Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Levanthalas

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

271 profile views
  1. Particular odd question. Is the card text of a Guarded Card active while it's being guarded? For example, if you had an Elf-stone attached via the contract, would you be able to put an ally into play as soon as you first explored the location? I'm assuming that's not the intent, but I can't find anything to officially indicate either way.
  2. Cool! That was basically my line of reasoning as well. Sometimes the fine print really is on our side. Time to make the Grey Company Fellowship deck with 3 extra characters!!
  3. Had an interesting thought today while deckbuilding around the new Fellowship card. Does playing something like Ranger Summons or Flight of the Eagles bypass the restrictions on Fellowship? Essentially, do those cards count as "playing or putting into play" a non-unique ally? If it's a bypass, it's an interesting (if small) corner case to explore. Thoughts? I obviously want it to work, but I'm a little biased.
  4. Thanks for sharing the link to that official ruling. I figured it was the kind of thing that had come up before, but I must have missed it on your thread.
  5. Is there anywhere you can point me to about the "limbo" state's existence? I looked for something like that but couldn't find any specific rule about it. I probably just missed it. Thanks for the reply!
  6. Hello all. I have a rules question that I haven't been able to find an answer to. Apologize if I missed another topic that addresses this. How do the "Record" attachments (Scroll of Isildur, Book of Eldacar, Tome of Atanatar, Map of Earnil), interact with the events which count copies in the discard pile (Skyward Volley, Elwing's Flight, The Evening Star, Anchor Watch)? The relevant text of the record attachments reads: "Action: Discard <title> to play any <symbol> event card in your discard pile as if it were in your hand. Then, place that card on the bottom of your deck." The relevant line about playing attachments from the rulebook reads: "An event card is played from a player's hand, its text effects are resolved, and the card is then placed in its owner's discard pile." The ambiguity in the description of where event cards are located during their resolution is what leaves me unsure. It is clear that the card is not moved to the discard pile until after its effects are resolved. This leaves two options: Option A) When the card is "played," it enters a player's play area (or some other non-hand, non-discard pile state). Its effects are then resolved. The card is then moved to the discard pile. Option B) The card is "played" by paying the resource cost, but does not actually move "locations" until the card effect is resolved (thus remaining in the player's hand). Then the card is moved to the discard pile. I see 3 possibilities, depending on if Option A or B is correct: 1) If Option A is true: although the event is actually in your discard pile, when you play it using a Record, it moves out of the discard pile to some other state while its effects are resolved. Then, after resolving the effect of the card, it is placed back in the discard pile. The Record's card text then takes over, and moves the card from the discard pile to the bottom of your deck. This leads to 3 resolutions. All situations leading from Option A end similarly, unless I've missed something. 2) If Option B is true: because you play the event "As if it was in your hand," it explicitly does not count as being in your discard pile during the resolution, and therefore you count as having 2 copies in the discard pile. This also leads to 3 resolutions of the effect. 3) This is the case I am most interested in. If Option B is true, the card is played, and one effect is resolved. The count of identically named cards in your discard pile is then counted. (In this case 3). The effect is then resolved an additional 3 times, leading to a total of 4 resolutions. I find this to be the most interesting possibility, and what I believe makes the most sense IF AND ONLY IF Option B is true. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this, and especially would love to see any official rulings that make this more clear, as it may affect other "Discard play" cards (such as Elven-Light, or others) that I have not thought of yet. If we can't get a consensus, I'll probably submit an official question, but I don't want to do that if there's an obvious answer out there that I just missed. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Sorry for the long post, just wanted to cover the bases and present my thoughts.
  7. Sweet. Those were the answers I was hoping to hear. Thanks for the assist all. Now to see if the deck is actually any good.
  8. Hey all. Was trying to make a fun, but functional deck that actually intentionally employs Fall of Gil-galad the other day, when I struck on an idea: Start with Lore Glofindel, and get him killed once I get Fall attached. Then, replace him with his ally version. Two questions: 1) Is this legal? As far as I can tell, once L-Glorfindel dies, there's no reason I can't play the ally version. I'm using the same logic as when a copy of a unique ally dies and is replaced by another copy. 2) Assuming it is legal, does my L-Glorfindel hero count against the 3 copies per deck limit? In other words, can I only have 2 copies of Ally Glorfindel in my deck, or can I have all three to maximize my chances? Thanks for thoughts and help!
  9. So you mean that you could attach it to either a Scout or Silvan character, rather than only a Silvan character with printed Ranged keyword? My concern was that Rivendell Bow always gives +2 Attack if you have the printed Ranged Keyword, but Bow of the Galadhrim required you have the printed Ranged keyword to get even +1 attack out of it. I am also working from the assumption you hadn't changed Galadhrim Bow yet, because I didn't see it in the album. Sorry to be such a stickler, but I've been playing using your changes, and both groups of Elves are some of my favorite factions, so I notice when there appears to be such a difference.
  10. Hey Constantine. First, HUGE fan of these reworks. I've always wanted some of these cards to be worth their space and now they are! One question: In the context of these cards, are you planning on changing the "Bow of the Galadhrim" card? Because as it stands right now, the reworked Rivendell Bow seems to be strictly better, other than not being able to attach to Silvan characters. Any thoughts on this?
  11. Alright, thanks guys. Didn't think I'd missed something, but I was hopeful that the round might count as "ending" when you defeat the Paths of the Dead. I'll probably switch down to just a couple heroes and try to stall long enough for Aragorn to come save the day.
  12. Hi guys. So I've been playing through a campaign mode, and I came to an unfortunate set of circumstances: 1. During the Paths of the Dead scenario, I ended with Overcome by Fear attached to my dial, because we quested past the Stone of Erech, which is the victory condition for the scenario, but unfortunately, a treachery reattached Overcome By Fear. Therefore, I did not get to the end of the round to fulfill the trigger for the Action to remove it. 2. On the Siege of Gondor scenario, it took us 9 turns to complete it. This meant that during the Battle of Pelennor fields, Aragorn will take 9 turns to arrive. I did end WITHOUT Overcome by Fear attached to my dial, but there is no specific instruction to remove it from the campaign pool if it is not attached. 3. Because my starting threat is 33 (via an unfortunate circumstance with my friend's utter annihilation earlier in the campaign), Overcome by Fear means I literally cannot survive the 9 turns required for Aragorn to arrive. My questions are as follows: 1. Did I miss my opportunity to remove Overcome by Fear during the Paths of the Dead? Is there a brief "End of the Round" when we win the scenario in which I could have triggered the action? 2. If I completed Siege of Gondor without Overcome by Fear in play, does it return to the Campaign Pool? 3. Is it necessary for Aragorn to arrive in order to defeat the Battle of Pelennor Fields scenario? Thanks guys, stuck in a very frustrating situation, and hoping for some clarity about exactly how screwed I am.
  13. cmbar: Exciting to know someone else agrees with my thoughts. Kakita: Oh yes, that is one of my favorite things to do, especially with Shadowfax attached. Expensive, but very effective in a deck with threat reduction. Was simply looking for a new way to play with everyone's favorite Wizard. Thanks for the thoughts guys, and I'm excited to see what other people may say.
  14. Hey guys. I love coming up with fun, if sometimes ridiculous ideas for ways to play. One question I ran into regarded OHaUH Gandalf, Narya, and his presence in a sphere of influence. For example, I know that Sword-Thain can only be played on an ally which belongs to a sphere of influence, and therefore Gandalf would normally not be a valid target for that attachment. However, if Narya is attached to Gandalf, he "gains the leadership resource icon." In the rulebook, it says that resource icons "indicate the sphere(s) of influence" the card belongs. Additionally, most people seem to agree that for cards such as Burning Brand, a Song of Wisdom attached to a hero is sufficient for them to count as a Lore character, and thus be valid targets for attaching Burning Brand. So, in summary, does attaching Narya to Gandalf make him belong to the Leadership sphere of influence? And therefore a valid target for Sword-Thain or any other Sphere-restricted attachments, i.e. Mariner's Compass (Don't think I would ever use Compass on such a powerful ally, but as an example) This is a very unique set of circumstances, as nothing else in the game can give an ally a resource icon, so I'm looking for opinions, thoughts, or insight on wording I haven't noticed. Thanks for opinions guys!
  15. That is something I was worried about. Too much to try to change/add too late in the process. Still though, no harm in trying. Especially since we're finally getting that "Imperial Falcon" (via the VT-49) that everyone was hoping for, I take that as evidence that they do listen to input, at least a little. And I'm sure other things in the development process have been greatly affected by player input. And you never know, they honestly may never have thought of the idea of a card that simultaneously applies to more than one ship. Really appreciate the support, Forgottenlore.
  • Create New...