Erkenbrand and Wolf Rider

[Seastan 1,324]

Lets say I am defending with Erkenbrand, and I reveal Wolf Rider as the shadow card. I decide not to cancel, and Wolf Rider attacks another character. During that attack, I flip over a bad shadow card. Can Erkenbrand cancel it?

[Teamjimby 630]

I'm sure that was not the intention, but I'm not sure what the technical ruling would be here.

[ppsantos 20]

Erkenbrand only gains the ability if he is defending.  If he's not defending he does not have the shadow cancelation ability.  Maybe a clarification/errata that his ability is only while he is defending against attacks specifically against him.

[NathanH 350]

I advise cancelling the Wolf Rider and saving yourself the headache 

[Noccus 324]

Erkenbrand only gains the ability if he is defending.  If he's not defending he does not have the shadow cancelation ability.

 

This.

Crystal clear imo.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Noccus

[Seastan 1,324]

 

Erkenbrand only gains the ability if he is defending.  If he's not defending he does not have the shadow cancelation ability.

 

This.

Crystal clear imo.

 

 

But he is defending...

[Noccus 324]

Err, in your OP you said the wolf rider was attacking another character, so I assumed you meant another character was defending this attack.

If so, Erkenbrand's ability would not work.

But if you got to ready Erkenbrand and defend, then yes of course.

The thing is: Erkenbrand himself needs to defend the attack, not just the player (as the shadow effect states) for his ability to work.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Noccus

[PocketWraith 553]

The Wolf Rider shadow effect causes it to make an immediate attack. You fully resolve the shadow effect before finishing resolving the attack. Thus while you are resolving the Wolf Rider's attack, Erkenbrand is still defending the original attack (for which Wolf Rider was the shadow), so he is still defending even though he's not defending that attack.

So yeah, it doesn't seem like that was the intention, but a strict reading of the rules does make it seem like he could cancel the shadow on the Wolf Rider.

[Authraw 565]

Seastan lives in the space between "intended" and "rules as written".

[Seastan 1,324]

The Wolf Rider shadow effect causes it to make an immediate attack. You fully resolve the shadow effect before finishing resolving the attack. Thus while you are resolving the Wolf Rider's attack, Erkenbrand is still defending the original attack (for which Wolf Rider was the shadow), so he is still defending even though he's not defending that attack.

So yeah, it doesn't seem like that was the intention, but a strict reading of the rules does make it seem like he could cancel the shadow on the Wolf Rider.

 

Similarly, if Erkenbrand is defending Telemnar's Bane and I decide to play an event like Swift Strike, causing Telemnar's Bane to attack the first player. I guess Erkenbrand could cancel shadows for that attack as well.

[gpd924 10]

Wolf Rider has the most ambiguous shadow effect in the whole game, in my opinion.  Here's how I play it (and FFG has not put this in any FAQ for this particular card):

 

"Wolf Rider attacks the defending player [You]. 

"That player may declare 1 character as a defender. [you MAY...so if you don't want to, then the character takes the full undefended attack, I'm guessing.  Also, and this is the biggest ambiguity,  I exhausted an ally as the defender to the original enemy from which the shadow card was drawn.  I did NOT exhaust a separate character to defend against Wolf Rider, and I strongly believe you don't have to do that.  I used Beorn as my defender, so he defended against both enemies, Wolf Rider and the original enemy.  And I did their attacks separately, not combined.  Both of the enemies had 2 Attack each, Beorn had a Defense 3.  Therefore, none of those attacks went through.  That's how I played it, and that sounds perfectly valid to me.

Rest of the shadow card has no problems.

[Onidsen 571]

7 minutes ago, gpd924 said:

Wolf Rider has the most ambiguous shadow effect in the whole game, in my opinion.  Here's how I play it (and FFG has not put this in any FAQ for this particular card):

 

"Wolf Rider attacks the defending player [You]. 

"That player may declare 1 character as a defender. [you MAY...so if you don't want to, then the character takes the full undefended attack, I'm guessing.  Also, and this is the biggest ambiguity,  I exhausted an ally as the defender to the original enemy from which the shadow card was drawn.  I did NOT exhaust a separate character to defend against Wolf Rider, and I strongly believe you don't have to do that.  I used Beorn as my defender, so he defended against both enemies, Wolf Rider and the original enemy.  And I did their attacks separately, not combined.  Both of the enemies had 2 Attack each, Beorn had a Defense 3.  Therefore, none of those attacks went through.  That's how I played it, and that sounds perfectly valid to me.

Rest of the shadow card has no problems.

Unless otherwise noted, I'm pretty sure you have to exhaust a character to declare it as a defender

[gpd924 10]

Just now, Onidsen said:

Unless otherwise noted, I'm pretty sure you have to exhaust a character to declare it as a defender

Due to the MAY, I did not and let Beorn take both attacks.  

[Onidsen 571]

I'm also pretty sure that that's not an option.  If you do not declare a defender, the attack is undefended. You don't get to use the same defender against the wolf rider's attack unless you have a means of readying them.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Onidsen

[gpd924 10]

3 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

I'm also pretty sure that that's not an option.  If you do not declare a defender, the attack is undefended. You don't get to use the same defender unless you have a means of readying them.

I'll be playing it exactly like how I said.  Until FFG specifically resolves this in an FAQ (which it definitely should be), I'll be continuing the way I've been playing that shadow effect.  It MUST be clarified.  Even the forums on BGG had conflicting viewpoints about this card.  Totally shocked how FFG never addressed it yet.

[Onidsen 571]

2 minutes ago, gpd924 said:

I'll be playing it exactly like how I said.  Until FFG specifically resolves this in an FAQ (which it definitely should be), I'll be continuing the way I've been playing that shadow effect.  It MUST be clarified.  Even the forums on BGG had conflicting viewpoints about this card.  Totally shocked how FFG never addressed it yet.

I mean, you can feel free to play it however you like.

But I'm not seeing any ambiguity in the rules at all. An enemy attacks you, you exhaust a character to declare it as the defender against that attack. The shadow card is the Wolf Rider, which makes a new attack. That attack either requires a new defender, or it must be taken undefended. Full stop. There is no reading of the rules as written in which the already-exhausted defender defending against the original attack gets to also defend against the Wolf Rider's attack unless you have played a card effect that lets exhausted characters defend.

TL;DR - It's a new attack. You must declare a new defender or take the attack undefended.

[gpd924 10]

I'll just refer you to my last response.  The shadow card effect would then need to say "may declare or take direct damage undefended on a hero"...something to that effect.  Again, clarification is needed.  Please email FFG about this to get it in the next FAQ

[Onidsen 571]

Just now, gpd924 said:

I'll just refer you to my last response.  The shadow card effect would then need to say "may declare or take direct damage undefended on a hero"...something to that effect.  Again, clarification is needed.  Please email FFG about this to get it in the next FAQ

Why is clarification needed? That's how all attacks in the game function.

For regular attacks, you may declare a character as a defender. If you don't, the attack is undefended. Why should the Wolf Rider's attack be different? Does the shadow card need to reprint the entire section on attacking in the rules?

[gpd924 10]

5 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

Why is clarification needed? That's how all attacks in the game function.

For regular attacks, you may declare a character as a defender. If you don't, the attack is undefended. Why should the Wolf Rider's attack be different? Does the shadow card need to reprint the entire section on attacking in the rules?

Email just sent to FFG.  I'll await the response.

[Onidsen 571]

1 minute ago, gpd924 said:

Email just sent to FFG.  I'll await the response.

Fair enough.

[gpd924 10]

6 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

Why is clarification needed? That's how all attacks in the game function.

For regular attacks, you may declare a character as a defender. If you don't, the attack is undefended. Why should the Wolf Rider's attack be different? Does the shadow card need to reprint the entire section on attacking in the rules?

and FYI:  you don't have to put in the whole rules onto an encounter card.  Saying that is sheer stupidity.  All you have to do is say "That player must declare a separate character as a defender or take damage [on a hero] undefended."  Easy as that.

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

Welcome to the community, I guess?  I hope rules questions don't always pull words like "MUST" in all caps and "shocked" out of you-- - you're going to have a lot of rules questions if you stick with this game.

Edited March 1, 2018 by GrandSpleen

[monkeyrama 133]

This might be weighing in in a manner that is slightly unhelpful, but this looks a lot like a situation in which the core set had fairly poorly worded/overly complex rules for things that later got much simpler text. The equivalent now would surely look more like 'Wolf Rider makes an immediate attack against the defending player'? That would then trigger a framework event (an attack) that has simple steps to follow. The Wolf Rider, belonging to the old days of weird wording describes what it is doing in too much detail, but it is a golden rule of the game that you have to exhaust a character to perform basic actions like defending unless otherwise stated. This is stated in the FAQ in response to a question about Light of Valinor:

Quote

Q: If I have Light of Valinor (D 107) attached to a hero I control, can that hero commit to the quest while exhausted?
A: No. Characters must be ready and able to exhaust in order to quest, attack, or defend. Card effects that allow a character to perform any of those actions without exhausting do not allow exhausted characters to perform those actions.

It's a bit of a leap, but there's nothing in the Wolf Rider card to imply that a character can defend it while exhausted.

Those core set cards are often a bit buggy!

[Wandalf the Gizzard 370]

I think that Erkenbrand technically should be able to cancel the Wolf Rider's attack as long as he is still considered defending. Whether or not his ability allows him to cancel shadows from an enemy not attacking him even though he is still defending is the question.

And of course you have to declare (and exhaust) a defender for the Wolf Rider's attack unless you take it undefended.

[Boromore 32]

I'd agree with the consensus - Erkenbrand's text always struck me as a bit vague ("...cancel a shadow effect just triggered") and Wolf Rider is pulling a mean stunt (interrupting an enemy attack to do its own enemy attack), so I'd say all's fair. Nothing to stop Erkenbrand cancelling "a" shadow effect whilst he's waiting around defending, polishing his shield...

And on the defender for Wolf Rider - a new attack needs a new defender, or it's undefended.