well, that would hopefully be cleared together.
Haldir and Dunhere
Posted 30 August 2014 - 08:02 AM
While we wait for an answer, here's another question for you: say you've got Merry/Pippin/Sam or some such deck. If you were to play Hobbit-sense...
Would you say you could then use Quick Strike to attack enemies? Or if you played this, then got Haldir from another player via Desperate Alliance, would it be a legal play to use his ability to attack enemies (provided they were already engaged this turn)?
Looks like it cannot since "cannot" is the strongest wording on cards we know so far. So it always has higher priority. Next to that other players can always declare ranged attacks on the enemies engaged with you, you just cannot participate in those attacks yourself.
What you can do, is use "Quick Strike" in any phase but the combat phase. For Example, you use "Quick Strike" in "encounter phase" or "refresh phase".
Posted 02 September 2014 - 01:13 PM
And here's the answer :
The limitations on attacks has to do with the number of attacks the game itself grants each player against an enemy each round. The extra language in the FAQ that reads: “If, through card effects such as ranged, a player is able to declare attacks against enemies with which he is not engaged, he is still only permitted a single attack against each of these enemies” is there because the core rules insert does not address the issues of ranged attacks. It simply reads: “A player has the opportunity to declare 1 attack against each enemy with which he is engaged.” So FAQ item 1.11 is meant to clarify that you are also limited to 1 attack against enemies you are not engaged with.
But again, those are attacks made via the Attacking Enemies step of the combat phase. Card effects such as Quick Strike and Haldir are special abilities that grant attacks in addition to the normal attacks granted by the combat phase. That means you can use Quick Strike to attack an enemy that you have already attacked that phase.
Maybe I should ask for GrandSpleen's question too, because it was not an answer about player declaring or character declaring.
I would say you cannot use extra attack's cards when playing Hobbit Sense however.
Posted 02 September 2014 - 01:19 PM
Thanks for asking Alogos.
Haldir thus keeps his high value with his ability
Posted 02 September 2014 - 03:14 PM
Thanks for that Alogos! Surprised at the response but I always like the responses that make us stronger
Posted 05 September 2014 - 08:25 AM
Further, can Haldir attack an enemy that engaged the previous round cor the normal attack, and then attack it again using his combat action, as long as no new enemies were engaged that round?
No because Haldir specifically says that his ability only works with enemies not engaged with you.
Posted 08 September 2014 - 05:05 PM
Posted 08 September 2014 - 06:15 PM
I have sent a follow-up question about Hobbit-sense and to see if we can clarify the FAQ entry a bit further. Will post on here once I get a response.
Posted 13 September 2014 - 08:17 AM
I got an answer. The question was "can you use cards to attack enemies in the same phase after you play Hobbit-sense," and "what cards does FAQ entry 1.11 apply to." Here is the reply:
Let me answer your second question first: FAQ entry 1.11 was meant to clarify that the game only grants each player 1 attack against each enemy even when using Ranged. That was because the way the core rules were written the restriction only applied to enemies engaged with you. Entry 1.11 should NOT be interpreted as limiting all additional methods of declaring attacks, such as Quick Strike, Hands Upon the Bow, Great Yew Bow or Haldir. Those methods are card effects that generate attacks and are thus exempt from the rule that limits the number of attacks granted by the core game rules and FAQ.
That leads us into your first question: Hobbit-sense prevents enemies engaged with you from making attacks granted by the Resolve Enemy Attacks step of the combat phase, and it prevents you from making attacks granted by the Attacking Enemies step. It does not prevent you from using those other card effects I mentioned. Those cards generate attacks but they do not technically “declare attacks” as described in the rules because they skip skip the declaration of attack and step 1 of Attacking Enemies by having you choose an enemy target and telling you which character to exhaust.
So: the 'once per round' rule applies only to attacks declared through the normal framework (which includes Ranged attacks). Any card effect granting an 'extra' attack will not consume your 'once per round' declaration limit. So you can attack an enemy in the staging area via your normal attack with Dunhere, then follow-up with a second attack using Haldir's ability.
And, Hobbit-sense doesn't prevent you from attacking enemies via card effects.
Posted 13 September 2014 - 09:05 AM
Those cards generate attacks but they do not technically “declare attacks” as described in the rules because they skip skip the declaration of attack and step 1 of Attacking Enemies by having you choose an enemy target and telling you which character to exhaust.
This is different from Quick Strike (Core 35), which targets a character and allows them to perform a normal attack, which is a framework effect
At the risk of being picky, dont these 2 directly contradict each other?
Edited by DaeMord, 13 September 2014 - 09:06 AM.
Posted 13 September 2014 - 09:18 AM
No. The second one refere to immunity, not to additional declaration of attack.
It does seem that way when you read them out of context, but you shouldn't read them out of context.
Posted 13 September 2014 - 09:51 AM
actually i disagree, these 2 subjects overlap if an extra attack is not a framework effect, then quickstrike should not be able to be used against imune to player card effect mobs, however if it is a framework effect then you should not be able to be used in the way defined above.
Quick strike in the faq was specificly defined to target the hero card and then do an attack using framework effects, in order that it could be used against mobs who are imune to player card effects, the wording above from caleb would suggest that actually quickstrike targets the mob in question thus should be effected by things that prevent non framework effects from happening
The 2 rulings are in contradiction, either it produces a framework effect and targets the hero, or it doesnt and targets the mob, but then cannot be used against immune to player card effects
this effects anything doing anything like this, and tbh shouldnt be seen to be doing both because if it is targeting the mob, but bypassing imunity, this raises questions about what is a "framework effect" and once again raises "immunity to player card effects" as a somewhat confusing and ildefined ruling
Posted 13 September 2014 - 11:17 AM
Immunity rules are weird, and I could not prove you wrong. This is not the first ruling I turn a blind eye on.
- GrandSpleen and chuckles like this
Posted 13 September 2014 - 02:01 PM
DaeMord, I agree and said pretty much exactly the same thing earlier in this thread. If it's a framework effect it shouldn't be breaking limits imposed on framework effects, if it's not a framework effect it shouldn't work against immune enemies.
My gut tells me that we are dealing a little with 'tradition' rather than just consistent reasoning, and devs are trying to clarify current rules questions, especially as they relate to newer game effects, without overturning old rulings (the old Quick Strike ruling vs. the newer immunity rules). It leads to explanations that look contradictory.
alogos has the correct response, I think.
Edited by GrandSpleen, 13 September 2014 - 02:01 PM.
Posted 13 September 2014 - 02:40 PM
I do agree thats probably what were looking at, the concern i have, is when you compile all of these rules together you end up arriving at this kind of conclusion.
You can use quick strike on Hero Beorn to attack an enemy that is also imune to player card effects.
This may be the ruling but it just seems wrong to me.
I feel personally that quick strike could do with an erata to clarify exactly what it is and is not targetting, and could we please have a specific definition on EXACTLY what a framework effect is, because i struggle to define a framework effect that actually allows all these rules to happen consistently, and without simply being "because caleb says so"
i mean ill grant you that all rules are ultimately that, but if were completely honest even if it is just "cause caleb says so" the very least we would like to see is internal consistency that you dont have rules breaking rules, which potentially is exactly what is happening right here