The Hills of Emyn Muil quest instructs player that, if there are no locations in the staging area, the first threachery revealed gains Surge.

What if the first revealed Threachery already has surge? A single card can't double surge, right? So only one surge is resolved

Thanks for help

Correct, it surges only once.

Surge doesn't stack.

At least, as far as I know there is no rule that says it does.

Lovely, thanks a million!

Might be worth asking Caleb?

While it may not explicitly say anywhere that Surge stacks, it also doesn't explicitly say anywhere that Surge does not stack.

Doomed stacks, so perhaps Surge does too? After all, the informal rule in this game is that the more difficult/challenging interpretation usually is the correct one?

Hoping that in the end, Surge does not stack...

I've always played that it does stack, just like Doomed.

I don't believe that surge (on a single card) is meant to stack. Instead, we just get chained effects, where the card you drew because of surge itself has a surge effect.

We have yet to see a card with "Surge X" which leads me to believe that surge was always meant to be a binary condition. If it was meant to be stackable, then those encounter cards we do have that state something like "reveal an additional encounter card for each player in the game" could be shortened to "Surge X where X is number of players"

I actually you can have multiple instances of Surge on a card, and must resolve each of them.

I tried hard to find an official source, but I think the ruling was too old and the post was deleted...? I found this thread where people are asking the same question in 2012.

In that thread, somebody links another post with an official ruling. But the link is now broken. People react in the thread as if Nate had ruled that multiple surges can exist on a card and must be resolved independently. So that's the best I got

edit: found an old ruling from way back in in 2012: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1702-official-nate-rule-clarifications/

"Q: - In Hills Of Emyn Muil quest, treacheries can gain extra surge effect if there are no locations in play. What if I draw a treachery like impassable chasm which has its own surge effect? Does surge stack so I have to resolve 2x surge and draw 2 more cards from encounter deck? I suspect that this may be a case because as per FAQ, some effects like Caught in the web are stackable (and this situation looks similar to me). Can you please confirm?

A: - Yes, If a card has multiple instances of the surge keyword, each instance should be resolved. "

Well well, how about that.

I had no knowledge of that ruling.

So surge does stack.

That's a bummer actually, as the effect is nasty enough as it is...

Thanks for digging into the Old Lore and finding the answer. Not so sure I'm happy with the answer, but at least it's official, so, here we go, let's stack the surges

(...) After all, the informal rule in this game is that the more difficult/challenging interpretation usually is the correct one? (...)

Seems informal rule still stands

I don't know. Sometimes those 'official' ruling change over the course of time. I'm just wondering why didn't FFG say "Reveal an extra encounter card if the first treachery card was revealed while there are no locations in the staging area."?

If Surge is stackable, is 'Guarded' also stackable? Doom is stackable because there's a number that could be stacked.

I hope FFG becomes more consistent with the usage of key words, definitions, etc.

Thanks for that, Grand Spleen... you found what I unsuccessfully tried to find on the boards.

I definitely think we should ask Caleb to include this in the next FAQ -- it's important enough. And if he decides to reverse FFG's position on this matter, so much the better.

I think FFG should be consistent in its clarifications/rulings. Rather than just ask "does Surge stack", it might be better to ask do keywords stack. Let's do away with handing out a ruling that only applies to a certain issue but have exceptions for all the others. Way too confusing and results in a 15-page FAQ. I'd like a rules framework that are easy to understand and intuitive, rather than a one-off clarification that does not make sense (ex Stand and Fight and neutral ally).

Yep. Surge stacks... and sucks!!!

hi,

1. I will tell you little Julia´s secret: in emyn muil no treachery card has surge keyword:), so no stack of surge is there.

2. but i am not sure what happen if i play eleanors response after revealing a trechery

1- Impassable Chasm and Driven by Shadow treacheries can 'gain surge,' so you can have stacking surge effects in the Hills of Emyn Muil.

2- if you cancel with Eleanor, the card has still been revealed the Surge that it gets from the Emyn Muil quest card will still trigger. The Surge from its own When Revealed text will not, because it's been canceled (and I'm talking about Impassable Chasm and Driven by Shadow again, which don't have the printed Surge keyword). So you'll be resolving that Surge keyword AND revealed another card per Eleanor's ability.

I think FFG should be consistent in its clarifications/rulings. Rather than just ask "does Surge stack", it might be better to ask do keywords stack. Let's do away with handing out a ruling that only applies to a certain issue but have exceptions for all the others. Way too confusing and results in a 15-page FAQ. I'd like a rules framework that are easy to understand and intuitive, rather than a one-off clarification that does not make sense (ex Stand and Fight and neutral ally).

I think this is extremely important for the health of the game. Eventually the FAQ will be too large for any player to join the game. I have e-mailed FFG some rules clarifications questions through their web site and I try to make the question generic. Unfortunately, the response I have always gotten has been "I am not sure I understand. Can you provide a specific game example where this is observed?". At that point, the ruling almost becomes useless because it can be difficult (or sometimes impossible) to apply it to other situations.

This would be an example of how I believe the question would go down if asked...

Me: Do keywords stack?

FFG: I am not sure what you mean, can you please provide a specific game example where you show what you mean?

Me: In XYZ scenario the first treachery gains surge. When treachery card A (with innate surge) is revealed, does the keyword stack?

FFG: Surge stacks.

At this point, I would know surge stacks, but what about other keywords? Granted, the only other keywords without an X value I can think of are Guarded and Indestructible so it may not matter. But in the future, other keywords may be present and the "Surge stacks" reply won't help one bit and that's going to just keep increasing the size of the FAQ.

Well, on the other side of that... maybe not all keywords stack. They're trying to avoid making universal decisions because it limits the design space significantly every time you do that.

In the meantime, who cares if you played it with or without stacking Surge. That's a thing that doesn't bar entry to the game for new players.

Well, on the other side of that... maybe not all keywords stack. They're trying to avoid making universal decisions because it limits the design space significantly every time you do that.

Yes, but my position is it shouldn't be a keyword if it doesn't function the same as one. I understand the reason behind their hesitation on making universal rulings, but I'd rather wait longer for an answer that is more general in nature than one that only refers to a specific instance. To me Surge X, Guarded X, and Venom X would function identically to how surge/guarded currently function but would allow for more flexibility for some cards to have Surge 2 or 3, so I'm not sure why it wasn't created that way. I personally feel like there are two types of keywords and the FAQ / Rulebook should be updated to reflect this. Then, general applications could be made towards keywords.

Keyword types:

1. Binary - Indestructible, Ambush, Battle, Siege, etc.

2. Stacking - Archery X and Victory X as clear examples and Surge, Guarded, Venom as not so clear examples. I may be wrong, but I think if all Surge, Guarded, and Venom had "Surge 1, Guarded 1, and Venom 1" it would not change how they currently resolve. It would, however, allow developers to clear up confusion as to whether or not they stack and allow them to create interesting cards with Surge 3 (the horror lol) or Venom 5.

allow them to create interesting cards with Surge 3

Why not just introduce the keyword "You Lose" at that point?

If we see cards with "Surge 2" on them in the Dream-Chaser cycle, I'm blaming you guys for giving Caleb ideas.

Orc Horn-blower already has the equivalent of Surge 2, and Night Without End(?) from Helm's Deep can "gain Surge 2". I think Caleb already had the idea...

maybe not all keywords stack. They're trying to avoid making universal decisions because it limits the design space significantly every time you do that.

A very important consideration. But another way of looking at it is that 'universal decisions" lay the groundwork for consistent card design in the future. Rather than limit the 'design space' for the cards, the designers will have a guide in designing future cards, knowing in advance how the rules, as shaped by "universial decisions" done in the past, would handle card interactions. Having this 'roadmap' will help card designers avoid creating broken cards or cards that will break some game rules because of some unforseen card interactions, requiring errata, left and right.

I want to play this game believing that it's a game of quest and adventures, not rules interpretation.

Post is for delete.

I want my opinion recorded - I dissent!

No way, Surge shouldn't stack. If I ever saw "Surge Surge" on a card I'd say it is a misprint. A card "gains" Surge, you don't "add another Surge".

Sentinel. It will never stack. "Gains sentinel" gives it to you. You have it or you don't.