Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DrPeterEnis

  1. That might have still been Nate French though. 😀 You can only speculate about designer's intent. But RAW I don't see any way for the rules to work that way.
  2. Just to clarify, this only applies to enemies that “physically“ get into your engagement area and not for enemies you are “considered to be engaded with“.
  3. I disagree. Guarded cards get attached to enemies. The traps effects are active, when they are attached to an enemy. There is nothing in the rules insert, that states that the guarded card would be (considered) out of play or otherwise inactive.
  4. Or is not called Beorn Or you don't cancel some of the damage.
  5. As you have quoted only non-objective cards (since you are also explicitly mentioning objectives...) lose their previous type. I'm not too sure it would make a difference even if it wasn't. Every card in the Encounter Deck at the Beginning of the game is an encounter card. Unless a card effect explicitly makes a card count as player card, that card still is an encounter card (I am not aware of any card effect in the game that would do that at the moment). While I am not aware of any card referencing "player attachment" I would suspect it beeing an synominous (and wrongly worded) "player card attachment". Unless specifically mentioned, players don't get control over encounter cards, that get attached to their character(s). There are 1) effects that target "all attachments", "one of player x attachments", etc. or 2) effects that target "one attachment player x controls" or all attachment player x controls" 1) Would apply to Encounter-card attachments (and in case of x attachments you could choose the encounter-attachment) while 2) would not.
  6. At least in the FAQ for Bait and Switch "triggering" an ability is used synonymously with "repeating" an ability. (Since Bait and Switch says "repeat" and not "trigger" so i'd say yes.
  7. This (and possible similar effects) have been clarified by the updated rulebook REPEAT If card text instructs players to repeat an effect, the entirety of the effect resolves again including the text to repeat the effect. If the card that is creating a repeating effect is removed from play, the effect can no longer repeat. Note: Repeating an effect does not interact with the Rule of Six (see page 7,) as the Rule of Six only applies to playing or using cards, not triggering their effect multiple times. See also “Preceding.” So yes the effect can happen more then six times and does not repeat anymore after Neuron Shark is removed from play.
  8. One (clearly situational use) of Firefoot is that it allows you (at least in some quests) to assign damage to enemies you would not otherwise be allowed to. Using a Hero with high Attack Stat (probably Gimli or Eomer) to in example "cleave" ships in the Dreamchaser Cycle strikes me as hillarious (if probably not particulary effective).
  9. Then "Fight" would imply on Fight(ing), rather than after the fight beeing over. Also (imo at least) if you didn't know the rulebook "Fight" could be implied to happen for both the attacker and defender.
  10. But there is. Since 0 is as much as (or more than) 0 the creature is destroyed.
  11. Ah yes i see that now. So it indeed makes a difference... Now i wonder why "Fight" is named rather deceptively and why it couldn't be called "Attack"... Much obliged.
  12. I think this is already sufficently answered within the rulebook: What i am relatively curious about, is why "after x (that involves fighting)" exists, as i see no instance where it would be different from "Fight:".
  13. I'll bring up two points, that I haven't seen before. I'm not particulary happy with the ruling and think it is both not totally consistent with parts of the rest of the templating and rules in general (though i'll admit i don't think there is a solution the card as written can be ruled to be) and unintuitive. (An admittedly subjective sentiment). I also disagree that FFG’s (and Richard Garfields) interpretation is the only possible way this could be ruled/read. 1) While never explicitly stated, the "you" in Biomatrix Backup can obviously only refer to its controller, because a lot (?) of other effects use you as well and there has be no one (at least no one i know) who has seriously suggested otherwise. In example, does anyone truly believe Mother to allow the active player to draw an additional card at the end of his/her turn? If not why would the same word refer to a (at least in some states of the game) different player on this card and this card only? I don't see any logic reasoning behind that. The notion that the "you" part could pretty randomly and unspecificly refer to different players strikes me as quite frankly absurd. Does the "If you do" in same cards text probably refer to different players as well "depending on gamestate"? What does that even mean? In which gamestate is which "you" which player? If so how do you know? How is it decided who this "you" is? Do you roll the dice to decide? Does the active player get to decide? Do we the community vote on it? (I'll stop before i get to hyperbolic here, but i think i made it obvious that a text refering to a specific thing/word cannot and should not mean different things based on totally undefined criteria. The very notion strikes me as absurd.) 2) On the matter of DESTROYED effects the Rulebook tells us this (emphasis mine): Quote DESTROYED When a card is destroyed, it is placed in its owner’s discard pile. If a card has a “Destroyed:” ability, the effect resolves automatically when the card is destroyed, immediately before it leaves play. Ruling that this only applies when the card itself leaves no choice makes this whole paragraph either a) (at least partially) untrue (The effect does not actually resolve automatically in this instance) or b) Completely superfluous as every time it's relevant the text on the card would lead to the same result anyway. Since i (at least hope) we can agree that it is (or at least should be) neither, this applies here as well. Just as a quick reminder, the ACTIVE PLAYER section of the glossary (which is largely responsible for this ruling) reads like this: Quote ACTIVE PLAYER The active player is the player taking the current turn. The active player makes all necessary decisions for all card abilities or timing conflicts that need to resolve during their turn. That out of the way, in the case of Biomatrix Backup we now have to decide whether we can resolve the card by these rules or (when this is not possible) to invoke THE GOLDEN RULE. Quote If the text of a card directly contradicts the text of the rules, the text of the card takes precedence. To be honest i don't exactly know what actually constitutes a "direct contradiction". At least in other FFG's games it's basically "As long as cou can follow both the rules and what is written on the card, you have to do so". Whether Biomatrix Backup text is actually in "direct contradiction" with DESTROYED is and ACTIVE player (imo) up to one's interpretation to what constitutes "in direct contradiction". This leads to three (in my opinion pretty equally arguable) solutions: a) Don't invoke THE GOLDEN RULE and resolve in accordance with both ACTIVE PLAYER and DESTROYED rules (If you think Biometric Matrix is not in "direct contradiction" with both ACTIVE PLAYER and DESTROYED): Since according to DESTROYED we have to resolve the effect automatically, there actually is no choice and (the controlling player) has to put the card into its owner's archive. Whether Biomatrix Backup text is actually in "direct contradiction" with DESTROYED is (imo) up to one's interpretation to what constitutes "in direct contradiction". If you go with the (admittedly low standard) of "As long as you can follow both the rules and what is written on the card, you have to do so" I'd argue there is none. You can both observe DESTROYED's and Biomatrix Backup's text, and would then be forced to archive the card. (With this low Standard there is no contradiction, as both Biomatrix Backup text and DESTROYED actually allows you to so, DESTROYED is only in conflict with the possibility of [whomever] choosing not to archive). In this interpretation Biomatrix Backup is not actually in conflict at all with ACTIVE PLAYER. b) Invoke the GOLDEN RULE to ignore ACTIVE PLAYER and DESTROYED rules: (If you think Biometric Matrix' text is in "direct contradiction" with both ACTIVE PLAYER and DESTROYED): Whether Biomatrix Backup is in "direct contradiction" with ACTIVE PLAYER is again (imo) up to the interpration of "in direct contradiction". If your Standard of "in direct contradiction" means that a card allowing "you" (and as i have stated before, imo every interpretation of "you" not being the controller of the card leads to ridiculous results) to choose something ("you may") and ACTIVE player disallowing exactly that thing are "in direct contradiction", would mean the GOLDEN RULE would give the text on Biomatrix Backup priority over the rules governing ACTIVE PLAYER. So despite ACTIVE PLAYER forbidding it, the controller may still archive because the GOLDEN RULE reigns surpreme. In this case Biomatrix Backup is also arguably in "direct contradiction" to DESTROYED as you may choose something in contrast to abilities resolving automatically. So the GOLDEN RULE would have to be invoked in this instance to give priority to the cards text as well. c) Invoke the GOLDEN RULE to ignore DESTROYED rules, but resolve in accordance with ACTIVE PLAYER rules: I thankfully don't have to really write up what this does, as this is the interpretation that (imo) FFG has taken (even if it was not openly mentioned) and you can read their reasoning in the FAQ. In summary and as a TL,DR, i think that FFG has taken a sensible (and possible) interpretation of the rules as written, even if it clashes somewhat with the framework (of DESTROYED) and is rather unintuitive. While there is the possibility (imo at least)to interpret the rules in a way that conforms with all Glossary definitions of terms (variant a , I'm not particular convinced this isn't stretching not beeing in "direct conflict" even if this seems to have been the original intent by Richard Garfield). I also wanted to point out, that while a lot of people have rationalised and probably even supported FFG's ruling as to not have to invoke the GOLDEN RULE, I actually think that the GOLDEN RULE is already used to ignore DESTROYED (even if this is not adressed directly). So while i think FFGs interpretation is a possible one, if somewhat unintuitive, i disagree with Richard Garfield and FFG (and probably a lot of other people) that the way this was ruled was by necessity the only way the rules could be read/interpreted (something that at least to me Richard Garfield's post seemed to imply.) As a sidenote, i think it is actually necessary to define the "you" player in the Glossary. While i firmly believe context and otherwise absurd interpretations of cards already make it clear who "you" refers to, the absolute absence of a term quite important to and used on so many cards is simply baffling. I also wouldn't mind a longer explanation what actually constitutes beeing "in direct contradiction" with the rules.
  14. Yes sidequests are optional. You can leave them indefinetely as long as you can stomach their effects. (and sidequest heavy adventuteres also often have cards that combo with “number of quest cards in play“.)
  15. Depends on the conditions and how much the effect your deck otherwise... You can also cancel the treachery cards that give you these conditions. The above stated condition Terrible Fever you might not particulary care about, if you have enough healing (and in fringe cases like Gloin etc. might even be beneficial).
  16. Condition attachments are not discarded unless a card instructs/allows you to do so. So yes you deal 1 damage at the end of every round to the hero Terrible Fever is attached to.
  17. Biting wind reads: Can i assign all damage that would be assigned by this effect to one character? (Or probably better: What actualy forbids me doing so, as knowing this game i have a hunch i'm not allowed to do hat....)
  18. Yes unfortunate... Probably a side effect of the necessary abolishment of the Galadriel-The lucky Number unending combo. Weeeeell it's not like this would be that influential anyway...
  19. A (well technically 2...) quick question(s); Thicket of Spears (relevant for this question) text reads: What happens if a player engages enemies after having played Thicket of Spears but before enemy attack resolution? Can the newly engaged enemies also not attack that player, or does this only apply to enemies who where engaged with that player, when Thicket of Spears was played? I guess since it doesn't mention "currently" it tracks boardstate and applies to all newly engaged enemies as well? On a similar note: What happens when an enemy engaged with said player would make an "immediate attack"? Does Thicket of Spears prevent these as well as regular attacks? No idea about that one... Thanks in advance!
  20. Just as a clarification, defense (i guess that's what you ment with armor?) does not actually help against this (or other, similar) "direct damage" effects. (And yes without attachments this instakills all but 1 currently released heroes.)
  21. Thanks for the answer, that's what i thought/feared... Not too sure i actually want to go with the "spirit" of the rules, as i also have no qualms exploiting encounter cards if the rules permit...
  22. Some cards (Strenght of Arms in this example) have as restriction: Does this mean that i cannot play this card in Saga-Quests while i'm currently controlling a hero of the Baggins/Fellowship Sphere? This seems rather odd, especially since "Sphere affecting" (for a lack of better word) cards like Navi's Belt etc. can not interact with the Saga only Spheres. However the text seems clear and i couldn't find any special allowances for the Saga Spheres. Did i miss it or are you indeed not allowed use Mono-Sphere cards in the Saga Quests (or at least not while you control a Saga Hero)?
  23. Both actually ^^. As mentioned in the first post, there is an official (though not in the FAQ) ruling from Caleb Grace, that Golden Rule(s) apply here and Miruvor is put on the top of the Controllers (whoever that might be) deck. However it quotes the Control and Ownership paragraph of the "old" Rulebook which reads: The current, new(er) Rules Reference Document reads: In my interpretation of these rules, the Rules Reference Document changed (probably unintentionally) how this specific interaction works (as mentioned before i find ruling that if the Golden Rule would overwrite this paragraph it would be made absurd) . I just wanted to ask if other people also think that way (and it's not just me interpreting the rules that way because that is how i want to read them ^^). As a sidenote, i found/find the (old) ruling pretty questionable even with the old rules text. Thank you for your input!
  24. Hello, a quick (or now that i look at it probably not that quick...) question that came up, in one of my last games... When Miruvor is attached to another than it's Owner's Heros, and it's Controller decides to return it to the top of the deck, which deck does it go to? I searched for a thread here and found a pretty old answer (citing an ancient official ruling): However (as was pointed out to me by the other player), the Rules Reference (which I am pretty sure is newer than Caleb's ruling, at least the wording of the rules quoted in the thread are quite different) reads: If i read this correctly, this would mean that Miruvor is placed in "it's owner's equivalent out of play area" (deck in this case). Since other card abilities cannot interact with this, Miruvor's text is ignored/altered. While the Rules Reference reads The paragraph obviously (imo) has to supercede "The Golden Rules" because otherwise: a) That paragraph would be nonsensical (other card abilities cannot influence but any and all card abilites would effectively be overwriting it) and b) That paragraph would never be relevant and might as well not exist (as standard procedure without card effects already is cards going back to it's owner.) Do you agree with me? Is this an (unintended?) Change of the (new?) Rules Reference? Am i missing something? Does Miruvor go the the top of the owner's deck or is it shuffled in? Your thoughts?
  • Create New...