Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion

[dmaz]

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that the way the cards are structured with this being in the Effect section of the card, it is internally consistent with replacing one effect with another prior to the resolution of the effect.

I definitely get that. This statement is basically why I conceded before... But after all these new findings in the rules, and after reading more cards, in seeing that there just isn't enough evidence backing this assertion in the rules. It's a theory based on reasoning. It makes sense. But so does the fact that prevent means prevent regardless of the details surrounding the circumstance. I'm becoming more predisposed to the latter as it involves less conjecture.

[sgtdraino]

Exactly what I meant.  I shouldn't have used the word "event", rather I should have said trigger.

It boils down to this: Response actions are one kind of "triggered action," but there are other "triggered actions" that aren't Response actions. And they all work the same: Triggered actions happen whenever the trigger happens.

The cards previously mentioned:
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?
don't replace an effect, they allow a player to choose the effect after the costs are paid.

I agree. But those cards are worded differently than Too Great And Terrible, which neither directs the player to choose the effect, nor does it replace an effect.

There are select things that can cause a trigger (triggered action) -
Each time - description of the trigger followed by a comma.
When - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
While - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
"Response:" - A special type of triggered action
Winning/losing a skirmish
Moving (move from, move, move to)
Free People's Player Death - Threats

This does not fall into any of those categories.

Unless you can show me these categories in the rules, I'd say they are too limited. Yes, all of the above are "triggered actions," but "triggered actions" are not limited to the above. A "triggered action" is any action that is triggered when certain conditions occur, either by text on a card or rules of the game. Specific words are not necessary. IMO "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 cards to prevent this" is a "triggered action," it has a cost and an effect all its own.

You specifically said "as you can see the word cancel is most often used in reference to killing events".  I was pointing out the main "canceling special abilities" use of the word cancel.

I think it's most used in regards to canceling skirmishes. I'd say events is the second-most used. Wargs might be third, depends on how many Warg cards there are.

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that the way the cards are structured with this being in the Effect section of the card, it is internally consistent with replacing one effect with another prior to the resolution of the effect.

I definitely get that.

I don't. It's not replacing one effect with another. The second part of the card is a "triggered action" that gives the Free Peoples player the option of preventing the effect of 2 wounds. In LOTRTCG, "prevent" is totally different than "replace." If it was replacing one effect with another, the card wouldn't say "prevent."

But after all these new findings in the rules, and after reading more cards, in seeing that there just isn't enough evidence backing this assertion in the rules. It's a theory based on reasoning. It makes sense. But so does the fact that prevent means prevent regardless of the details surrounding the circumstance. I'm becoming more predisposed to the latter as it involves less conjecture.

Thank you.

[Merrick_H]

There are select things that can cause a trigger (triggered action) -
Each time - description of the trigger followed by a comma.
When - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
While - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
"Response:" - A special type of triggered action
Winning/losing a skirmish
Moving (move from, move, move to)
Free People's Player Death - Threats

This does not fall into any of those categories.

Unless you can show me these categories in the rules, I'd say they are too limited. Yes, all of the above are "triggered actions," but "triggered actions" are not limited to the above. A "triggered action" is any action that is triggered when certain conditions occur, either by text on a card or rules of the game. Specific words are not necessary. IMO "The Free Peoples player may discard 2 cards to prevent this" is a "triggered action," it has a cost and an effect all its own.

Those are all the situations described when searching for the word "trigger" in the comprehensive rules 4.0.  If you find another one, please let me know.

[bibfortuna25]

I still think my Eowyn example is relevant. Wounds can only be prevented if they are about to be placed. It is only until FP declines to discard the Gandalf cards that the wounds are "next on the stack," as it were. If FP does decide to toss the cards, then the wounds are never pending. You don't even get the option to use Eowyn.

As far as I can tell, every single wound prevention card in the game uses the phrase "is about to take a wound." TGAT does not, nor do any of the other "temptation" cards from ROTEL. That right there is enough to prove to me that they function differently.

[dmaz]

I still think my Eowyn example is relevant. Wounds can only be prevented if they are about to be placed. It is only until FP declines to discard the Gandalf cards that the wounds are "next on the stack," as it were. If FP does decide to toss the cards, then the wounds are never pending. You don't even get the option to use Eowyn.

It is a good example, Bib. I'm still a little unsure as to whether it's applicable to the fact that you are still preventing wounds.
The Eowyn example itself also functions the way it does under the pretense of the current GEMP coding, which is what is being reviewed.

What we're saying here is that there are more statements being thrown around that aren't founded in the rules for the pro-function at Tomb argument as opposed to the anti-function at the Tomb argument.

I'm saying that the way the cards are structured with this being in the Effect section of the card, it is internally consistent with replacing one effect with another prior to the resolution of the effect.

Wounds can only be prevented if they are about to be placed.

I understand the reasoning surrounding these arguments, but the problem is I can't find any proof in the rules whatsoever regarding these assertions of what "prevent" actually means.

What I did find was this:

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.

This is basically word-for-word what you are trying to argue about what "prevent" means here. I argue that if Decipher didn't want TGAT and all of the other cards to actually be preventing the wounds/exhaustion/discarding, they would have used the wording "instead" or "either".  I have to go with what has more proof in the rules at this point...

[dmaz]

As far as I can tell, every single wound prevention card in the game uses the phrase "is about to take a wound." TGAT does not, nor do any of the other "temptation" cards from ROTEL. That right there is enough to prove to me that they function differently.

I already mentioned Huorn twice, he just says "prevent that" similar to these events...I'll see if I can find more and list them here.

Before when I was talking about this, I pointed out how awkward it would have been for Decipher to use that phrasing in this specific context.

"Spot a Nazgul to make Gandalf be about to be taking 2 wounds"....I can see why they didn't use it...

[BigRedMF]

I'd also like to add the comparison to Merry, Learned Guide and Pippin, Woolly-footed Rascal. The wording is "...to discard Merry. Any Shadow player may remove 2 to prevent this." Same wording as TGaT, right? So why then does Treebeard, Earthborn not allow you to stack your Hobbit? The answer is because your Hobbit is NOT about to be discarded, until the Shadow player chooses not to remove the twilight. Same thing with TGaT, Gandalf is NOT about to take a wound until the FP player chooses not to discard 2 Gandalf cards. Preventing the effect from happening is not the same thing as preventing the wounds themselves.

Think about a bizarre real-world scenario, where you are pointing a gun at someone who is pointing a gun at you. You can shoot the gun out of their hand (assuming you are that awesome) to prevent them from even firing at you. If you don't shoot the gun out of their hand, they will fire at you, and inflict a gunshot wound. If you happened to be wearing a kevlar vest, it would prevent the actual wound, even though they still fired their gun at you. Now imagine this scenario standing in Steward's tomb. You could still shoot the gun out of their hand. However, your kevlar vest wouldn't work because Denethor removed all the kevlar before you put it on, so if you got fired upon you would definitely take a wound.

[bibfortuna25]

Huorn still says "is about to take a wound." So does Narsil, Sapling, Intimidate, Eowyn or any other wound preventer you can name. I acknowledge the fact that not all preventers say "prevent that wound."

[dmaz]

I'd also like to add the comparison to Merry, Learned Guide and Pippin, Woolly-footed Rascal. The wording is "...to discard Merry. Any Shadow player may remove 2 to prevent this." Same wording as TGaT, right? So why then does Treebeard, Earthborn not allow you to stack your Hobbit? The answer is because your Hobbit is NOT about to be discarded, until the Shadow player chooses not to remove the twilight. Same thing with TGaT, Gandalf is NOT about to take a wound until the FP player chooses not to discard 2 Gandalf cards. Preventing the effect from happening is not the same thing as preventing the wounds themselves.

Think about a bizarre real-world scenario, where you are pointing a gun at someone who is pointing a gun at you. You can shoot the gun out of their hand (assuming you are that awesome) to prevent them from even firing at you. If you don't shoot the gun out of their hand, they will fire at you, and inflict a gunshot wound. If you happened to be wearing a kevlar vest, it would prevent the actual wound, even though they still fired their gun at you. Now imagine this scenario standing in Steward's tomb. You could still shoot the gun out of their hand. However, your kevlar vest wouldn't work because Denethor removed all the kevlar before you put it on, so if you got fired upon you would definitely take a wound.

All this tells me is that the shadow player has the option to prevent the discarding. Let's say he did remove 2....what did he just do? He prevented the discarding.

Apply your example to TGAT. I discarded the two Gandalf cards...what did I just do? I prevented two wounds.

All of this rhetoric about play order and "about to" stuff just doesn't have any actual basis in the rules as is applies to the phrase "prevent"...

It just makes more sense to me that Decipher intended prevent to mean prevent, instead to mean instead (I posted a quote from the rulings regarding this), and simply used different phrasing in different places as it was convenient and sounded right. "Spot a Nazgul to make Gandalf be about to take 2 wounds" or "Spot a Nazgul. Gandalf is about to take 2 wounds" ....this should be a no-brainer

[BigRedMF]

No, I will reiterate, that preventing the ACTION of wounding is not the same as preventing the WOUND. My real-world example was meant to convey that message.

If it was preventing the wounds, and not the wounding, it would have said "discard 2 Gandalf cards to prevent those wounds" just like EVERY other wound prevention card in Fellowship block, and quite a number beyond.

[dmaz]

No, I will reiterate, that preventing the ACTION of wounding is not the same as preventing the WOUND. My real-world example was meant to convey that message.

I understood. It's a really good analogy, but the problem I'm still stuck with, as I mentioned before, is that the argument everyone is making here is that Decipher wanted for the "prevent" here, in this situation involving wounds, to mean something different than any other situation involving "prevent" and wounds. I found no basis for this in the rules at all.

The argument is logical. But it also follows exactly what Decipher iterated in their description of the word instead (posted above). I think that if it means what you think it means, they would have used the word instead rather than prevent...

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.

Lying Counsel
The first stated effect was replaced with a different effect. The word prevent was not used and the original effect wasn't prevented.

Unreasonable Choice
The option to prevent was there. The FP player wasn't not given a choice to do something "instead", only to "prevent". If the second effect happened then the first was prevented.

TGAT does not say "may discard 2 Gandalf cards instead", it says "to prevent this".

[BigRedMF]

I understood. It's a really good analogy, but the problem I'm still stuck with, as I mentioned before, is that the argument everyone is making here is that Decipher wanted for the "prevent" here, in this situation involving wounds, to mean something different than any other situation involving "prevent" and wounds. I found no basis for this in the rules at all.

TGAT does not say "may discard 2 Gandalf cards instead", it says "to prevent this".

I am not arguing what "prevent" means, but arguing that you are not preventing the wounds. This is different than any other situation involving "prevent" and wounds, because every other situation says "to prevent that wound" rather than "to prevent this".

[dmaz]

Arod and Huorn, among countless others drop "wound" in their description of prevention.

I just went through cards throughout the game and it appears there is a pattern.

If the card has a global effect whereas it can come into play whenever a wound is going out, it uses the phrase "when X is about to take a wound"...then followed by prevent that (sometimes "wound" is added after "that").

In regards to preventing situations such as exhausting/discarding/liberating sites etc, and multiple wounds or burdens being dished out, it uses the phrase "prevent this". The point here is that you are still preventing whatever was going to happen. If it was wounding you are preventing wounds. If it was burdens then you are preventing burdens. You prevented them.

Look at Melilot Brandybuck, Merry Dancer and Sam, Samwise the Brave. The prevention clause in Sam is the same as the temptation cards but you still prevented burdens.

[sgtdraino]

Those are all the situations described when searching for the word "trigger" in the comprehensive rules 4.0.  If you find another one, please let me know.

There's lots of stuff not covered in the CRs. Just because your search only turned up the word "trigger" for those specific items, doesn't mean that there are no triggered actions besides those.

As far as I can tell, every single wound prevention card in the game uses the phrase "is about to take a wound." TGAT does not, nor do any of the other "temptation" cards from ROTEL. That right there is enough to prove to me that they function differently.

Bib, I think the only reason those various cards have "about to take a wound" on them, is to make it clear what the trigger condition is for the Response action. Too Great And Terrible doesn't require this, because it's already clear from the context of the card. And there is at least one wound-preventing card that doesn't specify "about to":

Gimli's Helm

I don't see anything in the rules that indicates the timing for preventing effects is different just because it does or doesn't say "about to." The only thing the CRs say, is:

Some responses are performed when a described
situation is "about to" happen. Typically,
only one such response can be performed in a
given situation, because its effect will "prevent"
that situation or replace it with another effect
"instead."

...so the only difference with "about to" Responses, is that you can probably only respond once. Also, under the definition of "Wound" we have this:

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

So, "wound Gandalf twice" means "place 2 wounds on Gandalf." As soon as you read that, the wounds are on the way... unless they are prevented.

I'd also like to add the comparison to Merry, Learned Guide and Pippin, Woolly-footed Rascal. The wording is "...to discard Merry. Any Shadow player may remove 2 to prevent this." Same wording as TGaT, right? So why then does Treebeard, Earthborn not allow you to stack your Hobbit? The answer is because your Hobbit is NOT about to be discarded, until the Shadow player chooses not to remove the twilight.

OR maybe it just means that triggered actions on the self-same card being played go off before optional actions

Preventing the effect from happening is not the same thing as preventing the wounds themselves.

Not if that effect is wounding somebody. IMO, of course.

[dmaz]

Gimli's Helm

I don't see anything in the rules that indicates the timing for preventing effects is different just because it does or doesn't say "about to." The only thing the CRs say, is:

Some responses are performed when a described
situation is "about to" happen. Typically,
only one such response can be performed in a
given situation, because its effect will "prevent"
that situation or replace it with another effect
"instead."

...so the only difference with "about to" Responses, is that you can probably only respond once. Also, under the definition of "Wound" we have this:

I did think of Gimli's Helm and Faramir, WP. Like you said, if we tried to squish TGAT into some kind of box by making a claim that "if wounds are being prevented it has to say they are 'about to take' the wounds or it's not prevention" (again, we can't find a foundation for that in the rules), then we would have no answer whatsoever for these cards.
It's basically saying that Gimli's Helm isn't preventing wounds unless it reads "each time Gimli is about to take a wound, prevent that wound". Yet is just says "prevent" which means all you need is that word.

I think this combined with Samwise the Brave sums it up nicely. Another argument founded on conjecture was that because it says "prevent this" the "this" is referring the "act of wounding Gandalf" and not the wounding itself. In other cards "this" is referring to a situation (move limit changes/discarding/exhaustion/etc etc), in some of the temptation cards it's referring to multiple wounds being placed. In the case of Samwise the Brave it's one or multiple burdens being added.
But they all have one thing in common. They are all prevention of the previously stated effect.

My view might be wrong, but this just makes much more sense than than the opposing view, and seems to follow the rules much closer.