Guys really you don't think that this is pretty clear ? Or you just love to paraphrase and abusing the rules ?

In order not to do something you have to be able to do it in the first place. This is not in the rulebook it is pure ****** logic ! It is the same with 0 cost player cards.

Trol you ask me to read the thread for ? ...

It's neither clear nor do we abuse the rules. The quoted passage from the rulebookis just poorly written. Compare the actual text with "a character has to be ready to commit to a quest". That's crytsal clear and doe not allow different interpretations. Furthermore, the fact that the exhaustion of a character is a cost is probably unknown to most of the players. The rulebook does never say so.

Your logic in the second paragrah is a bit absurd*, and it is one of two interpretations. Nobody asks you if you had the money to pay for, say, the entrance to a stadium, if you have a free ticket.

* According to you I am not unable not to fly to the moon, because if I never had the ability to do so before.

Guys really you don't think that this is pretty clear ? Or you just love to paraphrase and abusing the rules ?

In order not to do something you have to be able to do it in the first place. This is not in the rulebook it is pure ****** logic ! It is the same with 0 cost player cards.

Trol you ask me to read the thread for ? ...

"In order not to do something you have to be able to do it in the first place."

OK, let's go by your logic. I used Grima's ability to lower the cost of Arwen by 1. She now costs 1 spirit resource, but judging by your logic I still need to have at least 2 spirit resources available. You can start making sense any time now.

Ok i get it now, paraphrasing is you hobby. There is no point to continue this argument, just play the game with your own rules, but stop asking things if the only answer you seek is your own and stop complain about "wording" if you can't read.

And to answer you question. Grima's ability takes place before you need to pay the cost of the next card ( Grima's ability and paying is 2 different things) also it doesn't negate (i don't see any "does not" there) the need to pay any amount of spirit (or any spheres) resources its just lowers the cost. So when it is time to pay for your Arwen (After you used Grima's ability) if you have 1 spirit resource you can play her. So simple

But your example is totally irrelevant (doesn't making any sense ) , the right example on the basis of my logic will be: if a card says that "you don't need to pay for the next spirit card that you will play from your hand" and i don't have a hero with a spirit resource icon can i play a spirit card ?

I love the combination of "no point to continue this argument" with two paragraphs that follow.

I can easily twist all your examples to my point of view as you just did with mine. And that's kinda the point - lack of clearness in the rule text. And yes, I didn't asked, I stated, so visit a doctor, because you're obviously seeing things.

iznax, I really don't want to annoy you, I'm just trying to keep some concepts of this game straight fro myself. I keep wondering that as the effect of LoV is a passive one, it should trigger immediatly after I attach it to a hero. So it definitely takes place before I pay the cost. And one could argue that if that's the case, you don't even have to check ffor paying the cost. Or not?

I keep wondering that as the effect of LoV is a passive one, it should trigger immediatly after I attach it to a hero. So it definitely takes place before I pay the cost. And one could argue that if that's the case, you don't even have to check ffor paying the cost. Or not?

Exactly.

The thing is, LoTRlcg is pretty notorious for having terrible rules. Not only that,m the lead designer changes extremely quickly. Remember this is a game that ruled in the official FAQ and then in the next FAQ reversed the rule again. I have always said this game is flawed, and this is a prime example. These passive effects simply do not fit into the game design unless they work as Trolo has been saying. That is why they need a faq to correct it. He may say in a email that you need to be ready to quest.. but that IS NOT what they wrote in the manual.

Well, he's going to add this into the next errata.

Hmm, are you implying, Rapier, that Caleb doesn't read the rulebook just as you don't seem to? Why do you keep pretending there is no issue if the words are written and they say what they say. If you paraphrase them to prove your point, it doesn't change anything.

From the rules: "An exhausted card cannot exhaust again (and therefore cannot partake in any action that requires exhaustion).

I paraphrased to try to make the above rule (already quoted in the opening post) more clear.

This rule says a card that is exhausted cannot be used to take part in two actions that require exhaustion. Questing requires exhaustion.

Light of Valinor allows you to quest and then do something else because the questing character does not exhaust as part of questing, and is therefore ready to be exhausted later.

However if you do something else first the character is already exhausted. Therefore cannot do something else as they are not ready.

As I said you would need another rule that specifically allowed an exhausted character to do something (example: ready exhausted character). Which Light of Valinor does not provide.

It's all in our perception. There is nothing in rules that forbide exhausted character from taking actions specifically. Light of Valinor can be interpreted as removal of exhaustion requirement of taking a quest action. Currently there is nothing anywhere - in the rules, in the errata, in the card text, that speaks against it. That's why Caleb is going to mark it in the upcoming errata. Your claims of OMG HOW COULD YOU THINK OF THAT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG are not valid.

Your claims of OMG HOW COULD YOU THINK OF THAT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG are not valid.

This isn't something I claimed, I agree it wouldn't be valid.

However using an argument that rules don't specifically speak against it is assuming that the rules are inherently permissive.

This isn't usually the case with game rules, which are by their nature written from a restrictive position (they limit the options you can take).

Caleb putting something into the errata/faq is not evidence that your interpretation was valid either, it only shows best practice. Multiple people queried something it should be officially clarified so that their isn't any doubt and future people that may make the mistake you have won't make it.

Going a little back in time, there was a discussion around the Nameless Things and actual attachments being attached to them from the deck. The main point of discussion was Forest Snare. Some guy got it attached to a nameless thing from top of his deck and thought that the text of forest snare was in play, as it was "attached". I argued that in case of nameless things, everything on a card attached to it is blanked except for cost. Later on, a letter from designer regarding this question arrived, and guess what - HE RULED IT SO FOREST SNARE ACTUALLY WORKED EVEN IF ATTACHED TO NAMELESS THING FROM TOP OF YOUR DECK. This was changed later, by other desingers, I suppose, but still the fact. You don't always know, get over it.

Also, I never used any exhausted character in my games to perfrom an action. It's something that popped up recently when I read the card text.

From the rules:"An exhausted card cannot exhaust again (and therefore cannot partake in any action that requires exhaustion).

Trololo responds: There is nothing in rules that forbide exhausted character from taking actions

hahahaha are you really so stupid or you just making jokes ?

Lol, this person is either an extremely fat troll or is utterly retarded

Reminds me of Nerdmeister.

Yep you nailed it ! I'm here to troll the trolls my little ignorant trololo

You respond with 0 respect so i answer to you accordingly.

You do realize that the sole purpose of trolling is to make someone feel bad/frustrated without alerting them that you're doing it on purpose? Making people think you're an idiot is a little different sort of activity

You do realize that the sole purpose of trolling is to make someone feel bad/frustrated without alerting them that you're doing it on purpose? Making people think you're an idiot is a little different sort of activity

You seem to know a lot about both of this matters

You say :I don't know why, but I was always thinking that with Light of Valinor, character still needs to be ready to commit to a quest, but now when I look at it, I see no reason why an exhausted character with Light of Valinor can't.

We (some players and the DESIGNER) take the time to explain to you why not and instead of saying "ok thx guys", you start a pointless argument with some totally stupid examples and arguments. Is your life so sad or what ?

Do you really expect me to have a constructive conversation with you after all this spit and bile out of your mouth?

iznax and MyNeighborTrololo, you both need to be more respectful on these forums. These forums are a privilege, not a right and that privilege should probably be taken away from some people soon.

Do you really expect me to have a constructive conversation with you after all this spit and bile out of your mouth?

Yes, I do. You don't fight fire with fire. You fight fire with water. You're not going to get someone to listen to you if you continue their obnoxiousness with your own. This applies to you too iznax.

--------

iznax, you're not seeing the point we're trying to make. Generally a sensible person would consider exhausting to be the cost of questing, attacking, and defending. The rules say:

An exhausted card cannot exhaust again (and therefore cannot partake in any action that requires exhaustion).

But Light of Valinor and Beorn say that you DO NOT EXHAUST to quest/defend (we are not exhausting again, which is what this rule is talking about). Therefore the exhaust cost is removed, making questing/defending just like any Action keyword on a card that doesn't require you to exhaust. An exhausted Lore Glorfindel can use his healing ability just fine because it does not require him to exhaust. The only difference is that committing to the quest and attacking and defending happen at very specific times and don't require you to have a card to do them.

Caleb's reply is odd to me. He says:

The intent of this rule is a core mechanic of the game: exhausted heroes cannot perform actions. They cannot quest, attack, or defend.

But exhausted heroes CAN perform actions! As long as that action does not require exhausting, which is exactly what LoV does for questing. He then says "They cannot quest, attack, or defend," which, combined with "the intent of this rule is a core mechanic of the game" makes it sound like he's saying "since we made questing/attacking/defending a core part of the game instead of being actions on the cards, we can twist the rules to say that you can't be exhausted, even if the requirement of exhausting is removed."

I don't know. Just seems like he's trying to make up excuses to have the ruling applied the way he thinks it should be applied. The only thing in what he said that makes me care about listening to him is the word "intent". I'm well aware that the people who write the rules can't/don't always think of everything when they write the rules down. Therefore, if he knows that the intent of the rules was that we shouldn't be able to do this if we're already exhausted, then I'm ok with it, but the rules then need to be rewritten in a way that explains:

"If a character is exhausted, it may not perform an action that normally requires it to exhaust, even if the requirement to exhaust has been removed by a card effect."

Forums is not privilege. We are consumers. We pay them money.

Forums is not privilege. We are consumers. We pay them money.

You paid them for the cards, not for the right to use the forum. The forum was put up in order to create a better community among the players of this game, and your reactions are creating a worse community.

Well, that's, like, your opinion, man. If you think forum is privilege - don't use it. From my perspective, forum is an essential part of support, provided by the game developer to both only interested in the game and owners.

Nope, my reactions do nothing. Community's reactions to me show community's true face.

Dear joezim007

In order to choose a character to perform an action that requires exhaustion it has to be ready in the first place, if it is and you do choose it, then his ability (Beorn) or LoV ability trigers. I don't know its just seems to be very clear to me and to many people as well. If it was a common misunderstanding would have been including in the FAQ long ago (Beron and LoV are not as recent cards) i guess.

Why is everybody going nuts around this thread if there is a official ruling about the question?

Just for fun? Then play a little the card game....

Caleb's reply is odd to me. He says:

The intent of this rule is a core mechanic of the game: exhausted heroes cannot perform actions. They cannot quest, attack, or defend.

But exhausted heroes CAN perform actions! As long as that action does not require exhausting, which is exactly what LoV does for questing. He then says "They cannot quest, attack, or defend," which, combined with "the intent of this rule is a core mechanic of the game" makes it sound like he's saying "since we made questing/attacking/defending a core part of the game instead of being actions on the cards, we can twist the rules to say that you can't be exhausted, even if the requirement of exhausting is removed."

Alongside a very clear lay-out of action windows and how responses etc. work, I hope the next FAQ clears up just this kind of confusion. Passive effects are now clear, but the idea of costs and ignoring costs is not explicitly laid out in the rules. I'm happy to play as it's ruled, since I completely understand that the intended meaning of a phrase can be lost when written down, and thematically I like that exhausted characters can't do the main three actions, but FFG could do to clarify a few things. I don't think this is down to anything more than the designer knowing exactly what they meant, but the process of writing things down (like in a rule-book) lost some of the steps that make it clear.

It's not unlike writing things on a forum, and having the tone of the message get lost because it's gone from a voice in your head to words on a screen, and words on a screen don't always convey irony, sarcasm, or a general sense of humour!

Thanks for posting that reply, monkeyrama.

(yep, I really don't like to use these like buttons )

So long as they never include a poke button, I can maybe get on board with 'liking' posts.