem almost unplayable outside very specific decks.

[Elessar's Socks]

Looks like some posts from yesterday got forum-whacked, so here's a modified repost.

If the erratum route is taken with Rabbit Stew, would replacing "Bearer must be a companion." with "Plays on a companion." make it work as wanted?

another issue:
skirmish resolution including cards like final triumph, one last surprise and bounder

Could you remind me what's the issue with these?

the steps of the skirmish resolution (mandatory wound, responses, ...) is well ruled, and i like it. there may be weird situations possible (twilight witch-king wins a skirmish, but before he can react, the wound is placed, threats are triggered, théoden, tall and proud is killed, and rohirrim army is played discarding the witch-king), but so be it.

That's how I'd play it. I cooked up a more complex example down below, marking in red the parts I'm not sure about.

The FP player has these in play: an exhausted Isildur SB bearing a strength +2 weapon (total strength 9), and Theoden TaP. He has Rohirrim Army in hand.

The Shadow player has these in play: The Witch-king LotN, Enquea FTW, and Drawn to Its Power. He has In the Ringwraith's Wake in hand.

The Witch-king wins his skirmish against Isildur.

   Required actions to skirmish win/loss: default wound, Isildur
   FP chooses the default wound first, killing Isildur.
   .
   .  Required actions to killed Isildur: threats, DtIP (skirmish involves a Nazgul)
   .  FP chooses to place a threat wound first, killing Theoden.
   .  .
   .  .  Required actions to killed Theoden: threats (none on dead pile)
   .  .  Optional actions to killed Theoden: Theoden, Enquea
   .  .  FP gets to use Theoden or pass; plays Rohirrim Army.
   .  .  .
   .  .  .  Required actions to Rohirrim Army being played: none
   .  .  .  Optional actions to Rohirrim Army being played: Rohirrim Army
   .  .  .  SP has no responses, passes.*
   .  .  .  FP gets to use Rohirrim Army or pass; discards the Witch-king.
   .  .  .  .  Witch-king placed in discard pile (no responses to discard).
   .  .  .  SP has no responses, passes.
   .  .  .  FP has no responses, passes.
   .  .  .
   .  .  SP gets to use Enquea or pass; exerts the Ring-bearer.
   .  .  FP has no responses, passes.
   .  .  SP has no responses, passes.
   .  .  Theoden placed in dead pile.
   .  .
   .  FP chooses to place remaining threat wounds (each as a separate action).
   .  FP chooses DtIP; adds a burden.
   .  .
   .  Optional actions to killed Isildur: Enquea
   .  FP has no responses, passes.
   .  SP gets to use Enquea or pass; exerts the Ring-bearer.
   .  FP has no responses, passes.
   .  SP has no responses, passes.
   .  Isildur placed in dead pile.
   .
   Since Isildur is in the discard pile, his text cannot be used to exert a companion.
   .
   Optional actions to skirmish win/loss: ItRW
   Since the Witch-king is in the discard pile, his text cannot be used to wound the RB twice.
   FP has no responses, passes.
   SP gets to use ItRW or pass; makes the FP choose to exert a companion or add a burden.
   FP has no responses, passes.
   SP has no responses, passes.

*Based on previous examples it looks like the action procedure "steps through" nested optional triggers, meaning it's possible for the Shadow player to get the first optional response to an action. Can anyone confirm if that's the case here?

[Elgar]

  .  .  FP gets to use Theoden or pass; plays Rohirrim Army.
   .  .  .
   .  .  .  Required actions to Rohirrim Army being played: none
   .  .  .  Optional actions to Rohirrim Army being played: Rohirrim Army
   .  .  .  SP has no responses, passes.*
   .  .  .  FP gets to use Rohirrim Army or pass; discards the Witch-king.
   .  .  .  SP has no responses, passes.
   .  .  .  FP has no responses, passes.
............................. ...
    .
   FP chooses Isildur; exerts a companion?**
   .
   Optional actions to skirmish win/loss: ItRW
   Since the Witch-king has been discarded, his text cannot be used to wound the RB twice.**
   FP has no responses, passes.
   SP gets to use ItRW or pass; makes the FP choose to exert a companion or add a burden.
   FP has no responses, passes.
   SP has no responses, passes.

*Based on previous examples it looks like the action procedure "steps through" nested optional triggers, meaning it's possible for the Shadow player to get the first optional response to an action. Can anyone confirm if that's the case here?

**Unclear about these after the discussion on Shagrat; does one or both resolve? Also, at what point is Isildur and the Witch-king actually placed in the dead/discard pile?

snip, snip

as for the * question, the FP should have first optional action.  If one of my previous examples has this miscontrued, please point me to it so I can review it, and either clarify or fix it.

As for the ** question, I am torn.

"Killed
When a character's vitality is reduced to zero, that character is immediately killed. Place killed Free Peoples characters (companions and allies) in your dead pile. The dead pile is separate from and next to your discard pile. Place killed minions in your discard pile."

For me, placing a character in the respective pile would happen as "step" in the killed action (it is not a triggered effect, but part of the "killed" action)  Which would mean that all responses to being killed happens before the character is put in the dead pile.  But that is only my reading of the rule.  I could also see the interpretation where being placed in the respective pile is a triggered effect of being killed.

That said, in both of these interpretations would have Isildur in the dead pile before his text triggers and I would rule that his text wouldn't be taken into affect.

This is why I prefer that responses to winning/losing a skirmish happen before the wound/overwhelm.  You will have wierd situations either way, but having the wound happen as a step rather than being triggered prevents more of them IMO.  It also seems more (philosiphically) logical to me to have all responses to winning the skirmish happen before the wounds.


The resolve that skirmish step in the rule book is poorly written IMO.  It steps it seems to imply:
If strength(a)>=Strength(B) *AND* Strength(a)<2*Strength(B) then
. If a = shadow characters makes the above statement true the shaodw characters win the skirmish, otherwise the FP wins the skirmish.  
. Place a wound on each losing character (no definition of losing characters here, but I think its obvious and may be defined elsewhere in the RB)
. if there exisst damage +X on the winning side, assign X more wounds to each losing character

else if strength(a)>=2*strength(B), strength(a)=/=0
. characters=b are immediatly killed (no mention of winning/losing in this text block)

Please check my (computer-esqe) logic here.  The text I am outlining is this:
"If the total strength of one side is more than the strength of the other side (but less than double), the side with the most strength wins that skirmish. (If there is a tie, the Shadow side wins.) Place one wound on each character on the losing side.
When the winning side has one or more characters with the keyword damage +1, then each losing character takes one additional wound for each damage +1. (Damage +2 adds two wounds, and so on.) This is called a damage bonus, which may be added to or removed by various effects.
If the total strength of one side is at least double the total strength of the other side, all the characters on the losing side are overwhelmed and killed (regardless of how many wounds or how much vitality each has). When a character is overwhelmed, that character does not take any more wounds — he simply dies."

The fact that the rules don't state a winner in the overwhelm clause is bothersome to me, as well as the check to see who won is done after first checking to see if one side isn't overwhelmed.  I would prefer the logic to be:

If strength(a)>=Strength(B) then
. If a = shadow characters makes the above statement true the shaodw characters win the skirmish, otherwise the FP wins the skirmish.
if strength(a)>=2*strength(B) then
. characters=b are immediatly killed
else assign X+1 wounds to each losing character, where X is the damage +X on the winning characters

[Elessar's Socks]

as for the * question, the FP should have first optional action.  If one of my previous examples has this miscontrued, please point me to it so I can review it, and either clarify or fix it.

This is based on Hawk's example with the Marauder. The responses are alternating through the triggers, instead of giving priority to the FP with each new trigger. For example, if the FP uses Shadowplay to exert a minion (new trigger), the Shadow player gets the first response to a minion being exerted, not the FP.

For me, placing a character in the respective pile would happen as "step" in the killed action (it is not a triggered effect, but part of the "killed" action)  Which would mean that all responses to being killed happens before the character is put in the dead pile.  But that is only my reading of the rule.  I could also see the interpretation where being placed in the respective pile is a triggered effect of being killed.

That said, in both of these interpretations would have Isildur in the dead pile before his text triggers and I would rule that his text wouldn't be taken into affect.

That makes sense to me as a step. To spell things out, maybe something like "A card does not leave play until all actions triggered by the card leaving play have resolved." Theoden has an action triggered by him leaving play ("is killed"), so he gets to use his action before he hits the discard pile. Works for the Ring-toss, too.

This is why I prefer that responses to winning/losing a skirmish happen before the wound/overwhelm.  You will have wierd situations either way, but having the wound happen as a step rather than being triggered prevents more of them IMO.  It also seems more (philosiphically) logical to me to have all responses to winning the skirmish happen before the wounds.

Yeah... that's what the CRD is for, to get a definite ruling on this. The Let Them Come! example was confirmed by Bib, which gives me more faith in it.

The fact that the rules don't state a winner in the overwhelm clause is bothersome to me, as well as the check to see who won is done after first checking to see if one side isn't overwhelmed.  I would prefer the logic to be:

If strength(a)>=Strength(B) then
. If a = shadow characters makes the above statement true the shaodw characters win the skirmish, otherwise the FP wins the skirmish.
if strength(a)>=2*strength(B) then
. characters=b are immediatly killed
else assign X+1 wounds to each losing character, where X is the damage +X on the winning characters

Heh, that's why I had the overwhelm entry. Though come to think, it'd be easier just to modify the winner determination step to include overwhelms, which I think is what people have been doing anyway.

So basically, I agree. Determine the skirmish winner(S) first by comparing strength totals. Then place wounds on or kill the losing side, depending on whether the losing side is overwhelmed.

EDIT - Modified the example to indicate when characters are placed in the dead/discard pile. Though going by this, if a companion is overwhelmed, does he technically exert from Grima FoS before being placed in the dead pile?

[Olorin]

Guys... that's a great job you did here! 

and especially I like the example of disco stu - so, me was wondering too - concerning the handling final triumph and one last surprise   

concerning the formats and editions which shall be allowed:
ES's expamples are the the same I brought up with the "Austrian Format" - so, I like this idea (wraith collection, etc.)

You shall here from me soon, with further examples and my ideas about these things 

[Elgar]

Another timing question to discuss:  instant (at, each time) versus conditional (while) triggers.
An example would be 2 characters:
Companion "A" with 7 printed strength and "At the start of the a skirmish involving A and a minion with strength 6 or less, make A strength +2 until the end of the skirmish."
Minion "B", with 6 printed strength and Say these 2 characters are assigned to skirmish.  "While skirmishing a companion with strength 7 or less, B is strength +3."

How would these triggers resolve?

One way to look at it is that they both trigger at the same time (ie the start of the skirmish is the first time step available during the skirmish phase) and the FP gets to order them since both are manditory.  He'd obviously order them so that the companions text triggers first,  causing the conditional text of the minion to be false.  the FP would win 9 to 6 in this case.

Another way to look at it is that the start of the skirmish phase must be a part of the skirmish phase, and that this text is triggered before the instant triggers.  Ie The condition "skirmishing a companion with strength 7 or less" must be true before the at the start of skrimish trigger.

I prefer the second, based off the (philosophical) logic below:
While it is A's FP turn, his FP cards and his opponents Shadow cards are active.
Text triggers from active cards.
Therefore, for "at stat of turn actions" to trigger, they must already be active at the start of turn, and therefore the conditional while must happen before the "at start of" trigger.

[Elessar's Socks]

Another timing question to discuss:  instant (at, each time) versus conditional (while) triggers.
An example would be 2 characters:
Companion "A" with 7 printed strength and "At the start of the a skirmish involving A and a minion with strength 6 or less, make A strength +2 until the end of the skirmish."
Minion "B", with 6 printed strength and Say these 2 characters are assigned to skirmish.  "While skirmishing a companion with strength 7 or less, B is strength +3."

How would these triggers resolve?

My understanding is that "while" is as instantaneous as it gets. It would not follow the action procedure. At the start of the skirmish (qualifies as "skirmishing"), the minion is strength 6+3 = 9. Since the minion is not strength 6 or less, the companion will remain at strength 7.

and especially I like the example of disco stu - so, me was wondering too - concerning the handling final triumph and one last surprise

Oh, together. D'oh.

I would think Bounder does not work with either Final Triumph or One Last Surprise, since he's determining whether a Hobbit is overwhelmed based on strength.

Using Final Triumph and One Last Surprise together... not sure of this at all. Possibilities:

- One "masks" the other only where appropriate. Final Triumph is played, so the resolution would be vitality vs. vitality. Then OLS is played, affecting only the companion, so the resolution would be vitality vs. resistance. If Final Triumph is played after OLS, the resolution would be vitality vs. vitality.

- One completely overrides the other, using the default skirmish resolution as a base. Final Triumph is played, so the resolution would be vitality vs. vitality. Then OLS is played, so the resolution would be strength vs. resistance (the minion uses the default strength). If Final Triumph is played after OLS, the resolution would be vitality vs. vitality.

Other thoughts?


EDIT - Removed my "loop" question... I think the rulebook already answers it.

[jdizzy001]

Elassar, your reasoning behind rabbit stew is sound.  I am worried about cards like strange looking men.  I appriciate what you are doing.