This text is confusing:
Can you deal the extra damage as you want like archery? Or only all damage in one character?
1. only one character --> because it says 'you must damage ***another character*** you control'
2. several characters --> bacause it says 'exhaust ***all characters*** damaged from...
Just by reading it it seems to me that it means another Single one character. "Another" means ONE different other character.
Edited by FetaCheesedamage another character, and if some excess points left .. damage another character. How terrible, if you chump-block!
Quick answer, but I think the word 'each' is quite important. For each point over the hitpoints, damage another character. So it could all go, point by point, on one person (until they're dead) or be spread, but exhaust everyone damaged by each, individual point of excess damage.
Quick answer, but I think the word 'each' is quite important. For each point over the hitpoints, damage another character. So it could all go, point by point, on one person (until they're dead) or be spread, but exhaust everyone damaged by each, individual point of excess damage.
I think this is right. Also, the wording would be important if you're using Frodo or Gondorian Discipline (thus keeping that first character damaged alive).
Quick answer, but I think the word 'each' is quite important. For each point over the hitpoints, damage another character. So it could all go, point by point, on one person (until they're dead) or be spread, but exhaust everyone damaged by each, individual point of excess damage.
Well, this does make sense. I would guess that was the intention, and that is how I would probably play this card.
However, the more I read the wording of the card, the more unclear it seems.
The controversy for me is the question whether we should assign damage freely among our choice of characters (as in Archery), or are we somehow limited in assigning the damage.
The key confusing part is " For each [...] point you must damage another character […]". To me this means that each one point of the remaining overkill damage "activates" (for a lack of better word) a new separate target from among your characters. E.g. if there are three excess points of the overkill damage remaining, you must assign damage to three different characters other than the original defender.
If this is not the case, then shouldn't the card read more-less like "assign excess points of combat damage (…) among another characters you control. Exhaust each character damaged from this effect"? A different and more convoluted wording implies there is more to it.
If the designers meant us to go the "Archery" route, why the " For each " wording? It does not hold up. Again: "for each […] point […] damage another character". This implies that you cannot assign overkill damage freely, but you are bound to assign 1 point of damage to a character, than 1 point of damage to another character, and so on, until you run out of damage points.
If there is an error somewhere in my thinking I will be glad someone points it out, because the outcome of my literal understanding of the card is very unsatisfactory to me.
One of the reasons this feels wrong is what if you have only one character other than the original defender and there is more than one point of overkill damage remaining? Should you just deal one point of damage to that another character and the remaining are luckily "wasted"? This seems counterintuitive and non-thematic. It also weakens the effect, which we know is almost never the right interpretation in LotR. But it is hard for me to read the card in another way.
TL;DR: The wording of the card is imprecise. The literal meaning seems to imply dealing damage point-by-point, each point to a different character. Which seems silly. Or does it?
If there is an error somewhere in my thinking I will be glad someone points it out, because the outcome of my literal understanding of the card is very unsatisfactory to me.
Don't know, but when I do my program, for each is for each.
Cave-troll from Khazad-dum has the same wording, ("each point") and we had an official answer about it some years ago:
-----------------
"Q: - Dose the new Cave-Troll card that spills dmg from one card to the next only do this once? Or dose the dmg spill over to a new character until the dmg runs out?
So, can this effect spill over so the Cave-Troll dmg hits 3 cards for example?
A: - The "overflow" damage is assigned point by point. If it kills off a character, there is still overflow from the attack that needs to be assigned. "
---------------
Which I found through necromantic magic in this thread here . That ruling is not 100% clear but seems to suggest point-by-point resolution (which, in my opinion, in more in keeping with the wording on the card, anyway). And so you'd be able to spread it around like archery damage.
Cave-troll from Khazad-dum has the same wording, ("each point") and we had an official answer about it some years ago:
-----------------
"Q: - Dose the new Cave-Troll card that spills dmg from one card to the next only do this once? Or dose the dmg spill over to a new character until the dmg runs out?
So, can this effect spill over so the Cave-Troll dmg hits 3 cards for example?
A: - The "overflow" damage is assigned point by point. If it kills off a character, there is still overflow from the attack that needs to be assigned. "
---------------
Which I found through necromantic magic in this thread here . That ruling is not 100% clear but seems to suggest point-by-point resolution (which, in my opinion, in more in keeping with the wording on the card, anyway). And so you'd be able to spread it around like archery damage.
Thanks.
Well, at least it makes some kind of sense from the gameplay perspective.