Burning Brand and Small Target

[Khamul The Easterling 157]

Do they combo?  

 

So does BB take away shadow effects for Small Target's effect too?  I don't see why not.  BB cancels all shadow effects dealt to the attacking enemy.  And in small target it says if the attacking enemy's shadow card has no shadow effect.........

 

Thanks

Edited January 21, 2014 by Khamul The Easterling

[Mndela 422]

I think it is not valid. One thing is card with shadow effect and other different thing one card with shadow effect that has been canceled.

I thought about small target with balin: could i use Balin to return to try lucky with Small Target. I think it cant.

 

But, there are other players that know better the rules. Let's them to say!

Edited January 21, 2014 by Mndela

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

It looks valid to me.  I think Small Target works like Wargs and the Nazul of Dol Guldur.  It doesn't matter if the effect is canceled, it only matters if there is an effect printed on the card.

 

As for Balin, I would say no, couldn't use him.  The Response is triggered when the Hobbit exhausts to defend.  Then you have to resolve the entire effect before you have a chance to use Balin's Response.  

Edited January 22, 2014 by GrandSpleen

[alogos 171]

Well, I thought it was the targeted enemy's shadow cards that needed to have a shadow effect (or not), not the attacking's one.

So Burning Brand and Balin cannot act because the shadow card of that enemy is just revealed, but not resolving, and it's not on the attacking enemy.

I believed I saw a ruling on Dawn Take You All that say if the other enemy has no shadow card, you can't play small target, but didn't find it. Maybe just a dream ?

The only cards that works are : looking the encounter deck before assigning shadow cards, and Dark Knowledge. This card was made just so we had to use a never-used card from the coreset...

[Khamul The Easterling 157]

hmmm two different opinions.....

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

Well, I thought it was the targeted enemy's shadow cards that needed to have a shadow effect (or not), not the attacking's one.

 

No, the card specifically says it's the shadow card on the "attacking enemy."

[alogos 171]

Text is too small ><

 

Ok, so you are just revealing the attacking enemy's shadow card, and not resolving it, so Balin has no effect... Burning Brand is more debatable. Cards having no shadow effect is quite the borderline text... does it include a shadow effect with no effect ? does it imply that it must have a shadow card ? what about multiple shadow cards ? etc...

 

I vote «ask Caleb»

[Khamul The Easterling 157]

I vote «ask Caleb»

I don't have the slightest clue on how/where to ask Caleb (and I don't mean to) so somebody else can or i'll just say that burning brand does combo with Small Target.  

 

Thanks guys.  I'm Surprised nobody has found the answer to this previously.  Seems like such a......whats the word..... bread and butter combo. (I dont think thats even a saying but you know what I mean  )

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

As cool as Small Target is, I don't think it gained a lot of momentum as a popular card.  I guess that's because it has a chance to fail unless you know what's coming.

[leptokurt 242]

It looks valid to me.  I think Small Target works like Wargs and the Nazul of Dol Guldur.  It doesn't matter if the effect is canceled, it only matters if there is an effect printed on the card.

 

As for Balin, I would say no, couldn't use him.  The Response is triggered when the Hobbit exhausts to defend.  Then you have to resolve the entire effect before you have a chance to use Balin's Response.  

I agree with that. Cancelling an effect does not mean that the card text is blank. Or, more philosophical: you simply cannot cancel a shadow effect that isn't there!

[leptokurt 242]

 

I vote «ask Caleb»

I don't have the slightest clue on how/where to ask Caleb (and I don't mean to) so somebody else can or i'll just say that burning brand does combo with Small Target.  

 

Thanks guys.  I'm Surprised nobody has found the answer to this previously.  Seems like such a......whats the word..... bread and butter combo. (I dont think thats even a saying but you know what I mean  )

 

But... why would any one let a lore hobbit defend against a 4+ ATT enemy? They're not on a suicidal mission!

[Thanatopsis 252]

But... why would any one let a lore hobbit defend against a 4+ ATT enemy? They're not on a suicidal mission!

 

I suppose Sam Gamgee could be singing songs of Lore, while wearing a cloak, holding a flaming stick, wearing chain mail, and defending against an enemy with a higher engagement cost than threat?  So yeah, that's all four spheres to pull that combo off

[Khamul The Easterling 157]

But... why would any one let a lore hobbit defend against a 4+ ATT enemy? They're not on a suicidal mission!

Its not that hard you know.  The plan was to have a spirit/lore deck with Bilbo, frodo, spirfindel.  Bilbo would be the lore defender with +1 defense from Arwen and a burning brand.  Plus 1 boots of Erebor.  3 defense and 3 hitpoints.  That takes 2 spheres and is easy to get.  I don't think that's so ridicules.  I dont need all that chain mail, songs, cloak crap.       

[Nerdmeister 144]

But... why would any one let a lore hobbit defend against a 4+ ATT enemy? They're not on a suicidal mission!

 

Don´t need alot of stuff.

With this you can make an informed decision on wether to use your 1 armor, 2 hp hobbit or if you have to find another solution.

[Khamul The Easterling 157]

who says 1 armour 2 HP hobbit?  Why would you defend with a piece of junk like that?  Why not like I described above?

[chuckles 89]

 

But... why would any one let a lore hobbit defend against a 4+ ATT enemy? They're not on a suicidal mission!

 

I suppose Sam Gamgee could be singing songs of Lore, while wearing a cloak, holding a flaming stick, wearing chain mail, and defending against an enemy with a higher engagement cost than threat?  So yeah, that's all four spheres to pull that combo off

 

 

...actually happens more than you may think, especially if you use Tracker1's happy hobbit deck... though as you have also given Sam the title of Steward of Gondor , the Shield of Gondor is far more common than chain mail... but does still happen... 

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

I used to use Bilbo as a defender a lot with Ring Mail and a Burning Brand when I was running a tactics/lore deck, and that got him to 3/3 and shadow cancelation with only 2 cards.  But even then that meant I needed Ring Mail for sure or I wouldn't have a capable defender.  These days I prefer at least one hero who can take a couple of attacks without depending on card draw in the opening 2-3 rounds. 

[Nerdmeister 144]

who says 1 armour 2 HP hobbit?  Why would you defend with a piece of junk like that?  Why not like I described above?

Wow... you are the OP and you already forget what Small Target does (read: the hobbit does not take damage if the enemy has no shadow effect thus armor and HP are not an issue; hence my remark about an "informed decision")?

 

My point has been that you can pull something decent off without having to rely on alot of cards to buff a hobbit, which is the way the discussion was headed and I merely offered an alternative.

 

Can even reuse small target with Dwarven Tomb.

[Khamul The Easterling 157]

I know what the card says..... I want to use a hobbit as my actual defender not as a small target trick every time I defend.  When I don't have Small Target or Tomb (which is often) I need an actual defender.  So with a mulligan and Bilbo's draw effect, most of the time I can pretty easily get Bilbo to a 3D/3hp with burning brand and most likely a fast hitch PLUS the small target effect.  

 

The plan isn't to always pull of the small target every time; it's to have a good defender that can also use a card that I have never played before (Small Target)

 

Yikes, sorry if I came across rude.  Never meant to.

 

Khamul 

[leptokurt 242]

Khamul, I think I'd prefer to use Risk some Light to combo with Small Target. Mainly because if Small Target fails, you might be able to block that attack, but you still need to block the second attacker.

 

Risk some Light gives you the opportunity to set up both shadow cards (and with a hobbit deck it's likely for free), thus (almost) ensuring that your enemies won't hurt you.

[Khamul The Easterling 157]

Khamul, I think I'd prefer to use Risk some Light to combo with Small Target. Mainly because if Small Target fails, you might be able to block that attack, but you still need to block the second attacker.

 

Risk some Light gives you the opportunity to set up both shadow cards (and with a hobbit deck it's likely for free), thus (almost) ensuring that your enemies won't hurt you.

Sounds like a plan. 

[joezim007 428]

Did anyone ask Caleb?

[Khamul The Easterling 157]

Did anyone ask Caleb?

No.  Please go ahead. 

[alogos 171]

No news ?

Well, I asked :

 

 

Q: In the FAQ, it is said that cancelled shadow cards are not resolved : "Resolving an effect means that the effect triggered and resolved to the fullest extent possible. Canceling the effect will prevent the Nazgul of Dol Guldur's ability from triggering, just as if the card had no Shadow effect to begin with.". The term "just as if the card had no Shadow effect to begin with" is quite confusing, does that mean if a shadow card is cancelled, it should be considered as if there was no shadow effect (cards like Wargs use this term) ?

 

A: The phrase "just as if the card had no Shadow effect to begin with" is just there to clarify that when a shadow effect is cancelled, you do not resolve the Nazgul's forced effect. It is not a blanket ruling that should be applied to Wargs. If you cancel a shadow effect on a shadow card dealt to Wargs, then Wargs was still dealt a shadow card with a shadow effect and it's forced effect would not return it to the staging area.

 

So should work with burning brand and small target.

[leptokurt 242]

Thanks for clarifying that, alogos!