|
Post by Krieghund on Jul 30, 2006 14:23:35 GMT 1
Dreadfull Spells does not kill Companions if it destroys the Army thery are with, since it is not a battle.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Jul 31, 2006 3:04:51 GMT 1
Hey MG, great report, and interesting questions.
Why ask questions if you've already made up your mind?
|
|
Veldrin
Lord of the Nazgûl
Posts: 1,305
|
Post by Veldrin on Jul 31, 2006 8:01:14 GMT 1
Where are the Fsp? If they are in Dale, W.W.S.&T does not exist. If they are not in Dale, they dont draw the Tile that kills someone. The Fellowship isn't in Dale until the Frodo and Sam figure is there and if it first passes the Balrog the tile drawn from the Balrog takes effect before the Fellowship reaches Dale, hence "Worn With Sorrow and Toil" is still in effect. If you refill, suddenly the FSP wants to get found so not just the eyes get put in? Yes, the FP benefit from reinserting all the tiles. From page 19 of the rules: "If, at any time, all the tiles in the Hunt Pool are used, return all tiles containing a number or “Eye” result to the container, but do not return any Special Tiles (see later)." How do you know there is 2 smeagols left if the hunt pool is hidden ? Or is it only when there is one ? Surely smeagol is the natural solution to this problem? Why not 'Just put him back in?' Since you know the composition of hte Hunt Pool at the start it is simply to remember which tiles have been drawn so what is in the Hunt Pool isn't hidden. As to when the tiles are reinserted in the expansion (with the two Sméagol tiles added) we are still waiting for the official ruling. I put 6 dice in the hunt pool, why dont I get 6 dice, with 6! rerolls? Which part of the rulebooks says that? Seriously, did I miss something? From page 19 of the rules: "The maximum number rolled for a Hunt Roll is five. " And, since it is a battle when dreadful spells occur, the Political track goes down one. Since it is a Battle. From the FAQ: Q 'Dreadful Spells' - What happens to the Leaders and Companions in the Region if I manage to kill all the army units with this card? A The Leaders would die since they cannot exist in a Region without an army but any Companion is safe since they only die if the army is destroyed in Combat. The card constitutes an attack for political purposes but does not initiate a battle so the Companions are safe. Finally: If you don't agree with the designers' decitions play with your own house rules. [glow=green,2,300]Veldrin[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Jul 31, 2006 19:02:53 GMT 1
The dreadful Spells argument is horrendous too. I know it is explict in the FAQ. I think it is explicit in the rules itself. page 14 Elimination of leaders 'If all the army units involved in a battle are eliminated, then all Leaders (including Characters) that were part of that Army are also immediately removed from play.' page 16 Advancing A political Position* Every time a Natrions army is attacked (each battle counts as one attack regardless of the number of rounds fought) How can those 2 sentences in the basic rule really be interpreted any other way? Now I know Scout = Zero rounds of combat, but it is still a battle. Deadly spells is still a battle, it just = Zero rounds. Tell you what, all the evil sorcerers on the free side get to fight as well. That FAQ seems very odd. They can be interpreted differently because one says battle and the other says attack. A battle is always an attack, but an attack is not always a battle. Examples of attacks that are not battles include Dreadfull Spells and Faramir's Rangers. Companions, Minions and Nazgul with an Army are only eliminated when the Army is destroyed as the result of a battle.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Jul 31, 2006 22:45:40 GMT 1
Beardy! Well done, Kreighund! ;D
|
|
Veldrin
Lord of the Nazgûl
Posts: 1,305
|
Post by Veldrin on Aug 1, 2006 12:21:45 GMT 1
Why is this important? The master rules and cards were all written in English. Master version of Dreadfull spells say: "Attack the Free Peoples Army rolling a number of dice equal to the number of Nazgûl (up to 5). Score hits on a 5+." Since the word "battle" isn't mentioned once, it can hardly be a battle? [glow=green,2,300]Veldrin[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Aug 1, 2006 16:21:17 GMT 1
Actually, both rule quotes say 'battle' , only one says 'attack'. Not saying 'attack' isn't convincing to me. Funny how your argument hinges on the placement of 2 interchangable words. We already have a very specific FAQ, you do not have to continue justifying the ridiculous. I am not trying to "justify" anything. I am simply trying to explain the reasoning of the designers. "Attack" and "battle" are not interchangeable. "Battle" implies the participation of both parties in a conflict, while an "attack" may be carried out by only one party. When one party assaults another, it is an attack. If the other party responds in kind, it becomes a battle. page 14 Elimination of Leaders 'If all the army units involved in a battle are eliminated, then all Leaders (including Characters) that were part of that Army are also immediately removed from play.' page 16 Advancing A Political Position* Every time a Nation's army is attacked (each battle counts as one attack regardless of the number of rounds fought) As you say, both rules use the word "battle", but in different contexts. Both rules fit the statement I made earlier and clarified above: a battle always involves an attack, but an attack does not always a involve a battle. Where in the rules is Dreadful spells an attack, but not a battle? Would the specific wording on Dreadfull Spells help? By the definitions above, Dreadful Spells is not a battle because only one side makes attack rolls. As Kristofer has already pointed out, this is irrelevant. Either D.Spells is an Attack / Battle , so adjust the political track, or it isn't. Again, by the definitions above, it is an Attack, which is all that is required to advance the Political Track. It is not a Battle, so it cannot kill Companions.
|
|
SevenSpirits
Nazgûl
PlayTester
Sauron meant no harm. He only wanted to draw the extra cards...
Posts: 283
|
Post by SevenSpirits on Aug 2, 2006 0:56:50 GMT 1
It is indeed possible to make fun of the rules... but if you ask someone to interpret the rules for you because you can't understand them yourself, one might consider it rude to make fun of the explanation.
I do agree that Dreadful Spells not killing companions is silly and lame. But that is what the rules say. It's also kind of weird that you can draw a tile that reveals you from Rivendell to Morannon, and separate Pippin to the Grey Havens to prevent a corruption. But whatever... it's a game.
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Aug 2, 2006 1:31:41 GMT 1
Claiming that if only one side fights, it is not a battle, it is only an attack. Is just plain stoopid. 'The archers slaughtered rank after rank of slowly advancing exhausted orcs. . . ' Sounds like a battle. But apparantly it is only an attack. Your logic is flawed. In your example, the advancing orcs are initiating an attack (however ineffective), and the archers' response makes it a battle. The example I am gave is surrounding, slaughtering, and annihilating with deadly spells. The deadly spells sounded like the nasty part. Apparantly some spells dont work on Dwarves, Humans, Elves or Hobbits. They sound dreadful. XXXXX XXXXX I would sooner explain it that people of the calibre of heroes are more resistant to such spells than a common soldier, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that there is no attempted response from the target of the spells, so it is not a battle. And Wow !, you can 'explain the reasoning of the designers.' So you think in Italian? I am VERY impressed. No, but the designers are quite good at expressing themselves in English, for those willing to listen. It is indeed possible to make fun of the rules... but if you ask someone to interpret the rules for you because you can't understand them yourself, one might consider it rude to make fun of the explanation. Thanks, Sean. I do believe I am done here.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Aug 2, 2006 15:12:14 GMT 1
This seems wrong by the battle/attack justifiication worked up so far. Twilight ents are "attacks".
The base game gets it right - if the WK is counciling Saruman when Isengard gets ent-bombed, the ents sack Saruman, but leave the man in black alone.
|
|
|
Post by Krieghund on Aug 2, 2006 22:31:15 GMT 1
This seems wrong by the battle/attack justifiication worked up so far. Twilight ents are "attacks". The base game gets it right - if the WK is counciling Saruman when Isengard gets ent-bombed, the ents sack Saruman, but leave the man in black alone. This is curious. In the base game, the Ent cards make a stated exception to the rule and kill Saruman with an attack. (The fact that the exception needs to be stated proves the rule. ) In the Expansion, this same exception is specifically made in the Ent rules, but no mention is made of other Minions. This FAQ entry would seem to be out of step with the rest of the rules, to the point where I would actually consider it an erratum rather than an FAQ.
|
|