What are some anti-Gollum strategies?

[sgtdraino]

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.

Assigning a companion to be wounded is not the same as wounding a companion. If a wound is prevented, then that companion remains a companion who has not been wounded, and is thus still a viable target to be assigned a wound. The rules specifically support that.

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).

He is not being wounded again, because the first wound is prevented. The only way he would not remain a viable target, is if he had been wounded, or if he was unable to take wounds for some reason.

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."

Correct. And when it comes to preventing wounds, this does not prevent wounds from being assigned.

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).

Correct. That bit in the parentheses is meant to clarify the ruling: You cannot wound a single companion more than once. If a wound is prevented though, you aren't wounding that character more than once. He is still only taking one wound, and assignments are irrelevant.

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.

I must completely disagree. I think the ruling says (quite specifically) exactly the opposite.

It states there that you have to choose different companions each.

No, it states you must wound different companions each time.

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).

The section in parentheses clarifies that the ruling is talking about actually taking wounds, not the assignment part. The later section adds:

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.

This is then clarified even further with the Faramir example:

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.

Note particularly the section, "prevents wounds as they are assigned." This clarifies that assigning a wound is followed immediately by placing a wound, unless that wound is prevented. So, in the previous section:

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).

...you are not choosing 8 different companions, and only then after your choices are made wounding each one. Wounds are either applied or prevented as they are assigned. Cards like The Trees are Strong require you to wound different companions, but they don't actually require you to make all of your choices before the wounding begins. Again, the only way "prevents wounds as they are assigned" can be accurate, is if each wound is prevented (or placed) immediately after it is assigned.

Perhaps this is what has gotten us all confused, and also why words like "assign" or "target" generally do not appear on cards that wound characters or discard conditions; because pointing at a card and saying "that one" IS wounding the card, or discarding the card... unless of course the wound or discard is prevented. And I think that is the key thing here: Discarding different cards (and not the same card repeatedly) or wounding different cards (and not the same card multiple times) is a function of the rules, not something that actually creates separate phases for "assignment" and then "wounding" or "discarding."

In other words, the reason I can't use The Trees are Strong to wound the same character over and over again, isn't because I have to choose all of my targets before wounds are applied, it's simply because the rules require me to wound a different character each time. Assignments are still made one at a time, and a wound is applied (or prevented) immediately after each assignment.

You cannot choose Faramir in the example twice, cause he was already wounded by the card. That the wound is prevent doesnt matter,

That is absolutely incorrect. If Faramir did not take a wound token, then he was not wounded. From the CR:

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

If you did not actually place a wound on the character, then he was not wounded.

he has been targeted, so he cannot be targetted again.

The cards don't talk about targeting, they only talk about wounding. The rules specifically say:

if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character.

and

This
prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.

Preventing wounds does not prevent assignments, because preventing wounds means the character was never wounded in the first place.

Also, how come that in every big Decipher tournament, as well as online play, this has been the case?

Perhaps this actually was the case, and you just never realized it. Or perhaps a tournament director made a mistake. That does happen, you know. In an actual live tournament (as opposed to computer software), these timing mechanics are often not as clearly delineated as people play. If a timing issue arises, they often have to backtrack to figure out just what the timing is actually supposed to be. Things like Gemp impose a formality to the rules that is often not so clearly enforced or demonstrated when people play for real. And in a real life situation, if you see a player use something like The Trees are Strong, I think you will find that he places the wound tokens at the same time that he picks the characters to be wounded.

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?

I think the CR is blessedly clear on this one. Wounds are prevented (or placed) as they are assigned. Preventing a wound does not prevent the assignment. "Wounding a character" means to place a wound on the character. "Wound X companions" means to wound (place one wound on) X different characters. If you don't place a wound on a character (for whatever reason), then that character was not wounded.

[bibfortuna25]

The character was still assigned a wound, though. The very act of wounding a character means you are assigning a wound to that character. It is impossible for a character to be assigned more than 1 wound when The Trees Are Strong is used.

[jdizzy001]

Sgt I have used your own citations and interpreted them 100% the opposite direction. The assignment of a wound fulfills the "wound" requirement and the target can not be selected again. You have added nothing new to your argument and are arguing for arguments sake. Just because you keep a debate moving does not mean you have proved a point. The CRD is clear and you keep bending it to say what you want it to say. You can not reassign a wound to a companion once they have already been assigned a wound from a card. Even the Faramir example dictates that the wound was prevented but the assignment was not. You can not rewound or retarget companions or conditions. The CRD is clear in that fact. The only blogger who vocally sided with you has changed their opinion. I am afraid you are alone in this matter.

As mentioned, unless you manage to convince the entire community that they have been playing LOTR incorrectly for 10 years (half of which Decipher was present for) then you are fighting a losing battle.

I have nothing more to add as you and I are only reciting the same 2 paragraphs from the CRD and interpreting them 100% differently.

People will believe what they want to believe. I have spoken my piece. Good luck.

[sgtdraino]

The character was still assigned a wound, though.

No, the character was assigned to be wounded. The CR specifically defines "wounding a character" to be placing a wound on the character. If no wound was placed, the character was not wounded. As the rules say, the assignment of wounds is immaterial to the action (which is probably why none of the cards talk about "assigning" wounds, they just talk about wounding).

It's like your signature says, Bib: "All cards do what they say, no more, no less." What is the text of The Trees are Strong?

"Discard X Isengard Orcs to make the Free Peoples player wound X companions."

What is the definition of "wound?" To place a wound on a character. The card directs you to place wounds on X companions. The CR clarifies that this kind of wording requires you to place each wound on a different character. Does the card say anything about assigning wounds? Targeting wounds? No. "wound X companions," which means "place a wound on X companions." And the Faramir example even clarifies that wounds are prevented as they are assigned. This tells us that each wound is prevented (or placed) immediately after it is assigned. You don't choose all the assignments and then start placing wounds, you place (or prevent) each wound immediately after you assign it. This actually makes good sense, since it means the procedure for playing cards like this, whether they wound one character repeatedly, or multiple characters one time each, is essentially the same across the board. I dare say it's also the way people have always played the game in real life, since it's impractical to point out 8 different targets, and only then start putting tokens on each one.

Sgt I have used your own citations and interpreted them 100% the opposite direction.

I don't see how. The wording is very specific.

The assignment of a wound fulfills the "wound" requirement and the target can not be selected again.

The CR defines "wound" as actually placing a wound, and even reinforces this by saying that preventing the actual placement does not prevent assignment. Because until a wound is placed, a character has not actually been wounded. If you're preventing the wound, this should be kind of obvious.

It's for this reason that, if a Gondor character is wearing Armor, loses a skirmish to a damage +1 minion, and you use a reponse action to prevent one wound, that character is still going to take a wound, because by preventing the first one, he has not yet hit the limit that Armor provides him.

You have added nothing new to your argument and are arguing for arguments sake.

It would be more helpful if you would address my specific points. For example, what is your specific response to the Faramir example given by the CR:

This prevents wounds as they are assigned to Faramir,
not the assignments themselves.

Does this not clarify, once and for all, that a wound is prevented (or placed) immediately after it is assigned?

You can not reassign a wound to a companion once they have already been assigned a wound from a card.

The rules say (twice) that assignments are irrelevant. The only thing that counts, is if a wound was actually placed. That is the definition of "to wound."

Even the Faramir example dictates that the wound was prevented but the assignment was not.

Exactly. And also that:

"if a card prevents wounds, wounds may still be
assigned to that character."

You can not rewound or retarget companions or conditions. The CRD is clear in that fact.

Nobody is "rewounding" anything. The CRD is clear that assignments don't count. Only if a card actually takes a hit, does it count.

The only blogger who vocally sided with you has changed their opinion. I am afraid you are alone in this matter.

I think perhaps this discussion is no longer appropriately titled, and is probably not getting the kind of attention it needs. As best I can tell, only four people are really participating in it. Perhaps it needs a devoted thread in Archives.

In any event, the rules are not a popularity contest, nor are they decided by majority vote. The rules are the rules.

People will believe what they want to believe.

This is certainly true.

Tell ya what: I used to have the occasional back-and-forth with Sandy Wible. I'm going to try to reconnect with him, and see if he can either shed some light on this, or point me in the direction of someone who can.

[bibfortuna25]

Sigh.

If a card says "wound 3 companions" you select 3 different companions to be wounded once each. Preventing one companion's wound does not permit you to wound that companion again.

If a card says "wound a companion 3 times" you obviously assign 3 wounds to him. If you prevent one wound, you still have to wound the companion 2 more times.

If a card says "place 3 wounds on companions" you place the 3 wounds anywhere you want.

[Elessar's Socks]

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).

I'm also satisfied this shows different companions must be selected. The part in parentheses doesn't contradict what comes before; "you cannot wound a companion more than once" in this context is the end result of "you must choose different companions to wound one time each." The alternate interpretation requires that "choose different companions" is actually wrongly worded, which is a rather strong charge to make.

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 is what I'd think as well.

[bibfortuna25]

Ah, I finally see where sgt is coming from. He's taking the "character whose wound is prevented can be wounded again" clause and misinterpreting it. That rule applies to situations where the character is actually capable of being wounded multiple times, such as when losing to an Uruk or when threats are exploding. But the rules clearly spell out that when you are wounding a specific number of companions, a character can only be selected to be wounded once.

So go back to my earlier example with The Trees Are Strong. Aragorn, Frodo, Gandalf and Gimli are selected. You prevent Aragorn's wound, but then Gimli's wound kills him and threats are exploding. Aragorn is still eligible to receive any of the threat wounds. But he is not eligible to receive anymore wounds from The Trees Are Strong.

[sgtdraino]

It seems we are at an impasse, until I can get word from somebody more official.

"wound X companions" means wound X companions. Simple as that. Selecting somebody who ultimately doesn't take a wound, does not constitute wounding them.

If a card says "wound 5 companions," and I wound 3 companions, and prevent a wound on the fourth companion, I have only wounded 3 companions, and prevented 1 wound. 4 companions have not been wounded, let alone 5.

[Shelobplayer]

until I can get word from somebody more official.

LOL

[bibfortuna25]

"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)."

There it is, in plain simple English. This proves that the choosing of the targets happens before the actual action happens to them.

You are wrong, sgt, I can't state it any clearer than that.

[MarcinS]

I don't want to meddle things too much (as I have not read all the responses), but there is quite clear distinction in rules, between "wound/heal/exert X [qualifier]" and "for each ... wound/heal/exert [qualifier]" and these are played differently:

"Wound/heal/exert X [qualifier]":
1. Determine the X.
2. Select X number of distinct [qualifier] (if there is less in play, select all).
3. All of the selected X become "about to be wounded/healed/exerted".
4. Perform any prevention responses.
5. Wound/heal/exert all of the X, that did not have the action prevented on them.

"for each ... wound/heal/exert [qualifier]":
1. Determine the X.
2. For 1 to X execute loop:
2a. Select a [qualifier] (if any is in play at this time)
2b. Selected [qualifier] becomes "about to be wounded/healed/exerted".
2c. Perform any prevention responses.
2d. Wound/heal/exert the selected [qualifier].

HOWEVER, the "for each" rule does not apply to cards being discarded, as it is not listed in the "for each" entry of Comprehensive Rules, which allows selecting the same card multiple times for the action (only wound/heal/exert effects fall in that category). Therefore, no matter how the discarding effect is worded ("discard X", or "for each X - discard"), you can't retry discarding the same card multiple times, if a previous attempt was prevented. So, for all intends and purposes any flavour of discard effects can be played using the first flow (as described above).

[Elessar's Socks]

Selecting somebody who ultimately doesn't take a wound, does not constitute wounding them.

The selection remains made, however, which is where the "you must choose different companions to wound one time each" part comes into play. If I choose to wound Gandalf, and prevent that wound, I can't choose to wound Gandalf again (in the context of "wound X companions"), because I would not be choosing a different companion to wound.

[Panch]

Bib are Elessar are right Mr.draino

[sgtdraino]

I still disagree with the above interpretations, but none of the ex-Decipher people I have contacted were interested in weighing in on the matter. So, I guess the ruling is whatever those who control Gemp want it to be.

Back to the topic at hand (anti-Gollum strategies), I did finally find an effective counter to Deceit. Rather simple really: Gladden Homestead. Used in conjunction with other condition removal (e.g. Deep In Thought), of course.