|
Post by genghissean on Jul 10, 2009 17:49:31 GMT 1
I believe you have already asked that ;D True, but I thought this could be a new "from the designers" ruling. I could have won my last game if the ruling had been different. I want it be true, but alas, I will have to give up.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Aragorn on Jul 14, 2009 21:18:35 GMT 1
I have some questions too.
A Hobbit is the leader of the Fellowship. Hunt. SP draws FP special tile or 0 with reveal or even Smeagol. Can FP player separate a Hobbit anyway to reduce hunt damage to -1, -2, -3 (depends on the tile).
In general can hunt damage be reduced below zero by certain event cards or companions special abilities?
In case of a successful Hunt, discard “Axe and Bow” to reduce the Hunt damage by one. Any remaining Hunt damage must be confronted normally.
If we reduce 0 we will get -1?
The other question is about opposition between cards - Dreadful Spells and The Power to Great.
Can The Power to Great protect Elven stronghold against other card like Return to Valinor or Dreadful spells?
FAQ says:
Q Does 'A Power Too Great' protect the Elven Strongholds from 'Return to Valinor'?
A No.
Attack the Free Peoples Army rolling a number of dice equal to the number of Nazgûl (up to 5). Score hits on a 5+. (Dreadful spells)
Attack each Elven Stronghold not under siege. Roll a number of dice equal to the number of Elven units in that Region (up to 5) and score hits on 6. (Return to Valinor)
Both cards clearly indicates that you are attacking. However I do understand that Return to Valinor probably represents Elves going to Undying Lands so it isn't a real attack. What about Dreadful spells?
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Jul 14, 2009 23:45:15 GMT 1
A Hobbit is the leader of the Fellowship. Hunt. SP draws FP special tile or 0 with reveal or even Smeagol. Can FP player separate a Hobbit anyway to reduce hunt damage to -1, -2, -3 (depends on the tile). No. In general can hunt damage be reduced below zero by certain event cards or companions special abilities? No. In case of a successful Hunt, discard “Axe and Bow” to reduce the Hunt damage by one. Any remaining Hunt damage must be confronted normally.
If we reduce 0 we will get -1? No. The other question is about opposition between cards - Dreadful Spells and The Power to Great. Can The Power to Great protect Elven stronghold against other card like Return to Valinor or Dreadful spells? FAQ says: Q Does 'A Power Too Great' protect the Elven Strongholds from 'Return to Valinor'? A No. Attack the Free Peoples Army rolling a number of dice equal to the number of Nazgûl (up to 5). Score hits on a 5+. ( Dreadful spells) Attack each Elven Stronghold not under siege. Roll a number of dice equal to the number of Elven units in that Region (up to 5) and score hits on 6. ( Return to Valinor) Both cards clearly indicates that you are attacking. However I do understand that Return to Valinor probably represents Elves going to Undying Lands so it isn't a real attack. What about Dreadful spells? My opinion on this issue is that Dreadful Spells may not be used on an Army in a Stronghold protected by A Power Too Great. The reason for this is that A Power Too Great prevents an attack by a Shadow Army. While the effect of Dreadful Spells is produced by Nazgûl, those Nazgûl must be in a Shadow Army in order to meet the card's play conditions. This makes the attack Army-based, thus it is disallowed.
|
|
|
Post by slyrk on Aug 5, 2009 0:40:46 GMT 1
Hey. The new entry in the FAQ about applying event cards to their maximum extent has produced some inconsistency in the FAQ as it seems to me.
"A Safe Hiding Place" In the FAQ it is stated that you can choose not to move or hide the fellowship if Gollum is the guide. But in order to have it applied to the maximum extent, it should be mandatory.
"There and Back Again" The same thing here. If the card has to be applied to its maximum possible extent, you should have to separate at least one companion if there is one left, but the FAQ says otherwise.
"Book of Mazarbul" / "Fire! Fear! Foes!" Now in order to apply the maximum extent here, you'd have to move all companions on the map. I know you've discussed this before, but you've mentioned "There and Back Again" as a reference to those cases, which is put into question now. A possible interpretation could also be that moving a companion allows you to move it by zero regions (i.e. let them stay where they are).
As for the question of "Dreadful Spells", it would really be interesting to hear an official opinion on this, because it leaves to interpretation whether the nazgûl attack, or the entire army (with as many dice as you have nazgûl in the army).
A further question coming into my mind, is whether and especially why nazgûl and minions survive an attack by event cards. According to the FAQ, "Faramir's Rangers" and "Spirit of Mordor" won't kill them, while "Dead Men of Dunharrow" does. Why is this? I had the idea that it had something to do with which event cards constitute as an attack, but I found it right the other way round there (i.e. "Faramir's Rangers" and "Spirit of Mordor" act as a political attack while "Dead Men of Dunharrow" doesn't). Thanks for enlightening me...
|
|
|
Post by slyrk on Aug 5, 2009 1:04:28 GMT 1
I just found in another entry in the FAQ about "Dreadful Spells" that the nation needn't be at war because only the Nazgûl are attacking, thus I think "A Power Too Great" doesn't protect the stronghold from "Dreadful Spells". How could it be an army based attack if the nation needn't be at war?
Another inconsistency of the apply-to-maximum-extent-rule in the FAQ I just found with "The Black Captain Commands", where it says that attacking or moving the army with the witch-king isn't mandatory...
|
|
|
Post by redsimon on Aug 5, 2009 22:43:06 GMT 1
Yes, all these inconsistencies are the reason why I thought it was strange that suddenly you are forced to do what a card tells you. Before that it was just the card-drawing ability of the Witch-king (black captain) that was mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Aug 8, 2009 18:15:51 GMT 1
Hey. The new entry in the FAQ about applying event cards to their maximum extent has produced some inconsistency in the FAQ as it seems to me. "A Safe Hiding Place" In the FAQ it is stated that you can choose not to move or hide the fellowship if Gollum is the guide. But in order to have it applied to the maximum extent, it should be mandatory. "There and Back Again" The same thing here. If the card has to be applied to its maximum possible extent, you should have to separate at least one companion if there is one left, but the FAQ says otherwise. "Book of Mazarbul", "Fire! Fear! Foes!" Now in order to apply the maximum extent here, you'd have to move all companions on the map. I know you've discussed this before, but you've mentioned "There and Back Again" as a reference to those cases, which is put into question now. A possible interpretation could also be that moving a companion allows you to move it by zero regions (i.e. let them stay where they are). Another inconsistency of the apply-to-maximum-extent-rule in the FAQ I just found with "The Black Captain Commands", where it says that attacking or moving the army with the witch-king isn't mandatory... The key here is that these cards (except There and Back Again) say that "you may" do an action. This means that the action is optional. The new FAQ ruling only applies to card effects that are not designated as optional. In the case of There and Back Again, the FAQ is simply clarifying that you don't need to have a Companion to separate in order to perform the second action. If there is a Companion, you must separate one. A further question coming into my mind, is whether and especially why nazgûl and minions survive an attack by event cards. According to the FAQ, "Faramir's Rangers" and "Spirit of Mordor" won't kill them, while "Dead Men of Dunharrow" does. Why is this? Most of the "attack" Event cards are simply raids against enemy Armies. They don't count as a "battle", as only one side rolls combat dice, so Characters can't be eliminated as a result of playing them. Dead Men of Dunharrow, like the Ent cards, is an exception. These cards actually invoke battles of a sort. The Shadow Armies would get to roll combat dice, except they are being attacked by forces that they can't possibly damage, so it's pointless to do so. Since the card results in a battle (though a one-sided one), Minions can be eliminated. I just found in another entry in the FAQ about "Dreadful Spells" that the nation needn't be at war because only the Nazgûl are attacking, thus I think "A Power Too Great" doesn't protect the stronghold from "Dreadful Spells". How could it be an army based attack if the nation needn't be at war? Simply because Event cards override the normal rules. This Army-based attack can be carried out even if the Nation is not At War because the card has no prerequisite requiring the Nation to be At War.
|
|
|
Post by slyrk on Aug 9, 2009 16:14:09 GMT 1
Okay, I don't have the english version of the game, but neither the master documents nor the german version say "you may". It's just "Move all Companions..." or "If Gollum is the Guide, hide or move the Fellowship."
(An exception to this is the "Book of Mazarbul", where the german version indeed states "move as many Companions as you like", but then again the master documents just say "Move all Companions")
Is it really "you may" in the english version? I'm sorry to be so peculiar about this, but these question have arisen a few times now and it would be great to have an official solution to what seems to be a contradiction in the FAQ (at least from my point of view, only knowing the german version and the master documents).
A possible solution could be everything on event cards is mandatory with the exception of moving (companions, armies, fellowship).
I see that the same way, but if that's the case, the FAQ entry is formulated in a somewhat misleading way:
As for my "Dreadful Spells" comment, the original question was, whether "A Power too Great" protects from "Dreadful Spells" and there was a reply
whereas I thought how could the attack be army-based if the nation of the army needn't be at war. Thus "A Power too Great" wouldn't protect from "Dreadful Spells" in my opinion. (I know the card can be played without the nation being at war)
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Aug 9, 2009 17:46:46 GMT 1
Is it really "you may" in the english version? Yes. As for my "Dreadful Spells" comment, the original question was, whether "A Power too Great" protects from "Dreadful Spells" and there was a reply whereas I thought how could the attack be army-based if the nation of the army needn't be at war. Thus "A Power too Great" wouldn't protect from "Dreadful Spells" in my opinion. (I know the card can be played without the nation being at war) Yes, and the point that I was trying to make was that Dreadful Spells can be used by the Sauron Nation when it is not yet At War, even though it is Army-based, because the card has no prerequisite that the Nation be At War. This overrides the normal prohibition against an Army-based attack by a Nation not At War because Event cards allow actions that are not normally legal, such as recruiting in a Stronghold under siege. Thus, the argument that Dreadful Spells can't be Army-based because it can be played when Sauron is not At War doesn't hold up.
|
|
|
Post by slyrk on Aug 9, 2009 19:25:51 GMT 1
Okay, thanks. It all makes sense now...
|
|