LotR TCG Wiki → Card Sets:  All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 → Forums:  TLHH CC

Author Topic: Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion  (Read 11038 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 04, 2015, 03:55:46 AM
Reply #15

BigRedMF

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 114
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2015, 03:55:46 AM »
Narsil and TGaT are NOT the same, for the same reason that has been mentioned by several people in this thread. Perhaps I can explain it differently.

All examples that you are using that "prevent" wounds are RESPONSE actions, meaning the card is already in play, the action has already been paid for, and the results are about to be carried out. The RESPONSE action then prevents the wound from happening.

The card TGaT (and the others like it from RoTEL) actually allows itself to be prevented, NOT through a RESPONSE action, but as it is being played. This distinction is very important, because it means the EVENT is prevented, and the effects never happen. You are not preventing the wounds from TGaT but you are preventing the event itself from carrying out. I know this sounds like splitting hairs. SgtDraino has assumed that the words "to prevent this" on TGaT refers to the act of wounding, but many people have pointed out that it refers to the resolving of the card, which if the FP player does not discard two Gandalf cards, will THEN result in two wounds, to which the FP player could use a RESPONSE action to try to prevent (and fail when at Steward's Tomb).

The fact that the FP is not responding to the event is the key here, because it means the event is still being played and we have not yet come to actually resolve the effect of the event (i.e. the wounding). In all the examples being given where a FP card "cancels" something, it is actually already in play, because the FP is RESPONDING to the event/action/etc. TGaT hasn't come into play when you are "preventing" it from coming into play. (You can't cancel something that hasn't been played).
« Last Edit: February 04, 2015, 04:24:22 AM by BigRedMF »

February 04, 2015, 06:58:27 AM
Reply #16

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2015, 06:58:27 AM »
Narsil and TGaT are NOT the same, for the same reason that has been mentioned by several people in this thread. Perhaps I can explain it differently.

All examples that you are using that "prevent" wounds are RESPONSE actions, meaning the card is already in play, the action has already been paid for, and the results are about to be carried out. The RESPONSE action then prevents the wound from happening.

The card TGaT (and the others like it from RoTEL) actually allows itself to be prevented, NOT through a RESPONSE action, but as it is being played. This distinction is very important, because it means the EVENT is prevented, and the effects never happen. You are not preventing the wounds from TGaT but you are preventing the event itself from carrying out. I know this sounds like splitting hairs. SgtDraino has assumed that the words "to prevent this" on TGaT refers to the act of wounding, but many people have pointed out that it refers to the resolving of the card, which if the FP player does not discard two Gandalf cards, will THEN result in two wounds, to which the FP player could use a RESPONSE action to try to prevent (and fail when at Steward's Tomb).

The fact that the FP is not responding to the event is the key here, because it means the event is still being played and we have not yet come to actually resolve the effect of the event (i.e. the wounding). In all the examples being given where a FP card "cancels" something, it is actually already in play, because the FP is RESPONDING to the event/action/etc. TGaT hasn't come into play when you are "preventing" it from coming into play. (You can't cancel something that hasn't been played).

This explanation is fine, but from a strict rules standpoint it's more personal interpretation, which is a little different for everyone.

The full basis for the argument for it being able to work at the tomb is merely "Events have a Pay X to do Y format" and "The way the card (and all such cards) should have been worded is "Spot X to make the free people's player choose: A OR B.""

It's more speculation to say that "this" refers to resolving the card as opposed to "preventing" the wounds.

Also there's a bit of a contradiction between your reasoning (which seems sound) compared to my above quotes from Merrick. If the event is "Pay X to do Y" then you have "Spot a Nazgul - Pay X, to wound Gandalf - Do Y. According to this the requirements have been paid and the card has been played.

You could further argue (though there is no actual basis in the rules for it) that "preventing" the wounds is resolving the card, but it still wouldn't matter if you were, as wounds can't be "prevented" at the tomb.

I think that the big issue is getting lost in the details:
Whether or not you are "resolving a card" it you are still "preventing" wounds as stated on the card, which isn't allowed at the tomb.

To say that something "should have been worded" that way (as above) in order to try to fit a tough situation into a mold that we have created, is just more twisting and speculation.

I wouldn't call myself an expert at all, I know there's players like Merrick and Bib who have played far more (and played other games as well) who has more experience....but it's just my opinion that the situation is clearer than we're making it. There's no specific ruling, as it applies to this context, about whether event wounding can be "prevented" and game text wounding/burden addition (like morgul brute) can't. So why try to redefine what prevent means here? It says they can't be prevented. The card says you can do something to prevent them, just like Morgul Brute, which you could do at any other site. But you are at the tomb. They can't be prevented.

If we're actually supposed to just do what the card say (which is what I learned is the golden rule of CCGs from people here :) ) then let's just do what it says.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2015, 07:08:59 AM by dmaz »

February 04, 2015, 07:06:47 AM
Reply #17

bibfortuna25

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1531
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2015, 07:06:47 AM »
How would Gemp treat it if you have 2 [Gandalf] cards in hand and also have Eowyn LoR in play? Would you get the option to use Eowyn before or after the option to discard the 2 [Gandalf] cards? That should resolve this issue once and for all.

If the choice to use Eowyn comes before (or at the same time as) the option to discard the 2 cards, then discarding the 2 counts as preventing wounds, and thus can't be used at the Tomb. However, if her ability triggers after you decline to discard the 2, then it's obvious that discarding the 2 isn't preventing a wound.
All cards do what they say, no more, no less.

February 04, 2015, 07:13:46 AM
Reply #18

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2015, 07:13:46 AM »
How would Gemp treat it if you have 2 [Gandalf] cards in hand and also have Eowyn LoR in play? Would you get the option to use Eowyn before or after the option to discard the 2 [Gandalf] cards? That should resolve this issue once and for all.

If the choice to use Eowyn comes before (or at the same time as) the option to discard the 2 cards, then discarding the 2 counts as preventing wounds, and thus can't be used at the Tomb. However, if her ability triggers after you decline to discard the 2, then it's obvious that discarding the 2 isn't preventing a wound.

I don't really think this resolves it. It's simply more play-order rhetoric :/

The card has an option built into it to prevent the Y effect. As you guys stated X is the cost (spotting the Nazgul), Y is the effect, wounding Gandalf. The event itself has an alternate option built into it, which would of course play out before Eowyn responds. The problem is this option is doing X to prevent Y. What is Y? Wounding Gandalf. Thus you are preventing wounding. I don't see how this isn't so obvious...

I guess the major thing I'm stuck on is how we're making the jump to assume that discarding the two Gandalf cards is canceling or "resolving" the event as opposed to "preventing" wounds, which is how it's written on the card...I really think that if we are just doing what the cards say, you're trying to prevent wounds...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2015, 07:21:37 AM by dmaz »

February 04, 2015, 08:05:32 AM
Reply #19

BigRedMF

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 114
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2015, 08:05:32 AM »
Compare it to Intimidate, which specifically says to prevent the wound. If this card was giving the option to prevent the wounds, why wouldn't it use the same language? This is my (personal) basis for assuming that "this" refers to the playing of the event and not the wounding.

February 04, 2015, 08:16:59 AM
Reply #20

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2015, 08:16:59 AM »
Compare it to Intimidate, which specifically says to prevent the wound. If this card was giving the option to prevent the wounds, why wouldn't it use the same language? This is my (personal) basis for assuming that "this" refers to the playing of the event and not the wounding.

Thanks :)

After chatting more with bib about it too, I can see that argument in better light.

Since there's an option within the event itself that creates an outcome different than wounding, it must be decided before it's known that wounds will go out.

February 05, 2015, 05:53:27 AM
Reply #21

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2015, 05:53:27 AM »
I still don't see where this idea is coming from that discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards can be doing anything else other than preventing wounds, no matter how the timing works. I think it's a real stretch to try to argue that discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards somehow isn't preventing wounds. Of course it is! Again, where is there any basis in the rules to say otherwise? Let's see some references and/or examples from the CRs or CRDs.

Thanks for the support dmaz, no gold for you! ;)
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

February 05, 2015, 06:03:53 AM
Reply #22

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2015, 06:03:53 AM »
I still don't see where this idea is coming from that discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards can be doing anything else other than preventing wounds, no matter how the timing works. I think it's a real stretch to try to argue that discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards somehow isn't preventing wounds. Of course it is! Again, where is there any basis in the rules to say otherwise? Let's see some references and/or examples from the CRs or CRDs.

Thanks for the support dmaz, no gold for you! ;)

No more gold! D:

With this whole thing, I've gotten to the point where I'm at least satisfied with the alternate argument.

It makes sense to me that since you need to decide which happens in the event, there IS a possible outcome in the event that results in no wounds.

The reason I'm still not 100% sure is because I still feel like there is a reasonable amount of speculation surrounding this whole "well you need to resolve the card before the companion is 'about to take a wound', and since he's not 'about to take a wound' you aren't technically preventing wounds."

While I see the logic in this now, I still honestly don't see the hard evidence for it in the rules.

The only actual evidence we've seen from the rules is just order of play and cost/effect...not anything that actually applies to the REAL issue at hand...so I agree, sgtdraino...lets see some more from the actual rules :)

The more simple (and obvious) logic to me here is "well...it says prevent...thus despite all the rhetoric and mumbo jumbo, you are STILL preventing wounds".

I dunno....I conceded to the local experts that we have...though I still have a feeling if you brought this to the original game designers it's possible it wouldn't be exactly the way the majority is ruling it...
« Last Edit: February 05, 2015, 06:05:53 AM by dmaz »

February 05, 2015, 06:18:40 AM
Reply #23

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2015, 06:18:40 AM »
This is from the current rulings.

Quote
instead
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 the second effect
cannot happen for any reason, then the original
effect occurs.

From looking at this, it appears that this is the exact thing Merrick and bib are arguing for the whole "you aren't preventing because it's as if the wounds never happened".

Well if that was the case, by the rules the card would have said "the FP player may discard 2 Gandalf cards instead".

But it says "prevent"....hmmmm

February 05, 2015, 09:23:27 AM
Reply #24

BigRedMF

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 114
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2015, 09:23:27 AM »
If it's wording consistency that is tripping you up, then I'll reiterate: if it was preventing the wounds, why wouldn't it say "to prevent those wounds" just like Intimidate?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2015, 09:53:01 AM by BigRedMF »

February 05, 2015, 10:55:11 AM
Reply #25

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2015, 10:55:11 AM »
If it's wording consistency that is tripping you up, then I'll reiterate: if it was preventing the wounds, why wouldn't it say "to prevent those wounds" just like Intimidate?

Because cards don't need to say that, in order to be preventing wounds. See Huorn, among others we could pull out....the issue here is the usage of the word "prevent" rather than "instead".

The foundation of the argument that you are not actually preventing wounds was this:
You are given this event with two options: either wound gandalf or discard 2 cards.

However, according to Decipher's ruling on the word "instead", the card would read "instead" if you were actually being given two options, in which neither option is preventing the other.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2015, 10:58:27 AM by dmaz »

February 05, 2015, 07:09:36 PM
Reply #26

Durin's Heir

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Ranger
  • Posts: 863
  • Alex Jones was right
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2015, 07:09:36 PM »
I have to agree with Dmaz and Sgtdraino here:

The foundation of the argument that you are not actually preventing wounds was this:
You are given this event with two options: either wound gandalf or discard 2 cards.

The way it behaves in Gemp is indeed that: a Shadow card that forces the FP player to choose 1 of 2 pathways; before the decision is taken nothing happens (1st you spot a Nazgul; 2nd the FP player chooses; 3rd the wounding or [Gandalf] cards discarding action takes place). But the way the card is written, a Shadow card that wounds Gandalf twice and THEN the FP player can prevent those wounds; the wounds and the prevention aren't a fork on the road but the prevention is a possible reaction AFTER the wounding path is taken (1st you spot a Nazgul; 2nd the wounding action takes place; 3rd the wounds may be prevented before they are assigned to Gandy).

So it must be a misprogramming, a difference between what the digital card does and what the physical card says. In the physical card, the decision of wounding Gandalf was never in the hands of the FP player.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2015, 07:21:54 PM by Durin's Heir »
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”  - Malcolm X

February 06, 2015, 03:03:42 AM
Reply #27

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2015, 03:03:42 AM »
In the physical card, the decision of wounding Gandalf was never in the hands of the FP player.

This is essentially the main thrust of the opposing argument.
To say that you are choosing an alternate option over wounding, though can be reasonable and logical, is just speculation...and further doesn't have any backing in the rules, when you consider that in all such circumstances Decipher created the wording "instead" to handle situations such as that.

Another point made was that "well Gandalf isn't 'about to take' wounds", as it states in some cards, so you aren't preventing wounds.
1. We already know from other cards that this wording isn't always used when wounding or preventing wounds (also common sense dictates that it just sounds stupid for the card to say "spot a nazgul. Gandalf is about to take 2 wounds").
2. It's additionally unfounded to say that because TGAT doesn't say he's about to take wounds, or states the word "wound" again (remember Huorn, and other cards don't anyway) that you aren't preventing them. The card still says "prevent" regarding a prior statement. Effect of the prior statement was wounding.

ADDED:
Here are what cards look like when they are giving a player two different options. There are so many that it's pretty clear if the case was a choice of two things and not prevention, as the card even states, it would have been worded differently by Decipher:
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?

I'm sure there are more, but these are just the ones that popped into mind, at hand.

There are also events that use the word "prevent". It is pretty obvious in these cases that the opposing player is not given an option of things to "choose" from. They are only given a means to "prevent" it.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 03:43:02 AM by dmaz »

February 06, 2015, 07:53:14 AM
Reply #28

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2015, 07:53:14 AM »
Great examples, dmaz.

Perhaps this would be clearer for people if we broke it down into algebra. We know that, generally speaking, event cards break down into cost and effect, pay X to do Y. If we applied this to Too Great and Terrible, it would look like this:

Maneuver: Pay X to do Y. The Free Peoples player may do Z to prevent Y.

X = Spot a Nazgul
Y = Wound Gandalf twice
Z = Discard 2 [Gandalf] cards.

So, clearly (at least to me) discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards is preventing 2 wounds to Gandalf. What else could it be preventing?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 07:54:51 AM by sgtdraino »
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

February 06, 2015, 08:09:55 AM
Reply #29

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2015, 08:09:55 AM »
Great examples, dmaz.

Perhaps this would be clearer for people if we broke it down into algebra. We know that, generally speaking, event cards break down into cost and effect, pay X to do Y. If we applied this to Too Great and Terrible, it would look like this:

Maneuver: Pay X to do Y. The Free Peoples player may do Z to prevent Y.

X = Spot a Nazgul
Y = Wound Gandalf twice
Z = Discard 2 [Gandalf] cards.

So, clearly (at least to me) discarding 2 [Gandalf] cards is preventing 2 wounds to Gandalf. What else could it be preventing?

Bib's argument is that the "this" is referring to the act of the event wounding Gandalf rather than wounding Gandalf... Though I found it to also be logical there is no backing in the rules for it. The wording in TGAT is exactly the same as other cards which are known to prevent wounding, and subsequently do not work at the tomb.