Forest snare in Carn Dûm

[wehehe 39]

The first stage of "The Battle of Carn Dûm" has the following text:

 

Do not discard unresolved shadow cards at the end of the combat phase.

 

Mi question is... what happens if the players manage to have enough engaged enemies, all of them in forest snares, to have all cards in the mission deck assigned as shadows ? (Or even in the victory pile thanks to out of the wild, leave no trace, none return...) I know... it's a very weird situation, but I think that in a 4 player game, if decks are focussed on it, it can be possible.

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

Hah, that's a good strategy to defeat this quest, perhaps.  Just keep all the cards on the board, all the time.  You would break the quest and win, that's what would happen!

[NathanH 350]

I think the rules are silent on this question, so I'd say "enjoy yourself!" Just skip the staging step of Questing. You have got revenge on the encounter deck for the person who was endlessly surging treacheries in the Hobbit saga 3rd quest.

Edited December 10, 2015 by NathanH

[wehehe 39]

It could be at least a fun thing to try... build 4 decks each of them with 4 of all of the listed cards (forest snare, out of the wild, leave no trace, none return...) I believe that with them, all mission deck can be emptied in 4-5 rounds.

[Seastan 1,324]

That is, until you have to raise your threat by 50 when you advance to the second stage...

 

 

That's why you include a copy of A Good Harvest and Shadows Give Way!

[cmabr002 292]

That is, until you have to raise your threat by 50 when you advance to the second stage...

 

 

That's why you include a copy of A Good Harvest and Shadows Give Way!

 

Or Favor of the Valar!

Edited December 10, 2015 by cmabr002

[Seastan 1,324]

I've almost gotten to that point with my Dunedain deck a few times. Ranger spikes can also be used to lock down some encounter cards in the staging area. 

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

Speaking of Favor of the Valar, does 'Limit 1 per player" mean 1 in play per player at a time?  

[Slothgodfather 270]

@GrandSpleen, I'm pretty sure it it as a deckbuilding limitation.  Not an in-game limitation.

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

Don't they typically write "Limit 1 per deck" like with sidequests?  Let me make a separate thread for this.

[cmabr002 292]

I always interpreted it as an in game limitation.  I think it means each person can only have 1 of these attached to his threat dial at any given time.  I think you could have 3 in your deck, attach it to your threat dial, use it, then attach another.  In a 4 player game, there could be 4 of these in play, so long as they were all attached to a different player's threat dial.

[Slothgodfather 270]

ah, yea.  that does make more sense.   

[Seastan 1,324]

Some funny wording on Favor of the Valar. It says "When you would be eliminated by reaching your threat elimination level, instead discard Favor of the Valar and reduce your threat to 5 less than your threat elimination level."

 

If you are sitting at 30 threat and need to raise by 50 due to Stage 2A of Carn Dum, can you really reduce your threat to 45? 

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

..."by reaching your threat level," I think, implies that you have reached it (it doesn't say "when you would reach your ..," but does say "when you would b eliminated by...")  So I think you HAVE reached your level, and now you WOULD be eliminated, but instead you get to reduce it.

[cmabr002 292]

Some funny wording on Favor of the Valar. It says "When you would be eliminated by reaching your threat elimination level, instead discard Favor of the Valar and reduce your threat to 5 less than your threat elimination level."

 

If you are sitting at 30 threat and need to raise by 50 due to Stage 2A of Carn Dum, can you really reduce your threat to 45? 

 

I actually thought this very same thing for a second when I first read the card, dismissed it because I didn't think that's what the intent of the card was, but the more I think about it, even if it is not intended, I think this has to be true...

 

Perhaps they purposefully used the language "When you would be eliminated" to indicate this Forced effect happens before the passive effect of actually being eliminated.  If they were both passive effects, I think there is room for other interpretations, but as it stands, Favor of the Valar being a forced effects means they had to word it the way they did to ensure it happened before you actually got eliminated.  Due to this, it seems that Favor of the Valar happens somewhere between the activation of the card raising your threat and your actually being eliminated.  If Favor of the Valar happens at the same time as actually being eliminated then being eliminated will always come first because it is a passive effect and Favor of the Valar is a Forced effect.

 

The order of resolution seems to be:

 

1. Activation of card effect (or any other threat raising) that raises threat

2. Threat is about to be raised, but Forced effect on Favor of the Valar triggers because you "would be eliminated" so your threat does not get raised and you "instead reduce your threat to 5 below your threat elimination level

3. If you cannot "reduce" then you cannot fulfill the "instead" clause of the card (which we know means you can't use it from prior rulings).

 

Now, I am not sure this is intended, but maybe they did carefully word it this way.  Here are a couple small ways they could have worded the card if they wanted it to prevent you from being eliminated due to threat raising no matter what your current threat was at.  I am unsure if the developers chose their words poorly or extremely carefully in this case...

 

1.  Forced: When you would be eliminated by reaching your threat elimination level, instead discard Favor of the Valar and set your threat to 5 less than your threat elimination level."

2.  [Make it passive effect] When you would be eliminated by reaching your threat elimination level, instead discard Favor of the Valar and reduce your threat to 5 less than your threat elimination level."

Edited December 11, 2015 by cmabr002

[Seastan 1,324]

Yeah I've considered it a bit more. I think your threat goes to 80 and you "would be eliminated" but instead you reduce it to 45 and you are not eliminated.

[cmabr002 292]

Yeah I've considered it a bit more. I think your threat goes to 80 and you "would be eliminated" but instead you reduce it to 45 and you are not eliminated.

 

Yeah, this seems to be the intent behind the card even if I can see other interpretations.