There's nothing new in it, but for anyone that's interested the Wastes of Eriador release article just posted:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/7/2/hunted-on-the-wastelands/

The official answer is in. You CANNOT use damage cancellation with Erkenbrand.

Hi Jim,

When a player uses a Response to cancel an effect, the result is that the canceled effect never resolves. For example, when a player uses A Test of Will to cancel the ‘when revealed’ effects of The Necromancer’s Reach, the players do not deal 1 damage to each character in play and then remove 1 damage from each character in play. Instead, no damage is dealt.

Similarly, if you use the Response effect on Raven-winged Helm to cancel the damage just dealt to Erkenbrand after triggering his Response effect, you do not place 1 damage on Erkenbrand and then remove it. Instead, the damage is not dealt at all. In which case, his cost has not been paid and you cannot resolve his effect.

Visually, it looks like this:

Damage is dealt by effect ——> Response effect cancels damage dealt ——> No damage is actually dealt

Cheers,

Caleb

hmm... I guess that ruling makes sense. You cancel an effect, it will never apply (maybe we need a "Stack" like Magic has to avoid timing confusion?)

It's just the words "damage just dealt" that I have a problem with. The Test of Will/Necromancer's Reach example makes sense, no damage will be applied in this case. But damage cancellation cards all say "cancel x damage just dealt". You have to deal the damage first, which kind of contradicts the "cancel" effect. Almost seems like a funky, restrictive "healing" than actual damage prevention. Or does "damage just dealt" means it's damage assigned, but not officially applied just yet? Either way, it's convoluted... >_>

Maybe they should errata these few cards to say "Cancel x damage". That's it.

Bottom of the article is a bit silly. Brandybuck is not like a zero cost feint.....

The article itself states "although you'd still suffer from any negative Shadow effects or from other effects that trigger when a character is destroyed".

Feint stops an enemy from attacking altogether (stopping any effects that trigger just from an attack being made, Murzag, Chieftain Uflak or the Wargs in The Ring Goes South that place damage on the active location when they attack for example), stops its shadow card from resolving (avoiding shadow effects) and allows you to not have to exhaust a defender for that attack. Using brandybuck as a chump blocker is the same as any other chump blocking in the game except the brandybuck can potentially come into play for free. It is not similar to a feint it is just a free chump blocker for a turn. They are pretty much saying that any chump block you perform is similar to feint.

I disagree with this as you are sacrificing a character and can suffer all manner of nasty effects from any manner of cards like shadow cards that punish you for a character dying from the attack just made, an enemy or location in play that has a nasty effect that triggers when a character is destroyed from an attack or just in general, hell even some quest stages severely punish you for characters dying. In fact there are so many shadow effects these days that have something along the lines of "if this attack destroys a character this enemy makes another attack" or makes an attack against the next player or you must remove all progress from the current quest or have to put more counters on something that may make you lose if it gets too many that chump blocking is not really anywhere near as viable as it used to be.

Essentially there is way too much chump block hate in recent and newer quests and far more varied and nastier shadow effects (and an ABUNDANCE that punish you for blocking with allies or if the defending character dies) to be able to say that chump blocking is like feint which completely stops and negates an enemy attack. I do get the similarity and comparison they are trying to make but disagree. Attack cancellation and chump blocking are two different things in this game that whilst both are ways to deal with enemy attacks they have very different outcomes, pros and cons.

The ruling could not be more obvious. Of course the damage never happens, otherwise it would be (more or less) useless, and when something never happens, then it cannot be taken as a cost.

Yes, it could. There would be nothing for Helm to cancel if the cost wasn't paid. The point is - you paid the cost by issuing that damage, what happens to that damage now is a whole other topic. The whole reason the Helm is able to respond is because the cost have been paid.

Well, I don't know if you people understand the word "cancel" well enough. If something is "cancelled" it is considered not to have happened. And of course, this has been explained -- in the game -- four years ago when Frodo came out.

Yeah, Curious Brandybuck is "just" a free chump. But that is not altogether bad, is it? Of course, you can get a shadow that punishing destroying a character or that makes an additional attack. Sometimes you won't be able to avoid those anyway. And many quests have only a handful (and some even none) of those. Imagine a situation with Orc Vanguard from Assault on Osgiliath. The card is revealed and suddenly you cannot spend resources from Leadership, Spirit and Lore heroes. But you travel to a location, put the Brandybuck into play, engage the Vanguard and chump block it. It may be a day saver in such situations. And overall, a free chump is a very good chump, only Squire of the Citadel could be considered better cost-wise (and not always). And the cheap chumps usually do not do very much else, this Brandybuck is similar: he can do a tiny little bit -- though again 2 willpower for a turn (and it may turn out to be more with a location that lingers) is not altogether useless.

Sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread - does the Brandybuck's "Forced" effect trigger even when he's still in a player's hand? It doesn't actually specify that he needs to be in play. This would make him a lot less useful; if I draw him and then a location is explored, do I have to put him into my deck?

Sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread - does the Brandybuck's "Forced" effect trigger even when he's still in a player's hand?

Effects like this are always work only while card is in play, unless stated otherwise.

On a side note, no one here seemed to read that part of my post, so I'll repeat:

This new Hobbit ally is obviously aimed for the new Erestor hero. Also, is going be pretty useful in a fast-drawing Lore deck, even without any other Spirit at all.

So about that Erkenbrand ruling... I don't want to say I told you so, but...

John, yes the damage was issued, but, as is explained in the ruling, it does not resolve.

The reason that damage resolution must be part of the cost is specifically in the wording of the card when it says deal the damage "to" cancel the shadow effect. If it just said "deal damage and cancel" then the resolution of the damage would not be required for the effect.

Also, a response interrupts steps in a process, so it makes sense that the damage is cancelled before the rest of the process continues. It would make no sense to deal the damage, resolve the effect, and then go back and cancel the damage. You just cancel the damage right away when it happens.

It all makes sense to me.

That's good for you. It doesn't mean I must agree with you, I find my point of view as valid as yours. The designer being on your side is a flimsy advantage as those kind of rulings have been thwarted in the past (once again, shiny example: Nameless Things and Forest Snare), so I will just stick to my perception of things. You like yours - go ahead, no stopping ya.

If cancelling damage didn't interrupt and prevent the damage from ever being placed, then if the damage was enough to destroy the character, it would be discarded and thus be an ineligible target for the response to cancel the damage.

The only reason the cards say to cancel damage "just dealt" is because if it didn't it would be playable at any time.

That's if the game model isn't smart about it (which it obiously isn't, hence the given situation). How about we stop beating the dead horse? I understand that your view on this matter differs from mine. I don't ask you to change your view based on mine, and the hell am I going to change mine. This discussion will lead nowhere. How about we just stop and discuss the actual topic of this thread?

If you use the Curious Brandybucks response you don't need a resource match right? It's not like playing a 0 cost card, at least in my opinion. What do you guys think?

If it enters play as a result of a location being travelled to, you shouldn't need a resource match, no.

Wow that's a shame. I guess I won't be using Erkenbrand until we get something that actually works with him.

We do! It's called "healing" and it's very effective!

Wow that's a shame. I guess I won't be using Erkenbrand until we get something that actually works with him.

Indeed. With healing on the table he is a brick wall.

Erkenbrand has really proved his worth in my play group.

We actually value him above Beregond now.

Fancy that. You should give him a go. You won't be dissapointed

^{I really want to use him, but I don't know what heroes to combine him with to make a decent solo deck.}

^{I really want to use him, but I don't know what heroes to combine him with to make a decent solo deck.}

I really like the new Theoden with Erkenbrand and Eowyn in a Rohan-theme deck. I'll admit that I haven't tried it solo, but I think it would be able to do well. Erkebrand defends, Theoden can attack with Herugrim (and quest too if you get some readying), Eowyn quests as well as she always does, as lots of quest-happy allies.

I still don't have my copy of Treason, but I really wanna try new Theoden, although I prefer the spirit-tactics deck with Eowyn and Eomer. But right now I want to make more general-purpose decks until I get my copy, and Erkenbrand doesn't really fit in any. He's not a hero you can exploit like Mablung or Hama or Caldara, he just defends pretty much. Clearly a multiplayer hero, IMO.

Well he does have sentinel, but that's about it.

His ability is equally useful for a solo player.

Most decks have a dedicated defending hero, and Erkenbrand fits the bill.

If you use leadership, and need a defender, I'd pick Erkenbrand over any other in the game. Seriously.

Honour Guard was doing some serious work in the decks I played against The Wastes last night. I'm not 100% sure there aren't cards you'd want to include before him, but when I had 3 up it was a marvelous safety blanket. Probably my favorite card of the whole pack, just for the versatility of it. He can even save those valuable yet wimpy allies from deal one damage to all characters treacheries!

Just picked up my pack and my first reaction is hate. I absolutely HATE the new plastic packaging. You probably thought (as I did) that the new packaging would be the same as what we have been getting with the POD packs right? Nope. They're bigger. Much bigger. In every dimension. Fantasy Flight, lose the plastic and go back to the cardboard even if you have to increase the selling price. Please.

We can add "annoyance" to my reactions. No where in the massive packaging does it give the conditions required to meet Valour. The pack does say that the Core Set and The Lost Realm are required, but it doesn't say you need an internet connection.

I'm sure the adventure and cards inside are good to great from what I've seen so far. It's a shame that Caleb and Matt's hard work are ruined this way.

We can add "annoyance" to my reactions. No where in the massive packaging does it give the conditions required to meet Valour. The pack does say that the Core Set and The Lost Realm are required, but it doesn't say you need an internet connection.

I'm sure the adventure and cards inside are good to great from what I've seen so far. It's a shame that Caleb and Matt's hard work are ruined this way.

Threat 40+ is valour

Huh? It says it on the back of the insert, Took. And as for the plastic packaging, say what you want about the aesthetics of it (which I couldn't care less about), it seemed to do a better job keeping the cards straight. I can't tell you how many of the old packs that came with all the cards having a super annoying bend in them.

Huh? It says it on the back of the insert, Took. And as for the plastic packaging, say what you want about the aesthetics of it (which I couldn't care less about), it seemed to do a better job keeping the cards straight. I can't tell you how many of the old packs that came with all the cards having a super annoying bend in them.

Believe it or not, I didn't know the rules sheet was hidden in the folded over insert. If you hadn't said something I probably would have never found it. So my bad on that one, but I still abhor the plastic.

We can add "annoyance" to my reactions. No where in the massive packaging does it give the conditions required to meet Valour. The pack does say that the Core Set and The Lost Realm are required, but it doesn't say you need an internet connection.

I'm sure the adventure and cards inside are good to great from what I've seen so far. It's a shame that Caleb and Matt's hard work are ruined this way.

Threat 40+ is valour

I knew what the rule is, but since I hadn't found the rules sheet it annoyed me that it wasn't in the package.