Followers, aid, transfering etc..

[mardukra]

http://lotrtcgwiki.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=4759

Good ol' bib

[sgtdraino]

I feel like this issue was never truly resolved, and on Gemp it has arisen again:

There is a disagreement on Gemp about how the way Followers are supposed to work. Specifically, whether or not you can transfer them from one companion to another at the start of a second (or third) Maneuver Phase. Aradriss, who says he's a judge on LOTR championships, claims that Followers can only be transferred from your support area to a companion, not from one companion to another. Is he right, or not? Here's what the Hunters Rulebook has to say about Followers (I have bolded what I think are the pertinent parts):

Followers
Follower is a new card type. A follower represents help for
your fellowship that joins for a short time and then departs.
Followers are not members of your fellowship. They are not
allies or companions. They are not characters, although they
are often named and depicted with images of people from
the story. Even though a follower may seem as if it were an
Elf or Hobbit or Wizard, it can't be spotted as such because
a follower doesn't have a race on its card type line. Followers
can't bear other cards, including possessions or conditions.
A follower is played to your support area. While your
follower is in your support area, it has no effect on the game.
Each follower has the keyword "Aid" (see below) which you
can use to transfer that follower to one of your companions.
When your follower is borne by a companion, that follower
will provide an ongoing effect or a special ability that
may then be used. A companion may bear more than one
follower. If that companion is killed, all of its followers are
discarded, just like other cards borne by that companion.
During the regroup phase, when the Free Peoples player
reconciles and minions are discarded, each follower is
transferred back to the support area (at no cost). Follower
cards have a gold circle in the upper left to remind you to
return them to the support area.
In later turns, that follower may again be transferred to a
companion (the same one or a different one, your choice)
using the above procedure.

Aid
This keyword has the form of "Aid – X," where "X" is the
cost to use the aid keyword. You use the aid keyword as
a maneuver action. At the start of the maneuver phase,
you may pay the aid cost to transfer that follower to your
companion. Place it beneath the card, just like a possession
or condition borne by that companion. The follower is
borne by the companion for the rest of the turn, no matter
how often your fellowship moves. You don't have to pay
the aid cost again for a follower borne by a companion in a
subsequent maneuver phase.

Additionally, many Follower cards have clarification text in parentheses that says, "(At the start of the maneuver phase, you may ____ to transfer this to a ____.)" No mention of the card having to be in the support area to do this.

So, on the one hand, the definition of "Aid" only specifies "transfer to companion" not "transfer from support area to companion." However, the definition of "Aid" also says, "The follower is borne by the companion for the rest of the turn, no matter how often your fellowship moves," which seems to indicate that it stays on that same companion, you can't transfer it to a different guy during subsequent moves.

I know around here it's generally accepted on Gemp that you can transfer Followers from one companion to another (or one minion to another, in Saruman's case), but is there actually an additional rules basis for that view? If so, what is it? As various other posters have noted upthread, "The follower is borne by the companion for the rest of the turn, no matter how often your fellowship moves," seems to indicate you can't. That was also the consensus here:

http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,5480.0.html

So, is Gemp doing it wrong? Considering how massively powerful Followers are when you can transfer them every move, perhaps limiting this to once-per-turn actually makes sense, and is what Decipher intended when they designed them?

[bibfortuna25]

The correct way of playing it is, you can re-transfer them from companion-to-companion if you double move.

[sgtdraino]

The correct way of playing it is, you can re-transfer them from companion-to-companion if you double move.

Yes, I get that you have said that before. But what is your basis for saying that? The wording of the Rulebook, "The follower is borne by the companion for the rest of the turn, no matter how often your fellowship moves," as well as the consensus on what Decipher's intent was in this thread:

http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,5480.0.html

...all seem to indicate that, once you use the Aid feature at the start of a maneuver phase, that Follower remains on the targeted companion (or minion) unless some specific game text overrides that.

[bibfortuna25]

The rulebook says that to clarify that the follower doesn't go back to your support area until your turn ends.

[sgtdraino]

The rulebook says that to clarify that the follower doesn't go back to your support area until your turn ends.

That is certainly one interpretation. But how do you know that this is all that sentence was intended to mean? The rules never talk about transferring followers between companions, and if "The follower is borne by the companion for the rest of the turn" is part of the definition of "Aid" (which it is), that would seem to preclude the possibility of transferring that Follower off of that companion to a different companion. After all, then it wouldn't be borne by the initial companion for the rest of the turn. And this isn't a case of game text overriding the rules, since all of this is encompassed in the definition of the "Aid" loaded keyword.

Are you aware of any official tournament rulings, or anything else that would clarify Decipher's original intent?

Just read the rulebooks again, and I think that the only transferring that can be done is between a companion and the support-area. I see nowhere to suggest that they can simply be transferred between companions.

From Page 38 of The Hunters Starter Rulebook under Followers:

During the regroup phase, when the Free Peoples player reconciles and minions are discarded, each follower is transferred back to the support area (at no cost).

In later turns, that follower may again be transferred to a companion (the same one or a diiferent one, your choice)


This also suggests to me that followers are only meant to be transferred once per turn.

For easy reference, these are all the rules we have for followers. Now it is very significant that at no point in the description of the aid keyword does it specifically say it has to transfer from the support area.

However, the follower section suggests to me that this was always the intention, especially the line I've made bold above.

So, as far as I can see, while technically the rules do not forbid transferring from companion to companion, we are also ruling on intentions here, and the intention seems to me that this should not be the case.

I would suggest a clarification for the aid phrasing in the Unofficial Rulebook: Aid – X (Pay X to transfer this follower from your support area to your non-ally character). (This also applies the same text to Shadow followers).

Thranduil

Finally located Decipher's article on followers (part 1, part 2), but the explanation is what's found in the rulebook.

No objections on my end if transfers were restricted. I think that if companion-to-companion transfers were intended, the rules would point this out somewhere.

Thran's suggestion sounds good.

Option 1 it is.  The "Unofficial Rulebook" has been updated.

[bibfortuna25]

The bottom line is, the cards allow it and the rules don't forbid it. You can transfer followers from companion to companion on a second move, regardless of anyone's opinion to the contrary.

[sgtdraino]

The only way the cards would allow it, would be if cards had specific game text that permits it. They do not. There is the bit inside the parenthesis, but that is not game text and is not supposed to directly affect the game. What governs the way Followers work, is the "Aid" loaded keyword, and that is fully-defined by the rules in the rulebook, not by italic text in parentheses.

[bibfortuna25]

Nowhere in the rules does it say it has to transfer from the support area. Contrast this with the Gondor fortifications and the answer is obvious.

[dethwish07]

Just wanted to point this out:

http://lotrtcgwiki.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=4304&start=10&sid=fa3f2e3cde5c64234fe02a9dbe909246

User Manu-fan posts a little ways down the thread. That username is probably familiar to you if you have browsed CC, Decktech.net, or Deciphers boards. He notes that multiple transfers of the same follower in a single turn was discussed and confirmed as legal on the Decipher boards. Merrick's (a DAgent and Rider of Rohan) analysis of the situation also indicates that this is correct as well. I attempted to use the wayback machine to confirm but no gameplay subforum pages beyond the first are archived. However, to try and settle things once and for all, I have tried contacting Girard (Design Lead of Bloodlines) via twitter. I have also tried to go straight to the horse's mouth, Mr. Tom Lischke, the man who designed the follower card type, via facebook. I'll post any responses from them here, assuming I get any.

[sgtdraino]

Thank you for taking the effort to research the matter more fully, dethwish. Good luck with Tom, I had a contact in Decipher at one point too, but last time I went to him with a question I got no response. For the record, I originally thought you could transfer during every maneuver phase too, but that guy I played got me rethinking things.

Also for the record, honestly, I think restricting the transfers would make followers a lot more balanced. If the rules are vague enough such that it could be interpreted either way, I think it's probably better for the game if Followers were depowered a bit.

[Zurcamos]

I find these debates so frustrating since they boil down to opinion vs. opinion.  There are people here that I'm shocked anyone still listens to.  They have an inability to see themselves as wrong, no matter how many times their self-proclaimed, irrefutable logic is proven to be quite refutable.

In the end, it doesn't matter anyway, because what (I imagine) everyone else REALLY wants is for interpretation of rules in Gemp to be reevaluated and/or changed, and I don't think that happens.  Gemp is a dictatorship, not a democracy, and though the king may be wrong, nobody wants exile.

Edit: My was at +9 the last time I logged in.  Guess one of the people I mentioned above accomplished some pretty impressive/mature revenge...  Remember when playing/discussing this (dead) card game on the internet used to be a pleasant experience?  I do.  I miss it.

[dethwish07]

In my view, things should be left as they are. I used to be one of the people who really wanted a Player's Committee like Star Wars and Star Trek have (I played both of these games as well, star wars more so). Those PC's have done a great job carrying on those games and balancing them (in my opinion, anyway).

However, due to a lack of consensus and a cohesive effort on the part of LotR players, a LotR TCG PC has never materialized. 2E seemed like an attempt to start over and be more balanced (much in the same way 2E did for Star Trek), but the hype around it has subsided and it appears to have fallen by the way side, at least somewhat. So, I'm of the position that until we have a broad consensus for a PC, there should be no rules changes, banned or restricted list changes, etc. I would not support modifying the way followers are currently playable on Gemp as that is how I and my play group have played them since their release in 2005. I'll gladly reconsider, but it would take some major movement on the part of players (or a response from Mr. Lischke). Ultimately, Marcin can make the decision regarding rules within Gemp. That's his call.

Lastly, if we are looking at changing things for power level reasons, there are higher priority problem cards/combos.

My $0.02

@Zurcamos: I assume the king you are referring to is Marcin? I think he has done an excellent job trying to maintain the game Decipher gave us in Gemp just as they gave it to us, for good or ill. If you have a problem with the way things play on gemp, your problem should be with Decipher. If Marcin were to just change the rules to fit his own design rather than trying to implement Deciphers game as it was released and played, then he would be the dictator you mention.

Lastly, clearly the majority of people playing on gemp find it acceptable, or I'd imagine we'd have a whole lot more people here complaining as opposed to the vocal few who do actually raise their concerns/complaints.

Sorry if I've misunderstood you. If I have, please clarify.

[Zurcamos]

I assume the king you are referring to is Marcin? I think he has done an excellent job trying to maintain the game Decipher gave us in Gemp just as they gave it to us, for good or ill. If you have a problem with the way things play on gemp, your problem should be with Decipher. If Marcin were to just change the rules to fit his own design rather than trying to implement Deciphers game as it was released and played, then he would be the dictator you mention.

Lastly, clearly the majority of people playing on gemp find it acceptable, or I'd imagine we'd have a whole lot more people here complaining as opposed to the vocal few who do actually raise their concerns/complaints.

Sorry if I've misunderstood you. If I have, please clarify.

I never mentioned changing rules.  Obviously, there are pretty big disagreements about how some rules should be interpreted.  Marcin chose which interpretations to implement.  Those decisions are on him, not Decipher, regardless of how poorly the D handled things.  He's a dictator whether you or I agree with those decisions or not, because he alone is in complete control.  I didn't say he was a bad king; I just said he was the king.  Now, should there be changes?  It's his site, and he can do what he wants, blah blah blah, but I very much think some of his interpretations, and some of the ones on this site, are not always the best or most correct.  I think some of them make the game less enjoyable.  Does it matter what I or anyone else thinks though?  Nope.  That's why it's frustrating.

[dethwish07]

Thanks for clarifying your position. For what it is worth, I understand your frustration.