Hey guys, how do you interpret the "engaged enemy" text on this card? Is it simply referring to any enemy engaged with any player, or is it implicitly referring to an enemy specifically engaged with whoever plays the card? I think I know the answer, but I've been wrong before - the text on some of these cards can be tricky.

It's because you can declare a defender against an enemy engaged with you or, if the hero is sentinel (or through another card effect) and is declared against an enemy engaged with another player.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but I always like hearing from others. (I had leadership hero Gimli in mind while looking at this card). Well, cool, thank you for your response.

You can additionally declare a defender against attacks from enemies the staging area .. here the card does not work

You can additionally declare a defender against attacks from enemies the staging area .. here the card does not work

You can additionally declare a defender against attacks from enemies the staging area .. here the card does not work

and thankfully, i believe that every enemy that stays in the staging area with the effect 'is considered to be engaged with all players' is also 'immune to player card effects'

Not quite:

http://hallofbeorn.com/LotR/Details/Durin's-Bane-SaF

http://hallofbeorn.com/LotR/Details/Lurker-of-the-Depths-TRoB

ah, i haven't played Ruins of Belegost (the POD stuff is rather difficult to obtain here in NZ)

and i suppose i was misremembering Durin's Bane with The Balrog, which is odd because i knew that that card is why Feint received an erratum

so i suppose that being said, i have a feeling that Terrible to Behold fails against them because they already in the staging and therefore cannot 'return' (and subsequently, the attack does not cancel), but i could see it both ways 'still try to resolve in full, if able' and all that

I would have thought that the card is either not playable or simply does nothing against such enemies. I can't decide which.

It uses the word "Then", so if you can't resolve the first part, you can't resolve the second part. It's certainly playable against enemies that are "considered to be engaged": FAQ entry 1.50 makes it quite clear that if an enemy is considered to be engaged, it triggers effects that say "if an enemy is engaged with you", but it does NOT trigger effects that say "when/after an enemy engages you / you engage an enemy".

So this card can trigger; the question is whether you can "return [an] enemy to the staging area" when that enemy was already in the staging area, and merely considered to be engaged with you. And I'd agree with dr00 that you cannot "return" something to the place where it already is. Therefore, the part before the word "Then" cannot be resolved, and so the part after the word "Then" does not resolve either. And so this card is legal to play against enemies that are considered to be engaged with players, but it whiffs against them, so playing it would be merely a waste of a Leadership resource.

EDIT: I accidentally typed "And I'd agree with dr00 that you can "return" something to the place where it already is" when I meant that you cannot return something to the place where it already is. I've updated the paragraph above to be what I really meant.

Huh, I didn't even consider the effect, if any, it might have on enemies like these. My thanks goes to dr00 and Seastan for bringing it into question.

It uses the word "Then", so if you can't resolve the first part, you can't resolve the second part. It's certainly playable against enemies that are "considered to be engaged": FAQ entry 1.50 makes it quite clear that if an enemy is considered to be engaged, it triggers effects that say "if an enemy is engaged with you", but it does NOT trigger effects that say "when/after an enemy engages you / you engage an enemy".

So this card can trigger; the question is whether you can "return [an] enemy to the staging area" when that enemy was already in the staging area, and merely considered to be engaged with you. And I'd agree with dr00 that you can "return" something to the place where it already is. Therefore, the part before the word "Then" cannot be resolved, and so the part after the word "Then" does not resolve either. And so this card is legal to play against enemies that are considered to be engaged with players, but it whiffs against them, so playing it would be merely a waste of a Leadership resource.

...and to rmunn for this great argument. So, by FAQ, the effect preceding the word "then" needs to resolve successfully before the attack will cancel. But while the intended result of the effect is essentially achieved, the effect itself doesn't appear to resolve successfully in the sense of an action being carried through. Yeah, I can accept that. Better to play it this way to keep on the safe side, right?

Can you play cards whose effects do nothing in LOTR? I don't think its explicitly not allowed like in Arkham.

Yep, you can We are not idle without any dwarf character to just draw a card.

You can do that because X is allowed to be 0 (We Are Not Idle says "Exhaust X dwarves). You're not allowed to, say, play Flame of Anor if you don't have an exhausted Istari to ready, or trigger Boromir's action to raise your threat if he is not exhausted.