Article Feedback

[Dictionary]

I'm fairly sure that with its erratum, Frenzy of Arrows does not support anything at all, as far as I know, it is impossible to give the archer keyword to an minion.

Heh, that's true. But the card in principle still supports archery, it just can't be played. I guess I could take it out, it's not exactly useful information.

[Dictionary]

Adjusted the Boromir, Bearer of Council Rules and Clarifications after a discussion I had with Merrick_H on Gemp today. Also vastly expanded the Frodo, Son of Drogo article.

[Phallen Cassidy]

Adjusted the Boromir, Bearer of Council Rules and Clarifications after a discussion I had with Merrick_H on Gemp today. Also vastly expanded the Frodo, Son of Drogo article.

One paragraph seems a little off to me, but I may very well be misreading it:
"Son of Drogo's ability is however quite powerful when used in Pipe decks, as he and Frodo's Pipe can conserve Pipeweed cards by having Frodo absorb the wounds of other wounded companions with the Frodo signet, then 1 pipeweed can be used to heal multiple wounds on Frodo. "

It looks like this has swapped the cost and effect of Frodo's skill. Perhaps it was meant for Aragorn's pipe?

[Legion]

Yes, I think it should be that you load all of Frodo's wounds to another companion with a Frodo signet, and heal that companion.

I'd say that this Frodo is strong against You Bring Great Evil, not weak. Other Frodos will be stuck with those wounds, but this one can get them healed off at other sites.

[Dictionary]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I've never used pipe decks, must have gotten muddled when I was trying to re-word the first part of the article.

I rewrote the bit about the pipeweed, trying to make it more generic. Hopefully it is clearer now.

Removed the weak vs heal prevention bit, Legion is completely right about You Bring Great Evil, and I wouldn't say Frodo is especially weak to Black Breath either (Not likely to get it in the first place).

[Durin's Heir]

You make a compelling argument, I think I'm sold

The "Earthborn + Pippin JaN / Merry UH" case is about cost: the prevention of a cost prevents also the effect of the action, but doing something instead of the original cost only modifies that cost without preventing it. The cost still happens, then too the effect.

We must note that this is subtly but substantially different from the "Sapling vs Isildur wears the One Ring" case. Such case is not about cost but about trigger: if the situation that is about to trigger an action disappears, that action can't be triggered.

Is also about "required vs optional" timing: required actions always happen first, then optional actions take place. The One Ring must turn wounds into burdens, that happens before the optional action of Sapling: "Because the required action of The One Ring causes a burden to be added "instead" of a wound, the optional action of Sapling of the White Tree cannot be used, as the situation it responds to no longer exists."


Then Elessar's Edict should allow you to grab 3 cards without burning a Wraith. That's not true, as the corrected version of Elessar's Edict says "prevent" and not "instead". It's a hard combo anyway: spot Gandhi and 2+ Wraiths, having both Elessar's Edict and SFtF on hand. The Shards of Narsil and Mr. Butterbur can help you to get those (but watch out with the Rule of 4!)...


If Gemp acts this or that way, it can't be considered a reliable reference. Although that might be no business of ours, moreover if we're riders in black...


EDIT: Added some weaknesses (Stairs of Khazad-Dum and choke) to Cave Troll SotBP's article.

EDIT #2: Corrected the point about Elessar's Edict.

[Durin's Heir]

Made some additions to the following articles:

- Greenleaf & Aragorn's Bow: expanded strengths (vs archery reduction and Ugluk SoS) and weaknesses (vs archery abilities prevention, wound prevention and archer hate)
- The Splendor of Their Banners & The White Arrows of Lorien (interactions with SotBR and RBoW, weakness to possession/weapon discard and archery abilities prevention)
- Songs of the Blessed Realm (interaction with RBoW, Bilbo WSG, Voice of Nimrodel and The Shire Countryside)
- Relentless Charge (weak to wound prevention and Shoulder to Shoulder, strong vs TSotB and TWAoL)
- Ranged Weapons article (added counters: Corsair Marauder, Line of Defense, High Vantage and Hillman Horde)


EDIT: Created article for Banner of the White Tree, and expanded Elendil's Valor and Valiant Man of the West.

[Dictionary]

Then Elessar's Edict should allow you to grab 3 Gondor cards without burning a Gondor Wraith. It's a hard combo anyway: spot Gandhi and 2+ Gondor Wraiths, having both Elessar's Edict and SFtF on hand. The Shards of Narsil and Mr. Butterbur can help you to get those...

Yeah I don't think it's necessarily a good idea, but it's certainly interesting, feels like a way of getting around a big disadvantage of Saved from the Fire.

I do agree that Gemp is not perfect, but it does represent MarcinS' opinion on some of the rules, and he did do a lot of research on various subjects, so I would say that Gemp provides evidence towards a certain viewpoint, although it's not a conclusive proof.

Wrote article for Ted Sandyman.

Ranged Weapons article: Added North Undeep and Rohan Uplands to archery counters. Added Orkish Archer Troop to archery support. Added culture to archery support: Fletcher of Harad, Archer of Harad, Precision Targeting, Elevated Fire, Voice of the Desert, Desert Wind, Grieving the Fallen.

[Phallen Cassidy]

Then Elessar's Edict should allow you to grab 3 Gondor cards without burning a Gondor Wraith. It's a hard combo anyway: spot Gandhi and 2+ Gondor Wraiths, having both Elessar's Edict and SFtF on hand. The Shards of Narsil and Mr. Butterbur can help you to get those...

I don't believe this would be the case, since you haven't put anyone in the dead pile here and, as with Treebeard and Merry or Pippin, haven't paid the cost anymore. Even if the text of SFtF had been "kill," Elessar's Edict is an "instead of" action, replacing the original effect.

[Durin's Heir]

Ted Sandyman's looks great! And thank you for the Ranged Weapons article additions. Little by little, we're approaching to the goal of having all concerning cards mentioned.

Yeah I don't think it's necessarily a good idea, but it's certainly interesting, feels like a way of getting around a big disadvantage of Saved from the Fire.

Can also be a way to evade triggering threat wounds, if things are complicated. EDIT: Not valid, see below.

I do agree that Gemp is not perfect, but it does represent MarcinS' opinion on some of the rules, and he did do a lot of research on various subjects, so I would say that Gemp provides evidence towards a certain viewpoint, although it's not a conclusive proof.

Agree! MarcinS' site has some details to correct, but is very accurate in the vast majority of cases. That speaks, as you say, about deep research.

I don't believe this would be the case, since you haven't put anyone in the dead pile here and, as with Treebeard and Merry or Pippin, haven't paid the cost anymore. Even if the text of SFtF had been "kill," Elessar's Edict is an "instead of" action, replacing the original effect.

Treebeard Earthborn + Merry/Pippin can't be used as an example over Elessar's Edict + SFtF. Nor the opposite. Both are under the same rule EDIT: Those are different, see below.

That's the usual interpretation with Treebeard Earthborn and Merry/Pippin. But that interpretation commits the mistake of confusing doing something instead of an effect with preventing an effect. The Current Rulings Document says those are different things:

"When a card uses the phrase "instead" or "instead of", the stated effect is replaced with a different effect. This does not mean that the original effect is prevented."

If you do "something else instead" of a stated cost, the cost is still being paid but as a different action; thus the effect of such cost still occurs. I found this in the Comprehensive Rules 4.0:

"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. If all the costs cannot be paid, that card has no effect." The modified cost of Pippin JaN / Merry UH can still be paid by Treebeard Earthborn, so no effect is negated.

Moreover, Steward's Tomb brings light about such difference. If "doing something instead" of an effect was like "preventing", The One Ring wouldn't be allowed to take wounds as burdens at such site (but we all know that's not the case). That's the "compelling argument" that Dictionary mentions above (though I got it from the Faramir BoQ article he posted ).


EDIT: Just noted something that turns the scales towards Phallen's point: the original version of Elessar's Edict says "instead", but... the corrected version says "to prevent that"! So Elessar's Edict is NOT like Treebeard Earthborn, and Saved From the Fire doesn't grab a single card if Elessar's Edict is used.

[Dictionary]

Ted Sandyman's looks great! And thank you for the Ranged Weapons article additions. Little by little, we're approaching to the goal of having all concerning cards mentioned.

I wanted to thank you too for your recent work on the articles. I realise that you have been under some stress recently, and I don't wish to appear ungrateful.

EDIT: Just noted something that turns the scales towards Phallen's point: the original version of Elessar's Edict says "instead", but... the corrected version says "to prevent that"! So Elessar's Edict is NOT like Treebeard Earthborn, and Saved From the Fire doesn't grab a single card if Elessar's Edict is used.

That's curious, I thought that the reason they clarified Elessar's Edict was because it wasn't immediately obvious to players that they could opt to exhaust a wraith who is already exhausted. So they changed the wording to account for that. And yet, by changing "instead" to "prevent", they have changed the very nature of how the card works. Do you think this was even intentional?

On a related note, I thought the whole point of clarifications was to spell out parts of a card that should have been obvious (Like in the case of Sword of Dol Guldur), not change how the card fundamentally works. And yet, I believe Decipher did this before with cards like Desert Sneak, changing a required effect to an optional one. When they do that, why even call it a clarification and not an errata?

EDIT: Wrote article for Sam, Loyal Friend. Created page for the Fellowship Keyword

[Phallen Cassidy]

That's the usual interpretation with Treebeard Earthborn and Merry/Pippin. But that interpretation commits the mistake of confusing doing something instead of an effect with preventing an effect. The Current Rulings Document says those are different things:

"When a card uses the phrase "instead" or "instead of", the stated effect is replaced with a different effect. This does not mean that the original effect is prevented."

But, in the case of Earthborn, consider the full text:

"Unhasty. Response: If an unbound Hobbit is about to be discarded, stack him here instead."

If the text had read "If an unbound Hobbit is discarded, stack him here instead," you'd be spot on. But Treebeard doesn't replace the discard, it stops him from being discarded.

[Durin's Heir]

I wanted to thank you too for your recent work on the articles. I realise that you have been under some stress recently, and I don't wish to appear ungrateful.

You hardly would appear to be ungrateful, only momentarily busy. Your overwhelming nice side would show up in any moment, as just happened.

@Phallen: Your argumentations are interesting. But I think the key is understanding how and when modifying the cost of a card cancels the effect of such card:

"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... If all the costs cannot be paid, that card has no effect."

Earthborn modifies the cost of Merry UH / Pippin JaN (turns "discard him" into "stack him here"), and then is able to pay it completely (no card negates the stacking). So the Unbound Hobbit's ability is still paid and still has effect. The effect is negated when the modified cost cannot be fully paid, which is not the case here.


Besides, The One Ring has the same wording than Earthborn: "While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, each time he or she is about to take a wound, add a burden instead." (The Ring of Rings)

Such skill still works at Steward's Tomb, because doesn't prevent wounds.

[Phallen Cassidy]

Besides, The One Ring has the same wording than Earthborn: "While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, each time he or she is about to take a wound, add a burden instead." (The Ring of Rings)

Such skill still works at Steward's Tomb, because doesn't prevent wounds.

An excellent example, Steward's Tomb interacts with The One Ring as expected. Just as The One Ring doesn't prevent wounds but replaces the act of wounding with burdening, Earthborn doesn't prevent a discard. It replaces the act of discarding with stacking. All costs are no longer paid, because the cost to use those abilities of Merry and Pippin is to discard them.

While that alone should be enough to prevent the abilities regardless, I'm not certain Treebeard, Earthborn modifies the cost of the action. I'd have to think more on that.

[Dictionary]

Did several minor updates, wrote article for Watcher in the Water, Many-Tentacled Creature, and created a page for the Tentacle Keyword.