|
Post by miika on Jan 27, 2005 22:00:30 GMT 1
The questions on Grond, hammer of the underworld:
1) When Gron is played in the beginning of a siege attack, can the attacker run three combat rounds without the need to downgrade an elite unit to regular?
The text of the Grond suggests that downgrade is still required. However, if this is valid, the card seems vastly underpowered in comparison with the relatively strict pre-requirements: the defender may not retreat anyway and may anyway play combat card if a Companion is in the stronhold.
2) What happens to the event card played by FP? Grond says "can not play." Is the card discarded or put back into FP's hand? Is the card revealed?
|
|
Veldrin
Lord of the Nazgûl
Posts: 1,305
|
Post by Veldrin on Jan 28, 2005 10:35:12 GMT 1
You don't have to downgrade elites the firts three rounds of combat, if you want the combat to last longer you can downgrade elites after the third turn.
The FP isn't allowed to play a card the first turn of combat so the Shadow player picks a card and plays it. The FP doesn't have to bother with a card the firt turn of combat but no card is discarded from the FP.
[glow=green,2,300]Veldrin[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by sleepycamel on Mar 7, 2023 3:37:49 GMT 1
Playing the card limits the siege to be 3 and exactly 3 turns. The only option given to extend a siege is a siege battle denoted on page 32 of the rule book, while Grond allows you to attack the besieged army, it is not a 'siege battle' action so it is not a 'siege battle'. This is reserved to using an army or character die to 'conduct a siege battle' which is distinct from attacking (pg 20 of the rule book). While it seems like you can this is a similar distinction to free spaces and spaces 'free for the purpose of army movement' while mostly the same, they are not equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Mar 7, 2023 12:48:08 GMT 1
Playing the card limits the siege to be 3 and exactly 3 turns. The only option given to extend a siege is a siege battle denoted on page 32 of the rule book, while Grond allows you to attack the besieged army, it is not a 'siege battle' action so it is not a 'siege battle'. This is reserved to using an army or character die to 'conduct a siege battle' which is distinct from attacking (pg 20 of the rule book). While it seems like you can this is a similar distinction to free spaces and spaces 'free for the purpose of army movement' while mostly the same, they are not equivalent. That's simply not true. The Rulebook, on page 32, states that, "Any battle starting against a besieged Army is considered a siege battle." Therefore, the battle enabled by Grond is a siege battle, albeit with special conditions. As such, it can be extended past the third round through reduction of Elite units.
|
|
|
Post by sleepycamel on Mar 7, 2023 18:51:47 GMT 1
Playing the card limits the siege to be 3 and exactly 3 turns. The only option given to extend a siege is a siege battle denoted on page 32 of the rule book, while Grond allows you to attack the besieged army, it is not a 'siege battle' action so it is not a 'siege battle'. This is reserved to using an army or character die to 'conduct a siege battle' which is distinct from attacking (pg 20 of the rule book). While it seems like you can this is a similar distinction to free spaces and spaces 'free for the purpose of army movement' while mostly the same, they are not equivalent. That's simply not true. The Rulebook, on page 32, states that, "Any battle starting against a besieged Army is considered a siege battle." Therefore, the battle enabled by Grond is a siege battle, albeit with special conditions. As such, it can be extended past the third round through reduction of Elite units. You have left out the first paragraph of the page where it states that "when a stronghold is under siege, the troops within can only be attacked by an army in the same region using an action die for battle during the action resolution phase." this is followed in the next paragraph "any battle starting against a besieged Army is considered a siege battle" This clearly says that a action die is needed to start a siege battle (not a card) and that battles are siege battles, not just an attack. I do agree that the rules may need to be clearer on this but the distinct language is present. This also prevents siege battles being necessary or from activating due to the use of cards in other scenarios (Denethor's Folly notes that, to be played, Minas Tirith needs to be under siege by a shadow army. This does not mean a siege battle needs to have or is taking place which differentiates the terms siege and siege battle. A second card with this language is Return to Valinor where: after the shadow player captures an Elven stronghold they can play this card to roll dice to score hits against Elven army units in 'Elven Strongholds not under siege' again using siege in a non-battle context.)
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Mar 7, 2023 23:56:11 GMT 1
You have left out the first paragraph of the page where it states that "when a stronghold is under siege, the troops within can only be attacked by an army in the same region using an action die for battle during the action resolution phase." this is followed in the next paragraph "any battle starting against a besieged Army is considered a siege battle" This clearly says that a action die is needed to start a siege battle (not a card) and that battles are siege battles, not just an attack. I haven't left anything out. Cards are played with Action dice, so a battle started with a card is ultimately started by using an Action die. This relationship is made clear by the sentence I quoted. This also prevents siege battles being necessary or from activating due to the use of cards in other scenarios No, it doesn't. (Denethor's Folly notes that, to be played, Minas Tirith needs to be under siege by a shadow army. This does not mean a siege battle needs to have or is taking place which differentiates the terms siege and siege battle. A second card with this language is Return to Valinor where: after the shadow player captures an Elven stronghold they can play this card to roll dice to score hits against Elven army units in 'Elven Strongholds not under siege' again using siege in a non-battle context.) That is true, but it is not relevant to the case at hand. As you say, those cards refer to sieges in progress, not to siege battles in particular. Grond starts a siege battle. In fact, it references the battle lasting for 3 rounds instead of 1, which is a clear reference to the rules for siege battles.
|
|
|
Post by sleepycamel on Mar 8, 2023 0:15:02 GMT 1
You have left out the first paragraph of the page where it states that "when a stronghold is under siege, the troops within can only be attacked by an army in the same region using an action die for battle during the action resolution phase." this is followed in the next paragraph "any battle starting against a besieged Army is considered a siege battle" This clearly says that a action die is needed to start a siege battle (not a card) and that battles are siege battles, not just an attack. I haven't left anything out. Cards are played with Action dice, so a battle started with a card is ultimately started by using an Action die. This also prevents siege battles being necessary or from activating due to the use of cards in other scenarios No, it doesn't. (Denethor's Folly notes that, to be played, Minas Tirith needs to be under siege by a shadow army. This does not mean a siege battle needs to have or is taking place which differentiates the terms siege and siege battle. A second card with this language is Return to Valinor where: after the shadow player captures an Elven stronghold they can play this card to roll dice to score hits against Elven army units in 'Elven Strongholds not under siege' again using siege in a non-battle context.) That is true, but it is not relevant to the case at hand. 1.This is not the case. Just because a dice is used to play a card does not mean that it is used to fulfill the action of the card. For example, using the palintir allows you to play this card, but you cannot use it to attack. The rules clearly state that there are attacks that are initiated by cards on page 28 where three options are given for allowing attacks: Army die, Character Die, or by playing an event card that allows an army to attack. Just because to end result of a die is that an attack happens does not mean that the attack was initiated by the die.
2.You cannot say that the first of these two messages are false but then admit that the second is true, the first message is saying that there are scenarios where sieges are referenced that are not battles, and the second gives those scenarios. This is highly related to the discussion, as it was claimed that all battles are siege battles, which is true, but you cannot say that all sieges are siege battles as these examples show.
an edit was necessary as I tried to answer each section separately but the format was hard to read instead putting answers to both the top sections and bottom two sections here and numbered
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Mar 8, 2023 1:00:15 GMT 1
I have already thoroughly explained my position, so I'm not going to argue it any further. While it could be argued that this rule could be more clear, I've been supporting this game for almost 20 years, and in that time I have never seen anyone interpret this rule in the way that you have. Also, being a playtester and editor of the rules, I am in contact with the designers and have a good grasp of their intentions.
That being said, it's your game, so feel free to play it as you like.
P.S. It appears that you were already working on your response when I edited mine above. Perhaps something in the material I subsequently added will help this make more sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Mar 8, 2023 4:47:32 GMT 1
Glad I could help.
|
|