Nameless Things and Forest Snare

[jjeagle 48]

Nameless Thing attaches player cards to itself.

Forest Snare has the text "Attached enemy cannot attack."

I can't see any reason why a Forest Snare that is attached to Nameless Thing by the effect on NT wouldn't thus ensnare the Nameless Thing and prevent it from attacking. Seems a bit crazy though.

[MyNeighbourTrololo 689]

When you attach player cards to Elder Thing, attach them upside-down thus only their costs are visible. This way you'll see all information you need without questions like this coming up. 

[jjeagle 48]

But my point is that there is no basis in the rules to do what you have suggested, or any basis in the rules (I think) to believe that the cards attached to NT are out of play in any other respect beyond their cost.

[MyNeighbourTrololo 689]

That makes no sense. Cards are attached to Elder Things only because of their cost, to create a randomness of their parameters.

Any other interaction with attached cards would be invalid, because cards are attached not as attachments. 

[jjeagle 48]

It makes perfect sense in rules terms - there is no basis to distinguish between the state of being attached to Nameless Thing as a result of NT's text, and the state of being attached to Nameless Thing as a result of being played as an attachment in the Planning phase.

I am certain this is not the designers' intent, and I certainly think it is a silly situation, but that is a different point.

[leptokurt 242]

Wow, that's a good catch. I agree, rulewise the enemy should not be able to attack. Also it makes sense thematically as it's a trap. Yes, a forest trap in the undergound, I hear you,  but hey - I don't mind!

[MyNeighbourTrololo 689]

It makes no sense in terms of game rules.

Attachment card types are attached during the planning phase by the player.

Player cards from player deck are attached to Elder Things when they engage, and by sharing the same word "attach" - it's a completely diffrent mechanic, attaching all - events, attachments, allies. And in this mechanic card text doesn't matters, the only thing that matters is cost.  

[leptokurt 242]

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

It makes no sense in terms of game rules.

Attachment card types are attached during the planning phase by the player.

Player cards from player deck are attached to Elder Things when they engage, and by sharing the same word "attach" - it's a completely diffrent mechanic, attaching all - events, attachments, allies. And in this mechanic card text doesn't matters, the only thing that matters is cost.  

Only the player is restricted to the planning phase when playing attachments. The encounter deck isn't.

 

Example: "Caught in a Web". Counts as an attachment, is attached during the quest phase.

 

The  card text of Forest Snare gives no limitation either. It just says "Attach to an enemy engaged with a player. Attached enemy cannot attack." All these requirements are fullfilled when a Nameless Thing's forced action triggers. I still have no clue if this was intended or not. After all Imladris Stargazer gives the player a good chance to actually trap one of these monsters with Forest Snare.

[Rashley 3]

These are all valid points and shows another example of bad use of wording by the designers.  I will be e-mailing for an answer as they replied last time very quickly, but I would be very surprised if the obvious answer wasn't correct.  Cards placed on these 'Nameless Things' - better word than 'attached' - only count their 'cost' value.  Any cards attached as normal 'Attachments' don't add their 'cost', only their effect.  That sounds reasonable, but it will be up to the players to remember which are which.  Attaching top/bottom looks the best.  Cheers!

[MyNeighbourTrololo 689]

leptokurt said:

 

 

Only the player is restricted to the planning phase when playing attachments. The encounter deck isn't.

 

Example: "Caught in a Web". Counts as an attachment, is attached during the quest phase.

 

The  card text of Forest Snare gives no limitation either. It just says "Attach to an enemy engaged with a player. Attached enemy cannot attack." All these requirements are fullfilled when a Nameless Thing's forced action triggers. I still have no clue if this was intended or not. After all Imladris Stargazer gives the player a good chance to actually trap one of these monsters with Forest Snare.

I speak - they don't listen.

Cards from the deck are attached not as the attachment card type. It's a diffirent mechanic and it has nothing to do with card text. It's something like facedown players cards considered as 1 atk 1 def 1 hp orcs in escape from the Dol Guldur.

[HilariousPete 4]

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

 

Cards from the deck are attached not as the attachment card type. It's a diffirent mechanic and it has nothing to do with card text.

Not really. FAQ (1.23) Attachments: "Any card that attaches to another card is treated as an Attachment in addition to its other card types."

So to use a word like "place" or to add a sentence like "attached cards are considered out of play" would have been beter. But it's pretty obvious that the text box of player cards should be blanked or inactive or something else.

[leptokurt 242]

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

leptokurt said:

 

 

 

Only the player is restricted to the planning phase when playing attachments. The encounter deck isn't.

 

Example: "Caught in a Web". Counts as an attachment, is attached during the quest phase.

 

The  card text of Forest Snare gives no limitation either. It just says "Attach to an enemy engaged with a player. Attached enemy cannot attack." All these requirements are fullfilled when a Nameless Thing's forced action triggers. I still have no clue if this was intended or not. After all Imladris Stargazer gives the player a good chance to actually trap one of these monsters with Forest Snare.

 

I speak - they don't listen.

 

Cards from the deck are attached not as the attachment card type. It's a diffirent mechanic and it has nothing to do with card text. It's something like facedown players cards considered as 1 atk 1 def 1 hp orcs in escape from the Dol Guldur.

As Pete already pointed out, an attached card is always an attachment. That's fool proof logic btw. Hell, the Nameless Things' card text explicitely states that these cards are attached to it, so why on earth shouldn't they be attachments? And once they're "attached", the "when attached…" bit of Forest Snare triggers as long as nothing else explictely prevents that from happening. Like "cards text are blank" or "Chuck Norris once escaped a Forest Snare" or something like that.

[MyNeighbourTrololo 689]

Yea, whatever, do what you want, make game easier for yourself in whatever way you find comfortable. Dont forget to increase nameless thing health when it gets citadel breatsplate and stuff. 

[plueschi2 0]

 This discussion is not about making your life easier.

Neither is it about the possible intention of the game designer.

It is just about rules as written. That's all.

[Angus Lee 24]

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

Yea, whatever, do what you want, make game easier for yourself in whatever way you find comfortable. Dont forget to increase nameless thing health when it gets citadel breatsplate and stuff. 

Citadel Plate reads: "… Attached hero gets +4 Hit Points."

So it is not applicable to the Nameless Thing.  But it is another case in Forest Snare, so I think we need an official ruling/errata here.

[MyNeighbourTrololo 689]

Official ruling would be obvious. This thread is just a silly attempt to justify disabling the Nameless things when it got Forest Snare from the deck accidently. 

[jjeagle 48]

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

Official ruling would be obvious. This thread is just a silly attempt to justify disabling the Nameless things when it got Forest Snare from the deck accidently. 

I started the thread, and I don't think this is a fair comment. I acknowledged that I thought (a) the situation was silly, and (b) the designer's intent was (probably) obvious. It is legitimate, not "silly", to highlight rules loopholes and problems with card design/templating.

[MyNeighbourTrololo 689]

Thats why you guys keep defending the method of disabling the Nameless One by feeding Forest Snare into him? 

 

[jjeagle 48]

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

Thats why you guys keep defending the method of disabling the Nameless One by feeding Forest Snare into him? 

Yes - we are going by what the rules say and what the cards say.

You are going by what you think the rules should be, and how you think the designers intended these cards to interact.

You are probably right in your assessment of the designers' intent, but designer intent cannot be the basis for rules judgements - the designers need to issue an errata (something on the lines of: "cards attached to Nameless Thing are considered to have their text boxes blanked"), and all will be well.

[plueschi2 0]

jjeagle said:

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

 

Thats why you guys keep defending the method of disabling the Nameless One by feeding Forest Snare into him? 

 

 

Yes - we are going by what the rules say and what the cards say.

You are going by what you think the rules should be, and how you think the designers intended these cards to interact.

You are probably right in your assessment of the designers' intent, but designer intent cannot be the basis for rules judgements - the designers need to issue an errata (something on the lines of: "cards attached to Nameless Thing are considered to have their text boxes blanked"), and all will be well.

this.

As it currently stands Forest Snare works on those Nameless things. Just because everybody (including you, me or jjeagle) thinks that it is meant to be different, doesn't actually change the facts at all.

[leptokurt 242]

Yeah, it's probably silly, at least that's what I thought initially. But the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of a Nameless Thing snaring itself by feeding of the fellowship's fear. Like if the fear would be mirrored back to the thing.

Would be a reason to use Forest Snare again after such a long time.

 

And now excuse me,  I must leave for my neverending crusade to make this game easier…

[Rashley 3]

Sorry everyone but I have been away.  No reply from FFG this time about my enquiry.  I have just tried again.  Anyone else tried?

Although I see all the arguments are valid, I am still going with the obvious until I officially hear differently.  Cards added to Nameless - this is the word they should of used - only county cost and not text.  Attachments played on Nameless only count text and not cost.  This should stop any ambiguities arising from other cards and not just Forest Snare.  If I get a reply from FFG I will post.  Cheers!

[jjeagle 48]

Rashley said:

Sorry everyone but I have been away.  No reply from FFG this time about my enquiry.  I have just tried again.  Anyone else tried?

Although I see all the arguments are valid, I am still going with the obvious until I officially hear differently.  Cards added to Nameless - this is the word they should of used - only county cost and not text.  Attachments played on Nameless only count text and not cost.  This should stop any ambiguities arising from other cards and not just Forest Snare.  If I get a reply from FFG I will post.  Cheers!

I sent a number of FOS question to FFG a week ago and likewise have not yet had a response - I will also post anything I get from them.

[Rashley 3]

I got my reply from FFG this morning and it surprised me.  I believe it will cause a lot more questions, but this is what Caleb stated:-

The word 'attached' was deliberate as many other rules relate to Attachments.  If Forest Snare is played as an Attachment on a Nameless creature it will add its 'cost' to the enemy as well.

He didn't specify the reverse, but it looks like ANY card attached to a Nameless creature either as an Attachment or through its or other cards effects, will add its cost and apply its ability if appropriate.  Obviously cards that affect Heroes, Dwarves, Allies etc., wont affect an enemy but others may.  Let us hope this doesn't lead to more problems.  I think jjeagle has had clarification about a Hero being attached to a Nameless thing.  I shall now have to start playing this method and see what effects it has.  Cheers!

[starhawk77 2]

I must admit, I'm somewhat surprised. The ruling makes sense given a strict reading of all the relevant cards and rules text, but I would have predicted some kind of errata/clarification in order to prevent players from getting a "free" Forest Snare. I kind of like the FFG response--it reinforces consistent terminology and sets up a thematic "sprung trap" scenario--but it's certainly unexpected.