What if you pull this guy with a Dunedain Hunter or Wait No More? When his Forced effect fires, is he engaged with the Hunter'ing player? In the staging area? Both simultaneously?

I say he doesn't,t make an attack because he doesn't go through the staging area with the Dunedain Hunter.

Can an enemy make an 'attack from the staging area', even though it isn't there?

A tough question, but I think the answer is yes. I can see an argument for it fizzling since you are in the wrong spot, but I am not convinced.

As weak supportive evidence, I offer that the card text could have said something like ".. makes an immediate attack against the first player if it is in the staging area." ,or ".. from the staging area if it is there", etc.

As other weak supportive evidence, teh FAQ/Caleb tend to pick the nastiest interpretation they can justify.

6 hours ago, RichardPlunkett said:

As other weak supportive evidence, teh FAQ/Caleb tend to pick the nastiest interpretation they can justify.

Overall, I would agree with that statement and say that the Forced effect on this enemy should allow for an attack upon entering play, whether it be from the staging area or from an engaged state. The Forced effect says "When Haradrim Elite enters play"...it is not limited to triggering when it is revealed from the Encounter deck.

Without an 'official' answer, I think there's two ways the second part of the Forced effect could be interpreted:

1) The Forced effect of the Dunedain Hunter brings the Haradrim Elite into play engaged with the controlling player. The Forced effect on the Haradrim Elite then triggers, sending the Haradrim back to the staging area where it then makes an immediate attack against the first player. The Haradrim would then remain in the staging area since the Dunedain's Forced effect had already resolved.

2) You work with the assumption that this effect is assuming most enemies enter play by being revealed and added to the staging area and the important part is that they make an immediate free attack, not necessarily that it is made from the staging area. So you could essentially ignore the words "from the staging area" and read it as "When Haradrim Elite enters play, it makes an immediate attack against the first player". The Haradrim would then make an attack against the first player, but also remain engaged with the player controlling the Dunedain Hunter.

Either way, I agree that the favor usually goes to the Encounter deck when there is uncertainty and that the Haradrim should get an immediate attack upon entering play.

Worst interpretation possible aside, I don't see how it can make an attack from the staging area if it is not in the staging area. If the intent was merely for the Haradrim Elite to make an attack on the first player when it enters play, it could've said that without the "from the staging area" qualifier. To what point does the qualifier exist if it is meant only to be ignored?

3 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

Worst interpretation possible aside, I don't see how it can make an attack from the staging area if it is not in the staging area. If the intent was merely for the Haradrim Elite to make an attack on the first player when it enters play, it could've said that without the "from the staging area" qualifier. To what point does the qualifier exist if it is meant only to be ignored?

Caleb's unusually lengthy response contributes some historical perspective...

Haradrim Elite was written to explain its effect at a time before Dunedain Hunter existed. Around the time that Heirs of Numenor was released, the design team was receiving questions about enemies that made immediate attacks as part of their 'when revealed' effects. Players wanted to know: 'Does this mean it engages me?' The answer was always: 'No, not unless its text says it engages you first.' But the questions kept coming, so the Haradrim Elite received an extra bit of text to clarify that it attacked 'from the staging area.' Unfortunately, that bit clarification complicated how it interacts with the player cards you mentioned, but it's really not that bad: the enemy will still make an attack, since it has entered play. It is still engaged with you, since nothing explicitly says to move it anywhere else, but its attack will be considered to come from the staging area.

The last part is similar to an enemy that is in the staging area but is considered to be engaged with a player. For the duration of the attack, the Haradrim Elite is still engaged with you, but considered to be in the staging area. That may or may not make a difference depending on what card effects are active, but that's how it will resolve.

Cheers,
Caleb

So we can shoot it with Hands Upon The Bow!?

45 minutes ago, NathanH said:

So we can shoot it with Hands Upon The Bow!?

I don't think so, since it's not actually in the staging area, just "attacking" from there. I'm actually not sure if there are any cards for which it will matter that the attack comes from the staging area, since cards usually care about where the enemy is, not where the attack originated from.

Caleb said, "For the duration of the attack, the Haradrim Elite is ... considered to be in the staging area." That should make it a legal target for Hands Upon the Bow and Hail of Stones.

1 hour ago, dalestephenson said:

Caleb said, "For the duration of the attack, the Haradrim Elite is ... considered to be in the staging area." That should make it a legal target for Hands Upon the Bow and Hail of Stones.

Huh, I misread that last paragraph. I think you're right!

11 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

Worst interpretation possible aside, I don't see how it can make an attack from the staging area if it is not in the staging area. If the intent was merely for the Haradrim Elite to make an attack on the first player when it enters play, it could've said that without the "from the staging area" qualifier. To what point does the qualifier exist if it is meant only to be ignored?

Even if my original post was the worst interpretation possible (which it clearly wasn't based on Caleb's quote), I don't think this was a fair response. I've been playing the game for a year now and I was really excited about getting more involved in the LOTR LCG community. This was my first time posting on any kind of gaming forum and this was really discouraging to read and kind of made me not want to participate more.

That being said, I don't think I was very far off with my second part. I only said you could 'essentially ignore', because I didn't think it would make a difference for the Haradrim to be considered to make the attack from the staging area while also still being engaged. I'm still relatively new to the game and wasn't thinking of all the possible card combinations that might be affected by this.

3 hours ago, jaywana said:

Even if my original post was the worst interpretation possible (which it clearly wasn't based on Caleb's quote), I don't think this was a fair response. I've been playing the game for a year now and I was really excited about getting more involved in the LOTR LCG community. This was my first time posting on any kind of gaming forum and this was really discouraging to read and kind of made me not want to participate more.

That being said, I don't think I was very far off with my second part. I only said you could 'essentially ignore', because I didn't think it would make a difference for the Haradrim to be considered to make the attack from the staging area while also still being engaged. I'm still relatively new to the game and wasn't thinking of all the possible card combinations that might be affected by this.

I want you to re-read some posts because it might remove the feeling that you're being targeted. Go back to dale's post, then read RichardPlunkett's post two steps above that, in which he mentions the 'nastiest interpetation possible.' Then skip your own post and re-read dale's post (the one that you quoted). Because I don't think dale was responding to you, but rather to Richard. So "worst interpretation ever" was not meant as a Simpson's Comic Book Guy "Worst. Interpretation. Ever." but rather as a reference to what Richard mentioned: often the "hardest" interpretation is the one the designers choose.

Beyond that I see no personal attack, and nothing that should have prompted you to write that the reply was "discourarging" and made you not want to participate more, so I assume that the "worst interpretation ever" part was what you took issue with.

We're a generally polite community. Probably this was a misunderstanding.

Sorry jaywana, I wasn't criticizing your analysis, I was just acknowledging the common sentiment that whatever's worst for the players is the way the ruling is likely to come down. My apologies for being unclear.

Thank you GrandSpleen and dale for clearing that up. I apologize for ironically making the worst possible interpretation of your post dale and making a fool of myself in the process. Again, I apologize for assuming the worst.