Poisoned Counsels+Gandalf+Hobbit Pipes

[Veve7 35]

1.If I use 2 Hobbit Pipes after I play an threat reducing event and I can  see with Gandalf Hero the  Poisoned Counsels on my top of the deck and chose to not trigger the third  pipe?

2.After I defend With Gandalf Hero can I play Flame Of Anor ,ready Gandalf,declare atack one enemy and trigger  another copy of Flame Of Anor to gain aditional attack against that enemy?

3.Can I trigger Flame Of Anor and chose as target ready Gandalf?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Veve7

[monkeyrama 133]

Don't see why any of these would be a problem. Each Hobbit Pipe reaction has to be completely resolved before the next one can be, so Gandalf's passive ability kicks in and you can see the next card to come before you choose to resolve the next Hobbit Pipe reaction. 

[alogos 171]

1. Response are optional.

2. You can't declare more than one attack per turn on each enemy. You can boost the attack of gandalf and untap hin before the resolution of his attack.

3. ? yeah, Gandalf is a legal target for Flame of Arnor

[monkeyrama 133]

Oops, misread number 2, which doesn't work, as alogos says. 1 attack per player against each enemy unless you're joining someone else's ranged attack. Sorry! I thought you meant just attacking other enemies...

[Veve7 35]

1.Thank you!

2.Thank you!

3.I mean  can I ,,ready" an ready Gandalf?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Veve7

[monkeyrama 133]

I can't say for sure where this came up before, but I think that there is no problem 'readying' a character who is already 'ready'. This has come up before, and I think it was even sent to the developers for clarification. I think the best comparison is Sam, who always gets +1 to all stats when his response triggers, even if he doesn't need to ready.

[alogos 171]

hum... the wording is everything, and normaly, readying is a side effect. But here, it seems to be needed.

So I'll go for a no.

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

With Sam, the official response was something like 'we deliberately made his effect into 2 sentences so that Sam still gets +stats even if he is not readied by the effect.'   The wording difference between Flame of Anor and Sam is not significant, I think.

 

Sam: 

Response: After you engage an enemy with a higher engagement cost than your threat, ready Sam Gamgee. He gets +1 Willpower, +1 Attack and +1 Defense until the end of the round.

 

Flame of Anor:

Action: Add Flame of Anor to the victory display and discard the top card of your deck to ready an Istari character you control. That character gets +X Attack until the end of the phase where X is the discarded card's cost.

 

Boiled down:

 

Sam:
Response: After <trigger>, <effect1>.  <effect 2>.

 

In Sam's case, Effect 2 has been ruled to take effect even if effect 1 does not.

 

Flame of Anor:

Action: <cost> to <effect1>.  <effect 2>.  

 

It looks the same to me.

[Veve7 35]

Caleb :,,No, you cannot ready a character that is already ready. Gandalf must be exhausted in order to ready him with Flame of Anor."

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

But does he still get the +stat boost?

[Veve7 35]

From that I understand you can't play Flame Of Anor if all Istari in play are ready.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Veve7

[monkeyrama 133]

Hmm. That does seem a little inconsistent. Was the Sam effect ruled on by Caleb as well? Because they are written in essentially the same way. I'm kinda all for not being able to ready a character who's already ready, since it's a core mechanic and makes a degree of sense, but then Sam gets a lot less exciting.

[Veve7 35]

Caleb said that you can't play Flame Of Anor if in play are  only ready Istari characters.

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

Is your quote above a direct quote?  He does not say that you cannot play the card.  He only says that you cannot ready Gandalf.

[alogos 171]

The difference I think, is in the "to".

 

Sam: when A, B happen. Then C.

Flame: do A to do B. Then C.

[CJMatos 54]

For me the problem is the following:

 

Sam is a response to an action (engaging higher threat enemy), not a deliberate action to influence the game;

 

Flame of Arnor is played with the aim of readying the Istari (note the words "to ready") and therefor a deliberate action to influence;

 

 

So for me, the Flame of Arnor isn't playable if all the istari are ready, while Sam's response is still able to occur even if he is ready because the aim isn't readying Sam...

 

But there is, in fact, the precedent ruling about Sam (which i don't know who ruled). So it should be cleared by Caleb both situations...

 

 

PS: Alogos beat me partially....

Edited May 8, 2015 by CJMatos

[Veve7 35]

 

GrandSpleen:

Me:,,I want to be sure:if I control only ready Istari charcters I can't play Flame Of Anor,right?"

Caleb:,,That is correct."

Edited May 9, 2015 by Veve7

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

Thanks for asking!

[CJMatos 54]

 

 

GrandSpleen:

Me:,,I want to be sure:if I control only ready Istari charcters I can't play Flame Of Anor,right?"

Caleb:,,That is correct."

 

 

 

So as i though (and alogos) the word "to" is the difference

[monkeyrama 133]

This makes sense, I suppose. Sometimes the rules in this game get a little messy, but generally it makes sense, and the explanation above does certainly make sense. On another topic (connected to rules being complex) I only just realized I've misplayed how side-quests work, and kinda messed up my only win against the second Lost Realm quest. I must read rules and wording on cards more carefully!!

[Gandalf196 3]

 

 

 

GrandSpleen:

Me:,,I want to be sure:if I control only ready Istari charcters I can't play Flame Of Anor,right?"

Caleb:,,That is correct."

 

 

 

So as i though (and alogos) the word "to" is the difference

 

So, if we follow that line of reasoning, Vilya cannot be used together with Gandalf (hero); the top card will always be revealed while Gandalf is in play, however Vilya uses the same wording as Flame of Anor: "Action: Exhaust Elrond and Vilya to reveal the top card of your deck". That is, if Flame of Anor cannot be played if I control only ready Istari characters, Vilya cannot be used to reveal a revealed card.

[cmabr002 292]

I just re-read Gandalf's text.  It actually says you play with the top card of your deck "faceup".  This is not "revealed".

Edited March 19, 2016 by cmabr002

[Gandalf196 3]

I just re-read Gandalf's text.  It actually says you play with the top card of your deck "faceup".  This is not "revealed".

Hmm, interesting. So, your statement implies that you can, actually, reveal a faceup card, thus, activating any when revealed effects (I don't believe there's any player card with "when revealed" effects, I'm just saying this for the good of the argument), which would not be normally activated by Gandalf alone?

[cmabr002 292]

 

I just re-read Gandalf's text.  It actually says you play with the top card of your deck "faceup".  This is not "revealed".

Hmm, interesting. So, your statement implies that you can, actually, reveal a faceup card, thus, activating any when revealed effects (I don't believe there's any player card with "when revealed" effects, I'm just saying this for the good of the argument), which would not be normally activated by Gandalf alone?

 

 

I believe that is correct, and I actually think that the developers were very careful to word Gandalf as "faceup" and not "revealed".  But I am not a developer so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Gandalf196 3]

 

 

I just re-read Gandalf's text.  It actually says you play with the top card of your deck "faceup".  This is not "revealed".

Hmm, interesting. So, your statement implies that you can, actually, reveal a faceup card, thus, activating any when revealed effects (I don't believe there's any player card with "when revealed" effects, I'm just saying this for the good of the argument), which would not be normally activated by Gandalf alone?

 

 

I believe that is correct, and I actually think that the developers were very careful to word Gandalf as "faceup" and not "revealed".  But I am not a developer so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

I understand that you're not a developer, and neither am I, however the logic we built here seems flawless; it derives logical conclusions from words with pre-established definitions, in other words, I don't believe another logical interpreation would be valid and, in fact, if the developers were to twist our conclusion it would be due to arbitrariness, not logical reasoning.