Jump to content



Photo

The most treachery hated card


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21 Dain Ironfoot

Dain Ironfoot

    Member

  • Members
  • 644 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:10 PM

 

 

I vote for:

 

ffg_the-power-of-mordor-hon.jpg

 

Not because it is necessarily the nastiest, but because:

- it makes a complete mess of the Siege of Cair Andros if it reshuffles the locations

- it's not clear how it works with the Captains/To the Tower in Morgul Vale

 

this has been answered by Caleb:

 

You count the Captains - but they cannot be removed - so it makes for an extra card revealed when this treachery shows up! i.e., you count the captain - but don't remove them.

 

I have seen this ruling referred to online, but I haven't actually seen the ruling itself - do you have a link? Presumably you would also count "To the Tower", by this ruling, since it is also in the staging area and cannot leave it.

 

I struggle to understand the rationale of this ruling giving the "Then" clause for the second sentence.

 

Caleb answers by e-mail, so there would never be a link.

 

I e-mailed him to ask about To The Tower, specifically, and will post his response once I hear back.

 

The "equal number" part can be confusing; does it refer to the equal number you counted or the equal number you shuffled? Caleb ruled it's equal to the number you counted, not shuffled. The card could be clearer, for sure.

 

My rule of thumb is, when in doubt, go for what makes it more difficult for the players. There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example), or even this one. So, basically, if it makes it harder for me, I'll typically go with that interpretation. If it gets clarified that I was wrong later, all the better! :)


Edited by Dain Ironfoot, 19 February 2014 - 02:17 PM.


#22 jjeagle

jjeagle

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:12 PM

 

 

 

I vote for:

 

ffg_the-power-of-mordor-hon.jpg

 

Not because it is necessarily the nastiest, but because:

- it makes a complete mess of the Siege of Cair Andros if it reshuffles the locations

- it's not clear how it works with the Captains/To the Tower in Morgul Vale

 

this has been answered by Caleb:

 

You count the Captains - but they cannot be removed - so it makes for an extra card revealed when this treachery shows up! i.e., you count the captain - but don't remove them.

 

I have seen this ruling referred to online, but I haven't actually seen the ruling itself - do you have a link? Presumably you would also count "To the Tower", by this ruling, since it is also in the staging area and cannot leave it.

 

I struggle to understand the rationale of this ruling giving the "Then" clause for the second sentence.

 

Caleb answers by e-mail, so there would never be a link.

 

I e-mailed him to ask about To The Tower, specifically, and will post his response once I hear back.

 

I meant a forum link where someone had posted an email from Caleb - the normal way for these rulings to disseminate into the community.

 

I too have submitted a request for a ruling and will also post any response.

 

Regarding the "Then" clause, I was referring to this from the FAQ: "If a card effect uses the word “then,” then the preceding effect must resolve successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to resolve. "

 

It seems to me that the first clause fails because you can't shuffle in Captains/To the Tower - therefore the "Then" clause does not resolve.

 

This whole issue is very murky at the moment (see the "Ered Nimrais" thread in the Rules forum).


Edited by jjeagle, 19 February 2014 - 02:16 PM.

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


#23 chuckles

chuckles

    Member

  • Members
  • 171 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:14 PM

I think people have covered most of the super evil treacheries in the game.  So I'll pitch in to add some of the most annoying:

 

M1347.png and M1093.png

 

How many times have you gotten saddled with two copies of Watchful Eyes in the first round?  Ughh.  And Necromancer's Reach, all that little plink-plink-plink damage adds up, and makes you afraid to commit Hobbits to the quest.

Yeah those two used to be really high on my list of treacheries I really wanted to avoid but these days I seem to be able to handle them ok.

 

I think that most of my least liked individual treacheries cards have already been highlighted... except for local trouble:

ffg_local-trouble-hon.jpg  

At the time when I first encountered this treachery card I was massively favoring decks that included Elrond & Vilya & 2x unexpected courage to ready him for questing and defending and putting a card into play.

 

But its often the combinations of cards that really hurts... like getting both Necromancer's Reach and Dol Guldur Orcs together - insta killing Eowyn far too many times in the early days!

 

1) - The Masters malice (so often been game over, thanks for coming. Unless mono sphere)

2) - The power of Mordor (the times its shown up have been brutal! or confusing with captains... edit reading dain's post adds to brutality even if less confusing)

3) - Local trouble (I love Elven decks this sucks for Elrond or any other Hero that you want to ready a lot)

4) - Sleeping Sentry (though have seldom come across it)

5) - Wind-Whipped rain (only this low as I don't play the saga its in much... think my lip quivered the first time I lost all my attachments)


Edited by chuckles, 19 February 2014 - 02:18 PM.

"Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice that can still daunt you and deceive you, if you let it."

 


#24 Dain Ironfoot

Dain Ironfoot

    Member

  • Members
  • 644 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:20 PM

 

 

 

 

I vote for:

 

ffg_the-power-of-mordor-hon.jpg

 

Not because it is necessarily the nastiest, but because:

- it makes a complete mess of the Siege of Cair Andros if it reshuffles the locations

- it's not clear how it works with the Captains/To the Tower in Morgul Vale

 

this has been answered by Caleb:

 

You count the Captains - but they cannot be removed - so it makes for an extra card revealed when this treachery shows up! i.e., you count the captain - but don't remove them.

 

I have seen this ruling referred to online, but I haven't actually seen the ruling itself - do you have a link? Presumably you would also count "To the Tower", by this ruling, since it is also in the staging area and cannot leave it.

 

I struggle to understand the rationale of this ruling giving the "Then" clause for the second sentence.

 

Caleb answers by e-mail, so there would never be a link.

 

I e-mailed him to ask about To The Tower, specifically, and will post his response once I hear back.

 

I meant a forum link where someone had posted an email from Caleb - the normal way for these rulings to disseminate into the community.

 

I too have submitted a request for a ruling and will also post any response.

 

Regarding the "Then" clause, I was referring to this from the FAQ: "If a card effect uses the word “then,” then the preceding effect must resolve successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to resolve. "

 

It seems to me that the first clause fails because you can't shuffle in Captains/To the Tower - therefore the "Then" clause does not resolve.

 

This whole issue is very murky at the moment (see the "Ered Nimrais" thread in the Rules forum).

 

 

While I know you don't believe me (yet), that is his ruling (I just can't find the e-mail). And the first clause can be satisfied - but the quest card trumps all for those cards that can't leave play. I just really don't see it as that confusing.

 

Now, if he says you count a captain but not To The Tower...then that really is confusing! Hahaha.



#25 chuckles

chuckles

    Member

  • Members
  • 171 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:21 PM

 

 

I vote for:

 

ffg_the-power-of-mordor-hon.jpg

 

Not because it is necessarily the nastiest, but because:

- it makes a complete mess of the Siege of Cair Andros if it reshuffles the locations

- it's not clear how it works with the Captains/To the Tower in Morgul Vale

 

this has been answered by Caleb:

 

You count the Captains - but they cannot be removed - so it makes for an extra card revealed when this treachery shows up! i.e., you count the captain - but don't remove them.

 

I have seen this ruling referred to online, but I haven't actually seen the ruling itself - do you have a link? Presumably you would also count "To the Tower", by this ruling, since it is also in the staging area and cannot leave it.

 

I struggle to understand the rationale of this ruling giving the "Then" clause for the second sentence.

 

 

...and having this card playing multiple times due to a certain 'Lieutenant of mordor' being one of the new cards is even less fun! 


Edited by chuckles, 19 February 2014 - 02:22 PM.

"Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice that can still daunt you and deceive you, if you let it."

 


#26 jjeagle

jjeagle

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 02:21 PM

 

The "equal number" part can be confusing; does it refer to the equal number you counted or the equal number you shuffled? Caleb ruled it's equal to the number you counted, not shuffled. The card could be clearer, for sure.

 

My rule of thumb is, when in doubt, go for what makes it more difficult for the players. There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example), or even this one. So, basically, if it makes it harder for me, I'll typically go with that interpretation. If it gets clarified that I was wrong later, all the better! :)

 

 

I am with you here - harder is better, but I also want clear and consistent rules!  :)


  • Dain Ironfoot likes this

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


#27 GrandSpleen

GrandSpleen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 04:39 PM

There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example),

 

 

Are you thinking about the card immunity fiasco?  I'm totally fine with Hands being illegal against immune cards, it just bugs the hell out of me that Quick Strike (copy paste of same wording) is not illegal.  Text is all-important.  Anyway, it makes it worse that there was a ruling last year that Hands WAS a legal play against immune enemies, which is more consistent with how the card is written (or cards, since QS and Hands are written the same).

 

But maybe you're not talking about this at all... it's just a festering open wound in my legalistic approach to the interpretation of card text.


  • jjeagle and chuckles like this

#28 chuckles

chuckles

    Member

  • Members
  • 171 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 04:57 PM

 

There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example),

 

 

Are you thinking about the card immunity fiasco?  I'm totally fine with Hands being illegal against immune cards, it just bugs the hell out of me that Quick Strike (copy paste of same wording) is not illegal.  Text is all-important.  Anyway, it makes it worse that there was a ruling last year that Hands WAS a legal play against immune enemies, which is more consistent with how the card is written (or cards, since QS and Hands are written the same).

 

But maybe you're not talking about this at all... it's just a festering open wound in my legalistic approach to the interpretation of card text.

 

 

I think that consistency is important really important. I do not like having, what now appears, to be inconstant rules for the same text with the cards Quick Strike & Hands upon the bow... (after all they are both immediate effects :P)


  • jjeagle likes this

"Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice that can still daunt you and deceive you, if you let it."

 


#29 Mndela

Mndela

    Member

  • Members
  • 754 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 05:28 PM


 

1) - The Masters malice (so often been game over, thanks for coming. Unless mono sphere)

2) - The power of Mordor (the times its shown up have been brutal! or confusing with captains... edit reading dain's post adds to brutality even if less confusing)

3) - Local trouble (I love Elven decks this sucks for Elrond or any other Hero that you want to ready a lot)

4) - Sleeping Sentry (though have seldom come across it)

5) - Wind-Whipped rain (only this low as I don't play the saga its in much... think my lip quivered the first time I lost all my attachments)

 

 

3. True, i hate Local Trouble. I hate.... :huh:  hate ... :(  hate.... :angry:

5. Lol, the lips are very good...


Edited by Mndela, 19 February 2014 - 05:29 PM.

  • legolas18 and chuckles like this

A wizard is never late..., he arrives precisely when it is the last round


#30 Dain Ironfoot

Dain Ironfoot

    Member

  • Members
  • 644 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:29 PM

 

There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example),

 

 


But maybe you're not talking about this at all... it's just a festering open wound in my legalistic approach to the interpretation of card text.

 

no, i'm avoiding that can of worms :)



#31 Raven1015

Raven1015

    Member

  • Members
  • 411 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:43 PM

I'm actually not a fan of the "immune to player card effects" at all. I think a better approach would be to introduce specific keywords that nullify certain effects, but not all of them. "Relentless" could prevent players from stopping an enemy from attacking, "Resilient" could make an enemy immune to direct damage, "Cunning" would mean an enemy could only be attacked through the declare attacks step of normal combat, etc. This might be more complex, but it would make enemies feel more distinct and avoid crazy ruling confusion. It's too late to do it now, but maybe for the future...


  • Chris51261 likes this

Check out my LOTR LCG blog: talesfromthecards.wordpress.com

Listen to The Grey Company podcast: greycompanypodcast.wordpress.com


#32 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,982 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 07:55 PM

I too have submitted a request for a ruling and will also post any response.

 

You should put it in that other thread as well so all the "then" bollocks is in one location.

 

I'm actually not a fan of the "immune to player card effects" at all. I think a better approach would be to introduce specific keywords that nullify certain effects, but not all of them. "Relentless" could prevent players from stopping an enemy from attacking, "Resilient" could make an enemy immune to direct damage, "Cunning" would mean an enemy could only be attacked through the declare attacks step of normal combat, etc. This might be more complex, but it would make enemies feel more distinct and avoid crazy ruling confusion. It's too late to do it now, but maybe for the future...

 

Problem is we have a ton of cards that do not have these limitations. So unless they do a mass errata the old pre-trait specific cards will be bonkers powerful in relation to the new ones. This could lead to more "must include" cards making decks even more alike.

 

Also a trait limiter on a card could limit the use vs new quests that might not have that location or monster type.

 

 

quest card trumps all for those cards that can't leave play. I just really don't see it as that confusing

 

Yes this is correct.

 

 

My rule of thumb is, when in doubt, go for what makes it more difficult for the players. There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example), or even this one. So, basically, if it makes it harder for me, I'll typically go with that interpretation. If it gets clarified that I was wrong later, all the better! :)

 

I completely agree here as well. People like to bend the rules into whatever they think is best and while the game is a co-op so it doesn't matter like it dose in a competitive card game, I think this is still a real issue with rule interpretation.

 

When in doubt take the worst option.


Edited by booored, 19 February 2014 - 08:14 PM.

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

#33 Chris51261

Chris51261

    Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 19 February 2014 - 11:22 PM

I'm actually not a fan of the "immune to player card effects" at all. I think a better approach would be to introduce specific keywords that nullify certain effects, but not all of them. "Relentless" could prevent players from stopping an enemy from attacking, "Resilient" could make an enemy immune to direct damage, "Cunning" would mean an enemy could only be attacked through the declare attacks step of normal combat, etc. This might be more complex, but it would make enemies feel more distinct and avoid crazy ruling confusion. It's too late to do it now, but maybe for the future...

Totally agree. It sucks that we have all these cool cards with cool effects that would allow you to outfox and defeat the Witch-King or a Nazgul, only to have him be immune to literally every effect you have except damage. I understand "Cannot have attachments" more so than the immune to player card effects one. 



#34 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,982 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:16 AM

med_reckless-in-his-rage-tbolt.jpg

 

I think this is one of the "worst".. not that I would use that term. Still this one will end the game for most players most of the time if you haven't got a cancel ready. This results in 7-10 dmg on one of each players heroes.. assuming they are not tapped.. otherwise it is completely undefended.

 

 

 

This is one of my most hated though. I really like the Steward's Fear quest. With this card if you do not have the cancel and for some reason your not running condition removal (shock) your looking at some massive threat gain. I find this really stressful and it gets under my skin. Even if you have condition removal and you can't stop it, every draw when you can not fix the problem becomes more and more frustrating.

 

+1 threat on Tap and Untap and triggered ability? wow

 

med_local-trouble-hon.jpg

 

Side note.. do you think effects like Dain's buff or Thalin's dmg, or Dunhere's thing.. all those card texts that are not action or response but "always on" also trigger this? I'm thinking no.. but what do you guys think? The word "triggers" says NO, but the word "ability" says YES.


Edited by booored, 20 February 2014 - 12:50 AM.

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

#35 jjeagle

jjeagle

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:04 AM

 

 

Side note.. do you think effects like Dain's buff or Thalin's dmg, or Dunhere's thing.. all those card texts that are not action or response but "always on" also trigger this? I'm thinking no.. but what do you guys think? The word "triggers" says NO, but the word "ability" says YES.

 

I think NO - going by rulebook p.23 ("These effects have no bold trigger, as they are always active"). This would also allow certain effects to operate while characters are unconscious in Flies and Spiders.


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


#36 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,982 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:14 AM

yeah exactly.. but they are still "abilities"... I agree with you it is just a example of some of the terrible rule text in this game.


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

#37 Mndela

Mndela

    Member

  • Members
  • 754 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:12 AM

'Triggers' is about active actions or responses. Passive text doesn't count: it doesn't triggers.


A wizard is never late..., he arrives precisely when it is the last round


#38 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,982 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:16 AM

yes.. that is true.. but not my point. There is no doubt what ruling is. the POINT is that is it murky wording.

 

We all know what a trigger is... but we also all know what a ability is. So why would you put both words on the same card. It is just retarded.

 

A Passive ABILITY

A Triggered ABILITY

 

It is just a silly thing to put on a card.. why make it confusing at all... for while I and others might not be confused.. I guarantee other are.

 

THAT is the point.. that is the joke. I'm not trying to start a rule discussion here... it is a joke.. Things are always way funnier when you have to explain them.


Edited by booored, 20 February 2014 - 04:24 AM.

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

#39 Mndela

Mndela

    Member

  • Members
  • 754 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 06:07 AM

* 2 treacheries that you say: 'omg!' in the start of game, in setup:

 

lotrlcg_pursuedbyshadow.png

 

...when you have a deck with 27-29 starting threat level and you was thinking about having 2 rounds to be ready for combat against the troll. Agh! This same first round you shall engage!!! Reset... lol

 

And this other, not matters which deck you play:

 

ffg_old-wives-tales-thfg.jpg

 

When it is revealed (we said eleanor not counts), your eyes open so: O.o

 

PD: yes booored, severals words are confused, you need study a master to play all well. But the game continues be funny


Edited by Mndela, 20 February 2014 - 06:10 AM.

A wizard is never late..., he arrives precisely when it is the last round


#40 alogos

alogos

    Member

  • Members
  • 333 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 06:51 AM

@Boored, as for immunity and «then» I agree with you, as for local trouble it's pretty straighforward. «Trigger an ability» is exatly what it say on the tin... putting both word is not retarded, it's just the right way to exclude passive abilities...

 

I vote for watcher in the wood.

I mostly play in 3-4 players game, and when you have 20 characters questing wich is not that hard in 4 players, revealing this card is simply a Game Over. And even in first turn, having at least 6 characters commited is barely the minimum, and it ruins most of the combat phase...






© 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