I was playing The Steward's Fear tonight as I'm trying to go back through all the scenarios giving them a once over with some newer decks. It was almost like playing blind again since it has been so long.

That aside the main question is how does Cirdan work with Local trouble?

The card states every time he triggers an ability increase threat by 1 as one of the clauses.

Does this trigger off his Forced: effect?

I played it as it does which made it particularly painful but I'm not sure if forced counts as 'triggered' for the sake of Local Troubles. I know it does not trigger off the passive due to the FAQ stating: " Because passive abilities don’t have a trigger they are always active and cannot be “triggered”. "

I would hesitantly say no it doesn't trigger. I think that a triggered ability would be an Action or Response , but don't quote me on this.

Local Trouble:: Counts as a Condition attachment with the text: "When attached hero exhausts, readies, or triggers an ability, raise its controller's threat by 1."

Cirdan:: Draw 1 additional card at the beginning of the resource phase.
Forced : After drawing cards at the beginning of the resource phase, choose and discard 1 of those cards.

Passives aren't triggered effects/abilities and aren't triggered, so the passive doesn't raise your threat.

But the Forced is a triggered ability. This leaves a question of what is meant by the 'hero triggering an ability'?? It is strange wording because Actions/Responses aren't triggered by the card they are on, they are triggered by their controller (or occasionally other authorized players). While Forced effects seem to be triggered by the game.

So, does it mean 1) a triggered ability on that hero is triggered? OR 2) that hero has one of their abilities triggered by the controller and/or other authorized party)?

I suspect the intent was closer to (2) and that you are intended to take threat for using effects where you do have a choice, and so would not condemn anyone for taking this position. But the rules lawyer in me prefers version (1) and I would argue for it in any game I was playing.

I think the question isn't entirely whether the forced effect is triggered, as whether the forced effect is an "ability". It's not an ability IMO, it's a drawback of playing Cirdan or SpGlorfindel.

The faq alludes to Action and Response being triggers but nothing about forced in section: ( 1.36) Triggered abilities vs. Passive abilities Triggered abilities are abilities on cards that have a bold trigger word such as Action or Response.

I've looked a little closer and found the line: (1.09) Forced Responses Forced responses resolve immediately when their specified prerequisite occurs, and before any response effects that also can be triggered off the same prerequisite.

So I guess that answers the fact that a Forced effect is 'triggered' here but does this count as an ability? I'm coming up blank looking at the faq or the rulebook for a definition of 'ability'. Anyone got any insight on that one?

As dalestephenson says, I think that might solve the issue. If SpGlordindel and Cirdan's Forced effects count as abilities then Trouble afflicts them. If they aren't abilities then they are safe.

I feel like Forced effects are a bit like passive effects. They aren't always there but it isn't something like Galadriel actively doing something to lower your threat and draw. It's like having a passive ability that only happens when certain conditions are fulfilled. From the thematic standpoint I would say that Forced effects don't count, just because the card I think is supposed to represent the character attracting attention when they do things. From this view it would seem that a Forced ability wouldn't trigger Local Trouble.

I think it's an ability and gets triggered by Local Trouble.

Sounds like there's enough disagreement here to make it worth sending a query into the developers.

5 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

I think the question isn't entirely whether the forced effect is triggered, as whether the forced effect is an "ability". It's not an ability IMO, it's a drawback of playing Cirdan or SpGlorfindel.

This is fairly subjective and while the developers might rule that Local Trouble does not trigger from Cirdan's Forced effect, I do not think stating it being a drawback is a good justification. It's a benefit in the case of Elven-light, or Lords of the Eldar, or other such cards so if those were the cards I discarded, would it suddenly become an ability, because it is no longer a drawback, and trigger Local Trouble's effect?

I feel like there are quite a few cards that have drawbacks that can be turned into helpful abilities. This wouldn't make it an ability it would still be a drawback, you just happen to be playing in such a way that it is useful. For example hero Erestor, the draw back is quite helpful if you are playing an elf deck.

2 hours ago, Davachido said:

So I guess that answers the fact that a Forced effect is 'triggered' here but does this count as an ability? I'm coming up blank looking at the faq or the rulebook for a definition of 'ability'. Anyone got any insight on that one?

Quote

Q. If I cancel the Shadow effect on a card dealt to the Nazgûl of Dol Guldur (CORE 102), is the effect still considered to have resolved, making me discard a character?

A: No. Resolving an effect means that the effect triggered and resolved to the fullest extent possible. Canceling the effect will prevent the Nazgûl of Dol Guldur’s ability from triggering, just as if the card had no Shadow effect to begin with.

10 minutes ago, Watcher in the Water said:

I feel like there are quite a few cards that have drawbacks that can be turned into helpful abilities. This wouldn't make it an ability it would still be a drawback, you just happen to be playing in such a way that it is useful. For example hero Erestor, the draw back is quite helpful if you are playing an elf deck.

Thank you for helping reinforce my point.

What makes you think that discarding cards is inherently bad?

21 minutes ago, cmabr002 said:

This is fairly subjective and while the developers might rule that Local Trouble does not trigger from Cirdan's Forced effect, I do not think stating it being a drawback is a good justification. It's a benefit in the case of Elven-light, or Lords of the Eldar, or other such cards so if those were the cards I discarded, would it suddenly become an ability, because it is no longer a drawback, and trigger Local Trouble's effect?

Yes, whether it's a drawback or no depends on context. I suppose you could find scenarios where the force effects on SpGlorfindel, core Gandalf, Escort of Edoras, Winged Guardian, Vassal of the Windlord, and so forth can be made to work in your favor--but I still think of them as "costs" rather than "abilities". Ability's sense in English is "the means or skill to do something", while all the forced effects seem to me to be not something that the Hero or Ally does, rather something that is done to them.

Having said that, the rules on page 8 under Game Text say "The special abilities unique to this particular card," which I suppose would argue in favor of these forced effects, which are definitely triggered, falling under "ability".

And having proceeded done that rabbit hole, I would point out that that description not only applies to hero cards, but ally, attachment, and event cards as well. Would Local trouble also kick if Cirdan has an Elven Harp attached and the response is used? How about if an Honour Guard prevents him from taking damage?

Thankfully, Local Trouble itself doesn't include the "Forced:" keyword in its attachment description, or it could conceivably be argued to trigger *itself* whenever it triggers, instantly ending the game as the threat ratchets up automatically to 50...

2 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

Would Local trouble also kick if Cirdan has an Elven Harp attaches and the response is used? How about if an Honour Guard prevents him from taking damage?

For that matter, what if the hero triggers an ability of some other card. For example Wrapped! You exhaust the hero with Local Trouble on it to get rid of Wrapped! Does local trouble trigger?

5 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

And having proceeded done that rabbit hole, I would point out that that description not only applies to hero cards, but ally, attachment, and event cards as well. Would Local trouble also kick if Cirdan has an Elven Harp attaches and the response is used? How about if an Honour Guard prevents him from taking damage?

I do not think attachments would trigger it, nor Honour Guard. So let me quote what RichardPlunkett said, because I think he has it spot on.

16 hours ago, RichardPlunkett said:

Local Trouble:: Counts as a Condition attachment with the text: "When attached hero exhausts, readies, or triggers an ability, raise its controller's threat by 1."

Cirdan:: Draw 1 additional card at the beginning of the resource phase.
Forced : After drawing cards at the beginning of the resource phase, choose and discard 1 of those cards.

Passives aren't triggered effects/abilities and aren't triggered, so the passive doesn't raise your threat.

But the Forced is a triggered ability. This leaves a question of what is meant by the 'hero triggering an ability'?? It is strange wording because Actions/Responses aren't triggered by the card they are on, they are triggered by their controller (or occasionally other authorized players). While Forced effects seem to be triggered by the game.

So, does it mean 1) a triggered ability on that hero is triggered? OR 2) that hero has one of their abilities triggered by the controller and/or other authorized party)?

I suspect the intent was closer to (2) and that you are intended to take threat for using effects where you do have a choice, and so would not condemn anyone for taking this position. But the rules lawyer in me prefers version (1) and I would argue for it in any game I was playing.

Basically, if the designers say it is intended to be #2 of his interpretation, it is perfectly fine justification, though I agree with him I would push for #1 without asking the developers. Neither of these interpretations allow Honour Guard or attachments to activate Local Trouble's effect.

The rule book does describe the Game Text portion of enemies/locations/treacheries as "The special abilities unique to this particular card when it is in play". Now, in the case of the Nazgul, it's easy to see his Forced: text as an ability, because it benefits him. If it instead said he takes 1 damage whenever a shadow resolved, I wouldn't like calling it an ability, though it certainly may be so for game purposes.

Bonus question -- when the Nazgul's forced effect happens, did *he* trigger that forced response? It's his ability, but it's actually the shadow card triggering.

By that reasoning, SpGlorfindel's Forced actually is triggered by SpGlorfindel (specifically by him exhausting to quest), but Cirdan's forced is not triggered *by Cirdan*, it is triggered by drawing cards in the resource phase. Since Local Trouble specifically says "attached hero ... triggers an ability", it follows that only Actions, Responses, and enemy Forceds that are triggered *by the hero* should trigger Local Trouble. (I do doubt this was the intent of the card.)

9 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

Bonus question -- when the Nazgul's forced effect happens, did *he* trigger that forced response? It's his ability, but it's actually the shadow card triggering.

I don't think anyone/anything triggers Forced effects. They simply are triggered once a specified prerequisite is met. That's why I think the wording on Local Trouble saying "When attached hero...triggers an ability" is poor because heroes don't trigger Actions or Responses on themselves. The player controlling them does. If RichardPlunkett's first interpretation is correct, it should have been worded something more like this:

"When attached hero exhausts, readies, or has its game text triggered..."

E

13 minutes ago, cmabr002 said:

I do not think attachments would trigger it, nor Honour Guard. So let me quote what RichardPlunkett said, because I think he has it spot on.

Basically, if the designers say it is intended to be #2 of his interpretation, it is perfectly fine justification, though I agree with him I would push for #1 without asking the developers. Neither of these interpretations allow Honour Guard or attachments to activate Local Trouble's effect.

#1) A Triggered ability on that hero is triggered

#2) Hero has one of their abilities triggered by a player.

Local Trouble: "When attached hero .. triggers an ability"

If we agree that bolded Forced, Action, Response are abilities, then the *literal* reading of Local Trouble would not be either #1 or #2, because it doesn't say "on that hero" or "one of their abilities". Are you excluding Honour Guard because you think that wasn't intended, or do you think it can be excluded when literally read?

5 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

E

#1) A Triggered ability on that hero is triggered

#2) Hero has one of their abilities triggered by a player.

Local Trouble: "When attached hero .. triggers an ability"

If we agree that bolded Forced, Action, Response are abilities, then the *literal* reading of Local Trouble would not be either #1 or #2, because it doesn't say "on that hero" or "one of their abilities". Are you excluding Honour Guard because you think that wasn't intended, or do you think it can be excluded when literally read?

I agree Forced effects/Actions/Response are abilities. I think a literal reading of Local Trouble is incorrect, however.

In my post just before this one, I rewrote how I think Local Trouble was intended to be written which explains why I do not think Local Trouble would activate if Honour Guard or attachments attached to the hero did anything.

4 minutes ago, cmabr002 said:

I don't think anyone/anything triggers Forced effects. They simply are triggered once a specified prerequisite is met. That's why I think the wording on Local Trouble saying "When attached hero...triggers an ability" is poor because heroes don't trigger Actions or Responses on themselves. The player controlling them does. If RichardPlunkett's first interpretation is correct, it should have been worded something more like this:

"When attached hero exhausts, readies, or has its game text triggered..."

If his second interpretation is correct, it should have been worded something more like this: "When attached hero exhausts, readies, or has its game text triggered by the player." However, when a forced effect is triggered "once a specified prerequisite is met", then the prerequisite is, in fact, triggering a forced effect. In the case of SpGlorfindel, how is he not triggering his forced effect? IMO, *only* SpGlorfindel can trigger his forced effect.

From the FAQ:

"(1.08) Responses per Trigger If a response or forced response is triggered, the effect can only occur once per trigger."

8 minutes ago, cmabr002 said:

I agree Forced effects/Actions/Response are abilities. I think a literal reading of Local Trouble is incorrect, however.

In my post just before this one, I rewrote how I think Local Trouble was intended to be written which explains why I do not think Local Trouble would activate if Honour Guard or attachments attached to the hero did anything.

I agree with you that a literal reading of Local Trouble is "incorrect" with respect to its *intended* behavior. However, because we have absolute no way of knowing whether the designers *intended* Local Trouble to trigger for SpGlorfindel or Cirdan's "abilities", I don't think we can argue that it should or should not trigger *based on intent*. We have no way of knowing.

If we ignored intent and go by a literal reading, (which is what we generally do in this forum) then the wording of Local Trouble means that a whole lot of hero abilities *don't* trigger it, and a whole lot of non-hero cards might.

I don't see how any reading of Local Trouble could make you think a non-hero card would count.

It seems fairly clear that Forced effects on a hero would cause you to raise threat, but if you aren't convinced you should ask the designer.

12 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

I agree with you that a literal reading of Local Trouble is "incorrect" with respect to its *intended* behavior. However, because we have absolute no way of knowing whether the designers *intended* Local Trouble to trigger for SpGlorfindel or Cirdan's "abilities", I don't think we can argue that it should or should not trigger *based on intent*. We have no way of knowing.

Yeah that's fair. I think the only two possible interpretations are what RichardPlunkett mentioned though. One interpretation says it does activate Local Trouble and the other says it does not.

I agree with the two interpretations that Richardplunkett suggested earlier, leaning more on the side that it does trigger after this interesting dicussion. I've sent a message through the rules questions form if that's the correct way to get an official answer I'm not sure. I'll post here again when I get a reply.