Crashed Gates

[Elessar's Socks]

Fair points, Sam. I've been arguing both sides in my head, and it's not pretty. The problem here is that the FP player is doing some things, and then the Shadow player is doing some things. The rules do say "...that you are fully capable of performing" which to me implies your responsibility ends when choosing any opponent, but... just not sure what the intent was.

So ... the must keyword on Crashed Gates means do one OR the other, you choose (it does not mean you must add the 3 threats and if you cannot do part 2 as I suggested above).

I think the "must" here is to make it a required action. If it had said "may" then, besides changing its timing priority, the FP player could choose not to do either action.

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

Yeah, I guess that's why I couldn't really come down on one side or the other; I started to write an argument for one side, then switched and wrote an argument for the other, then finally decided that this came down to whether you wanted to go strictly by the text (in which case you can choose an opponent who couldn't take control of a site) or go with what Decipher probably intended (in which case you can't). The problem ultimately comes down to to fact that Decipher just messed up a little on this card, and do we want to do what it says or what Decipher meant?

And, Chompers, as Elessar's Socks just said, you do have to choose an action that is capable of being completed; the problem here is that the second option ("choose an opponent who may take control of a site") is probably satisfied as soon as the FP player chooses an opponent, regardless of what that opponent can do.

[Elgar]

I would argue that choosing an "opponent who may take control of a site" is always something that could be completely fulfilled (as long as the opponent can choose to not take control of a site).  In other words, there is always a possible resolution when choosing an "opponent who may take control of a site". 

[chompers]

A clarification or errata entry into the rulebook would be great provided an agreement on who should represent the rules team can be made.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a rules team that can provide this (of course anyone who chose to ignore the clarification or errata provided by the rules team could do so - there ane plenty of players that currently have no idea about all the errata and clarifications and play the cards incorrectly).

[Anautikus]

I'd go with Elgar, because the Shadow could technically choose not to take control of a site, for whatever reason (maybe a Rohan FP?)

[Cw0rk]

I'd go with Elgar, because the Shadow could technically choose not to take control of a site, for whatever reason (maybe a Rohan FP?)

Or maybe Fleet Footed.

[Ringbearer]

I agree, the Free peoples has to choose one. HE can choose a shadow  player who can control a site even if there are no sites to be controlled, since the shadow players action is a MAY option.

So when you pick the option "may control a site", thats always possible, since the opponent can decline this action (voluntarily or not).