Slaked Thirsts vs. Pippin WoBaS

[Elgar]

Elgar, I got it! I was driving and the solution suddenly came to me. But could you expand on the Shadow player choosing a minion that cannot take wounds for something? When would that come up? I already covered threats and archery.

Off the top of my head, the Eowyn that forces you to wound a minion for each wound on a character she is skirmishing.  I believe there are others but I can't recall right now.  I'll respond to the rest of the post in another post once I figure out how I want to say it.

I see this as the same as the threats and archery wounds. You have a number of wound tokens in your hand. They have to go somewhere! A "for each" situation is not the same as a "choose a single character then do X" situation.

The only diffence with "for each Y, choose a character and do X" and "choose a character and do X" is that you are "choosing a character and doing X" Y times.  In other words, if there was 1 wound on a character skirmishing Eowyn, the shadow player would have to wound a minion once, which is no different than if Eowyn said that explicitly.

[Elgar]

Elgar, I got it! I was driving and the solution suddenly came to me. But could you expand on the Shadow player choosing a minion that cannot take wounds for something? When would that come up? I already covered threats and archery.

Off the top of my head, the Eowyn that forces you to wound a minion for each wound on a character she is skirmishing.  I believe there are others but I can't recall right now.  I'll respond to the rest of the post in another post once I figure out how I want to say it.

I see this as the same as the threats and archery wounds. You have a number of wound tokens in your hand. They have to go somewhere! A "for each" situation is not the same as a "choose a single character then do X" situation.

Found one:
Out of sight and shot.  If the free people player plays a companion, could they choose to exert an exhausted companion (when the rules say you cannot)

[Kralik]

I'm wondering if that first rule is actually being a Red Herring (which both of us fell for).  The conditional you point out says "If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to perform an action and you cannot,...".  Therefore this rule doesn't apply *if you can perform the action*.

Right.

Furthermore, being able to perform an action must mean that you can completely perform the action, otherwise this rule doesn't make sense.

Not following you here. There are plenty of actions that you can perform (like making your opponent discard 2 cards when they only have 1) that you can't completely perform.

Since choosing a card to affect is part of performing an action, and if you can perform the complete action then you choose a card to affect (because it's necessary).

If neither of the rules discussed above applies, then I'm not seeing how it's "necessary" that you choose a card that lets you perform the complete action.

Back to threats/archery/Eowyn. In those cases a certain number of wounds must be assigned. But the rulebook says, "If a character cannot take wounds, wounds cannot be assigned to that character." So the wounds cannot go on unwoundable characters.

But let's see one uses Pippin versus an unwoundable Easterling OR an exhausted minion. Why must we think that the Free People's player can't choose the minion? Say they do choose an unwoundable Easterling and now the Shadow player must assign two wounds. However, they cannot... so they fulfill the rules as much as possible and everyone moves on in life.

I feel like we're having to do mental gymnastics to try to fit rules to apply to situations where they were never intended to apply. I don't think the character choosing requirement that you are proposing is explicitly spelled out in the rulebook. Why must we try to make it fit?

[Kralik]

Curse Decipher and their "twice"...!

Other problem cards:
Aragorn, Defender of Free Peoples
Light Shining Faintly
No Use That Way
The Witch King, Deathless Lord (maybe)
Where Shall We Go
Prolonged Struggle
Deep Hatred
Denethor, Last Ruling Steward
Fates Entwined
No Travellers in This Land*
Mumak Commander, Giant Among the Swertings
Defensive Rush

Elgar, I see your point with Out of Sight and Shot. So... I'm starting to think there should be a ruling to address these specifically... i.e. if it's legal to do it once, you can do it. What we have to work with and the necessity to debate how to interpret random rulebook snippets is falling short of common sense IMO. Might as well go back to Whisper in the Dark or Bilbo RB tales...

*This gets even more complicated with Decipher's rules on parentheses: "When a card has a conditional effect in parentheses, you can't choose which one to use.  You have to use the conditional effect if the condition is met."

[Elgar]

Furthermore, being able to perform an action must mean that you can completely perform the action, otherwise this rule doesn't make sense.

Not following you here. There are plenty of actions that you can perform (like making your opponent discard 2 cards when they only have 1) that you can't completely perform.

Let me try to clarify:
What does "perform an action" mean?  It must mean "perform all of the action" because if it doesn't (ie if it means perform part  of the action) then the rule "If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to perform an action and you cannot..." is redundant.

[Kralik]

How about: If you are required to choose a character to heal, wound, or exert, you cannot choose a character that cannot heal, cannot be wounded or is exhausted, respectively.

I'll agree to that. It addresses the key issue of meeting requirements but allows one to choose a character and only partially fulfill the action if necessary.

[Elgar]

Couple more thoughts:
1) What does cannot mean?  Is it true that a character with 1 wound cannot be wounded twice?  There's no rule that says that.  There is one for exertions though (getting back to your (Kralik)original question)

2) Not to start a sidarguement,  but aren't always supposed to do what a card says, everything and nothing more.  If, for example, you try wound an exhausted minion twice, are you doiin card says?
2a)  (rheorical) What if you can't do what a card says? Oh right, there's a rule that tell us when we cannot, that we should do as much as possible.

I don't know if either of these will derail our arguement but I felt obliged to add them to the conversation

[Kralik]

Furthermore, being able to perform an action must mean that you can completely perform the action, otherwise this rule doesn't make sense.

Not following you here. There are plenty of actions that you can perform (like making your opponent discard 2 cards when they only have 1) that you can't completely perform.

Let me try to clarify:
What does "perform an action" mean?  It must mean "perform all of the action" because if it doesn't (ie if it means perform part  of the action) then the rule "If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to perform an action and you cannot..." is redundant.

Why would there be a rule about performing actions as much as possible if you could never have partial actions?

Couple more thoughts:
1) What does cannot mean?  Is it true that a character with 1 wound cannot be wounded twice?  There's no rule that says that.  There is one for exertions though (getting back to your (Kralik)original question)

2) Not to start a sidarguement,  but aren't always supposed to do what a card says, everything and nothing more.  If, for example, you try wound an exhausted minion twice, are you doiin card says?
2a)  (rheorical) What if you can't do what a card says? Oh right, there's a rule that tell us when we cannot, that we should do as much as possible.

I don't know if either of these will derail our arguement but I felt obliged to add them to the conversation

1. You cannot because the wounds are placed one at a time.After the first wound, the character is not physically on the table.

2. Yes, because you did as much as possible - see 2a

[Elgar]

Furthermore, being able to perform an action must mean that you can completely perform the action, otherwise this rule doesn't make sense.

Not following you here. There are plenty of actions that you can perform (like making your opponent discard 2 cards when they only have 1) that you can't completely perform.

Let me try to clarify:
What does "perform an action" mean?  It must mean "perform all of the action" because if it doesn't (ie if it means perform part  of the action) then the rule "If the effect of a card or special ability requires you to perform an action and you cannot..." is redundant.

Why would there be a rule about performing actions as much as possible if you could never have partial actions?

Correct.  Therefore when it says "perform an action" it must mean "perform all of the action" or the rule is redundant.

[Elgar]

Couple more thoughts:
1) What does cannot mean?  Is it true that a character with 1 wound cannot be wounded twice?  There's no rule that says that.  There is one for exertions though (getting back to your (Kralik)original question)

2) Not to start a sidarguement,  but aren't always supposed to do what a card says, everything and nothing more.  If, for example, you try wound an exhausted minion twice, are you doiin card says?
2a)  (rheorical) What if you can't do what a card says? Oh right, there's a rule that tell us when we cannot, that we should do as much as possible.

I don't know if either of these will derail our arguement but I felt obliged to add them to the conversation

1. You cannot because the wounds are placed one at a time.After the first wound, the character is not physically on the table.

2. Yes, because you did as much as possible - see 2a

I've separated 1 and 2 as they are both do not go with my previous arguement (hence why I put the "derail" line in the post, yet that was subtle and ambiguous)  I think 1) might get us somewhere, whereas 2) is more alligned with my original arguement.

1) Wounds are placed on at a time... however there is no rule saying that a character with 1 vitality can't take 2 wounds. It's just that by the game process the character would die (due to having 0 vitality) before the second wound is placed. (this is why threat and archery wounds can't be all soaked up by one character, as they are placed one by one)
I posted this thought, because this might be where Gemp is gettings its ruling for Slaked thirsts (because there is a rule saying you cannot exert a minion with X vitality X+ times) while still allowing for WoBaS to wound twice (since there is no rule forbidding the wounding of a character with X vitality X+1 times)

2) Except that in the case of WoBaS you must wound a roaming minion twice *if you can* if one were to say "do what the card says".  Or in other words, If you use wobas and there is a roaming minion with 1 vitality and a roaming minion with 2 vitality,  you can't "choose" to wound the roaming minion with 1 vitality because that wouldn't be doing what the card says.  The card does not say "... wound a roaming minion once".  Only if you can't do what the card says then you use the rule to do as much as possible.

[Kralik]

No... the rule would be redundant if you could never choose to perform a partial action. Otherwise why mention partial actions?

Anyway, you've convinced me regarding WoBaS and Easterling Polearm, etc. I'll agree:

Hard Choice cannot be used on an unwounded companion
WoBaS cannot be used on an unwoundable minion
Slaked Thirsts cannot be used on an exhausted minion

Think of this logic: Every case of healing/wounding/exerting twice is supposed to be a positive thing -- i.e. better than once. How is it better then once if you can't use it versus characters where you could do it just once? What if I want to use Slaked Thirsts on a minion with two vitality in Manuever so I can finish him with my 2 vitality Greenleaf in Archery? Oh... I can't, because Slaked Thirsts is twice instead of once?

[Kralik]

Wounds are placed on at a time... however there is no rule saying that a character with 1 vitality can't take 2 wounds.

[snip]

(with WoBaS)...you can't "choose" to wound the roaming minion with 1 vitality because that wouldn't be doing what the card says.

Sure you can. By your own logic you just said there's no rule that says you can't wound a 1 vitality minion twice. Can you point me to the exert X vitality X+ rule? Is there a similar heal X wounds vs. X+ rule as well?

Edit: Found the exert rule. It applies to costs: "If the cost of an action requires a character to exert X times, then that character must have X+1 or more vitality or that action cannot be performed."

[Elgar]

No... the rule would be redundant if you could never choose to perform a partial action. Otherwise why mention partial actions?

Except that you can't choose to perform a partial action.  Be default you do all of what the card says.
The rule is there for what to do when you can't complete an action fully (it's right there in the clause of the rule).

[Elgar]

Wounds are placed on at a time... however there is no rule saying that a character with 1 vitality can't take 2 wounds.

[snip]

(with WoBaS)...you can't "choose" to wound the roaming minion with 1 vitality because that wouldn't be doing what the card says.

Sure you can. By your own logic you just said there's no rule that says you can't wound a 1 vitality minion twice. Can you point me to the exert X vitality X+ rule? Is there a similar heal X wounds vs. X+ rule as well?

Edit: Found the exert rule. It applies to costs: "If the cost of an action requires a character to exert X times, then that character must have X+1 or more vitality or that action cannot be performed."

So then we can come to an agreement that unless a card or rule specifically prohibits an action (ie if something says they cannot do something (ring bearers skirmish cannot be cancelled, bearer cannot take wounds, an exhausted character cannot exert, etc)) that action can be performed on that card.

[Kralik]

Be default you do all of what the card says.

You do as much of the effect as possible... but you still can choose the initial target of the effect as long as it's not illegal. Are you completely unwilling to agree that even if the rules are somewhat ambiguous, the cards were meant to allow the player a choice?

Back to one of a dozen examples, isn't Terrible and Evil meant to let you wound Nazguls, even if they are exhausted? Or is it that you can't use it if the Shadow player played Enquea ToTO + Black Marshal + 3 Morgul Brute just because of the double-wounding-action? I can't believe that you would agree that the original intention is to disallow such an use.

So then we can come to an agreement that unless a card or rule specifically prohibits an action (ie if something says they cannot do something (ring bearers skirmish cannot be cancelled, bearer cannot take wounds, an exhausted character cannot exert, etc)) that action can be performed on that card.

I will agree that unless an action is explicitly prohibited it can be performed, yes. But I'm still going to stand by the ability to start a "twice" action (clarification: effect, not cost) if it's initially legal even if it can only be performed partially.