Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dain Ironfoot

And a new FAQ!

49 posts in this topic

I didn't notice that the designers "errata'd" their own point to being no more able to attach attachments to cards that are immune to player cards. That was quite surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treasure Hunter Fix is also expected....

 

The Next Player rules should also tell use exactly how First and Last player works for solo... I have always played First and Last hits but Next returns Null?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this change that card in Road to Rivendell where you choose either all engaged enemies attack or deal damage to everyone and gaining surge? If there are no enemies engaged would you have to deal damage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't notice that the designers "errata'd" their own point to being no more able to attach attachments to cards that are immune to player cards. That was quite surprising.

 

hasn't it always been like that... I mean a attachment is a player card ... so if it is immune.. how can you attach it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treasure Hunter Fix is also expected....

 

The Next Player rules should also tell use exactly how First and Last player works for solo... I have always played First and Last hits but Next returns Null?

this was always the case (if I understand you correctly); from The Long Dark Rules Sheet:

 

Next Player

The next player is the player sitting directly to the left of the player referenced by the card effect. If there are no other players in the game, there is no next player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".

Edited by booored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".

gotcha. and yes, that's how i interpret it, as well.

booored likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh! Nice idea! Grrrrr, too late to find out it: in 4 players, each player has 3 copies of Treasure Hunter, and always a player has any copy of it attach to the player who has 1 copy of NeedPath. In 2 or 3 rounds this powerfull attachment is in hand, of course! ((9 copies of Treasure Hunter in play by only one player: and he always say 'attachment', wow, drawing powerfull machine, in adittion to find NeedPath) Maybe this is the reason for TH is fixed?

 

Erebor Battle Master only miss 3 attack points, not so bad. When i saw his name in the announcement of the new errata i was hoping anything worse, lol.

Edited by Mndela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".

It's in the Long Dark rules. Solo you are both First and Last, but not Next

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing really exiting and interesting……..Anyway most of the rules is already clear.  I didn like the idea Doom and surge guarded is doesn triggered any more if cards not revealed but is couse of Nightmare mode…..os actually I'm happy for now with all game current flow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".

It's in the Long Dark rules. Solo you are both First and Last, but not Next

 

 

No as Dain and I said.. there is no definition for First and Last players in regards to Solo. It is NOT in The Long Dark Rule Sheet.. that is where the Next Player rules were introduced. Still I think it is pretty clear.. yet it should be defined properly in the FAQ.

Dain Ironfoot likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".

It's in the Long Dark rules. Solo you are both First and Last, but not Next

 

No as Dain and I said.. there is no definition for First and Last players in regards to Solo. It is NOT in The Long Dark Rule Sheet.. that is where the Next Player rules were introduced. Still I think it is pretty clear.. yet it should be defined properly in the FAQ.

Yea on second thought looks like you are right, guess I've always just played it that way. Made most sense to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the logic in distinguishing Quick Strike (which is legal against Immune enemies) and Hands Upon the Bow (which is now illegal).  I can see maybe why they would want to do that from a balance standpoint, but I don't really follow their logic in establishing that balance.  

 

Quick Strike:

Action: Exhaust a character you control to immediately declare it as an attacker (and resolve its attack) against any eligible enemy target.

 

Hands Upon the Bow:

Action: Exhaust a character you control with ranged to immediately declare it as an attacker (and resolve its attack) against an enemy in the staging area. It gets +1 Attack during this attack.

 

The text I highlighted red is identical between both cards.  "Any eligible enemy" and "an enemy in the staging area" are the only meaningful difference.  Somehow the phrase "any eligible enemy" does NOT force the player to "pick" an enemy, but "an enemy in the staging area" DOES force a player to "pick" an enemy.

 

I was really happy to see that they expanded on "immunity," as this is something we have sorely needed.  But all they have done is muddy the already murky waters.  If they wanted to exempt enemies from being targeted by Hands Upon the Bow, they should have just errata'd the card.  This messy explanation doesn't make anything clearer.  The next time a card comes out and we have a question about using it vs. immune enemies, we have NO new answers to look to from this passage.  The same debates will just recycle.  Does it make you pick an enemy, or doesn't it? Who knows, ask the devs!

Edited by GrandSpleen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But but but.... which one is a "target" effect?  The one that uses the text "Target?"  Actually, that would be Quick Strike!

 

And neither are "Combat Actions," although maybe you just chose unfortunate wording there.  Feint is a Combat Action.  Quick Strike and Hands Upon the Bow are regular Actions.

 

Neither Quick Strike nor Hands Upon the Bow instruct the player to "chose a character"  or "target a character" (i.e., a PLAYER character).  That is why the ruling is ludicrous.  They use almost identical text.  A character is exhausted (cost) to allow an immediate attack (framework effect).  Hands Upon the Bow allows this attack to occur against an enemy in the staging area (this effect is different from the typical framework of the game).  If they want to differentiate the two cards, THAT is how they could do it.  But instead they are suggesting that one card targets a character and the other card targets an enemy-- so the text on the cards needs to be distinctly different.

 

So in the end the only thing we can compare between the two cards is :

 

"an enemy in the staging area"

 

vs.

 

"any eligible enemy target."

 

Which word in which clause means that Card A targets a character, while card B targets an enemy?

Edited by GrandSpleen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm... combat action is incorrect term you are right.. I the new sub-set of actions is still pretty new sorry.

 

I'll try to step by step it....

  • Quick Strike is targeting the playe'rs CHARACTER, not the immune card
  • That initialises the "player attack sub-phase" of a combat round.
  • This is just like a normal attack in a normal combat round.
  • The player card event is not targeting the immune card at any time, it is using the combat round rules to select the target of the attack.
  • This is an example of a "non-targeted" effect. As while .. yes it it HITS a target.. there was no selecting of the target outside of normal rules. All quick strike did was play that combat step out of round.
  • You wouldn't expect "immune to player cards" to mean you can not attack them in a normal combat round would you?

Meanwhile...

 

  • Hands Upon the Bow as part of its cost requires a targeting for the event, AND to tap a player character.
  • So if the card is immune it can not be selected as a target and thus the effect fizzles.

Yes it is pretty similar but it IS different and the design space needs to recognise this for the game to make sense. You see this a lot in card games. The easiest way to think of this is that QuickStrike has no conditional text about the target, meaning there is no target.. you can just attack anything legal... but Hands Upon the Bow can only attack certain targets.. targets you need to nominate in a special way outside of the normal combat round rules. The rules that allow you to target out side those rules is on the player card's event text.. that is a player card effect.. and encounter cards can be immune to that.

 

That is pretty much it.. so like kinda like I said..

 

One is a TARGET effect, the other triggers a NON-TARGETED effect.

Edited by booored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no, you are supposed to say, "Grandspleen, you are right.  The wording on the two cards is identical.  This is ridiculous, but we must let it be."

 

OK, so maybe not... but anyway, all we can do is be apologists for the ruling.  The card text on both cards is written nearly identically.  The motivation was clearly to exclude Hands from being used on Immune characters, but they tackled the problem from a weird angle.  

 

  • Hands Upon the Bow as part of its cost requires a targeting for the event, AND to tap a player character.

 

That's not right, the cost for neither card requires targeting.  I don't think I am missing any errata, but Hands is written:

 

Action: Exhaust a character you control with ranged to immediately declare it as an attacker (and resolve its attack) against an enemy in the staging area. It gets +1 Attack during this attack.

 

Everything before the word "to" is the "cost."  So you have to break it down this way:

 

COST: "Exhaust a character you control with ranged"

 

EFFECT: "immediately declare it as an attacker ... etc"

 

The "cost" for Hands and Quick Strike are identical, word for word, except for the "ranged" part.  It is the "effect" that's different.  All I can do is repeat myself I guess: if the cards can possibly be analyzed differently, it has to be in the text "an enemy in the staging area" vs. "any eligible enemy target."  It has to be that way, or the  foundation for the rules of the game (literal readings of cards) is undermined.

 

And I really don't want this game to go down the route of considering the semantics of "any enemy" vs "an enemy."  Yuck.

Edited by GrandSpleen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... there not identical in anyway. As I said this is a VERY common distinction in many card games.

 

Stop thinking of a combat step where you exhaust to attack.

 

With hand, The exhaust of the player character is a COST not part of the standard exhaust you do during the combat round. Hands says exhaust the player card, AND target a encounter card, and then do a combat-attack step vs the selected target. This is all in the event card text.

 

Quick-Strike targets ONLY the player card.

 

Believe it or not.. not sure I can write this a 4th way.

Edited by booored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".

It's in the Long Dark rules. Solo you are both First and Last, but not Next

 

 

No as Dain and I said.. there is no definition for First and Last players in regards to Solo. It is NOT in The Long Dark Rule Sheet.. that is where the Next Player rules were introduced. Still I think it is pretty clear.. yet it should be defined properly in the FAQ.

 

 

It IS defined - in the Khazad-Dum rules insert:

 

"Some cards refer to the “last player.” The last player is 
considered to be the player sitting directly to the right of 
the first player. If there is only one player playing, then that 
player is considered to be both the first and last player."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0