Jump to content



Photo

And a new FAQ!


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:32 AM

umm... combat action is incorrect term you are right.. I the new sub-set of actions is still pretty new sorry.

 

I'll try to step by step it....

  • Quick Strike is targeting the playe'rs CHARACTER, not the immune card
  • That initialises the "player attack sub-phase" of a combat round.
  • This is just like a normal attack in a normal combat round.
  • The player card event is not targeting the immune card at any time, it is using the combat round rules to select the target of the attack.
  • This is an example of a "non-targeted" effect. As while .. yes it it HITS a target.. there was no selecting of the target outside of normal rules. All quick strike did was play that combat step out of round.
  • You wouldn't expect "immune to player cards" to mean you can not attack them in a normal combat round would you?

Meanwhile...

 

  • Hands Upon the Bow as part of its cost requires a targeting for the event, AND to tap a player character.
  • So if the card is immune it can not be selected as a target and thus the effect fizzles.

Yes it is pretty similar but it IS different and the design space needs to recognise this for the game to make sense. You see this a lot in card games. The easiest way to think of this is that QuickStrike has no conditional text about the target, meaning there is no target.. you can just attack anything legal... but Hands Upon the Bow can only attack certain targets.. targets you need to nominate in a special way outside of the normal combat round rules. The rules that allow you to target out side those rules is on the player card's event text.. that is a player card effect.. and encounter cards can be immune to that.

 

That is pretty much it.. so like kinda like I said..

 

One is a TARGET effect, the other triggers a NON-TARGETED effect.


Edited by booored, 07 February 2014 - 12:35 AM.

"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#22 GrandSpleen

GrandSpleen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:52 AM

No, no, no, you are supposed to say, "Grandspleen, you are right.  The wording on the two cards is identical.  This is ridiculous, but we must let it be."

 

OK, so maybe not... but anyway, all we can do is be apologists for the ruling.  The card text on both cards is written nearly identically.  The motivation was clearly to exclude Hands from being used on Immune characters, but they tackled the problem from a weird angle.  

 

  • Hands Upon the Bow as part of its cost requires a targeting for the event, AND to tap a player character.

 

That's not right, the cost for neither card requires targeting.  I don't think I am missing any errata, but Hands is written:

 

Action: Exhaust a character you control with ranged to immediately declare it as an attacker (and resolve its attack) against an enemy in the staging area. It gets +1 Attack during this attack.

 

Everything before the word "to" is the "cost."  So you have to break it down this way:

 

COST: "Exhaust a character you control with ranged"

 

EFFECT: "immediately declare it as an attacker ... etc"

 

The "cost" for Hands and Quick Strike are identical, word for word, except for the "ranged" part.  It is the "effect" that's different.  All I can do is repeat myself I guess: if the cards can possibly be analyzed differently, it has to be in the text "an enemy in the staging area" vs. "any eligible enemy target."  It has to be that way, or the  foundation for the rules of the game (literal readings of cards) is undermined.

 

And I really don't want this game to go down the route of considering the semantics of "any enemy" vs "an enemy."  Yuck.


Edited by GrandSpleen, 07 February 2014 - 12:54 AM.


#23 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:59 AM

... there not identical in anyway. As I said this is a VERY common distinction in many card games.

 

Stop thinking of a combat step where you exhaust to attack.

 

With hand, The exhaust of the player character is a COST not part of the standard exhaust you do during the combat round. Hands says exhaust the player card, AND target a encounter card, and then do a combat-attack step vs the selected target. This is all in the event card text.

 

Quick-Strike targets ONLY the player card.

 

Believe it or not.. not sure I can write this a 4th way.


Edited by booored, 07 February 2014 - 01:32 AM.

"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#24 Dwarf king Bronze beard

Dwarf king Bronze beard

    Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:18 AM

So does this means that i have to start again all guests because i havent followed those Zigil miner and Legolas rules.

Would be REALLY annoying.  :(



#25 jjeagle

jjeagle

    Member

  • Members
  • 346 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:41 AM

 

 

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".


It's in the Long Dark rules. Solo you are both First and Last, but not Next

 

 

No as Dain and I said.. there is no definition for First and Last players in regards to Solo. It is NOT in The Long Dark Rule Sheet.. that is where the Next Player rules were introduced. Still I think it is pretty clear.. yet it should be defined properly in the FAQ.

 

 

It IS defined - in the Khazad-Dum rules insert:

 

"Some cards refer to the “last player.” The last player is 
considered to be the player sitting directly to the right of 
the first player. If there is only one player playing, then that 
player is considered to be both the first and last player."

"I have no help to send, therefore I must go myself."


#26 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:42 AM

Neat! Guess that explains why all the old hands are playing it correctly then. Good to know. We were all looking in the Long Dark rule sheet.

 

Still regardless like the "Next Player" ruling it should be added to the FAQ so it is in a easy to locate place.

 

So does this means that i have to start again all guests because i havent followed those Zigil miner and Legolas rules.

Would be REALLY annoying.  :(

 

Yeah this is why the quest log is completely useless. People make mistakes, card rules change.. there is no reason to record anything.. the recorded wins and losses has no meaning until the game is finalised.


Edited by booored, 07 February 2014 - 01:46 AM.

"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#27 Nerdmeister

Nerdmeister

    Member

  • Members
  • 639 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 01:58 AM

Sure wish they would release an "Errata Pack," with all of the cards that have had changes made to them in it. They're getting hard to keep track of!

I agree whole-heartedly with this. By my count there are now 23 cards that have been errataed (not just clarified but having changes to text).

I would gladly pay a regular AP price to get corrected versions of all the errataed cards.


Edited by Nerdmeister, 07 February 2014 - 01:59 AM.

  • Chris51261 likes this

#28 OnkelZorni

OnkelZorni

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 03:32 AM

 

I didn't notice that the designers "errata'd" their own point to being no more able to attach attachments to cards that are immune to player cards. That was quite surprising.

 

hasn't it always been like that... I mean a attachment is a player card ... so if it is immune.. how can you attach it?

 

 You were allowed to attach those things, they just couldn't affect the immune card. "Ancient Mathom" or "Path of Need" are examples that worked while being attached to an immune location, since their effects didn't targt that location



#29 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 03:40 AM

ahh yes.. I know what you mean now.. sweet. In truth I missed that distinction.

 

Mathom for example I would call the act of placing it ON the location as a target function. A function that would be illegal as the location can not be targeted due to immunity.

 

Either way.. I guess it is mute as they have changed it anyway. I makes a lot more sense this way.


Edited by booored, 07 February 2014 - 03:44 AM.

"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#30 GrandSpleen

GrandSpleen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 08:55 AM

Hands says exhaust the player card, AND target a encounter card, and then do a combat-attack step vs the selected target. 

 

edit:

 

Thanks for trying to explain how this works.  It's very clear how the distinction is "supposed" to work, I just don't see it supported by the card text... at all.  Literally, the wording on the cards is a copy/paste job.  They just added "ranged" and a clause about the staging area.


Edited by GrandSpleen, 07 February 2014 - 09:35 AM.


#31 joezim007

joezim007

    Member

  • Members
  • 480 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:39 AM

I agree with GrandSpleen. Hands Upon the Bow does not specify any targeting, it simply changes the definition of "eligible enemy". I have an additional question related to this, which may be answered in the FAQ, but I'm too lazy to look for it right now: Does this also mean that Dunhere can't be used against immune enemies in the staging area? I assume so, considering his ability specifically mentions targeting enemies. Which would mean you can't use Quick Strike plus Dunhere.

I once shot an arrow through the pupil of a pig's eye from 300 yards away! Sadly, I was aiming for a different pig.


#32 leptokurt

leptokurt

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,233 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:44 AM

 

Hands says exhaust the player card, AND target a encounter card, and then do a combat-attack step vs the selected target. 

 

edit:

 

Thanks for trying to explain how this works.  It's very clear how the distinction is "supposed" to work, I just don't see it supported by the card text... at all.  Literally, the wording on the cards is a copy/paste job.  They just added "ranged" and a clause about the staging area.

 

The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Qucik Strike iniiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.

 

And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense.

 

 

 

ETA:

 

Quick Strike tells your character to start an attack. An immune enemy is not involved here, as he only suffers from the attack itself (which follows the card effect), but not from the card effect.

 

Hands Upon the Bow tells your character to attack an enemy in the staging area. You have to pick that enemy. In that moment the enemy says: "Sorry, immune, can't pick me!" and you can't even start the attack.


Edited by leptokurt, 07 February 2014 - 09:49 AM.


#33 joezim007

joezim007

    Member

  • Members
  • 480 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:55 AM

The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Qucik Strike iniiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.
 
And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense.


Hands Upon the Bow ALSO just initiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The difference is that change "eligible enemy" to "enemy in the staging area". It seems to me that the rule is based off the fact that if the enemy isn't normally eligible, then it is technically being targetted outside the standard rules. So if the enemy IS normally eligible for the effect, then it's not really an effect against the enemy, but since we're changing the eligibility of an enemy from ineligible to eligible, that counts as targeting it.


I once shot an arrow through the pupil of a pig's eye from 300 yards away! Sadly, I was aiming for a different pig.


#34 GrandSpleen

GrandSpleen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:57 AM

That's the idea they put in the FAQ: Quick Strike targets a character only, Hands targets both a character and an enemy.

 

It's just that... the card text...

 

Select Quick Strike. Copy.

 

Select Hands.  Paste.  Add the words "ranged" and "staging area."  And a bit about +1atk.  Voila!  

 

That's all.  The bit about "you have to pick that enemy" is the part that gets lost in the identical text, since you do have to pick an enemy for Quick Strike in the physical world.  If Hands and QS are to be differentiated based on "picking" an enemy, it should be reflected in the text... Hence, they needed to errata Hands, or QS, or make them both illegal plays against immune enemies.

 

As for Dunhere, he doesn't work, nor will Great Yew Bow.  That came out of designer clarification given discussion in the community awhile back.  Dunhere uses the word "target" 



#35 GrandSpleen

GrandSpleen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:58 AM

 but since we're changing the eligibility of an enemy from ineligible to eligible, that counts as targeting it.

 

 

Thank you, joe, for making a legitimate attempt at reconciling this with the actual card text!  I just wish they had done that in the FAQ.


  • joezim007 likes this

#36 joezim007

joezim007

    Member

  • Members
  • 480 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:12 AM

 

 but since we're changing the eligibility of an enemy from ineligible to eligible, that counts as targeting it.

 

 

Thank you, joe, for making a legitimate attempt at reconciling this with the actual card text!  I just wish they had done that in the FAQ.

 

 

It's the only way that the ruling makes sense to me... and it DOES make sense, but I agree they should have mentioned that in the ruling.


I once shot an arrow through the pupil of a pig's eye from 300 yards away! Sadly, I was aiming for a different pig.


#37 leptokurt

leptokurt

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,233 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:28 AM

 

The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Qucik Strike iniiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.
 
And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense.


Hands Upon the Bow ALSO just initiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The difference is that change "eligible enemy" to "enemy in the staging area". It seems to me that the rule is based off the fact that if the enemy isn't normally eligible, then it is technically being targetted outside the standard rules. So if the enemy IS normally eligible for the effect, then it's not really an effect against the enemy, but since we're changing the eligibility of an enemy from ineligible to eligible, that counts as targeting it.

 

That's what I was trying to say. You have to pick the enemy because he isn't eligible.



#38 joezim007

joezim007

    Member

  • Members
  • 480 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:49 AM

That's what I was trying to say. You have to pick the enemy because he isn't eligible.


The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Quick Strike initiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.
 
And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense. 
 
 
ETA:
 
Quick Strike tells your character to start an attack. An immune enemy is not involved here, as he only suffers from the attack itself (which follows the card effect), but not from the card effect.
 
Hands Upon the Bow tells your character to attack an enemy in the staging area. You have to pick that enemy. In that moment the enemy says: "Sorry, immune, can't pick me!" and you can't even start the attack.


The issue with what you said is that it doesn't mention eligibility. You need to pick an enemy either way, otherwise you can't make an attack, which should make the two cards identical in this respect. Hands Upon the Bow does not explicitly state to target/pick an enemy, and neither does Quick Strick; they say to attack an enemy, which is a normal action in the game that isn't considered a card effect. The only difference (besides the obvious +1 attack) is that Hands Upon the Bow is making normally ineligible targets eligible.

 

Please try to understand that I'm not trying to put you down. I just want everyone to understand why GrandSpleen and I were having issues with the distinction between these two cards.


Edited by joezim007, 07 February 2014 - 10:52 AM.

I once shot an arrow through the pupil of a pig's eye from 300 yards away! Sadly, I was aiming for a different pig.


#39 alogos

alogos

    Member

  • Members
  • 419 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:12 AM

 

Sure wish they would release an "Errata Pack," with all of the cards that have had changes made to them in it. They're getting hard to keep track of!

I agree whole-heartedly with this. By my count there are now 23 cards that have been errataed (not just clarified but having changes to text).

I would gladly pay a regular AP price to get corrected versions of all the errataed cards.

 

 

And if they could put missing cards that are only in x1 or x2 in core set... having +1 test of will and +2 unexpected courage would be marvelous.  :wub:

(Also, +1 gandalf's search and +2 beorn's hospitality, YEAH!  :rolleyes: )



#40 Narsil0420

Narsil0420

    Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:04 PM

I'm really glad they clarified the Must X or Y vs Must Either X or Y thing, I was looking for an answer to that and couldn't find one for a while.

The most important part is that when it says, "either" you have to choose one that you can do (if you can do either). There have been many games where I just chose the option I couldn't do and made the Treachery card have no effect essentially.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS