Jump to content



Photo

caught in a web - rule question


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 pumpkin

pumpkin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,112 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 06:38 AM

 

I've been stung a couple of times by this card, which treats itself like an attachment and i havent found a way in the rules to seem to get rid of it. its a condition but cant find any specific rule for that so i assume it remains with the hero even after they pay two resource to refresh.

the only way i have found to get rid of attachments is via shadow effects and as caught in a web is a negative effect against a hero, it seems sort of wrong to use the shadow effect to get rid of it.

have i missed somewhere a description of how conditions are supposed to work and have others resorted to shadow effect to remove caught in a web?

 

 

 

 



#2 Apophenia

Apophenia

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:01 AM

 Miner of the Iron Hills lets you discard a condition when it comes into play. Of course that is a Lore card and not all decks have access to it. I believe that is the only way in core to discard Caught in a Web. Spirit has a couple of ways of avoiding it when it is revealed. Eleanor can let you discard and draw a different card and A Test of Will negates the Treachery completely.

I suspect that future expansions will add more ways of getting rid of negative Attachments however I suspect that will mostly be the domain of Lore.

 

I suppose if you just happen to have the Shadow effect of Driven by Shadow discard Caught in the Web then you should just consider yourself lucky. Page 25 of the rules say that you control any attachments that are on your characters so I don't see a problem with that happening.



#3 pumpkin

pumpkin

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,112 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 10:01 AM

Yer, just done my Spirit deck run through, and found Eleanor's response action. Completed the first quest with the second attempt and used Eleanor to avoid the web at one point. Still think Leadership is the most powerful of the single decks, Aragorn and Theodred combine so well, and Aragorn is one of the most overall poweful heroes in the core set  IMO.

I guess it is lucky and not always likely to happen with the shadow effect, it just seems that a shadow effect should never benefit the Heroes, or at least that is their intention, but the rules as written don't prevent it.

 



#4 Narsil0420

Narsil0420

    Member

  • Members
  • 635 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 10:05 AM

Primary theme in The Lord of the Rings: Evil always defeats itself :)



#5 johydee

johydee

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 24 April 2011 - 05:52 PM

 Would Aragorns ability allow him to ready at the end of the quest phase?



#6 mason240

mason240

    Member

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 24 April 2011 - 06:19 PM

johydee said:

 Would Aragorns ability allow him to ready at the end of the quest phase?

Yes, he would be ready/standing immediately after paying the the one resource. This means he would not be effected by The Necromancer's Reach (Deal 1 damage to each exhausted character) if it comes out during the staging part of questing. 

 

The shadow text on Forest Spider reads "Defending player must choose and discard 1 attachment he controls." I would guess that the player does not control either Caught in a Web or Iron Shackels when attached and so Forest Spider would not affect it.

Think of it this way: If you were playing a CCG/LCG against a human player, and that human player played an attachment on one of yours cards, you would not control it - the other player would. 



#7 Paul Grogan

Paul Grogan

    Member

  • Members
  • 451 posts

Posted 24 April 2011 - 08:39 PM

I think it is in the rules somewhere, and I dont have the book with me :(

Something about a player always controls attachments on his characters.

But yes, seems very odd that a bad shadow effect can actually help a player.



#8 Dncan

Dncan

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 24 April 2011 - 10:27 PM

Paul Grogan said:

 

I think it is in the rules somewhere, and I dont have the book with me :(

Something about a player always controls attachments on his characters.

But yes, seems very odd that a bad shadow effect can actually help a player.

 

 

It's page 25, and if you don't have the manual with you, you can look at the pdf of the rules here on the FFG site (go to the game section in the catalog, and see the "Support" area).

It says exactly that, that "Players always assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters." See the "always", and no exception has been specified for encounter cards.

You can see it like the attacking ennemy slashing the web while hitting the party. It is not so irrelevant. And that's not very easily done either since this effect pertains to the defending character, or all attachments if there is no defense to this attack. So you have to either defend with the webbed character (which most often than not won't be able to defend because he remained engaged due to the web), or not defending at all (and lose all attachments and not only the web, in addition to raising threat level).



#9 Acererak

Acererak

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 24 April 2011 - 11:13 PM

Dncan said:

It says exactly that, that "Players always assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters." See the "always", and no exception has been specified for encounter cards.

 

On the other hand, the very first paragraph of that section seems to describe "ownership" of a card as a prerequisite of "control" of a card :

A player "owns" his heroes and the cards that he has chosen for the player deck he is playing. A player "controls" all cards that he owns, unless another player or the encounter deck  takes control of the card through a game effect.

 

The sentece you quote is in a paragraph that starts by talking about attachements played by other players into a different player´s heroes, and I am not so certain as if that also applies to cards played by the encounter deck on a player´s heores.

Official FAQ will hopefully enlighten us.



#10 Dncan

Dncan

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 24 April 2011 - 11:50 PM

Acererak said:

The sentece you quote is in a paragraph that starts by talking about attachements played by other players into a different player´s heroes, and I am not so certain as if that also applies to cards played by the encounter deck on a player´s heores.

Official FAQ will hopefully enlighten us.

The sentence I quote starts by talking bout attachments played by players, but it's the only place where they talk about ownership and control of cards. To me, the paragraph is about attachments in general.

But... I must confess that I am not so certain either that it is the intended meaning. If the rules are complete as they are, then it could only mean that it does apply like I described, but it could also be that some specific instructions have been forgotten.

As you say, let's hope the official FAQ will cover this.



#11 TheProfessor

TheProfessor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,055 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 01:15 AM

 Yes, but is "Caught in a Web" an "Attachment"?  Attachments have the key word "Attachment" at the bottom.  Caught in a Web is a "Treachery" 

I don't know, but I figured it should be treated differently than an "Attachment", even though it attaches...



#12 DerBarchen

DerBarchen

    Member

  • Members
  • 237 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 01:24 AM

TheProfessor said:

 Yes, but is "Caught in a Web" an "Attachment"?  Attachments have the key word "Attachment" at the bottom.  Caught in a Web is a "Treachery" 

I don't know, but I figured it should be treated differently than an "Attachment", even though it attaches...

it does say that it counts as a condition attatchment!

I dont know, I dont see what the big problem about using a negative effect to your benefit is. Ive found in Every card game Ive played over the years there are always a few situations where your oponent doing something negative towards you could result in a net positive for you. I always get a little kick out of exploting the game beyond the core intentions of the rules. I mean, you could consider using Sneak Attack to play Gandalf the same way. Gandalf is clearly intended to be a one hit wonder but Sneak Attack lets you recycle him up to 3 times (and then you can use stand and fight too if you really want to). Its just a mechanic that rewards cunning players!



#13 johydee

johydee

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 02:34 AM

 I did that sneak attack with gandalf in my first game.  Works out brilliantly.



#14 Hastur360

Hastur360

    Member

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 03:00 AM

mason240 said:

johydee said:

 

 Would Aragorns ability allow him to ready at the end of the quest phase?

 

 

Yes, he would be ready/standing immediately after paying the the one resource. This means he would not be effected by The Necromancer's Reach (Deal 1 damage to each exhausted character) if it comes out during the staging part of questing. 

 

The shadow text on Forest Spider reads "Defending player must choose and discard 1 attachment he controls." I would guess that the player does not control either Caught in a Web or Iron Shackels when attached and so Forest Spider would not affect it.

Think of it this way: If you were playing a CCG/LCG against a human player, and that human player played an attachment on one of yours cards, you would not control it - the other player would. 

Forest Spider's shadow effect would definitely be able to remove Caught in a Web or Iron Shackels. The encounter deck has "Ownership" of these cards but when they become attached to a character it no longer "Controls" them. That player is now the controller. It is no different than playing an Unexpected Courage from your hand onto a different player's Hero. You "own" the Unexpected courage but the other player now "Controls" it.  This is all covered under Control and Ownership on p.25. The last paragraph explains it well, mainly, "Players assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters."



#15 widowmaker93

widowmaker93

    Member

  • Members
  • 238 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 03:28 AM

Hastur360 said:

johydee said:

"Players assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters."

 

exactly, whether played by another player or played by the encounter deck, that card has still been "played" on their character. Therefore they assume control of that card.



#16 Greenleaf

Greenleaf

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 04:02 AM

I have another question regarding caught in a web: Since there seems to be no limitation, can i put 2 caught in a web on the same hero, so he just has to pay 4 to be ready or do i have to put the second web on another hero?



#17 Hastur360

Hastur360

    Member

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 04:07 AM

Yes you can, though this could change barring an FAQ officially released. There are no limits to the number of attachments a character can have. It just can only ever have 2 restricted attachments maximum.



#18 HyenaSpotz

HyenaSpotz

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 04:08 AM

Greenleaf said:

 

I have another question regarding caught in a web: Since there seems to be no limitation, can i put 2 caught in a web on the same hero, so he just has to pay 4 to be ready or do i have to put the second web on another hero?

 

 

Judging by what the card says, it appears not only can you put a second one on the same hero, but you still only need to pay 2 resources to ready him or her.



#19 Hastur360

Hastur360

    Member

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 04:27 AM

I think it falls under Lasting Effects on pg. 25. The last sentence of the second paragraph reads

Any time a new effect is applied to a card, the net sum of all active effects should be recalculated.

So two Caught in a Web Condition Attachments would force a character to spend 4 resources to ready during the refresh phase. As you have to add the net sum of effects together.

 



#20 Darksbane

Darksbane

    Member

  • Members
  • 621 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 04:35 AM

widowmaker93 said:

Hastur360 said:

 

johydee said:

"Players assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters."

 

 

 

exactly, whether played by another player or played by the encounter deck, that card has still been "played" on their character. Therefore they assume control of that card.

I'll repeat this from the FAQ thread, Cards in the encounter deck are never described as being played, they are staged, placed, revealed and resolved.  The rulebook makes a clear distinction that player cards are played and encounter cards are staged. You would not have control of attached cards from the encounter deck.


Cardgamedb.com - The source for Game of Thrones, Star Wars, Android: Netrunner, Lord of the Rings, Call of Cthulhu, and Warhammer: Invasion deckbuilders and spoilers. Now with 100% more FFG!




© 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