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.

You say "In order to choose a character to perform an action that requires exhaustion"... but according to LoV and Beorn, the action does not require exhaustion. That's the point.

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.

Support isn't a right either. Support is offered simply because it offers an economic advantage to those who do not give support for their products. If there is no law given by God or government saying "no one can ever be banned from or a forum and no forum can ever be taken down due to undignified conduct", then your use of the forum isn't a right.

When you registered for an account, you were required to agree to a Terms of Use, and "If you do not agree to the Terms, you are not permitted to browse the FFG Website and/or utilize any of its services". One of those terms is "You will be respectful of other account users". According to this, I legally have the right (responsibility?) to report your actions to the moderators and have you banned from the web site.

If everyone could just learn to be respectful, this thread would be half as long.

--

EDIT: Fixed ToU link

As I've already said: It's just, like, your opinion, man. Report me all you want, I don't care.

P.S.: Your terms of use link is broken.

I've never seen any warnings or posts by Moderators on this forum before.....
I really wish it was a bit more monitored/moderated, some people act outrageously rude and condescending on here and just have no respect for other users. Especially when it comes to two handed play.....
Its a shame really, such a fantastic game from the best fantasy story and universe there is and a third of the forum is just people fighting/insulting each other.

I think I saw a moderator's post once... It was like seeing a bigfoot

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.

You say "In order to choose a character to perform an action that requires exhaustion"... but according to LoV and Beorn, the action does not require exhaustion. That's the point.

Joezim007 that isn't what it says.

The character does not exhaust to commit to the quest (or to defend). However that doesn't mean the action loses that requirement.

So you can Quest first then do other things - as you don't pay the exhaustion cost for the first action. Similarly Beorn can defend first.

Each time the order of operations is:

1) Check for character exhaustion. (You're not permitted to perform another action that requires exhaustion if you fail this check).

2) Exhaust the character.

3) Perform the action.

Lov and Beorn ignore step 2. Therefore they can continue to meat the not being exhausted requirement (per the rule quoted in the first post), and can act again.

However to have a case where character that was previously exhausted could still attack or defend would require you to ignore step 1 not step 2.

People seem to think that "does not exhaust" is the same as saying "the action no longer requires exhaustion" and these are not the same.

The first one (the one we have) allows you to ignore one step, the other would fundamentally change the way one action operated in line with the rest of the game. There is design space to have the second if they wanted to explore it, but so far this hasn't occurred.

2) Check for character exhaustion. (You're not permitted to perform another action that requires exhaustion if you fail this check).

3) Exhaust the character.

4) Perform the action.

And that's the problem - if the first step tells me that i don't have to exhaust my character, the other steps are reduntant. That's a valid interpretation, and that's why they should clarify the rules. Just a reminder: Thalin's passive ability also triggers before any aspects of the encounter cards.

People seem to think that "does not exhaust" is the same as saying "the action no longer requires exhaustion" and these are not the same.

That's because the rulebokk doesn't make that difference either.

As I've already said: It's just, like, your opinion, man. Report me all you want, I don't care.

P.S.: Your terms of use link is broken.

That's my point. It's not opinion. "rights" and "privileges" are not opinions. They are very clearly laid out and you are violating the rules. I don't want to report you; I want you to become a respectable member of the community.

Also, I fixed the link.

Each time the order of operations is:

1) Check for character exhaustion. (You're not permitted to perform another action that requires exhaustion if you fail this check).

2) Exhaust the character.

3) Perform the action.

But where can this be found in the rulebook? Is there such a thing or is this an interpretation of yours? And why isn't the order like this:

1) Check passive effects as they always fo first.

2) Check for character exhaustion. (You're not permitted to perform another action that requires exhaustion if you fail this check).

3) Exhaust the character.

4) Perform the action.

And that's the problem - if the first step tells me that i don't have to exhaust my character, the other steps are reduntant. That's a valid interpretation, and that's why they should clarify the rules. Just a reminder: Thalin's passive ability also triggers before any aspects of the encounter cards.

The order of operations I listed is a logical writing out of rules in the rulebook. It's not written out as clearly as that in the rules. I was furthering my argument that Caleb has not been inconsistent. The fact that it should be clarrified to avoid confusion i completely agree with.

As for the addition of the passive effect as step 1, it could go there - but I would argue that passive effects would not be covered by an operation, rather they would be covered by a layer type effect. (The passive effect layer would be above the active layer).

You could have Check passive effects as additional steps but it would have to be written before and after every other step to reflect how they work in the game (which is why I would use a different logical layout for them).

However, even if step 1 said, you don't have to exhaust (Which would be written as ignore step 3) you would 'still' need to do step two.

The fact is that people are conflating two different things.

Does not exhaust - means ignore the exhausting aspect of a specific instance (defence, attack, quest)

An action requires exhaustion if that action has exhaustion as part of it's requirements.

If you do not have to exhaust that does not mean that exhaustion is not a requirement, it just means you don't have to pay that requirement when you normally would/

However to perform an action that requires exhaustion you have to not already be exhausted, hence LoV and Beorn can do their specials first and then another action but cannot do it in reverse.

The reverse version would need to be written from the other point of view: "This character can be declared as a defender even when exhausted"

This is because rules are restrictive in nature, you need a rule that allows something to occur, otherwise it can't.

While I agree the rulebook could have been written better. I think you're asking a bit much if you want them to spell this out - I mean no one in this thread has presented an argument that these two statements are actually synonyms. They're clearly not the same.

The rulebook doesn't expressly call out a lot of differences that are in plain english - maybe it should (In a Magic the Gathering full rules style) but I also think this game isn't worth that amount of effort the way that Magic is.

From guide to forum use:

community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/33517-guide-to-forum-use/

"Treat everyone (users or not) with respect, while enjoying the freedom to disagree with their ideas."

How bout it?

...

Each time the order of operations is:

1) Check for character exhaustion. (You're not permitted to perform another action that requires exhaustion if you fail this check).

2) Exhaust the character.

3) Perform the action.

Lov and Beorn ignore step 2. Therefore they can continue to meat the not being exhausted requirement (per the rule quoted in the first post), and can act again.

However to have a case where character that was previously exhausted could still attack or defend would require you to ignore step 1 not step 2.

People seem to think that "does not exhaust" is the same as saying "the action no longer requires exhaustion" and these are not the same.

...

Let's generalize these rules:

1. Check to see if the cost of the action can be paid.

2. Pay the cost.

3. Perform the action.

Can we agree that that's a good generalization? Now what if we remove/lower the cost? Well, then when we check to see if we can pay the cost, then we look at the new cost, not the old cost. It's just like someone mentioned earlier: If you have an ability that lowers the cost of a card by 1 (e.g. from 2 to 1), then you don't need to check to see if you have 2 resources. You only need to check to see if you have 1.

From what I've heard from Caleb, it sounds like they aren't considering the exhausting to be a cost so much as a game mechanic, which doesn't make much sense to me.

As I've already said: It's just, like, your opinion, man. Report me all you want, I don't care.

P.S.: Your terms of use link is broken.

That's my point. It's not opinion. "rights" and "privileges" are not opinions. They are very clearly laid out and you are violating the rules. I don't want to report you; I want you to become a respectable member of the community.

Also, I fixed the link.

The statement of forum being a privilege is your opinion, period. I won't change, if that's what you're seeking. So report ahead.

...

Each time the order of operations is:

1) Check for character exhaustion. (You're not permitted to perform another action that requires exhaustion if you fail this check).

2) Exhaust the character.

3) Perform the action.

Lov and Beorn ignore step 2. Therefore they can continue to meat the not being exhausted requirement (per the rule quoted in the first post), and can act again.

However to have a case where character that was previously exhausted could still attack or defend would require you to ignore step 1 not step 2.

People seem to think that "does not exhaust" is the same as saying "the action no longer requires exhaustion" and these are not the same.

...

Let's generalize these rules:

1. Check to see if the cost of the action can be paid.

2. Pay the cost.

3. Perform the action.

Can we agree that that's a good generalization? Now what if we remove/lower the cost? Well, then when we check to see if we can pay the cost, then we look at the new cost, not the old cost. It's just like someone mentioned earlier: If you have an ability that lowers the cost of a card by 1 (e.g. from 2 to 1), then you don't need to check to see if you have 2 resources. You only need to check to see if you have 1.

From what I've heard from Caleb, it sounds like they aren't considering the exhausting to be a cost so much as a game mechanic, which doesn't make much sense to me.

I at least, cannot accept your generalization, because it's too general. That doesn't actually model how the game works when it comes to performing actions, the system you've laid out would treat actions and paying for cards as identical, but the game isn't like that.

Therefore you need to have a more detailed model. The model for paying for a card (with resources) wouldn't have a check on the resources as a separate step , because it isn't a "state"

1) Choose a card to play

2) Check the card is allowed to be played at this time

3) Pay resources equal to the cards cost

4) Apply card effects to game state.

There's a distinction between having to check that resources exist and having to actually pay the cost. If you split them up as you wanted to do in your example then you would have effects that checked that you could pay (but then made it so you didn't have too).

However the resource payment is instantaneous in this game so they must share a step.

This is different from exhaustion.

Exhaustion is a binary state Ready/Exhausted which applies to all player cards that are in play. At any time a player card must be in one of these two states.

They are a fundamental game mechanic not a cost. To be able to perform any action in the game that leads to the card changing from Ready to Exhausted, you must begin Ready. (Instances when an Exhausted card can do ~anything~ are explicit in the rules and clearly call out cards in the Exhausted state - such as ready an exhausted card).

LoV makes no reference to exhausted cards. It says that you can perform an action without becoming exhausted. (This leaves the card in the ready state, therefore it can perform another action).

This is NOT the same as saying, this card can do something while exhausted. (A model of the wording that the game would use for this doesn't actually exist because there are no game effects of this kind yet, I propose, this card can defend while exhausted - but they may word it differently).

I could try to re-write my order of operations example as a series of if > then statements if that would be clearer for people.

My biggest problem is that we don't consider being required to exhaust a card as part of the cost. In any other game, if it is required to be done before you can do something else, it is considered a cost. If any card tells you you are no longer required to do it, then the cost is removed and should no longer be considered when determining if the action can take place.

I understand that we aren't considering exhausting as a cost, but I don't see how it's not.

What about if you think about it the other way around?

Being ready is part of the cost (If you're not ready you can't do the action). Becoming exhausted is part of the action's resolution rather than a cost requirement.

Which is more like how the game works. Because even though I wrote that you check for exhaustion in actual fact the game is checking that you're ready, and if you're not ready you can't perform the action.

It's all speculation. I, personally, don't see a sense in a requirement like this. Especially unspoken one.

What about if you think about it the other way around?

Being ready is part of the cost (If you're not ready you can't do the action). Becoming exhausted is part of the action's resolution rather than a cost requirement.

Which is more like how the game works. Because even though I wrote that you check for exhaustion in actual fact the game is checking that you're ready, and if you're not ready you can't perform the action.

Ok I can understand that sorta. It's just not written like that though. There needs to either be an errata to the rulebook or to all the cards that say you don't need to exhaust in order for that logic to truly work with the rules.

What about if you think about it the other way around?

Being ready is part of the cost (If you're not ready you can't do the action). Becoming exhausted is part of the action's resolution rather than a cost requirement.

Which is more like how the game works. Because even though I wrote that you check for exhaustion in actual fact the game is checking that you're ready, and if you're not ready you can't perform the action.

Ok I can understand that sorta. It's just not written like that though. There needs to either be an errata to the rulebook or to all the cards that say you don't need to exhaust in order for that logic to truly work with the rules.

To my mind that isn't the case.

What would you prefer it to say to make it clearer for you?

I think Caleb's answer is already clarifying the problem. "exhausted heroes cannot perform actions".

That's even short enough to get the attention of Trololo.

I think Caleb's answer is already clarifying the problem. "exhausted heroes cannot perform actions".

That's even short enough to get the attention of Trololo.

Except that's not true. When you're exhausted you can perform any action that doesn't require you to exhaust. For example, Westfold Horse-Breaker can discard himself regardless of being exhausted. Since they keep being called "actions", Questing, Attacking, and Defending should be treated just like any other actions with the exception that they can only happen at very specific points during each round.

To my mind that isn't the case.

What would you prefer it to say to make it clearer for you?

I would like it to actually say that being ready is a requirement. The rules say:

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

The rules do not say "A character must be ready in order quest, attack, defend, or perform an action that requires exhaustion." I'm not exhausting again, so therefore the existing rule here doesn't apply. The word "therefore" in that quote means that it is directly referring to exhausting again and is just a clarification, not a separate rule. Even if it was a separate rule, I "do not exhaust," therefore I'm not required to exhaust.

I'm totally not against changing the rules to say this. I think it's a good idea that we should be ready despite LoV, Beorn, Galadriel, Gandalf, Naith Guide, etc telling us "do(es) not exhaust," because I think that may be a little too powerful. I just want the rules to actually say it.

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

Reminds me of Nerdmeister.

Wow... simply just wow.

Last time we had a "discussion" (or however you would prefer to classify it) we seemed to arrive at the conclusion that neither of us were going to give each other attention anymore (not that it has kept you out of my threads as you prefer I keep out of yours)

I have not even remotely approached this thread and still you feel the need to take a punch? Are you really that insecure?

Fact of the matter about this whole topic is that most people think it is obvious that LoV does not work when a character is exhausted and both previous and current responses from the design team has collaborated this viewpoint.

The argument that it is not in the FAQ is also a stretch since the ruling (both previous and oc current) are known to almost everyone. As well as the fact that it is a coop and not a competitive game and you can play it (cheat yourself if you prefer that wording) however you like.

You need to get over the fact that you were wrong on all accounts, both on your logic and your reasoning. Though when someone uses a reasoning like "well you are just like this other guy I don´t like so therefore you are wrong" that is perhaps too long a stretch?

Your way of reasoning reminds me of a veiled version of Godwin´s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law in case you don´t know what that is). Just substitute "Hitler" for "retards" or any other of your preferred phrases.

I won´t tell you to stop your baseless slander, because I have come to realize that you are probably incapable of restraint in any way and I won´t waste my time when you obviously will not listen. It seems that every time you are counter-argumented (or people just don´t agree with you 100%) you go to your mental safezone of calling people retards. Funny though: either the whole world except you is retarded... or maybe there is another answer; that the whole world (at large) is right-thinking. Though that would mean there would have to be something wrong with whoever made the claim in the first place. Any thoughts on what that might be?

I think Caleb's answer is already clarifying the problem. "exhausted heroes cannot perform actions".

That's even short enough to get the attention of Trololo.

Except that's not true. When you're exhausted you can perform any action that doesn't require you to exhaust. For example, Westfold Horse-Breaker can discard himself regardless of being exhausted. Since they keep being called "actions", Questing, Attacking, and Defending should be treated just like any other actions with the exception that they can only happen at very specific points during each round.

By the mail, Caleb said that I mistaken a big "A" Actions from little "a" actions. Big A actions are those printed on the cards, and little a - quest, attack and defend. And those with little a require you to be ready. I know, it sounds like he just tries to cover up a rule hole he didn't know existed, but that's what he said.

Nerdmesiter - lol, dat wall of text just because of a small referrence to you in one of my posts

I think Caleb's answer is already clarifying the problem. "exhausted heroes cannot perform actions".

That's even short enough to get the attention of Trololo.

Well, I hope that is not the case. Because there are actions that do not require exhausting...

[edit] I have seen the above clarification (of sorts).

By the way, that Godwin fella must be truly retarded, or anyone actually taking time to put his nonsense on the wikipedia (or, worse, elsewhere).

Nerdmesiter - lol, dat wall of text just because of a small referrence to you in one of my posts

Still with the refusal to respond to the points laid out before you. As usual. Though I am much more prone to say that it is not so much a refusal to respond, as it is inability.

Just going to save alot of time and declare you to be wrong on all accounts past and future, where you do not address the issues at hand; prefering such intelligent responses, including but not limited to (and I´m paraphrasing):

"oh lolzor dat made me laugh "

"You are a retard"

"Learn to read noob"

"U just plain wrong"