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.