Does the 2nd part of Too Great And Terrible prevent wounds or prevent an action?

[sgtdraino]

There has recently been considerable debate over the way Too Great And Terrible currently works on gemp. You can view this discussion here:

Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion

The card reads as follows:

Maneuver: Spot a Nazgul to wound Gandalf twice. The Free Peoples player may discard two cards from hand to prevent this.

The disagreement is over what the second part of the game text does: "The Free Peoples player may discard two cards from hand to prevent this." There are those who believe this text is preventing wounds, and thus wouldn't work at Steward's Tomb. Others believe this text is preventing the action as a whole, not specifically wounds. What do you think?

[Ringbearer]

I am against such a poll as you shouldnt anyone letting it enter, becasue it will just be whomever shouts the most will get an agreement, or just people voting for what they will like.

I can tell from my DGMA days that it prevents the action.

[Merrick_H]

While I don't object to the poll, I am going to assert that it will not be binding, regardless of how the poll turns out.  How many people here really read, know and understand the rules and their subtle nuances to the extent required to make a decision on this?

[dmaz]

I am against such a poll as you shouldnt anyone letting it enter, becasue it will just be whomever shouts the most will get an agreement, or just people voting for what they will like.

I can tell from my DGMA days that it prevents the action.

Please enlighten the community then. So far there is no actual proof from the rules or otherwise that it's not talking about wounds being prevented (whether in the context of the action being stopped or not). All we've seen so far is mostly conjecture, however logical.

[dmaz]

While I don't object to the poll, I am going to assert that it will not be binding, regardless of how the poll turns out.  How many people here really read, know and understand the rules and their subtle nuances to the extent required to make a decision on this?

This is true too...I guess more the discussion to follow the pool when combined with each person taking a stand on one side or the other, would have more weight.

[Ringbearer]

I am against such a poll as you shouldnt anyone letting it enter, becasue it will just be whomever shouts the most will get an agreement, or just people voting for what they will like.

I can tell from my DGMA days that it prevents the action.

Please enlighten the community then. So far there is no actual proof from the rules or otherwise that it's not talking about wounds being prevented (whether in the context of the action being stopped or not). All we've seen so far is mostly conjecture, however logical.

I dont have a rule example but a ruling that kept with me was about Too Great And Terrible, lady Redeemed and Stewards Tomb (ROTK). Apparently it cancels the effect, so it was ruled during a Premier Series.

[dmaz]

I am against such a poll as you shouldnt anyone letting it enter, becasue it will just be whomever shouts the most will get an agreement, or just people voting for what they will like.

I can tell from my DGMA days that it prevents the action.

Please enlighten the community then. So far there is no actual proof from the rules or otherwise that it's not talking about wounds being prevented (whether in the context of the action being stopped or not). All we've seen so far is mostly conjecture, however logical.

I dont have a rule example but a ruling that kept with me was about Too Great And Terrible, lady Redeemed and Stewards Tomb (ROTK). Apparently it cancels the effect, so it was ruled during a Premier Series.

Thanks!

While it was tough to discern from the rules, a lot of us knew this must have been ruled on from the "experts" before in competitive play.

While, personally, I still think there's more card examples, and examples in the rules that point towards it being actual prevention, a competitive ruling is probably the closest thing we can get to a definitive answer.

[Eukalyptus]

I am against such a poll as you shouldnt anyone letting it enter, becasue it will just be whomever shouts the most will get an agreement, or just people voting for what they will like.

I can tell from my DGMA days that it prevents the action.

Please enlighten the community then. So far there is no actual proof from the rules or otherwise that it's not talking about wounds being prevented (whether in the context of the action being stopped or not). All we've seen so far is mostly conjecture, however logical.

I dont have a rule example but a ruling that kept with me was about Too Great And Terrible, lady Redeemed and Stewards Tomb (ROTK). Apparently it cancels the effect, so it was ruled during a Premier Series.

You mean Terrible as the Dawn?

[Ringbearer]

Yes

[Carl333]

I think I am not quite understanding what you mean.  Even if it were to discard 2   cards in order to negate the card itself, it would still prevent the wounds.  The card would also be discarded because its an event, so it cant be re-used.  You would still have to discard the two cards so negating the   card part would be useless.  I would say either way works.  It doesn't really matter.

[sgtdraino]

Tournament directors don't always make the right call.

[dmaz]

Tournament directors don't always make the right call.

Yeah....like I said, I still feel like we have the right of it. It makes much more sense according to what the rules actually say, and it doesn't require a bunch of assumptions about the rules that aren't there.

Though I think I'm just going to have to accept conceding to the big-noses here, I'd still like to know why they think prevent means something else in this specific circumstance only...

Bib has already violated his own rule of "Cards do what they say. No more, no less." more than once

[dmaz]

I think I am not quite understanding what you mean.  Even if it were to discard 2  cards in order to negate the card itself, it would still prevent the wounds.  The card would also be discarded because its an event, so it cant be re-used.  You would still have to discard the two cards so negating the  card part would be useless.  I would say either way works.  It doesn't really matter.

Yeah that's also what we're saying here....you still prevented wounds. It's more of a stretch to try and argue that it somehow means that "this" means the card so you're not preventing, and since it doesn't say "response" it's not the same....it sounds more like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[Merrick_H]

If this was at a Decipher Premier Event (not a PSQ which is run by local tournament directors) it would have had Trevor McGreggor or Enrique Huerta or one of the Rules committee members there at the time, not just some local person.

There is a BIG difference between a PSQ and a PSE.  PSEs were run by Decipher staff, not by volunteers and had a lot more resources available to make high level decisions such as this type of interaction.

[sgtdraino]

I dont have a rule example but a ruling that kept with me was about Too Great And Terrible, lady Redeemed and Stewards Tomb (ROTK). Apparently it cancels the effect, so it was ruled during a Premier Series.

Can you tell us more? What was the context? Was this ruling made during a game you were participating in, or did you just hear about it from somebody?

They said it "cancels the effect," but it can't be doing that, because it says "prevent' not "cancel." Did you mean that it prevents the effect? And if you did, that should mean that it's not preventing the action, it's only preventing the effect, which is the same thing as preventing wounds (the wounds are the effect).

What was the end result of the ruling? Was it possible to prevent the wounds from Terrible As The Dawn at Steward's Tomb?

Ugh, I dislike hearsay.

[Ringbearer]

I cant make it more than hearsay as I was in the game but it was a long time ago but it was a ruling who basically costed me the game. I was playing besiegers, but he had LR out to constantly nuke my conditions. I tried to kill Galadriel at the Stewards Tomb with Terrible as the Dawn but it was ruled at that point he could discard 2 other elves to keep her alive. I couldnt land another condition and lost horribly.

And again I hope people will keep this discussion civilised. I dont like being called a big-nose or a brick wall for believing one side of the story.

[dmaz]

I cant make it more than hearsay as I was in the game but it was a long time ago but it was a ruling who basically costed me the game. I was playing besiegers, but he had LR out to constantly nuke my conditions. I tried to kill Galadriel at the Stewards Tomb with Terrible as the Dawn but it was ruled at that point he could discard 2 other elves to keep her alive. I couldnt land another condition and lost horribly.

And again I hope people will keep this discussion civilised. I dont like being called a big-nose or a brick wall for believing one side of the story.

No one is intending to or actually acting uncivilized, but we'll try to keep the discussion to your standards.

From your time in DGMA is there any other moment in which these "temptation" cards (TATD, TGAT, etc) were under review or discussed, or was this the only situation in which the idea of "prevent" had to be broken down and analyzed?

I think the hard part for a lot of people isn't so much whether it's "preventing the action of wounding" or "preventing the wounds themselves", but rather, couldn't you be considered preventing wounds in both cases, as "wound gandalf twice" IS the effect that is being stopped?

BigRedMF's example is good and does argue that the card could theoretically NOT prevent wounds themselves, but it could still be looked at the other way...

[Ringbearer]

Lets make this first: I wasnt "in" the DGMA, just a high level player in my country.

No, this one was the only moment as it came up, as the only wounding card ever played in serious play was teh short time LR and Stewards Tomb were in the same format, before shadows entered. I quit after Bloodlines so never really payed attention to the Hunters ets.

[dmaz]

Lets make this first: I wasnt "in" the DGMA, just a high level player in my country.

No, this one was the only moment as it came up, as the only wounding card ever played in serious play was teh short time LR and Stewards Tomb were in the same format, before shadows entered. I quit after Bloodlines so never really payed attention to the Hunters ets.

Thanks again for the input...like I mentioned it might be the only actual information we have to run on in the end, and could help us put the issue to rest

It's too bad MarcinS is MIA for the time being...I know he mentioned briefly that it was working according to the programing but didn't go into detail....

[Merrick_H]

It is working according to the programming.

It treats the event as a preventable effect.  The wounds aren't placed until the effect is resolved after the free people's player decides whether they are going to discard 2 cards from hand.  If the free people's player cannot discard two cards from hand, it calls the wound protocol twice, if the free people's player discards the two cards from hand, the effect resolves and no wounds are placed.

[dmaz]

It treats the event as a preventable effect.

That's where sgtdraino brought up the doubt originally...why should it be preventable if it's wounding (whether it's the "action" of wounding or "about to take" wounding)?

Can I get a response about my find on Decipher's ruling on the word "instead"?

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.

Why then did Decipher not word the card "The FP player may discard 2 Gandalf cards instead"?
Decipher created the word and the ruling on it for purposes like or similar to this, it seems...I know I can't say "That's exactly why they made it", but it feels closer to the answer than making other broad jumps...

[Merrick_H]

Funny - if you read instead and look at the effect rules, they resolve to the same outcome:

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.

effect - If something happens to prevent one effect which in turn would have prevented a second effect, the second effect is performed.

Part of the problem is that Decipher was horribly inconsistent in their phrasing.  Thus we have "prevent", "choose", "instead" and the wonderful situation below:

effect - 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.

Ride with Me

Where the text with the "or" should never have been in parentheses.

[dmaz]

Funny - if you read instead and look at the effect rules, they resolve to the same outcome:

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.

effect - If something happens to prevent one effect which in turn would have prevented a second effect, the second effect is performed.

Part of the problem is that Decipher was horribly inconsistent in their phrasing.  Thus we have "prevent", "choose", "instead" and the wonderful situation below:

effect - 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.

Ride with Me

Where the text with the "or" should never have been in parentheses.

This only addresses half of that quotation from the rules, in fact the half that doesn't matter as much.

"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. "

There is a complete difference between the two.

And yes it might be true that  certain game texts "should" have or "should never" have read certain ways, but to say that one rule = X, because Decipher should have written something like Y, doesn't work...

[Merrick_H]

I'm just using that as an example of sloppy card design from Decipher that leads to issues with interpretation in the rules.  There are many more where, if they had started out with a certain vocabulary and used only that vocabulary the card design would have been significantly better and quite a number of issues that required clarification in the Comprehensive rules or CRD would have been avoided.

This sloppiness and lack of attention to detail is seen even in their CRDs, which at times lose bits of important text that were present in previous versions because their document control process and card design process was somewhat lax.

I recognize that the card in question can be interpreted multiple ways.  I even agree that the simple interpretation is logical.  I also disagree with that interpretation because of rules "clarifications" that came about later.  If we want to interpret it with the rules that were in place at the time (Comprehensive Rules 2.0 and the CRD from September 7, 2004) I'd even go so far as to say that the wounds cannot be prevented is the most logical conclusion. 

However we have to interpret it based on the most recent Comprehensive Rules and CRD available.  They muddy the water significantly, especially with the playing the card entry and when effects take place.  Based on the rule sets CURRENTLY IN PLACE, the answer can be seen in both lights.

[dmaz]

However we have to interpret it based on the most recent Comprehensive Rules and CRD available.  They muddy the water significantly, especially with the playing the card entry and when effects take place.  Based on the rule sets CURRENTLY IN PLACE, the answer can be seen in both lights.

This is very true, and for one, why I originally was believing your side of the argument.
The reason I changed my mind was because of this statement:

All cards do what they say, no more, no less.

...and can be further demonstrated in this statement:

I'd even go so far as to say that the wounds cannot be prevented is the most logical conclusion. 

The point I'd like to make is this:
If this is all we're given, why try to go so far as to rationalize a reason to fit a ruling that we are predisposed to? Yes, Decipher was sloppy with their wording and rulings, but that shouldn't give license to decide the rules or what they mean for ourselves...
Amidst the differing opinions about this card and whether it's an "action" or "effect", what "this" and "wound twice" really means, etc etc, what it boils down to is that we should just do what the card says.

1. Spot Gandalf (Cost).
2. Wound Gandalf Twice (Effect).
3. Discard two cards to prevent (an option to "prevent" the effect).

The effect is wounding Gandalf twice. There is no reason to open a can of worms trying to explain how this wounding really actually isn't wounding because of the fact that you have to resolve the card, etc etc...you just prevented an effect. It was two wounds...from the information we have, following the rule of doing what the cards say, you just prevented two wounds.

Draino's most recent response on the discussion thread are also very significant; I probably won't be moved on this opinion regardless of what MarcinS decides to do with the coding.

It just looks, based on the responses, that the argument for allowing prevention boils down to "the cards should have read X instead, and Decipher was just getting sloppy, so we have to assume what they meant based on how we interpret the CR".
I'd much rather just do what the card says, without any presumptions on intended meaning, instead

[Merrick_H]

I still insist that based on the way the rules are written in the most recent rule books that the option given to the free people's player is still part of the effect.  Just because it is in a second sentence doesn't make it any less part of the effect than QTNA, Celeborn LotG, Glorfindel or any of a host of the other cards with complex effects.

Given the rules surrounding playing a card in the latest CRD, the effect cannot fully be resolved until such time as the final out come has been decided including all optional and required actions in the effect have been resolved.  As Gandalf is not "about to take wounds" until the free people's player decides whether or not to discard the 2 cards from hand, there are no wounds to prevent and the normal effect of the card is replaced.

[dmaz]

Given the rules surrounding playing a card in the latest CRD, the effect cannot fully be resolved until such time as the final out come has been decided including all optional and required actions in the effect have been resolved.  As Gandalf is not "about to take wounds" until the free people's player decides whether or not to discard the 2 cards from hand, there are no wounds to prevent and the normal effect of the card is replaced.

Hmmm... point taken on the examples. You are right about the complex effect thing, and I think we could spend hours finding cards with weird and extensive effects  ....however we shouldn't ignore the wording that is used, and assume that just because Decipher is sometimes sloppy that we can make it to mean what we feel or think...

Although I still think it's a stretch to say that because Gandalf is not "about to take wounds" that there are no wounds to prevent.
Also this is inconsistent with what BigRedMF was arguing, but to the same end...in his examples you are preventing the assigning of two wounds, which involves preventing wounds in some way shape or form (it's only been straight opinion so far that has said otherwise). The tomb states that wounds may not be prevented not "if a companion is about to take wounds, those wounds may not be prevented". It feels like you jump to less conclusions when you just read the card and follow it accordingly. i.e. whatever the case, somehow the effect of these two wounds is being prevented.

[BigRedMF]

So if I exerted an Orc Soldier at Stewards Tomb, and you used a card to prevent it's special ability, that would be considered preventing wounds? You are basically saying that any card with the capacity to wound will always wound at the Tomb because even though you prevent them from happening, that is, by extrapolation, preventing wounds. Does playing a skirmish event to prevent losing a skirmish count as preventing wounds? I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but I still don't think my point has been taken that the card says to wound Gandalf (verb), and the Tomb says wounds (noun) cannot be prevented. Preventing the verb ultimately means no wounds are assigned, but it does not mean that you are preventing the wounds, because they were never assigned.

[dmaz]

So if I exerted an Orc Soldier at Stewards Tomb, and you used a card to prevent it's special ability, that would be considered preventing wounds? You are basically saying that any card with the capacity to wound will always wound at the Tomb because even though you prevent them from happening, that is, by extrapolation, preventing wounds. Does playing a skirmish event to prevent losing a skirmish count as preventing wounds? I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but I still don't think my point has been taken that the card says to wound Gandalf (verb), and the Tomb says wounds (noun) cannot be prevented. Preventing the verb ultimately means no wounds are assigned, but it does not mean that you are preventing the wounds, because they were never assigned.

I completely understand your point, but what we are pointing out is that it's still just opinion when put next to the rules we actually have to run by. It's very logical and may be true, but it still makes a jump that we don't have justification for in the rules at this point.

If Orc Soldier was used at Stewards Tomb and you used something to "prevent" that, what you would be doing, according to the rules, is stopping the effect of the special ability. In this case that effect can't be prevented. For example, as I pointed out before from CR, Decipher says that when something is prevented the cost remains paid but the effect is stopped. So far in all cards discovered and rules, prevent has always meant to stop the effect...The word "cancel" as sgtdraino, has pointed out, though similar and related to prevent in some ways, is still used differently. If you could find such a card that cancels a special ability upon use, this wording is different. If someone is prevented from using special abilities altogether then they could do nothing. If a special ability was already used, and not canceled, the only thing that could be prevented is the effect.

[BigRedMF]

If Orc Soldier was used at Stewards Tomb and you used something to "prevent" that, what you would be doing, according to the rules, is stopping the effect of the special ability. In this case that effect can't be prevented. For example, as I pointed out before from CR, Decipher says that when something is prevented the cost remains paid but the effect is stopped. So far in all cards discovered and rules, prevent has always meant to stop the effect...The word "cancel" as sgtdraino, has pointed out, though similar and related to prevent in some ways, is still used differently. If you could find such a card that cancels a special ability upon use, this wording is different. If someone is prevented from using special abilities altogether then they could do nothing. If a special ability was already used, and not canceled, the only thing that could be prevented is the effect.

That, my friend, is incorrect. The rules say "when an action (event or ability) is cancelled or prevented, it's effects are ignored". The effects are not prevented, they are ignored, which is the same thing as saying they are not carried out at all. If Orc Soldier's ability is prevented, you are preventing the ability, not the effect. The effect never happens, there is no wound to prevent. I actually ran a little test on Gemp to check how it handles cancelling an event and preventing an ability at Stewards Tomb. In both cases, there is no wound assigned, and thus no wound to prevent. You'll have to wait till Site 5...
http://www.gempukku.com/gemp-lotr/game.html?replayId=bigredmf$a1cfag03f4z76j4y

[dmaz]

If Orc Soldier was used at Stewards Tomb and you used something to "prevent" that, what you would be doing, according to the rules, is stopping the effect of the special ability. In this case that effect can't be prevented. For example, as I pointed out before from CR, Decipher says that when something is prevented the cost remains paid but the effect is stopped. So far in all cards discovered and rules, prevent has always meant to stop the effect...The word "cancel" as sgtdraino, has pointed out, though similar and related to prevent in some ways, is still used differently. If you could find such a card that cancels a special ability upon use, this wording is different. If someone is prevented from using special abilities altogether then they could do nothing. If a special ability was already used, and not canceled, the only thing that could be prevented is the effect.

That, my friend, is incorrect. The rules say "when an action (event or ability) is cancelled or prevented, it's effects are ignored". The effects are not prevented, they are ignored, which is the same thing as saying they are not carried out at all. If Orc Soldier's ability is prevented, you are preventing the ability, not the effect. The effect never happens, there is no wound to prevent. I actually ran a little test on Gemp to check how it handles cancelling an event and preventing an ability at Stewards Tomb. In both cases, there is no wound assigned, and thus no wound to prevent. You'll have to wait till Site 5...
http://www.gempukku.com/gemp-lotr/game.html?replayId=bigredmf$a1cfag03f4z76j4y

I think my wording in that last paragraph came across confusing. I'm pretty sure what sgtdraino has been arguing from the beginning is that you are preventing the effect of wounding twice. The replay, though proves what canceling of actions means, just brings the argument back in a circle to: the card means to prevent an action not prevent wounds :/

[sgtdraino]

However we have to interpret it based on the most recent Comprehensive Rules and CRD available.  They muddy the water significantly, especially with the playing the card entry and when effects take place.  Based on the rule sets CURRENTLY IN PLACE, the answer can be seen in both lights.

You've made reference to this before, but I'm still not seeing what relevance you think the timing issue has as to whether or not the card is preventing wounds. Perhaps you could explain your thought process?

I still insist that based on the way the rules are written in the most recent rule books that the option given to the free people's player is still part of the effect.  Just because it is in a second sentence doesn't make it any less part of the effect than QTNA, Celeborn LotG, Glorfindel or any of a host of the other cards with complex effects.

The second part of the text is a triggered action. It has its own cost and effect. Nobody seems to be addressing this.

Given the rules surrounding playing a card in the latest CRD, the effect cannot fully be resolved until such time as the final out come has been decided including all optional and required actions in the effect have been resolved.  As Gandalf is not "about to take wounds" until the free people's player decides whether or not to discard the 2 cards from hand, there are no wounds to prevent and the normal effect of the card is replaced.

Is there some rule that says you can't be preventing wounds unless a character is "about to take wounds?" "About to take wounds" is not on this card, nor is it on certain other cards that prevent wounds, such as Gimli's Helm.

ETA: Just out of curiosity, I'm trying to remember, how exactly is the prompt worded, that gemp gives you when Too Great And Terrible is played? Doesn't it say:

"Would you like to discard 2 cards to prevent: Wound Gandalf twice?"

If so, it seems that even gemp recognizes that "this" refers to the text "Wound Gandalf twice."

[sgtdraino]

So, close to an even split on this one, the issue resurfacing when bibfortuna25 inadvertently switched sides to report a bug:

I found a minor bug with Dread and Despair.

When the event is played, the FP is given the choice of discarding 6 off the top before the Shadow player chooses which condition to discard. It should be the other way around, so the FP can know if he wants to actually save the condition or not.

This gets back to the TGaT argument. I think you are discarding to prevent the card effect from carrying out, which is why your opponent doesn't choose yet. It's consistent with TGaT preventing the effect and not the wounds.

Those that were so fiercely fighting for this argument about TGaT were standing on the fact that the prevention happens before the wounding is sent out. So if that were true here they technically shouldn't know what condition gets discarded if they choose to prevent....

Also, dmaz, the decision on whether or not this gets recoded may ultimately be up to you, unless MarcinS vetoes it.

[dmaz]

I don't know if I should have the right to the decision.

In the end I would like to go with the way that MarcinS originally coded it, assuming that he meaningfully coded it that way.

If I find a discrepency in the coding, and I can get his feedback on github about it, then I will create new coding, but according to his decision.

Even if I choose to recode something and make a PR, he will still decide whether it gets implemented

Already found something very interesting.

In the coding for TGAT, I found that he uses the logic effect "ChooseAndWoundCharactersEffec t.java" when it looks like we should be using "WoundCharactersEffect.java". In cards like Attea, the Easterling, you get the choice, but in this case, there isn't a choice, it's just "wound Gandalf twice", not "spot gandalf and wound" or "spot a gandalf culture character and wound". I'll look more into this and see if because he used ChooseAndWound as opposed to Wound if it resulted in any different game function than it should have.