What are some anti-Gollum strategies?

[jdizzy001]

Zurcamos has a point. When we play Fellowship or TS block what we are doing is simulating the way the rules used to play. Regardless of what the rules say now. Its the same as if we use a card that has been banned … like anything from the first 6 sets. Is it "right" by how the CRD's read? Who cares, it is meant to simulate older conditions.

As for the other things we spoke of previously, I will post that when I have a bit more time. I am off for work at the moment and only had time to post a brief comment.

[jdizzy001]

i've been consulting my LOTR rule books, and the response rule, which seems to be troubling us, is the rule in question. If the rule was interpreted in a vaccum I think sgt would have a point. However, the rules are not subject to a vaccum and must be looked at as a whole. Timing rules from the rulebooks I looked at (FOTR, MoM, ROTEL, and Hunters) indicate that the action of a card can be performed only once per copy of the card played and the effects of the card last the duration of the current phase (drawing from the secret sentinals example, 2 conditions may be discarded). provided cost has been played the freeps may target 2 conditions. if the shadow responds with deceit and removes 1 twilight they may cancel 1 discard. Timing rules indicate that the discarding caused by sentinels can only occur 1 time, therefore after the freeps player has selected 2 conditions they cant reactivate their decision soley because deceit was used to cancel 1 of the discards.

the cost and effect rules also play into this. the freeps player paid to discard 2 conditions and the shadow player paid to "save" 1 condition, thus 1 condition must still be discarded, regardless of the response rules because the effect paid for was not fulfilled to its fullest. that is how i interpret the rules of response, timing, and cost & effect.

also, i mentioned earlier that wounds are applied at the same time. why didnt anyone call me on that? I stand (self) corrected, wounds are applied 1 at a time as per every rule book produced.

[sgtdraino]

You keep asking for rules documents to back up our side. Well, where does it say in the rules that you can choose the condition again if Deceit saves it?

"All cards do what they say, no more, no less."

It makes much more sense with my interpretation,

Interpretation of what? As far as I can tell, you aren't "interpreting" anything, you're abiding by some imaginary rule.

and since that's how Gemp does it,

Meaningless.

and no one other than you has a problem with it,

Apparently TheJord has a problem with it. I sure wish he'd weigh in on this discussion!

you are the one who is required to cite sources, not me.

As I've long said, Gemp has the power to do what it wants, Decipher be damned. But I believe MarcinS does want to play it as by-the-book official as he can.

*I* have cited sources, the CRs, the CRDs, and even the ruling given in Archives. I would prefer that Clever Hobbits be a viable answer to Deceit, but I *am* strictly by the book. You are a smart guy, Bib, but ultimately your opinion is meaningless unless you can support what you say via official documents or official sources. If you can do that, I would happily consider the matter to be settled. This isn't about winning the argument, this is simply about determining what the rules for these type of actions actually are. "Because I say so" and "because we always played it like that" are not valid responses to this issue.

I think I figured out where you're coming from, sgt.

You are treating condition discarding like archery fire:

That's not exactly correct, but you're in the ballpark, because I think the same mechanic also works with multiple characters wounded at once, and (probably) with adding multiple threats simultaneously as well. With multiple character wounding, the difference is that once each character has taken 1 hit, any overage is then ignored. That's different than archery fire. The same concept applies to condition discarding, except that you can't really discard a condition more than once, because once it's gone, it's gone.

you have X scheduled discards, and you keep going until X runs out or all available conditions are gone.

Correct. "All cards do what they say, no more, no less."

The problem is, there is nothing in the rules to back up your claim.

Of course the rules back up my claim, as I have repeatedly cited.

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.

If a player is paying costs for a card and a
response action occurs which modifies those
costs, that player must continue to pay as many
costs as he can, even if it is no longer possible to
pay them all.

In all instances of choosing X cards to be affected by Y effect, you choose all of them at once, and then they receive their effect.

That's all well and good for you to say... it simply doesn't seem to be what the rules reflect. When you play a card, you first pay the costs, and then the card has its effects. Choosing to discard cards, and then discarding those cards, are not separate phases or steps, they are all part of the effect (or, in the case of Clever Hobbits, the cost). The choosing and the discarding, in terms of game play, all happen simultaneously. If you interrupt that action with a response action, then once your response action concludes, the original action resumes. You didn't somehow place your response action between the choosing and the discarding, because there is no "between" the choosing and the discarding. It all happens at the same time, according the the official rules of the game.

ETA: Actually, i have to back off this position a bit, due to the FNF ruling (see bottom of post).

you choose all of them at once, and then they receive their effect.

Choosing cards to be discarded is by definition part of the effect.

Sgt:
I don't understand why you think that the fact that some effect has multiple targets changes that you have to declare those target(S) the time you play that effect...

Assuming those targets are not part of the costs, then declaring targets and applying the effect to whatever targets you declared is all part of the same effect. In terms of gameplay, it happens simultaneously.

I think perhaps some people are a bit biased because they've become accustomed to the mechanics that Gemp currently employs. Gemp is fantastic! But it's not perfect, and it's not official.

I think your confusion is coming from Boromir, BoC + Armor/ Ring of Rings ruling, which is a different case.

That is a different case, however it may be useful to examine that: The ruling you speak of, is that if Armor or Ring of Rings prevents Boromir from taking 2 wounds, then (logically) Boromir was not wounded twice, and consequently the other part of his text triggers.

A response action which prevents an effect happening to a card a single time, does not continue to prevent additional effects from happening to that card for the duration of the original action or the phase. I think we're all agreed on that, with the Intimidate example.

And if a response action prevents an effect from happening to a card, then (obviously) that effect did not happen to that card.

Check this out: From CR 4.0 on Wound:

When a character is wounded by an enemy
attack, his vitality is depleted. Place a wound
token on the character to illustrate this. Glass
beads (preferably blood red) make good tokens
for this purpose.

Wounds are always placed on a character one at
a time.

When you "wound a character," you place only
one wound.

If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).

A wounded character is a character who has at
least one wound token.

If a character cannot take wounds, wounds
cannot be assigned to that character. However,
if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character.

Faramir, Wizard's Pupil reads: "Skirmish: Exert
Gandalf to prevent all wounds to Faramir." This
prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.

So, for the sake of argument, suppose The Trees are Strong worked during the skirmish phase. You could use Faramir's text or Gimli's Helm to have a single character absorb all of those wounds, because preventing a wound means the character was never wounded in the first place, and the prevention only prevents the wounds, not the assignments. The rules above explicitly state that a card like The Trees are Strong requires you to wound different characters, but it does not require you to choose different characters if those characters don't actually get wounded.

Logically, the same applies to condition discarding. Yes, when you "discard a card," you only discard it once, because once it's discarded, it's not there anymore. But if a response action prevents the card from being discarded, then it was never discarded. Such actions prevent a card from being discarded, but they do not prevent the assignments themselves. If a card's effect says "discard 8 conditions," then you must either discard 8 conditions, prevent 8 conditions from being discarded, or discard all of the conditions on the table, and ignore the rest of the effects. If you still see a condition out on the table, and your card's effects tell you to keep discarding conditions, then that is what you do.

No one, not even Decipher, has the right to change the way the game was played in the past.

You're right! But since nobody's invented a time machine yet, good luck traveling back in time to 2003.

What "Fellowship Block" means is playing the game as it was played when the first three sets were the standard environment.

"Fellowship Block" is an official Decipher format for playing the game, and it abides by whatever rules Decipher establishes to play that format. When Decipher changed the rules, people had to abide by those changes... or else they were no longer really playing the official format. Decipher decided that Ring-bearer skirmishes could no longer be canceled, period. They applied that rule to every official format.

If Decipher released a CR today (and technically they could) saying that the only legal ring-bearer is Bearer of Council, and now you can cancel his skirmishes, would I follow it?  Absolutely not.  Would you?

Probably not... but then I am in favor of house rules. I would play in the manner that was most fun for me to play, but I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that I was playing according the the official rules.

When we play Fellowship or TS block what we are doing is simulating the way the rules used to play. Regardless of what the rules say now. Its the same as if we use a card that has been banned … like anything from the first 6 sets. Is it "right" by how the CRD's read? Who cares, it is meant to simulate older conditions.

And that's cool! It's just not official. But back to the topic at hand: As best I can tell, what Bib has suggested regarding condition discarding was never a rule.

i've been consulting my LOTR rule books, and the response rule, which seems to be troubling us, is the rule in question. If the rule was interpreted in a vaccum I think sgt would have a point. However, the rules are not subject to a vaccum and must be looked at as a whole.

I really appreciate the effort.

Timing rules from the rulebooks I looked at (FOTR, MoM, ROTEL, and Hunters) indicate that the action of a card can be performed only once per copy of the card played and the effects of the card last the duration of the current phase (drawing from the secret sentinals example, 2 conditions may be discarded). provided cost has been played the freeps may target 2 conditions. if the shadow responds with deceit and removes 1 twilight they may cancel 1 discard. Timing rules indicate that the discarding caused by sentinels can only occur 1 time, therefore after the freeps player has selected 2 conditions they cant reactivate their decision soley because deceit was used to cancel 1 of the discards.

I agree! But then we're not talking about re-assigning a target from one card to another, we're talking about what happens to "overage" when a response action prevents part of an effect from happening. Yes, if the player in question truly had selected the two conditions he wanted discarded, then he can't change his mind in the middle of the action. But, as in the Faramir example from the CR, preventing part of an effect does not prevent the assignment, because if the effect was prevented, it never happened in the first place. If you do prevent a condition from being discarded, the rules say I can choose that same condition again.

the cost and effect rules also play into this. the freeps player paid to discard 2 conditions and the shadow player paid to "save" 1 condition, thus 1 condition must still be discarded, regardless of the response rules because the effect paid for was not fulfilled to its fullest. that is how i interpret the rules of response, timing, and cost & effect.

Right. Which means if you only have one condition on the table, I play a card that discards two conditions, and you prevent your one condition from being discarded once, then your condition is still vulnerable to being targeted with a second discard attempt. Because my card says "discard 2 conditions," only one discard was prevented, and there is still one condition on the table.

ETA: BUT, just to muddy the waters yet again, I DO see where Bib's thought processes may be coming from after all! Again, from the 08/09/2005 CRD (not the most recent):

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.

This was the ruling that was subsequently removed from later CRDs, and left out of the CR, but it does mention selecting multiple conditions first, and then responding after multiple conditions have been selected. However, it still does not address the issue of overage, nor does it say that conditions cannot be selected again, if (once response actions have concluded) FNF's effects still dictate that more discards occur.

ETA some more: I mentioned earlier that I believe this mechanic most likely also applies to threats being added. Suppose you have 9 companions and 5 threats. Your opponent plays a card that adds 5 threats. If you do nothing, you would add 4 threats, because you can't add threats more than the number of companions you have out. BUT if you take a response action that prevents one of the threats from being added, then you still add 4 threats, because the effect was to add 5, you prevented one of them, but there's nothing stopping you from still taking 4 more.

ETA yet again: Here's an idea: what rulings do we have regarding actions that discard "all" conditions? Because in theory, "all" would set X to infinity, which would also mean infinite overage. If I use response actions to prevent a couple of conditions from being discarded, then after my responses are done, we still have the "discard all conditions" effect trying to resolve itself, with conditions that are still out on the table. Are there any rules or rulings that clarify the effect doesn't try to finish the job? If there are, then that would affirm the "single sweep" position.

[jdizzy001]

okay, i'm on the same page now. i felt like i was shooting in the dark. I understand the point you are trying to make. The way i understand the timing rules as per the timing words section of the rule book, the text of a card can only be applied once per copy of the card played. Therefore if the freeps tries to use sentinels to discard 2 conditions and only 1 condition is in play, they can only target the single condition. if deceit is used to prevent it then another condition removing card should be played.

"the game text on that event may be performed only once for each copy of that event played." (pg. 16, rotel)

so when you play sentinels in our example the "overage" is irrelevant.

under effects on page 31 of rotel we read the discard from hand example, "if the effect of an event requires you to discard 2 cards from hand  and you only have 1 card in hand, just discard the 1 card and ignore the rest."

i think this is applicable to our debate. once you play sentinels you must first select your 1 or 2 conditions then forget the rest. the shadow player may then save or discard their conditions.

[sgtdraino]

okay, i'm on the same page now. i felt like i was shooting in the dark. I understand the point you are trying to make. The way i understand the timing rules as per the timing words section of the rule book, the text of a card can only be applied once per copy of the card played. Therefore if the freeps tries to use sentinels to discard 2 conditions and only 1 condition is in play, they can only target the single condition. if deceit is used to prevent it then another condition removing card should be played.

"the game text on that event may be performed only once for each copy of that event played." (pg. 16, rotel)

I'm not sure that applies here, because we're still only talking about performing the game text once (e.g. "discard 8 conditions.").

so when you play sentinels in our example the "overage" is irrelevant.

I'm not seeing how the rules you are referencing applies to overage. The game text is not being performed more than once, it is simply trying to resolve itself completely a single time, in a case where cards can still be spotted which seem like they would be viable targets for the effect.

under effects on page 31 of rotel we read the discard from hand example, "if the effect of an event requires you to discard 2 cards from hand  and you only have 1 card in hand, just discard the 1 card and ignore the rest."

Sure. But if, during that effect, a response action causes more cards to be placed in your hand, then you would still have to discard (or prevent) a total of two, because that is what the original effect dictates.

i think this is applicable to our debate. once you play sentinels you must first select your 1 or 2 conditions then forget the rest. the shadow player may then save or discard their conditions.

I'm still not clear on why a condition that has not yet been discarded, would not be discarded when the effect says to discard it, and there are no further response actions preventing that discard from happening.

[Zurcamos]

No one, not even Decipher, has the right to change the way the game was played in the past.

You're right! But since nobody's invented a time machine yet, good luck traveling back in time to 2003.

What "Fellowship Block" means is playing the game as it was played when the first three sets were the standard environment.

"Fellowship Block" is an official Decipher format for playing the game, and it abides by whatever rules Decipher establishes to play that format. When Decipher changed the rules, people had to abide by those changes... or else they were no longer really playing the official format. Decipher decided that Ring-bearer skirmishes could no longer be canceled, period. They applied that rule to every official format.

If Decipher released a CR today (and technically they could) saying that the only legal ring-bearer is Bearer of Council, and now you can cancel his skirmishes, would I follow it?  Absolutely not.  Would you?

Probably not... but then I am in favor of house rules. I would play in the manner that was most fun for me to play, but I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that I was playing according the the official rules.

Deluding?  I AM playing by official rules - just from a different snapshot in time, the only time that matters to me: the one where the cards were played as intended.  You say I play house rules; I say you play house rules - each defined by Decipher at different times (none of it current, so we are both right).  According to 2007 Decipher, Towers Standard and Movie Block don't exist.  Their X-lists aren't printed in the final CR or CRD.  Do we throw them out?  No, we ... wait for it ... play them as they were played at the time.  I don't care what you, Decipher, or anyone else has said since then.  You can't George Lucas my game! 

[sgtdraino]

"the game text on that event may be performed only once for each copy of that event played." (pg. 16, rotel)

Oh, forgot to ask, what is "rotel?" I'd like to look up what you're specifically looking at.

Deluding?  I AM playing by official rules - just from a different snapshot in time, the only time that matters to me: the one where the cards were played as intended.  You say I play house rules; I say you play house rules - each defined by Decipher at different times (none of it current, so we are both right).

Fellowship Block is a current format, and current rules apply to it. If you are not abiding by current rules, then you are not playing official Fellowship Block format.

According to 2007 Decipher, Towers Standard and Movie Block don't exist.  Their X-lists aren't printed in the final CR or CRD.

There was never any such thing as an official "Towers Standard" format. Never existed. What we refer to as "Towers Standard" is simply Standard Format as it existed prior to the release of King Block cards. "Towers Standard" is not an official format, and never was.

Movie Block I don't know much about, because I wasn't playing the game actively during that time. I'm not sure of the origins of that format, so I don't know if it was ever an official format or not.

Fellowship Block, Towers Block, and King Block (as well as Standard, Expanded, and Open) are all official formats recognized in the LOTR Comprehensive Rules. The rule that Ring-bearer skirmishes cannot be canceled applies to all official formats.

[jdizzy001]

rotel = lazy for ROTEL = relm of the elf lords. I've been using the rulesbooks I have in my collection.

now as to why one cant (by my interpretation) utilize "overage," once you play sentinels to discard 2 conidtions and there is only 1 in play, that's it. you can only "target" the one condition because that is active when sentinels is played. to retarget the effects of the event to apply a second time seems to contradict the portion of the rules which say the text can only be applied one time.

now that is just my interpretation and it is consistent with all the other rules regarding "overage" (ie- burdens, wounds, twilight, etc.). overage is ignored, meaning if you can only add 2 threats (due to fellowship size) all extra threats are ignored.

does someone know the in's and out's of the "snap shot" rule? maybe that would help clear up this difference of opinion.

[Zurcamos]

Deluding?  I AM playing by official rules - just from a different snapshot in time, the only time that matters to me: the one where the cards were played as intended.  You say I play house rules; I say you play house rules - each defined by Decipher at different times (none of it current, so we are both right).

Fellowship Block is a current format, and current rules apply to it. If you are not abiding by current rules, then you are not playing official Fellowship Block format.

According to 2007 Decipher, Towers Standard and Movie Block don't exist.  Their X-lists aren't printed in the final CR or CRD.

There was never any such thing as an official "Towers Standard" format. Never existed. What we refer to as "Towers Standard" is simply Standard Format as it existed prior to the release of King Block cards. "Towers Standard" is not an official format, and never was.

Movie Block I don't know much about, because I wasn't playing the game actively during that time. I'm not sure of the origins of that format, so I don't know if it was ever an official format or not.

Fellowship Block, Towers Block, and King Block (as well as Standard, Expanded, and Open) are all official formats recognized in the LOTR Comprehensive Rules. The rule that Ring-bearer skirmishes cannot be canceled applies to all official formats.

The game is dead.  There are no official formats anymore; none are any more or less so.  We all play by old rules.  Opinions on which rules are more or less applicable to a given situation are opinions.  If Decipher wasn't so good at making terrible decisions, there wouldn't be differences of opinion.  I was playing the game, in person, in paper, during Fellowship Block.  I was playing in person, in paper, in 2007, but I was playing sets 1-10 with the official rules from when those cards were made.  I still am today.  You don't need to explain what formats mean; I was there.  This site has become a place where people who obviously didn't play the game when it was alive try to tell those of us who did how to play.  GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

[jdizzy001]

I have to agree with Big Z. A number of us have been playing this game in official sanctioned tournaments, in paper and on decipher's official online site. Sgt, your interpretation goes against 10 years of game play. If your interpretation of the rules is correct, then you are suggesting that Decipher, the makers of the game. permitted their own game to be played incorrectly at their own events and online sites.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but in this case, you are wrong. I say this with all the respect I can, but despite all the rules citations you have made regarding "overage" you have failed to show any ruling that specifically states that overage of condition discarding can be used to "re-target" a condition.

As a final attempt to explain "overage" I would direct your attention to the section of CRD 4.0 describing the snap shot rule. Page 11 under events of the CRD 4.0 reads:

"Some event cards affect only cards that are currently in play, even though their effects might seem to apply to cards played later in the same turn. These events take a "snapshot" of the current game state, and only those cards are affected.
Eregion's Trails ("Maneuver: Exert a ranger to make each roaming minion strength –3 until the regroup phase.") affects only minions that are roaming when that event is played.
Deft in Their Movements (Regroup: "Spot 2 Hobbits to make each site's Shadow number –2 until the end of the turn.") affects only sites that are in play when it is played."

No, this does not state that you CANT "retarget" but it does emphasize that when an event is played, you cant effect things that aren't in play. Taking from our sentinels example, if only 1 condition is in play you cant use the discard 2 conditions portion of sentinels' text (unless you want to discard your own conditions, say dwarven heart) as there is only 1 condition active when you played it or when the "snap shot" was taken. If the shadow condition is saved, then a second sentinels would need to be played.

I'm sorry Sgt, but the rules regarding "overage" have never been used as you described them, and you have failed to cite anything that says otherwise.

As far as cancelling RB skirmishes, the rules can say what they want, but when I play an FOTR block game, I play by FOTR rules as they were when FOTR block came out. So, yes, that includes cancelling skirmishes for the RB (house rule or not).

[sgtdraino]

rotel = lazy for ROTEL = relm of the elf lords. I've been using the rulesbooks I have in my collection.

Aaah, of course.

now as to why one cant (by my interpretation) utilize "overage," once you play sentinels to discard 2 conidtions and there is only 1 in play, that's it. you can only "target" the one condition because that is active when sentinels is played. to retarget the effects of the event to apply a second time seems to contradict the portion of the rules which say the text can only be applied one time.

The thing is, the text on most (if not all) cards that discard conditions does not say anything about targeting, or selecting, or what-not. The text only talks about discarding cards. For a card to be targeted to be discarded, and then for another card to be targeted for discarding, isn't causing the text of the card to be performed twice, because targeting/selecting is quite literally not part of the text of the card. To take your Secret Sentinels example, suppose you can't spot an Orc, so you only get to discard one condition. In order for the text of the card to be performed twice (illegally), you would be discarding two conditions instead of one. The card said discard one, you discarded two. That is what the rules mean by performing the text no more than once per each time the card is used.

In the example of overage, when there are still conditions on the table (because a response action prevented some discards), but your effect says to discard more conditions, this isn't performing the text more than once, this is simply continuing to fulfill the rest of the card's effect (one time) to the extent it is possible to do so. Selecting more conditions to discard isn't re-performing the text, because selecting is not part of the text.

now that is just my interpretation and it is consistent with all the other rules regarding "overage" (ie- burdens, wounds, twilight, etc.). overage is ignored, meaning if you can only add 2 threats (due to fellowship size) all extra threats are ignored.

Overage is ignored when it is no longer possible to continue doing whatever it is (adding threats, wounding companions, discarding conditions). But when a response action prevents a card from feeling some of the effects of an action, that is when overage fills the gap. Because now, thanks to that response action, there is still a card on the table that can be affected by whatever effect it is you are carrying out.

does someone know the in's and out's of the "snap shot" rule? maybe that would help clear up this difference of opinion.

I'm not familiar with this. Perhaps someone can elaborate?

Deluding?  I AM playing by official rules - just from a different snapshot in time, the only time that matters to me: the one where the cards were played as intended.  You say I play house rules; I say you play house rules - each defined by Decipher at different times (none of it current, so we are both right).

Fellowship Block is a current format, and current rules apply to it. If you are not abiding by current rules, then you are not playing official Fellowship Block format.

The game is dead.

True, insomuch as new cards are no longer being made.

There are no official formats anymore; none are any more or less so.

False. Official formats are those recognized by the entity with authority over the game, that being Decipher. It doesn't matter that new cards are no longer being made, or that new rules are no longer being added.

We all play by old rules.

Rules are only "old" if they have been superseded by rules which are more current. The most current official rules are not "old," they are simply the rules.

I was playing the game, in person, in paper, during Fellowship Block.

As was I.

This site has become a place where people who obviously didn't play the game when it was alive try to tell those of us who did how to play.

My impression is that most of the people weighing in on these rules issues are indeed experienced players from back when the game was being made.

I have to agree with Big Z. A number of us have been playing this game in official sanctioned tournaments, in paper and on decipher's official online site.

As have I... except for the online site. I never paid money to play on that.

Sgt, your interpretation goes against 10 years of game play. If your interpretation of the rules is correct, then you are suggesting that Decipher, the makers of the game. permitted their own game to be played incorrectly at their own events and online sites.

It's possible that this issue has been overlooked, because until near the end, it was extremely unlikely to encounter a situation where "overage" existed, and there were still cards in play (due to response actions) as viable targets for the overage. In such cases, it's not really overage, because there are still cards in play that can be affected.

In any event, I already quoted the section of CR 4.0 which, in no uncertain terms, tells us that this is precisely the way to do it, at least when it comes to wounding multiple characters at a time. Something like Gimli's Helm can absorb each wound, allowing you to target Gimli again and again, in a situation where otherwise you would have been forced to target a separate character each time. In an example such as that, let's say you have a card that tells you to "wound 8 characters," but you only have 5 characters, one of whom is Gimli. You elect to use Gimli's Helm. You could just throw all 8 of those wounds at Gimli. Alternatively, you could wound each of your characters once, and then the one wound aimed at Gimli would be prevented. BUT because Gimli was not wounded (you prevented it), you still have 3 more wounds to assign, and 1 remaining viable target (Gimli, because he hasn't been wounded yet). Preventing an effect does not prevent the assignment. The rules are very clear cut on that issue.

I say this with all the respect I can, but despite all the rules citations you have made regarding "overage" you have failed to show any ruling that specifically states that overage of condition discarding can be used to "re-target" a condition.

What is not forbidden, is permitted. The rules say that overage is ignored once there are no longer any viable targets. If one target was prevented from getting hit by whatever effect it is, it is still a viable target on the table, so technically it isn't overage. It's just fulfilling the effect as completely as possible, which the rules also tell us to do.

As a final attempt to explain "overage" I would direct your attention to the section of CRD 4.0 describing the snap shot rule. Page 11 under events of the CRD 4.0 reads:

"Some event cards affect only cards that are currently in play, even though their effects might seem to apply to cards played later in the same turn. These events take a "snapshot" of the current game state, and only those cards are affected.
Eregion's Trails ("Maneuver: Exert a ranger to make each roaming minion strength –3 until the regroup phase.") affects only minions that are roaming when that event is played.
Deft in Their Movements (Regroup: "Spot 2 Hobbits to make each site's Shadow number –2 until the end of the turn.") affects only sites that are in play when it is played."

Ah yes, I actually did read that, now that you mention it. However, this is not a blanket rule for all event cards or all actions. As the rule says, some event cards do this. In any event, when we're talking about discarding conditions, generally we are talking about cards that were in play at the time that the discarding action was taken, so I don't think "snapshot" applies here.

No, this does not state that you CANT "retarget" but it does emphasize that when an event is played, you cant effect things that aren't in play.

But the conditions in question were all in play when the card was played.

Taking from our sentinels example, if only 1 condition is in play you cant use the discard 2 conditions portion of sentinels' text (unless you want to discard your own conditions, say dwarven heart) as there is only 1 condition active when you played it or when the "snap shot" was taken.

In the above example, the 1 condition in play was in play when secret sentinels was played, so by the "snapshot" rule, it would most certainly be affected.

I'm sorry Sgt, but the rules regarding "overage" have never been used as you described them, and you have failed to cite anything that says otherwise.

Here it is again...

Check this out: From CR 4.0 on Wound:

When a character is wounded by an enemy
attack, his vitality is depleted. Place a wound
token on the character to illustrate this. Glass
beads (preferably blood red) make good tokens
for this purpose.

Wounds are always placed on a character one at
a time.

When you "wound a character," you place only
one wound.

If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).

A wounded character is a character who has at
least one wound token.

If a character cannot take wounds, wounds
cannot be assigned to that character. However,
if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character.

Faramir, Wizard's Pupil reads: "Skirmish: Exert
Gandalf to prevent all wounds to Faramir." This
prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.

In the above ruling and example, it clearly stipulates that, if you prevent a wound to a character, then that character was not wounded (not even once), and thus remains a viable target for wounds. Thus, something that might have originally been overage (and thus ignored) is instead directed at that viable target. The response action prevents the wound, it does not stop Faramir from being retargeted later in the same action by more wounds.

As far as cancelling RB skirmishes, the rules can say what they want, but when I play an FOTR block game, I play by FOTR rules as they were when FOTR block came out. So, yes, that includes cancelling skirmishes for the RB (house rule or not).

<shrug>

[jdizzy001]

Regarding wounds (and I guess by your interpretation conditions[which I'm okay with]), if a card says wound 8 companions, you MUST wound up to 8 companions (any left over wounds are lost IE-there are only 5 comps active), you cant wound 1 comp 2x and and 6 other comps 1x. You cant rewound a companion who has already been assigned a wound by the action.

If this carries over to conditions then once the card has been saved from the discard due to deceit, it can not be assigned to be discarded a second time as the text of sentinels reads "discard 2 conditions."

It is analogous with wound 2 companions. Even if you wound gimli (with helm) and prevent the first wound, he cant be wounded again as he was already assigned one wound (yes he prevented it because he was an eligible candidate to receive a wound, but the effect of the action was wound 2 [or 8] companions).

What you are citing from the CRD: However, if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be assigned to that character. Is discussing the difference between "can not take wounds" and "Prevent the wound."

As per CRD 4.0, and yourself:

If a card tells you to wound a number of
companions, you must choose different
companions to wound one time each (you
cannot wound a single companion more than
once).

In conclusion, if an action says to wound X companions you must chose X companions. You may prevent any number of those wounds, but that does not mean you can assign a wound to a companion, prevent it, then assign another wound to the character. They may not be chosen multiple times to absorb multiple wounds. If the action says wound 2 companions, you must select 2 different companions, Likewise, if secret sentinels says discard 2 conditions, you must select 2 different conditions, you can not choose 1 condition, prevent the discard, then choose it again because sentinels' text states "discard 2 conditions."

If for some reason you can not wound 2 companions, because there is only 1 companion in play, you must wound the lone companion 1x and the second wound is ignored. Likewise, if you can only discard 1 condition because only 1 condition is in play the second condition discard is ignored (As mentioned previously, you complete the action to the utmost of your ability).

If the single wound is prevented it is prevented. If the single discard is prevented, it is prevented. The wound CRD you and I both cited is very clear.

[Ringbearer]

Well, reading the last part, I kinda disagree. It states there that you have to choose different companions each. You cannot choose Faramir in the example twice, cause he was already wounded by the card. That the wound is prevent doesnt matter, he has been targeted, so he cannot be targetted again.

Also, how come that in every big Decipher tournament, as well as online play, this has been the case? Is it true that Decipherv even erred all those time, that indeed the world of LOTR players is wrong and only you are right? Cant it even be posisble that you are wrong?

With the cancel skirmish this is debatable but not clear, I understand your point as much as the others, tho I am a follower of the other persons view.

This however is a thing being used for quite the time, and in several premier series and worlds. I assume the judges at time were all correct, so you cannot retarget.

[jdizzy001]

After reviewing the 2007 CRD in regards to cancelling RB skirmishes (I must agree with Sgt), in NO format can an RB skirmish be cancelled. However, as I already mentioned, when I play a casual FOTR game, I like to house rule RB skirmishes can be cancelled.

Official Formats (Sgt was correct): as per 2007 CRD there are only 6 (arguably 7) official formats: FOTR block (1-3), TT block (4-6) ROTK (7,8,10), War of the Ring (11-13) Standard (as listed in the current rulings), and open. The currect rulings 2007 page does indicate the expanded is an official format, but The comprehensive rules 2007 does not. Movie block is NOT an OFFICIAL format (Credit given where credit due ).

The CRD does not specify if RB skirmishes can be cancelled in FOTR or TT format games. Quite the opposite, they indicate that RB skirmishes can not be cancelled in any format. However, as mentioned 2x now, those of us who play FOTR or TS like to allow RB skirmish cancelling as a house rule for nostalgic purposes.

[bibfortuna25]

When a card says to wound X companions, you must select X different companions to be wounded once each. A character simply cannot be assigned more than 1 wound, even if that wound was prevented.

So apply this same logic to conditions. If you are discarding X conditions, you discard them once each, even if some are prevented.

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.