What are some anti-Gollum strategies?

[sgtdraino]

On an unrelated note, the CR ruling on O Elbereth! Githoniel!:

O ELBERETH! GITHONIEL!  2 R 108
As skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer
cannot be cancelled, the skirmish action of this
condition can only be used to take off The One
Ring.

...would seem to indicate that skirmishes with the Ring-bearer cannot be cancelled in any format. I believe Gemp still allows these to be cancelled in certain formats.

[Haszor]

On an unrelated note, the CR ruling on O Elbereth! Githoniel!:

O ELBERETH! GITHONIEL!  2 R 108
As skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer
cannot be cancelled, the skirmish action of this
condition can only be used to take off The One
Ring.

...would seem to indicate that skirmishes with the Ring-bearer cannot be cancelled in any format. I believe Gemp still allows these to be cancelled in certain formats.

I believe that ruling was made for the movie format, so that the alternate ring-bearers wouldn't use stuff like Voice of Nimrodel, Boromir's Gauntlets, etc.  So, in any format prior to that, the card can cancel the skirmish.

[sgtdraino]

I believe that ruling was made for the movie format, so that the alternate ring-bearers wouldn't use stuff like Voice of Nimrodel, Boromir's Gauntlets, etc.  So, in any format prior to that, the card can cancel the skirmish.

The ruling does not make reference to any particular format. It appears in the CR, as well as every version of the CRD. Additionally, the CR has this general definition and clarification on the term "Ring-bearer":

Ring-bearer
One Free Peoples character always begins the
game as your Ring-bearer. (See building your
deck.) He bears The One Ring for you, much as
when Frodo carried the Ring in his pocket or on
a chain around his neck.
If a character other than Frodo is your Ring-bearer, you cannot play any version of Frodo
with the Ring-bearer keyword during the game.
While wearing The One Ring, your Ring-bearer
can perform all normal actions such as moving
and skirmishing. He may defend against
attacking minions as usual.
The Ring-bearer cannot be discarded or returned
to your hand, and skirmishes involving the Ring-bearer cannot be cancelled.

There do not appear to be any exceptions to this, for any format.

[ramolnar]

sgtdraino, you are technically correct. I believe that during the creation of Gemp, the majority of players wanted the older formats (Fellowship Block, Towers Block, Towers Standard) to have the skirmish cancelling rule that existed at that time. And so Gemp plays that way as an explicit exception. It's not completely consistent, but it makes Hobbits much more playable in those formats.

[sgtdraino]

sgtdraino, you are technically correct. I believe that during the creation of Gemp, the majority of players wanted the older formats (Fellowship Block, Towers Block, Towers Standard) to have the skirmish cancelling rule that existed at that time. And so Gemp plays that way as an explicit exception. It's not completely consistent, but it makes Hobbits much more playable in those formats.

<shrug> I have no particular problem with that. But that does mean that Gemp is already operating under a pretty major unofficial "house rule" contrary to what Decipher handed down. Gemp formats that allow Ring-bearers to cancel skirmishes are therefore not really operating in an official capacity. Perhaps this can open the door to additional Gemp house rules that serve to improve the playability of various formats.

[bibfortuna25]

So, going back to Clever Hobbits, here is how I believe the scenario works:

1) FP plays Clever Hobbits from hand, adding 2 twilight.
2) FP chooses which conditions he would like to discard.
3) Those conditions enter the "about to be discarded" state.
4) Deceit can then respond to each attempted discard, depending on how much twilight is available.
5) Any conditions Deceit does not protect get discarded, and Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
6) Clever Hobbits is placed in the FP's discard pile.

Any comments?

[sgtdraino]

So, going back to Clever Hobbits, here is how I believe the scenario works:

1) FP plays Clever Hobbits from hand, adding 2 twilight.
2) FP chooses which conditions he would like to discard.
3) Those conditions enter the "about to be discarded" state.
4) Deceit can then respond to each attempted discard, depending on how much twilight is available.
5) Any conditions Deceit does not protect get discarded, and Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
6) Clever Hobbits is placed in the FP's discard pile.

Any comments?

I think my issue with the above, is that (to my knowledge) regarding a single action which discards multiple conditions, Decipher never broke that action down into any sort of "targeting phase" or "discarding phase" (after which you can no longer target). I posted over in archives what I think are the relevant issues regarding this, but got no response. Here it is again:

Also, you could play Clever Hobbits and then continually attempt to discard a condition until they ran out of twilight.

I'd like to continue the discussion on whether or not the above actually does hold true or not. For starters, here is the official ruling on Fortress Never Fallen from the CRD:

FORTRESS NEVER FALLEN  4 U 276
The effect of this condition's special ability
when the card has more than one token is
simultaneous. Several conditions are discarded
at the same time. Siege Engine responds to these
discards by preventing all of them.
You have three tokens on Fortress Never Fallen
when you use its special ability. You select three
Shadow conditions to be discarded (including my
Siege Engine), and discard Fortress Never Fallen.
I use the response special ability on Siege Engine,
which technically saves all three conditions, but
then I discard Siege Engine to pay its own cost.

The first issue being whether Clever Hobbits discards conditions one at a time, or simultaneously. It seems to me that the FNF ruling makes it more likely that Clever Hobbits discards simultaneously, UNLESS a response action breaks up this process.

The second issue has to do with what happens (or doesn't happen) when X is greater than the number of conditions on the table. For example, suppose FNF has 5 tokens on it, and the only conditions on the table are two copies of Deceit, and one copy of Final Strike. 3 twilight in the pool. FNF is activated, X=5, the card says discard 5 conditions. Deceit is used to prevent three discards, but once that is done, FNF still mandates that 2 more conditions be discarded, and 3 conditions can still be spotted in play. Must two more conditions still be discarded? Or are the three conditions still protected for the remainder of the action by Deceit?

Why, or why not?

Third issue: When using a card that discards multiple conditions, I find that many players have a tendency to believe there is only a "single sweep," or that the action is broken down into sub-phases where you first target all the conditions you can target, then you attempt to discard them, and then you aren't able to target any more. The question is, is this actually based on any sort of rule or ruling? As far as I can tell, it is not. The act of playing or using a card that discards multiple conditions in a single action is just that: A single action. During the course of that action players might do things one at a time for the sake of expediency (it is difficult to literally pick up 12 cards simultaneously), but so far as the game is concerned, everything is conceptually happening at once, and a response action simply pauses that single action, which then continues after the response action ends. Is my understanding correct? Why or why not?

Issue 4: Clever Hobbits says, "Discard any number of Gollum conditions." At what point is X defined in this equation? Is it defined at the start of the action? If so, can I declare some ridiculously high number, like 40, to make sure I get rid of them all? Why or why not? OR is X variable during the course of the entire action? Do I just keep discarding Gollum conditions until I decide to stop? Why or why not?

Issue 5: Some conditions, such as Deep in Thought or Saruman's Power, discard ALL conditions. Conceptually this happens simultaneously, even though the cards are actually discarded one at a time for expediency. What happens when an action like this is interrupted by a response that prevents a condition (or more than one condition) from being discarded? One "sweep" is made, and at the end of it conditions can still be spotted on the table... yet the effect of the card says to discard ALL of them. The Comprehensive Rules say:

If the effect of a card or special ability requires
you to perform an action and you cannot, you
must perform as much as you can and ignore the
rest.

So, do the remaining conditions on the table still get discarded to satisfy the "all" requirement of the effect? Or does the response action that prevented the conditions from being discarded earlier continue to protect those conditions for the remainder of the action? Why, or why not?

Issue 6: Response actions which prevent a card from being discarded. Does such an action literally only prevent a card from being discarded one time, or does such an action prevent a card from being discarded for the duration of the entire action attempting to discard it? Why, or why not?

When addressing Issue 6, it may also be useful to think about response actions which prevent other things from happening. Do such actions protect cards from the entirety of an action, or from the specific part of that action they are preventing?

I'm really looking to see lots of references to the official Comprehensive Rules and Current Rulings Documents as people address these issues. If we can nail down specific answers to these, grounded upon official rulings, I think it will form a consistent basis of how many condition discarding cards (as well as response actions) are meant to be interpreted. Thanks in advance for the help.

[Hobbiton Lad]

So, going back to Clever Hobbits, here is how I believe the scenario works:

1) FP plays Clever Hobbits from hand, adding 2 twilight.
2) FP chooses which conditions he would like to discard.
3) Those conditions enter the "about to be discarded" state.
4) Deceit can then respond to each attempted discard, depending on how much twilight is available.
5) Any conditions Deceit does not protect get discarded, and Smeagol gets his bonus based on how many are actually discarded.
6) Clever Hobbits is placed in the FP's discard pile.

Any comments?

This seems quite reasonable to be. Makes sense.

[sgtdraino]

Okay, this may simplify things considerably. From CR 3.0:

Response actions

Response is a timing word that means
that you may play an event (or use a
special ability) whenever the situation
described in its game text happens.

You may respond more than once to the
same situation.

Sometimes a response action interrupts
another action to cancel it before it
resolves. when this happens, that other
action does not have its effect, but its
costs and requirements are still paid.

This was reworded somewhat with CR 4.0. But if we take this as gospel, it seems to mean that a response action affects the entire action it is interrupting, not just part of that action. To me, this means that if a response action prevents part of an action from affecting a card in some way, that card remains protected from that action for the entire duration of the action. That would apply to an action trying to discard a card, but it would also apply to an action attempting to do something else to a card. For example, if a single action attempts to wound a single character multiple times, a response action preventing a wound on that character should prevent that single action from affecting it again for the duration of the action. Now, the big question is, are there any rulings that conflict with this interpretation? If so, then we're back to square one.

[bibfortuna25]

If an effect requires a companion to be wounded twice and you play Intimidate on the first wound, the second wound will still go through. Net result, only 1 wound is placed on the companion.

The rules segment you quoted refers to a situation like Grishnakh, Orc Captain and Unheeded. If Unheeded responds to his first exertion, Grishnakh's effect doesn't take place because he didn't exert twice.

[sgtdraino]

If an effect requires a companion to be wounded twice and you play Intimidate on the first wound, the second wound will still go through. Net result, only 1 wound is placed on the companion.

Are you certain? Can you point to where the rules back this up? If so, it would mean that a response action does not protect a card from the entirety of an action.

[bibfortuna25]

Intimidate only prevents one wound, not two. That's all there is to it. There doesn't need to be a rules segment backing this up because that's simply how it works. If not, then everyone has been using Intimidate wrongly all these years when using it on a companion who loses a skirmish to an Uruk.

[jdizzy001]

I'm with Bib on his one sgt (speaking specifically for intimidate), Intimidate blocks 1 wound, it does not cancel all wounds. Look at Gimli's Helmet, it specifically states prevent ALL wounds.

If memory serves, when addressing wounds, they are placed one at a time, that is why promise keeping is such a horrid card to have used against you when you have a pile of threats which become activated due to a companion death.

Another example would be using terrible and evil. If I exert gandalf 3x to wound a Nazgul 3x + 1 and the shadow player uses His Terrible Servants to cancel it, the shadow must respond for each wound not the event. They will have to remove twilight for each wound so 4. It would be pretty cheese if they could respond by removing (1) and cancel the whole thing.

[bibfortuna25]

Conversely, Intimidate can't be used on Morgul Brute or Morgul Destroyer, at least not without the default effect of the burden/threat being added.

[sgtdraino]

Okay, I think this is progress. I particularly like the Intimidate example, because it is worded very similarly to Deceit.

Intimidate:

Response: If a companion is about to take a wound, spot Gandalf to prevent that wound.

Deceit

Response: If a free people player's card is about to discard your other Gollum condition, remove 1 twilight to prevent that.

If there is general agreement that a single response action from Intimidate does not protect a card from being wounded for the entire duration of an action, is there also general agreement that a single response action from Deceit does not protect a card from being discarded for the entire duration of an action?