Candidates for a CRD - rules issues

[HawkeyeSPF]

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.

Check the CRD-8/13/07, page 2, "infinite loops with no voluntary actions".

Really not even a question here guys.


As for Bounder vs. Final Triumph / One Last Surprise, here's how it works:

Whether the FP uses Bounder first or second or third or last or whatever, Triumph would create a Vit/Vit scenario, OLS would create a Gandalf's Res/Minion's Str scenario, Triumph/OLS or OLS/Triumph would create a G'Res/M'Vit scenario, and Bounder would just sit there and say "Yeah, so? My guy isn't overwhelmed unless you triple his 'defense value'." (to steal a term from SWCCG)

This is because according to the CRD-8/13/07, page 2, "instead": "...This does not mean that the original effect is prevented." Think of it as an overlay of terms.



Rabbit Stew -- alright, I'll chime in with my opinion here. If you want it to still have to be initially played on a Shire companion but transferrable to any Fellowship companion, then how about this errata:

"Bearer must be a Fellowship companion. When you play this possession, its bearer must be a Shire Fellowship companion."

That way, whenever it is transferred, whether by Strange Looking Men or by the FP player during the Fellowhip Phase, it's "When you play..." text doesn't kick in.

[HawkeyeSPF]

Thoughts on the matter:

Terms

follower

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

No problem here.

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.

prevent

An illegal situation 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.

I kind of have a problem with preventing illegal situations, but I have nothing to back me up currently.

Ring-bearer

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

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

Absolutely, positively not. No way, no how, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This will not happen. Filibert Bolger and OEG! were too powerful back in the day just like they are now, no matter what format we're talking about.

Skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer may not be cancelled.

Period. End of story. Don't like it? Play another game.

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.

No problems here, it's how it's been ruled for a while as far as I know.

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, actions triggered by winning/losing the skirmish happen before the losing side is overwhelmed (killed).

If you rule it like that, then you have inconsistencies between companions who were overwhelmed and companions who will simply take their final wound. In overwhelm situations, actions triggered by winning/losing the skirmish should happen after the losing side is overwhelmed.

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.

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.

Already talked about Rabbit Stew, and I don't have a real problem either way on the unique ruling. There's only one situation that it would exist for, the non-unique costs 8, and nobody plays the non-unique in a *good* deck anyway.

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.

I'd have to talk to a designer obviously, but I think the intent on Crashing Cavalry was to prevent *any* skirmish special abilities from being used, whether they be in the characters' game text or on a condition in play. If that were the case, I'd want to simply errata (or clarify if you prefer) Crashing Cavalry to read: "Skirmish special abilities may not be used in skirmishes involving those characters until the start of the regroup phase." Fair enough?

Individual Card Rulings

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.

Fairly unnecessary, as a non-ring-bearer character cannot be corrupted.

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).

Maybe a better idea would be to clarify in the CRD that the Ring-bearer keyword cannot be removed or made to not apply.

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

Again, not all that necessary, as the Comprehensive Rules 4.0 already spells out that only Companions and Allies have resistance. Because it does not say that minions or possessions or sites have resistance or not, we assume that they do not.

[Thranduil]

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.

That would be my understanding also.

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.

I think that Bounder does actually work. The skirmish is resolved on vitality, and normally the companion would be overwhelmed if their vitality was half that of the minion they were facing. However, now on a literal reading of the cards, the skirmish is still resolved on vitality, but in order to overwhelm the companion the minion's vitality must now be triple the Hobbit's strength. I would make a similar reading for One Last Surprise: although the winner of the fight is based on Gandalf's resistance and the minion's strength, the Hobbit can only be overwhelmed if their strength is tripled.

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.

I would also come down on this side.

Thranduil

[Elessar's Socks]

Another timing question to discuss:  instant (at, each time) versus conditional (while) triggers.

Check the CRD-8/13/07, page 2, "infinite loops with no voluntary actions".

Elgar's "at the start"/"while" example doesn't seem to fall under this entry though, since "at the start" triggers just once (unlike "while"/"while").

As for Bounder vs. Final Triumph / One Last Surprise, here's how it works:

Whether the FP uses Bounder first or second or third or last or whatever, Triumph would create a Vit/Vit scenario, OLS would create a Gandalf's Res/Minion's Str scenario, Triumph/OLS or OLS/Triumph would create a G'Res/M'Vit scenario, and Bounder would just sit there and say "Yeah, so? My guy isn't overwhelmed unless you triple his 'defense value'." (to steal a term from SWCCG)

This is because according to the CRD-8/13/07, page 2, "instead": "...This does not mean that the original effect is prevented." Think of it as an overlay of terms.

I can see why FT/OLS would create a resistance/vitality scenario, but in the case of OLS/FT, why would FT not overlay the companion as well (creating vitality/vitality)? It seems that FT is affecting both characters.

Rabbit Stew -- alright, I'll chime in with my opinion here. If you want it to still have to be initially played on a Shire companion but transferrable to any Fellowship companion, then how about this errata:

"Bearer must be a Fellowship companion. When you play this possession, its bearer must be a Shire Fellowship companion."

That way, whenever it is transferred, whether by Strange Looking Men or by the FP player during the Fellowhip Phase, it's "When you play..." text doesn't kick in.

Was adding fellowship after intentional? If I'm reading this right, the "When you play" idea would be less damaging to the card than my erratum suggestion, so that sounds good.

I kind of have a problem with preventing illegal situations, but I have nothing to back me up currently.

Yeah, I wasn't sure what would be more intuitive. I don't mind either way.

Absolutely, positively not. No way, no how, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This will not happen. Filibert Bolger and OEG! were too powerful back in the day just like they are now, no matter what format we're talking about.

Skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer may not be cancelled.

Period. End of story. Don't like it? Play another game.

This nearly made me choke on my coffee. Your displeasure is noted.

Added the entry since it seems popular with some players here, but it might be better left as a house rule. If the Comprehensive Rulebook is upheld, I'm thinking the CRD should still explicitly prohibit this, just so there's no question about it.

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, actions triggered by winning/losing the skirmish happen before the losing side is overwhelmed (killed).

If you rule it like that, then you have inconsistencies between companions who were overwhelmed and companions who will simply take their final wound. In overwhelm situations, actions triggered by winning/losing the skirmish should happen after the losing side is overwhelmed.

For characters who lose and take their final wound, is the outline I have on the previous page even right? In short, the whole thing can be condensed into required actions to losing the skirmish (including wound) --> required/optional actions to being killed --> optional actions to losing the skirmish.

I'd have to talk to a designer obviously, but I think the intent on Crashing Cavalry was to prevent *any* skirmish special abilities from being used, whether they be in the characters' game text or on a condition in play. If that were the case, I'd want to simply errata (or clarify if you prefer) Crashing Cavalry to read: "Skirmish special abilities may not be used in skirmishes involving those characters until the start of the regroup phase." Fair enough?

If that was the intent, that wording makes things clear to me.

Maybe a better idea would be to clarify in the CRD that the Ring-bearer keyword cannot be removed or made to not apply.

Good idea. A rules fix sounds a lot easier to maintain (and saves game text space) than making sure cards won't ever interact to create this situation. I'd extend it to a Ring-bearer's Ring-bound keyword as well.

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

Again, not all that necessary, as the Comprehensive Rules 4.0 already spells out that only Companions and Allies have resistance. Because it does not say that minions or possessions or sites have resistance or not, we assume that they do not.

I guess this is a case where "cards do as they say" might not be good enough. I interpreted it the same way you did, but hopefully it'd clear up any confusion.

I think that Bounder does actually work. The skirmish is resolved on vitality, and normally the companion would be overwhelmed if their vitality was half that of the minion they were facing. However, now on a literal reading of the cards, the skirmish is still resolved on vitality, but in order to overwhelm the companion the minion's vitality must now be triple the Hobbit's strength.

Is this the same thing Hawk was saying, with the defense values? As long as you two agree that is excellent.

---

I'll have to update the master list at some point with the new suggestions. I'm thinking some of these entries might not warrant inclusion any longer, but I'll retain them in the meantime as a record. Thanks everyone for your input.

[Elgar]

Another timing question to discuss:  instant (at, each time) versus conditional (while) triggers.

Check the CRD-8/13/07, page 2, "infinite loops with no voluntary actions".

Really not even a question here guys.

Please reread my example.  This is not an infinite loop question.  The question is "Do 'at start of X' triggers happen at the same time as 'While X' triggers?" and if not what is their timing.  

[HawkeyeSPF]

haha, reading fail - my bad

In that case, the companion's text would win out, as "at the start of" text resolves before the characters have moved into what we can call "skirmishing" mode.

[Elgar]

haha, reading fail - my bad

In that case, the companion's text would win out, as "at the start of" text resolves before the characters have moved into what we can call "skirmishing" mode.

Unfortunately it seems the rest of us disagree.  Is there a ruling somewhere that confrim one way or another?

Logically, it seems that "at start of X" effects must have to happen during X (based off of my at start of turn and during turn example)  How can at start of turn actions not happen "while" it is the present turn?

[Elgar]

As for Bounder vs. Final Triumph / One Last Surprise, here's how it works:

Whether the FP uses Bounder first or second or third or last or whatever, Triumph would create a Vit/Vit scenario, OLS would create a Gandalf's Res/Minion's Str scenario, Triumph/OLS or OLS/Triumph would create a G'Res/M'Vit scenario, and Bounder would just sit there and say "Yeah, so? My guy isn't overwhelmed unless you triple his 'defense value'." (to steal a term from SWCCG)

This is because according to the CRD-8/13/07, page 2, "instead": "...This does not mean that the original effect is prevented." Think of it as an overlay of terms.

To quote Inigo Montoya: "I do not think it means what you think it means."  Instead is a replacement rather than a prevention.  This was added to clarify that things like the one ring didn't prevent a wound, it replaced the wound with a burden.  This clarification was needed for cards like the RBer boromir, who could choose to pay with the "wound" effect for his abiilty and put on the one ring, since it didn't prevent the wounds.

"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."

While you are correct that it doesn't prevent the earlier card's effects, it would/could replace that effect. 

For the Triumph/OLS scenarios, I would rule that the later card played replaces the effect from the earlier card.  Bounder would work the way you stated, using whatever replaces strength.

[MR. Lurtzy]

If Final Triumph changes the skirmish to be resolved through vitality, then how can One Last Surprise have any effect on it, as OLS only deals with strength?

[Elgar]

If Final Triumph changes the skirmish to be resolved through vitality, then how can One Last Surprise have any effect on it, as OLS only deals with strength?

Good question.  The way I see it OLS is being modified by final triumph, and in the same vein the way that bounder's text is modified by both OLS and Final Triumph.

[Disco Stu]

what about this?
one last surprise and final triumph both say "resolve the skirmish use xy instead of strength". so when strength is not about to be used (because such an event has been played before), then the now played event cannot replace the strength resolution and does just nothing.

i think, we agreed, that the overwhelm check uses the same stats as the skirmish win check.

i didn´t notice yet, that the bounder mentions only the hobbit´s strength, but not the minion´s strength. could be rather impossible to triple a hobbit´s strength with vitality 

with neekerbreeker´s bog i don´t have a problem. it heals each character with a high resistance (companions) and exerts each other character. those other characters can either be companions with a low resistance, allies (with a low resistance actually) and minions (without resistance). no problem.

[HawkeyeSPF]

Woah there on the Neekerbreeker's Bog Disco Stu - my opinion on the matter is that because they don't have resistance to check, they cannot be targeted by the Bog's text, the same as conditions, possessions or Followers. Allies are ruled to have a resistance of 0, so they can be valid targets of the text.

[Elessar's Socks]

First two posts updated. Still need to figure out additions/corrections to timing issues.

Leaving play - I was thinking "A card does not leave play until all actions triggered by the card leaving play have resolved." This allows triggers on a character leaving play to resolve after he's killed, and indirectly states when a card is placed in the dead or discard pile (or anywhere else out of play).

"When you play" - Getting sick of the Marauder/Shadowplay example but it's a convenient one to use. Going by the "playing a card" entry, I currently don't see how his effect can resolve before Shadowplay, or even resolve before he's placed in the dead pile. We could create a new step specifically for "When you play" but that would also affect Toldea BS, and I think Shadowplay should be able to exert him before his text resolves. The Marauder seems like the odd one out, unless someone can suggest a fix.

Here are the skirmish cases I have where someone is killed:

1. Killed before strength totaled:

- Required actions to killed
- Optional actions to killed
- Placed in dead/discard pile
- Required actions to losing
- Optional actions to losing

2. Exhausted, lost (not overwhelmed):

- Required actions to losing (including wound placement)
--- Required actions to killed (if wound not prevented)
--- Optional actions to killed
--- Placed in dead/discard pile
- Optional actions to losing

3. Overwhelmed (killed/losing is currently switched from the ruling in the second post):

- Required actions to killed
- Optional actions to killed
- Placed in dead/discard pile
- Required actions to losing
- Optional actions to losing

Let me know what if anything should be reordered.

---

Final Triumph / One Last Surprise / Bounder - If someone wants to take a shot at wording this, be my guest.

[Elrohir]

Final Triumph / One Last Surprise / Bounder - If someone wants to take a shot at wording this, be my guest.

If you play Final Triumph your opponents character gets overwhelmed if his or her vitality is half or less than the minions one.
If you play One last surprise your opponents character gets overwhelmed if his or her strength is half or less than the companions resistence.

About the bounder Boromir, LoG etc...: If either Final triumph or One last surprise is played in a skirmish, in which the bounder's ability is involved, the skirmish is solved by Vitality (if FT) or Resistance (if OLS), but concernig overwhelming, you still have to compare the strength of involved characters.

My Guest will be the one, who can put my words in decent proper english sentences.
 

[MR. Lurtzy]

I still think if you play final triumph and then One Last Surprise, OLS will have no effect.