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

[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.