I'm trying to build a Haldir deck, and I am wondering if attacks against enemies in the staging area are considered ranged attacks ¿? (mostly to see if it's worth adding Rivendell Bow; the deck is meant to be played solo)

Per the FAQ:

Q: What counts as a “ranged” attack?

A: A ranged attack is an attack made by a character with the ranged keyword against an enemy engaged with another player.

Also:

Q: Can a character with the Ranged keyword join an attack against an enemy in the staging area?

A: No. The Ranged keyword only gives characters with that keyword the ability to attack enemies engaged with another player.

Bow of the Galadrim might work better for you.

Attachment. Cost: 1.

Item. Weapon.

Restricted.

Attach to a Silvan character with the ranged keyword.

Attached character gets +1 (+2 instead if attacking an enemy not engaged with you.)

...longer and stronger than the bows of Mirkwood, and strung with a string of elf-hair. The Fellowship of the Ring

Sara Biddle

The Nîn-in-Eilph #88.Tactics.

From the FAQ 1.8::

So attacks against enemies in the staging area are not ranged attacks

There are some exceptions, eg something specifically makes them into a ranged attack (eg Great Yew Bow's wording), or something is causing your staging area enemy to also be engaged with another player.

This is one place where I prefer to play by a house rule that is different from the official rules. My house rule is "If it thematically feels like it should be a ranged attack, it's a ranged attack." Which, when translated to actual rules, looks like this:

1) The Ranged keyword is unchanged from the standard rules; specifically, it does not, by itself, allow you to attack into the staging area.

2) A ranged attack is an attack made by a character with the ranged keyword against an enemy not engaged with him .

Therefore, if Dúnhere attacks an enemy in the staging area, it's not a ranged attack. But if Legolas uses Bow of the Galadrim, it is a ranged attack. (By the official ruling, it wouldn't be).

One result of this is to "solve" the thing that always bugged me about Hands Upon the Bow. It requires a character with the Ranged keyword, but doesn't explicitly specify that the attack is a ranged attack. Therefore, when Bard the Bowman puts his Hands Upon the Bow to take a shot into the staging area, he... somehow doesn't trigger his normal "enemy has -2 defense" ability, that only triggers on ranged attacks? That feels "wrong" to me, so I house-ruled the problem away. This makes the Bard + HUtB combo quite a bit more powerful, but I don't think it unbalances anything -- and it greatly improves my enjoyment of the game.

Asked Caleb about Haldir's action - if it considered as a ranged attack when attacking an enemy engaged with another player:

Quote

Hi Jan,

When Haldir uses his effect, it is not considered a ranged attack. Ranged attacks are described in the core rules under the Ranged keyword. When a character with the Ranged keyword declares an attack against an enemy engaged with another player via the Ranged keyword, that is a ranged attack. When you declare Haldir as an attacker via his ability, that is different.

Cheers,Caleb

Hello there, my twin brother!

Wow, that ruling is even harsher than I thought it would be. I would have thought that the attacks against other players would be Ranged attacks, but if Caleb's ruling is that you specifically have to be using the Ranged keyword rather than some other ability for it to count as a Ranged attack, then even Haldir's special-ability attacks against enemies engaged with other players won't be Ranged.

In this one case, I think Caleb may be wrong. I mean, as the game designer, he's obviously right in this ruling, because the rules are whatever he makes them. But I think it's the wrong rule from a thematic standpoint, and that a rule of "It's a Ranged attack when it would make sense for it to be a Ranged attack, i.e. when a Ranged character has the opportunity to attack an enemy not engaged with him" provides a more thematic experience and thus more enjoyment. I believe that Hands Upon the Bow should be a Ranged attack, and so should Haldir's ability.

But enough about my pet peeve / favorite house rule. I'm glad we have a ruling that clarifies all kinds of "Is this a Ranged attack?" situations; even if it's not the one I would prefer, it's a ruling that will clear up several other card interactions besides Haldir.

That ruling contradicts the very explicit definition of ranged attacks in the FAQ, which is odd.

6 hours ago, NathanH said:

That ruling contradicts the very explicit definition of ranged attacks in the FAQ, which is odd.

Yeah, it does. It's possible the FAQ entry was meant to say the following (and they instead haphazardly used "with":

Quote

Q: What counts as a “ ranged ” attack?

A: A ranged attack is an attack made by a character with via using the ranged keyword against an enemy engaged with another player.

Alternatively, the new ruling could be wrong

Edit: In hindsight, I realized that using "with" in the FAQ sentence can actually mean using, so the FAQ entry can still make sense. The problem with the FAQ entry is it COULD mean something entirely different.

With:

1) characterized by having (how we interpreted the FAQ entry originally)

2) using or showing (how it is meant to be interpreted)

So if you aren't using the Ranged keyword as a part of the attack, it's not a Ranged attack.

And our interpretation that simply having the ranged keyword was enough to constitute a Ranged attack (and attacking an enemy engaged with another player) was wrong.

Quote

Bow of the Galadhrim
The Nîn-in-Eilph
Item. Weapon.
Restricted.
Attach to a Silvan character with the ranged keyword. Attached character gets +1 Attack. (+2 Attack instead if attacking an enemy not engaged with you.)

So this could mean I need attach things via the ranged keyword???

1 hour ago, Seastan said:

So this could mean I need attach things via the ranged keyword???

Yes, it can mean that (although "using" is better than "via" and I've edited my post above). That doesn't mean that it is what it means. I did say they may have haphazardly used the word "with", although carelessly may have been better depending on the intent of the ruling in the FAQ.

Currently, I do not know of a way to attach things using the ranged keyword, however. I do know that you can say " A ranged attack is an attack made by a character using the ranged keyword against an enemy engaged with another player."

But then you get into cyclical logic I believe. I do think they should amend the FAQ (or rescind the new ruling) depending on what they are intending to do.

Personally, I don't see an issue with Haldir's ability not constituting a Ranged attack, as you could have his Ranged keyword be blanked out but not his ability, theoretically and his ability still works. It just seems weird that him having the Ranged keyword is what is determining whether or not using his ability constitutes a "Ranged" attack.

Edit: Based on this new ruling it really does seem like how they want Ranged to work is that when you declare an attack by way of the Ranged keyword, it is a Ranged attack. And that the Ranged keyword allows you to participate or declare attacks against enemies engaged with other players. But I haven't really thought through this and there may very well be instances where this is contradicted.

Just realized if they wanted it to mean "using", they would need to use commas. For example: "A ranged attack is an attack made by a character, with the ranged keyword, against an enemy engaged with another player."

26 minutes ago, Seastan said:

So this could mean I need attach things via the ranged keyword???

The more I play LCG's, even cooperative ones, the more I sympathize with why lawyers write in legalese, and have precise definitions for every word, and use awkward-sounding language like "cease and desist". Parsing the language of the most common words like "with" gets old.

But here, no, since that makes no sense that can't be the meaning in *this* instance. So here it has to mean the "a character who possesses the Ranged keyword" meaning.

But man, I wish FFG would start writing their card game rules in the same kind of "legalese" that MtG went with, where there's a standard phrase, made unambiguous by the rules clearly defining the phrase, for every specific effect. Wouldn't that be nice...