Complicated Wounding Situation

[Elgar]

Threat wounds are apart of the skirmish, and Promise Keeping would trigger for each threat wound assigned.

You may want to edit that to "a part," not "apart."

Good catch

[Gil-Estel]

Oh and, thanks for pointing me out as a respected member.....Finally, recognition! But I agree with the whole Promise Keeping point. We had some great debates with YaLaaT included oh and not to forget, Incited.

[FM]

Ok, I see that distinction now.  Promise keeping doesn't have the key word response and Sam does.

But, I'm still stuck on the game over situation.  The rules say if the ringbearer is killed the game is over.  It doesn't make sense to assign wounds and threats when the game is over.  Sam is responding to the game being over and that response is necessary for the game to continue.  I would argue that placing wounds and exertions, is playing the game, but you can't play the game if it is over.

Otherwise the situation seems to be the game is over, but we'll keep playing wounding, etc, to see if it is really over. 

This is a valid argument, but the MtG concept of The Stack can help clear this out. You see, you'll be losing, so you announce you'll use Sam's ability to keep on playing (otherwise, you could simply wrap up and lose, you are not required to keep playing as long as possible - you can always concede at any time, for instance). However, since the game will go on, there are mandatory actions that must be resolved, so you resolve those, and then the optional action takes place.

[Elessar's Socks]

From previous discussions on the stackness of LotR (or lack thereof), in particular when applied to a dying character (killed but not quite dead), I think the happiest approach would be to accept it's possible to momentarily not have a Ring-bearer.

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

Perhaps an appropriate clarification of the game-ending rule would be:

"If there is no Ring-bearer and no player has an available response action remaining, the Free Peoples' player loses."

[MuadDib85]

So to clarify:

Frodo dies, ring goes to Sam, use promise keeping (for Frodo's death wound), threat wound, use promise keeping, threat wound, use promise keeping etc..

At least that's how I would play it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I am not 100% sure.

Promise Keeping + They Stole It + Her Ladyship = Pain.

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

The question about Sam's text versus threat wounds depends on whether threats are a mandatory response to Frodo dying (in which case they come before Sam's text) or whether they're the next step in the game after Frodo dies (in which case they come after Sam's text). Can anyone clarify this?

[Thranduil]

The question about Sam's text versus threat wounds depends on whether threats are a mandatory response to Frodo dying (in which case they come before Sam's text) or whether they're the next step in the game after Frodo dies (in which case they come after Sam's text). Can anyone clarify this?

I'm pretty sure they're a mandatory trigger. But others (I'm looking at you ES!) are much better at this sort of stuff than I am.

Thranduil

[Elgar]

The condition for threats triggereing:
"When a companion or ally is killed and that card is placed in the dead pile, the Free Peoples player counts the number of threats on the dead pile and then removes them..."

This implies that being killed and being placed in the dead pile are separate steps (ie a companion could be killed but not placed in the dead pile)  I would argue that a companion would have to have been killed before being placed in the dead pile.  Therefore, its possible to have to use Sam's ability before Frodo is placed in the dead pile.

[Thranduil]

So you're saying they are responding to different triggers: Sam's ability to Frodo being killed, and threats wounds to Frodo being placed in the dead pile.

Interesting.

I don't know enough about these obscure corners of the rules to give a good opinion on this, but I like it in principle!

Thranduil

[Smeagollum]

In my opinion a response can take place anytime on an action; So if Frodo's killed then Sam can take the ring but then you still have to do the remaining threat-wounds. And if Frodo's killed in a skirmish then on every threatwound you devide your opponent is allowed to make an exertion as the treatwounds are still a result of Frodo's skirmish.

[Elgar]

So you're saying they are responding to different triggers: Sam's ability to Frodo being killed, and threats wounds to Frodo being placed in the dead pile.

More or less, yes.  At least according to the rules, there are 2 conditions for threats to be triggered ( 1)a companion or ally  is killed and 2) that character is put into the dead pile)

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

In my opinion a response can take place anytime on an action; So if Frodo's killed then Sam can take the ring but then you still have to do the remaining threat-wounds. And if Frodo's killed in a skirmish then on every threatwound you devide your opponent is allowed to make an exertion as the treatwounds are still a result of Frodo's skirmish.

Except mandatory responses (threats) MUST come before optional responses (Sam's ability). The only way Sam's ability comes before threats, is if threats aren't a response to Frodo being killed.

Fwiw, I remember hearing awhile back (Sent Back?) that killed=placed in dead pile, so that distinction doesn't work.

[Elgar]

In my opinion a response can take place anytime on an action; So if Frodo's killed then Sam can take the ring but then you still have to do the remaining threat-wounds. And if Frodo's killed in a skirmish then on every threatwound you devide your opponent is allowed to make an exertion as the treatwounds are still a result of Frodo's skirmish.

Except mandatory responses (threats) MUST come before optional responses (Sam's ability). The only way Sam's ability comes before threats, is if threats aren't a response to Frodo being killed.

Fwiw, I remember hearing awhile back (Sent Back?) that killed=placed in dead pile, so that distinction doesn't work.

The distinction was that if you are placed in dead pile, you have been killed.  The distinction didn't cover being killed and not being placed in the dead pile.

For example, if you had an event that said "Response: If a companion is killed, place him in your discard pile rather than your dead pile." threats would not trigger.

[Smeagollum]

The condition for threats triggereing:
"When a companion or ally is killed and that card is placed in the dead pile, the Free Peoples player counts the number of threats on the dead pile and then removes them..."

This implies that being killed and being placed in the dead pile are separate steps (ie a companion could be killed but not placed in the dead pile)  I would argue that a companion would have to have been killed before being placed in the dead pile.  Therefore, its possible to have to use Sam's ability before Frodo is placed in the dead pile.

I think this is not what's it meant. A comp can be killed and not be placed in the dead pile because of cards like: The Dead City.