Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MyNeighbourTrololo

One little thing that eluded my mind

Recommended Posts

You should never use tap effects in the deployment phase, as a rule. Sure some situations may work.. but tapping Master of the Forge for example is nearly always wrong. You tap it at the end of the turn as the last thing you do before refresh. This way you are porteced form treacheries that target taped units, have a emergency blocker if a super scary mod comes out.

 

Well, I would agree this may be valid strategy in many a quest but surely one should not call it a rule. Of course, when there is a chance of Necromancer's Reach or the like coming off the staging, then yes. But there are many quests where there is no such scare. And then it may be much more beneficial to have an extra attachment to help you: surely Miruvor, for instance, has a better utility even as a safety device than a ready Master of the Forge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already said this twice.. I'll say again for the cheap seats.

 

It is OBVIOUSLY situational. There are some times tapping in the deployment phase is the correct choice like you need to dig for a UC to help with Watchful Eyes, or there is a threat in that particular quest like trollo said above you wish to play around... but these are not counter arguments.. they are EXCEPTIONS to the general rule of safe playing that increases win ratios.

 

There are a massive amount of cards that kill or effect tapped, there is a massive amount enemies you now have the opportunity if needed to chump. You are only loosing 1 turn of having your attachment, though if you have a proper curve you should be efficiently using your resources and chances are you can not afford to cast the attachment the turn you put down the forge., unless it is late game and in that case you probably have your board setup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wording is clear. We can only go on the card text and the rules... and the logic of the rules says that exhausting is a cost. This card removes that cost. So until there is a errta or a faq than it means you can select to quest while it is tapped. Random postsin threads do not count. Only the card text and rule book.

 

Problem is, the wording interpretation is your own. If official answer are against your view, it must be because either the rules where badly written, and they should have release something in the faq since then, and since the problem is quite old, the obviously didn't. Either you make some assumption that were misplaced (as the rules you quote don't contradict with your expectation, but neither does it absolutly confirm it)

So let me reinterprate the rules with a new light (of valinor :))

"An exhausted card cannot exhaust again (and therefore cannot partake in any action that requires exhaustion) until it has been readied once more."

The explicit wording of Light of Valinor is that "does not exhaust to quest"

What's the difference ?

watch this sentence : "does not require to exhaust to quest".

The effect of Light of Valinor is to not exhaust after doing the action of questing, but it does not remove the requirement of exhausting.

 

I hope you can see my point. I'm not saying your interpretation is bad, but if 2 interpretation are opposite and valid, then maybe you should agree with official answer make on the forum in an official encounter, because you would not be able to solve the situation otherwise.

 

Also :

The entire thing is acedemic anyway, as currently there is no heroes that can really take adbvantage of this.

Questing with Beorn in Battle and able to defend all attack would be nice... Look at the card, it's the same wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

med_light-of-valinor-fos.jpg

 

Personally I don't agree with people that think this is ambiguous. 

The card merely stats that the attached hero does not exhaust to commit to the quest.

It doesn't provide any exemption to the rule that an exhausted character cannot commit to the quest.

Therefore a hero that is valid to commit to the quest can do so and not exhaust.

However a hero that is exhausted is not valid to commit to the quest, so can't do so.

To do what some of you are saying would require a rule like "Attached hero always counts as committed to the quest"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, quote from the rules: "An exhausted card cannot exhaust again (and therefore cannot partake in any action that requires exhaustion)".

 

Technically, Light of Valinor removes the need to exhaust for the attached character. Seemps pretty darn logical that he would be able to quest while exhausted to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree with the official ruling and will continue playing accordingly, my understanding of the rules would be exactly same as Neighbour's. Rapier states that there is a rule saying an exhausted character cannot commit to a quest, but I see none in either the rulebook or in FAQ.

ps: It would be if the rules had simply said "exhausted character cannot partake in any action that requires exhaustion," but the "therefore" is saying something else."

Edited by lleimmoen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all I think this should be in the FAQ and for me I hope they do leave it as the logic currently states.. as in you can select tapped chariocters to quest, if the quest cost is removed. This would open this attachment to more use and add a dimmention to future cards that might not come. That being said, it wouldn't suprise me if this turned up in a FAQ eventually rulles as you can not do this. IMO, for now though it is not in the faq, so can be used this way.

 

 I hope you can see my point. I'm not saying your interpretation is bad, but if 2 interpretation are opposite and valid, then maybe you should agree with official answer make on the forum in an official encounter, because you would not be able to solve the situation otherwise.
 

 

I see your point but I think you maybe not know that you are arguing MY side of the conversation. The rules are NOT clear. There is a way to correctly inpturprut them either way. This isn't a case of saying.. "well look at page X in manual and there is the answer".

 

Therefore technically both rules are valid. In a case like that the most benificial to players is the valid choice. If the designers have clear thoughts on this it should be in the FAQ, until it is a judge at a event can not say "oh hey.. you can not do that it says so in a thread on page 500 of the forum posted 2 years ago." How can they expect new players, or anyone.. maybe somone that uses BGG instead of FFG forumsto know about this rulling. Unless a rule is in the FAQ, errata, the rules or the card text, then it is NOT in the rules.

 

 

The entire thing is acedemic anyway, as currently there is no heroes that can really take adbvantage of this.

Questing with Beorn in Battle and able to defend all attack would be nice... Look at the card, it's the same wording.

 

Isn't Beorn not only not a Noldar or a Silvian he is also immue to cards and can not have attachments?

 

 

Once again, quote from the rules: "An exhausted card cannot exhaust again (and therefore cannot partake in any action that requires exhaustion)".

 

Technically, Light of Valinor removes the need to exhaust for the attached character. Seemps pretty darn logical that he would be able to quest while exhausted to me.

 

Exactly. NOTHING in the rules say being ready is a requirment to be selected to quest. That is just an assumjption. Point me to anywhere that says that. You can't as it is not there.. but there is plenty that talks about the cost of exhuasting.

 

The rules simply say that exhausting is a COST to select to quest. A cost this attachment removes. It is like Grima reducing a card to from 1 to 0. You do not have to pay resources to play a card, the resources is a cost that playing a card requires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually also a bit hesitant to follow these "official answers" from players. It has happened to me that I asked a designer a question and he replied, only for me to find a contradictory answer later in the FAQ. This should indeed be part of it.

Boored, your reasoning is fine but you just sometimes would not see the broader picture, like here we're discussing Beorn's text as well as Light of Valinor (or any similar phrase) or before I was not only talking just about allies that exhaust to perform their action during planning but also those that do not (like Erestor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 I hope you can see my point. I'm not saying your interpretation is bad, but if 2 interpretation are opposite and valid, then maybe you should agree with official answer make on the forum in an official encounter, because you would not be able to solve the situation otherwise.

 

 

I see your point but I think you maybe not know that you are arguing MY side of the conversation. The rules are NOT clear. There is a way to correctly inpturprut them either way. This isn't a case of saying.. "well look at page X in manual and there is the answer".

 

 

I wasn't arguing against that, someone should point this out to Caleb then.

I was arguing that your vision of "The rules simply say that exhausting is a COST to select to quest" is only part of your interpretation. Do not impose that on other, just point it out as your opinion (like you point out the counter argument). People take a lot of time to try to demonstrate what you say is not «rules» but your interpretation, and you get back to them saying that exactly what you wanted to say. Please be more clear on this point.

 

For the exemple of  Beorn, I was talking about the same "does not exhaust to" part that he share with the noldor tactics allies and Light of Valinor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the exemple of  Beorn, I was talking about the same "does not exhaust to" part that he share with the noldor tactics allies and Light of Valinor.

 

oh i see what your saying... if you battle quest with him, he should be able to defend while tapped.... yes.. technically I think he would be able to do that, same with the other allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh i see what your saying... if you battle quest with him, he should be able to defend while tapped.... yes.. technically I think he would be able to do that, same with the other allies.

 

Wait what ?!?!? NO ! You can't, "Does not exhaust" replaces the act of exhausting but you can't even begin that act if the character is already exhausted and which allies do you refer to ? You critisize other people choices by calling 2hand play retarded and stuff and you don't even know the basics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh i see what your saying... if you battle quest with him, he should be able to defend while tapped.... yes.. technically I think he would be able to do that, same with the other allies.

 

Wait what ?!?!? NO ! You can't, "Does not exhaust" replaces the act of exhausting but you can't even begin that act if the character is already exhausted and which allies do you refer to ? You critisize other people choices by calling 2hand play retarded and stuff and you don't even know the basics.

Ehm "does not exhaust" means that you "do not exhaust"? And if you do not exhaust, you don't even start to exhaust? Because you don't have to?

 

Don't get me wrong, I hear what you're saying and I hope it turns out that it's gonna be played like that. But the wording is, in combination with the somewhat strange worded rule text, ambigious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh i see what your saying... if you battle quest with him, he should be able to defend while tapped.... yes.. technically I think he would be able to do that, same with the other allies.

 

Wait what ?!?!? NO ! You can't, "Does not exhaust" replaces the act of exhausting but you can't even begin that act if the character is already exhausted and which allies do you refer to ? You critisize other people choices by calling 2hand play retarded and stuff and you don't even know the basics.

Dude... just read the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

oh i see what your saying... if you battle quest with him, he should be able to defend while tapped.... yes.. technically I think he would be able to do that, same with the other allies.

 

Wait what ?!?!? NO ! You can't, "Does not exhaust" replaces the act of exhausting but you can't even begin that act if the character is already exhausted and which allies do you refer to ? You critisize other people choices by calling 2hand play retarded and stuff and you don't even know the basics.

Dude... just read the thread.

 

Maybe he did? He's basically saying the same thing I did. 

It doesn't surprise me that Caleb has responded to the question with the obvious answer. Maybe he doesn't understand why it isn't clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, are you implying, Rapier, that Caleb doesn't read the rulebook just as you don't seem to? Why do you keep pretending there is no issue if the words are written and they say what they say. If you paraphrase them to prove your point, it doesn't change anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I asked Caleb and he confirmed that an exhausted hero cannot be commited to a quest:
 

Caleb:

 

Page 14 of the rulebook reads “An exhausted card cannot exhaust again (and therefore cannot partake in any action that requires exhaustion)…”
The intent of this rule is a core mechanic of the game: exhausted heroes cannot perform actions. They cannot quest, attack, or defend. Cards that allow a hero to perform any of these functions without exhausting merely take away the cost of exhausting, they do not sidestep the core restriction of the game. I will make a note to add this clarification to our next FAQ update.

 

So iznax had it pretty much nailed.

Edited by leptokurt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He replied the same to me. I asked him something in return. Wonder if he'll answer.

Yeah. You were CCed in the mail that i got as a reply. I wondered why there where some kyrillica at the top of the reply. Feared that Putin had put his hands on him too. :P

 

 

ETA: if you asked him if the battle/siege keywords would stick in the Ringmaker cycle, you won#t get an answer... <_<

Edited by leptokurt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys really you don't think that this is pretty clear ? Or you just love to paraphrase and abusing the rules ? :huh:

 

In order not to do something you have to be able to do it in the first place. This is not in the rulebook it is pure ****** logic ! It is the same with 0 cost player cards.

 

Trol you ask me to read the thread for ? ...

Edited by iznax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys really you don't think that this is pretty clear ? Or you just love to paraphrase and abusing the rules ? :huh:

 

In order not to do something you have to be able to do it in the first place. This is not in the rulebook it is pure ****** logic ! It is the same with 0 cost player cards.

 

Trol you ask me to read the thread for ? ...

"In order not to do something you have to be able to do it in the first place." 

OK, let's go by your logic. I used Grima's ability to lower the cost of Arwen by 1. She now costs 1 spirit resource, but judging by your logic I still need to have at least 2 spirit resources available. You can start making sense any time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...