Jacob5432 2 Posted May 17, 2012 We have just finished a couple of games of the Watcher in the Water quest. During play we quickly got some of our heroes involved with some tent6acle attachments which rendered them unable to attack and defend and from there it seemed that their only job for the remainder of the game was to quest. However, when a Black Uruks (www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/lotr/lord-of-the-rings-card-spoiler/_/khazad-dum/black-uruks-kd) was revealed from the encounter deck we thought "great, that is our salvation". Because the Black Uruks does remove a chosen attachment from a questing hero - thus we removed the tentacle attachment from one of the heroes as this is an attachment just as any other attachment. Or so we thought. However, what do you reckon? Is this a correct assumption and if not, why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
radiskull 39 Posted May 17, 2012 That's legal with the cards as written. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starhawk77 2 Posted May 17, 2012 Indeed. The "when revealed" effect on Black Uruks does NOT require that you control the selected attachment. Barring an official clarification, it's perfectly legal to discard a Tentacle attachment when the Uruks show up. In fact, the Uruks are currently the only card that WILL get rid of such attachments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sortylege 0 Posted May 21, 2012 But even if it is legal, it's a clear mistake or bad wording by FFG. Black Uruks are our enemies, they don't help us! Their "when revelead" effect targets our attachments, they don't give us favours. imho if we play "using" Black Urucks as allies, could be like cheating. I dont' wait for the next official FAQ to play as my common sense asks now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dam the Man 84 Posted May 21, 2012 They can also remove Freezing Cold. Could easily argue they are only focused on capturing the hero and taking him back to Mordor, so they'll cut him free out the tentacles or thaw him out with Orc drinks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
radiskull 39 Posted May 21, 2012 sorty said: But even if it is legal, it's a clear mistake or bad wording by FFG. Black Uruks are our enemies, they don't help us! Their "when revelead" effect targets our attachments, they don't give us favours. imho if we play "using" Black Urucks as allies, could be like cheating. I dont' wait for the next official FAQ to play as my common sense asks now. This is why allowing random players to be judges at tournaments won't work. This is why using theme to interpret the rules is a bad idea. The rules of the game are not unclear on this point. It's not a mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacob5432 2 Posted May 21, 2012 Hi all, Thanks for your replies. I agree that the card text does not hinder the Black Orcs from helping you with the tentacle attachments but I can also see that it is not that logical theme-wise. However, the card texts and rules are above theme speculations in my book so I will continue to regard the Black Orcs as semi-allies when dealing with the The Watcher. Anyway, I have sent the question on to support and hope for an official answer which I will post here if I receive it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacob5432 2 Posted June 11, 2012 OFFICIAL REPLY RECEIVED: I have received a reply from Nate French. The reply is: "Yes, the Black Uruks can discard a tentacle attachment." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
