Post your Gemp-LotR bugs here

[Kralik]

In that case, can I get a concise requirements that have to be met to be able to play an action?

Is it:
1. You have to be able to pay all the costs (obviously).
2. You have to meet all the requirements.
3. If an action as its effect plays a card from hand or discard (only these two places), you have to have a legally playable card in hand or discard).
Correct?

You posted this just as I was posting mine. Those three seem to make sense to me, but I think now I'm going to bow out of the discussion until someone else with more experience (bib?) can comment. Thanks for all you do!

EDIT: HawkEyeSPF also has a good handle on the rules and some "official" LotR experience. He was active earlier today, so I sent him a PM for input.

[Grond]

the msg window that opens is bugged and the text is like 3 rows long. Same in few other cards that give options, can't remember the exact ones unfortunately.
Marcins, can you please make a statement why we are playing +1 round on the dailies.. just share with us the formula/reason for that. Thank you and keep on the amazing work!

The formula is simple:
n - number of competitors at start of tournament
rounds = roundUp(log2(n))+1

So why is there +1? That makes the whole last round without any sense, and after that round there are like 3 people sharing first prize because the only unbeaten player is always downpaired  with someone with a lose (usually the 3rd or even the 4th of the standings) since the 2nd will be the one who played the last round before that.... That makes no sense, I as an ex-tournament organizer I haven't seen any tournament on any game to play with this formula. Against that makes no sense besides giving opportunity the winner to be decided by tiebreakers instead of the last player unbeaten!

An example - 8 players:
rounds = roundUp(log2(8))+1
r = roundUp(3) +1
r = 4.
So 1st round
1vs8
2vs7
3vs6
4vs5
-------------------
half of the players lost,

 round 2
-------------------
1vs2
3vs4
-------------------
round 3 : 1vs3
=================
winner and only unbeaten player  - 1, oh noes we need to play 4th round :
1 played with3, played with 2 so he needs to play with 4 (who is the 4th in the standings)

for 9 players, its exactly the same thing, but in the 5th round...

[HawkeyeSPF]

I would rule that it follows the same restrictions as actions which play cards from one's hand or discard pile, though Decipher probably should have stated it explicitly. Star Wars CCG has something called the "Implied Targeting Rule" (advanced rulebook here, page 1-12), and it would probably be in the best interest of the game for LotR to adopt aspects of it as well.

If Madril and IB are so prevalent in your area or group, why not switch to a shadow that handles possessions better, like Corsairs? Even if you don't want to switch, you can use Grond to get rid of IB by itself, or use Gothmog Lieutenant of Morgul to spread around some wounds, hopefully killing a companion and popping off the threats. Wraiths have always paired well with Sauron and I know Cantea has always had a thing for discarding possessions. What I'm saying is there are ways of dealing with IB/Madril.

[dark293]

honestly just saying my part Even in the case of Threat removal the fact they can add another 9 and just IB or What are they in manuever kills most of the stuff and grond never gets with the commonality of roll of thunder and Deep in thought also Is everyone supposed to play Corsairs just for that maybe 1 in 5 games against the Sad case of madril bullying i mean i have met people on here that have built madril decks since people abused it vs them

[Kralik]

HawkeyeSPF has spoken!

Maybe we should take it to the deckbuilding forum to talk about how to counter Madril/IB. Probably most cultures have *something* useful. Taking Grond as an example: if you're using , throw some Hate into the mix. As long as you have two minions, one of them is likely to get a kill in the Manuever phase vs. the exerting IB companion, and the threats are gone.

But I don't play Expanded anyway just because of the general ridiculousness of it all.

[dark293]

frankly i just think i'm done since really the only true counter is the one faction i can't play Gollum Final strike

[Ringbearer]

What I play in expanded is just a few ships of great draught. Any threats added can be eaten up, and threats added in the maneuver dont trigger madril cause he happens AT THE START of the maneuver phase.

[dark293]

theres the issue i have with Gemp Everyone focuses on just Ships of great draught it's like raiders are the only clue there are other cards but frankly the others just get wiped away

[Ringbearer]

No, I dont play corsairs, just 3 ships and thats all.

[Eukalyptus]

I would rule that it follows the same restrictions as actions which play cards from one's hand or discard pile, though Decipher probably should have stated it explicitly. Star Wars CCG has something called the "Implied Targeting Rule" (advanced rulebook here, page 1-12), and it would probably be in the best interest of the game for LotR to adopt aspects of it as well.

So basically, I can't exert Gandalf 1P to play no companion?

If Madril and IB are so prevalent in your area or group, why not switch to a shadow that handles possessions better, like Corsairs? Even if you don't want to switch, you can use Grond to get rid of IB by itself, or use Gothmog Lieutenant of Morgul to spread around some wounds, hopefully killing a companion and popping off the threats. Wraiths have always paired well with Sauron and I know Cantea has always had a thing for discarding possessions. What I'm saying is there are ways of dealing with IB/Madril.

And how exactly are you getting those sites for Gothmog? Cantea gets discarded first thing in maneuver. Those are not really an option. BUT! Raiders isn't the only shadow that gets the better of Madril. Gollum w/ Final Strike, the Orc culture with Rallying Orc, The Balrog that skips maneuver, Greed and so on.

[MarcinS]

So basically, I can't exert Gandalf 1P to play no companion?

Indeed, you cannot exert Gandalf, the Grey Wizard, if you have no playable companion in your hand.

[MarcinS]

Starting from next restart, I've reduced the number of rounds for swiss tournaments to:
roundUp(log2(n))
from
roundUp(log2(n))+1

[Grond]

Thank you !!!

[sgtdraino]

"This exception" refers to:

"Exception:
If you perform an action that has playing a card
from hand or discard pile as part of its effect, you
must play that card."

Which states that you must play a card (if you can), not that you must be able to play a card before paying the costs.

The earlier paragraph about having to be able to play a card before paying the cost refers only to hand and discard.

"If an action plays a card from your hand (or
discard pile) as part of its effect, then that card
must be in your hand (or discard pile) before you
can begin to perform that action..."

In that case, can I get a concise requirements that have to be met to be able to play an action?

Is it:
1. You have to be able to pay all the costs (obviously).
2. You have to meet all the requirements.
3. If an action as its effect plays a card from hand or discard (only these two places), you have to have a legally playable card in hand or discard).

Correct?

Incidentally, I think I can see that perhaps the (be able to) is implied, but regardless, Decipher's wording could use some work. If the first paragraph and the "exception" were referring to the same thing, they really should have been combined, perhaps like:

If an action plays a card as part of its effect, then that card must be able to be played before you can begin to perform that action (except playing a card directly from your draw deck). See draw deck.

I think that is worth pointing out. If the (be able to) truly is implied, then the second paragraph is pretty much redundant to the first. What's the point of it? To me, it makes more sense that the second paragraph is actually talking about something different than the first: Carrying out the effects of an action, verses requirements you must meet before you can take the action.

I would rule that it follows the same restrictions as actions which play cards from one's hand or discard pile, though Decipher probably should have stated it explicitly. Star Wars CCG has something called the "Implied Targeting Rule" (advanced rulebook here, page 1-12), and it would probably be in the best interest of the game for LotR to adopt aspects of it as well.

The bottom line, is that as written, the rules only prohibit the action when playing from your hand or discard pile. The other paragraph could indeed refer to the requirement of carrying out an effect to the fullest extent possible, and as written that is in fact what it is saying. LOTR is not SWCCG, they are totally different animals. A rule for one should not imply the same rule for the other. I think the rules should be enforced as they are written, unless we can get an actual Decipher person to weigh in on the issue.

[bibfortuna25]

The bottom line:

If there are no minions stacked, or you cannot play one, you can use TMC to remove a threat for no effect. However, if you use it and there is a stacked minion that you can play, you have to play it.