Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boromore

0 round loss

Recommended Posts

Just want to air this one. I was playing the Road to Rivendell solo (actually in Nightmare, but the same would be true of Standard mode). Quest 1A set-up states "Put Arwen Undomiel into play ... Reveal 1 card from the encounter deck per player...". The card revealed was Followed by Night ("WR: The first player (choose 1): deals 1 damage to all allies in play and Followed by Night gains surge, or all enemies engaged with players make an immediate attack, if able").  With no enemies engaged, I chose the latter option. When I staged during round 1, the next card revealed was a second Followed by Night - so had I chosen the first option at setup, I would have immediately lost.

Now I know that Followed by Night has different wording to some cards with a "must either  X or Y" choice (where the FAQ section 1.44 states you must choose one you can do in full if able).

However, I just came across the MEC01 Online Only Rules statement (under the Effects heading):

"If an ability instructs a player to select among multiple effects, an effect that has the potential to change the game state must be selected."
So, what does that mean for my choice above?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means on both occasions you would have been forced to select the first option of the treachery, since the second option would not have had any effect. And yes that (without any treacher cancellation) would have resulted in an instant loss.

Note also that this is still true even following FAQ 1.44 since the only option you could have done in full would have been the damage+surge one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wandalf the Gizzard said:

If a card effect says "all" you can chose that even if it would have no effect. Card effects with "each" must have at least one valid target to be chosen.

The "if able" at the end of the second option of the treachery doesn't disallow this though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with the "all" can be 0 (found a previous thread where Caleb states " The difference between ‘all’ and ‘each’ is very significant because ‘all’ can include 0 whereas ‘each’ requires there to be at least 1 target.".

I'm also fine with the "if able" - again, requoting Caleb: " In The Lord of the Ring LCG, when an encounter card effect uses the language "if able" it means that if you are not able to completely fulfill its effect then you should ignore it. " (The link for this one is: 

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1702-official-nate-rule-clarifications/page-4 ).

It's the newer Online Rules statement - because even if under the "old" rules I could legitimately choose the "All=0, if able" option, the game state doesn't change, and can't potentially change unless you take the view that you select it before counting the number of enemies engaged.

Edited by Boromore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The newer rules reference should be seen as overruling any previous rulings, whenever there is a conflict. In this case, Alonewolf has the right of it: you have to select the option which will impact the game state.  “All” can mean “0,” but in this case you cannot select the “0” option because the other option actually will impact the game state.

That said, it’s your game, so play it as you see fit. I think most people are choosing to ignore this particular section from the rules reference.

Edited by GrandSpleen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got curious, so did a rough calculation - slightly less than a 1 in 200 chance of drawing Followed, then another Followed or Undisturbed Bones. With Eleanor in the mix, the chance of the loss in setup drops to approx 1 in 7,000.  So probably not worth avoiding the nasty rules for.

I'll just have to make sure I shuffle more throughly next time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GrandSpleen said:

The newer rules reference should be seen as overruling any previous rulings, whenever there is a conflict. In this case, Alonewolf has the right of it: you have to select the option which will impact the game state.  “All” can mean “0,” but in this case you cannot select the “0” option because the other option actually will impact the game state.

That said, it’s your game, so play it as you see fit. I think most people are choosing to ignore this particular section from the rules reference.

 

3 hours ago, NathanH said:

Yes, I am probably going to be ignoring that new rule. I can't be bothered changing my understanding of how a game has worked for n years at this point.

Yeah, there are a ton of inconsistencies in the rules reference with the pre-set rulings of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

FYI, I sent a question about this to Caleb and his initial response stuck with the old ruling of "can choose any option as long as you can complete it in full" (i.e. all=0 attacks allowed as a choice). He wanted to know why I was doubting that ruling and I referenced the online rules sections regarding Abilities and Effects that led to this discussion. I'm waiting for a follow-up response and will post here once received.

Edited by PickleTheHutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...