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

[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