1 hour ago, sappidus said:

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like what you're doing is:

1. Choosing a list of characters you're committing with ahead of time.

2. Iterating through the list, committing each character individually as it comes up, and for each time a Response is relevant, doing it right then.

This is not unreasonable. But, it is not what the rules say to do.

To me, it is somewhat akin to people discarding shadow cards immediately after the enemy attack resolves. They learned the game doing it that way, 99% of the time it doesn't affect anything compared to the Correct Way, so why bother changing? That's anyone's prerogative, but they should know that it does occasionally have a functional effect.

I think you are wrong.

1. is ok

2. Send everyone ON THE SAME TIME questing.

3. Resolve a trigger among them, and if occur, any response forced of continous effect linked (like: give a resource with Theodred and immediatly do Heir of Mardil on the selected character)

4. Resolve another trigger (like, now resolve Aragorn with Theodred resource)

....

8 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

I  think  you are wrong.  

You have misread my post, I fear. I was stating that what I listed was @player3351457 's process, which I then went on to point out is not what the rules say to do.

You have indeed listed out the proper sequence.

1 hour ago, Rouxxor said:

I think you are wrong.

1. is ok

2. Send everyone ON THE SAME TIME questing.

3. Resolve a trigger among them, and if occur, any response forced of continous effect linked (like: give a resource with Theodred and immediatly do Heir of Mardil on the selected character)

4. Resolve another trigger (like, now resolve Aragorn with Theodred resource)

....

Okay that's roughly how I play it, but then that locks in the idea that the northern trackers put one progress on each location, one at a time.

3 hours ago, Alonewolf87 said:

I always thought I had to use a Response as soon as possible after the triggering event and if I pass up the opportunity I can't do it later on. Like for example if Player A (which is the first player) commits his characters to the quest amongs which there are some Northern Trackers I have to use their response straight after I send them to the quest, if I pass it up and let Player B commit his characters to the quest, which again can have some Northern Trackers amongst his allies I can't for example activate the Responses from the Northern Trackers of Player A and Player B all one after another in a big block.

You are correct that responses must be done ASAP after being triggered, but the cannot be resolved simultaneously. That makes things like this legal:

2 hours ago, player3351457 said:

Couldnt you commit theodred, trigger, get resource for aragorn, then commit aragorn, then trigger his response? That's kind of how I played it.

Yes, you could. Even though the characters are committed simultaneously, you must chose the order of the resulting responses.

Hey, quick question about WoR Bard and Wild Stallion. If the stallion is attached to an ally, can Bard send the stallion back to your hand when if the ally leaves play?

23 hours ago, billythebalor said:

Hey, quick question about WoR Bard and Wild Stallion. If the stallion is attached to an ally, can Bard send the stallion back to your hand when if the ally leaves play?

Yupyup. Forgot to post this ruling before, but now I put it here:

If you play Mithrandir's Advice from the top of your deck with hero Gandalf, does he count towards your heroes with a printed lore icon?

6 hours ago, player3351457 said:

If you play Mithrandir's Advice from the top of your deck with hero Gandalf, does he count towards your heroes with a printed lore icon?

I would definitely say yes, almost in the same vein of how you can play A Burning Brand on him when you play it from the top of the deck

There is a difference between A burning brand and Mithrandir's advice : Mithrandir's advice need a printed lore icon.

But Gandalf is considered to have a printed lore icon when playing the card, so yes, I think its works

3 hours ago, Miceldars said:

There is a difference between A burning brand and Mithrandir's advice : Mithrandir's advice need a printed lore icon.  

Yeah, that's why I sail "almost". Gandalf's effect covers both the more restrictive "printed (X sphere) icon" and the less restrictive "(X sphere) hero" situations, and so forth.

12 hours ago, Miceldars said:

But Gandalf is considered to have a printed lore icon when playing the card, so yes, I think its works

I am just wondering if the "considered" is only for the sake of paying for the card and not playing the card. Like is there a lapse between the payment and the play where gandalf switches from all printed resources back to neutral?

I might also ask about the effects of "considered to be engaged" with dunedain effects. Are they triggered as well, even if enemies are not actually engaged? What about immune enemies that stay in the staging area and are considered to be engaged? I'm thinking about Halbarad and amarthiul.

Gandalf would be considered to have the printed sphere throughout play of the card. That would include paying for it and adding it to the board, resolving its effects, attaching, etc.

Enemies that are "considered to be engaged" would trigger those effects. As for immune enemies, Halbarad hero and Amarthiul would still work; since their abilities affect themselves. Ally Halbarad targets the enemy itself though, so his ability would not function against immune enemies.

If you are in the middle of triggering an effect, but then realize the only way to complete the act is detrimental to you, are you allowed to cut it off mid-action? (My guess is no -- you started it, you finish it).

For example. You play "Open the Armory.", its Valour action, which states to search the top 5 cards of your deck for a weapon or armor and put it into play. You look at the top 5 cards and see that you only have Orcrist, a guarded weapon attachment. Not wanting to trigger the guarded keyword, you forgo putting anything into play, lose Open the Armory card, and just shuffle your deck. Is this allowed? Or is the player committed to putting the weapon into play?

Not allowed.

The rules reference on Search says:

Quote

When a player is instructed to search for a card, the
player is permitted to look at each of the cards in the
searched area.
If the player finds a card that meets the eligibility
requirements being searched for, the player may add
that card to the game area indicated by the instructions
on the search effect.

Since it says "may", you don't seem obliged to do it. On the other hand, it would seem perverse to decline to find e.g. an enemy from the encounter deck if a Treachery tells us to find one, and the rules don't distinguish between Searching for such cards and Searching for player cards, so who knows.

Journey Down the Anduin just got a lot easier if we don't have to place that Troll that we searched for in 1B!

On 2/3/2019 at 6:37 AM, NathanH said:

Since it says "may", you don't seem obliged to do it. On the other hand, it would seem perverse to decline to find e.g. an enemy from the encounter deck if a Treachery tells us to find one, and the rules don't distinguish between Searching for such cards and Searching for player cards, so who knows.

I think for sanity's sake, the "may" in the Search entry can be read as follows: the entry is providing an algorithm for executing the search instruction. "If the player finds a card that matches… the player may add…" is saying: add said card to the set of valid ways to resolve the effect, but you can keep searching. (Thus the "may", which prevents the player from being forced to resolve the effect using the first card found.)

Once you have searched all the relevant areas, though, you still must resolve the effect, if possible.

3 hours ago, sappidus said:

I think for sanity's sake, the "may" in the Search entry can be read as follows: the entry is providing an algorithm for executing the search instruction. "If the player finds a card that matches… the player may add…" is saying: add said card to the set of valid ways to resolve the effect, but you can keep searching. (Thus the "may", which prevents the player from being forced to resolve the effect using the first card found.)

Once you have searched all the relevant areas, though, you still must resolve the effect, if possible.

Well then now this gives rise to another issue. I think may should imply optionality. I think may in the instruction manual implies something different than the may of a player card. For example, last night we played Ithilian Lookout. The response is to look at the top card. If it's an enemy, you may discard it. We didnt want to discard the enemy in question, but we did want to look at the top card. I think it was a legal move.

Perhaps the instructions should say "...instructed to search for a PLAYER card..." but then we return to my original question about being forced to play a guarded card.

1 hour ago, player3351457 said:

Well  then now this gives rise to another issue. I think may should  imply optionality. I think may in the instruction manual implies something different than the may of a player card.   

I think this is precisely the heart of the issue: "may" in the RR is not necessarily the same as may in card text.

This applies to all words—another example is "reveal"/ reveal . In RR Staging , "reveal" shows up in the RR as part of the explanation of Staging step #1 to denote the simple act of turning the card face-up. But this is a slightly different use than when reveal shows up in card text, which is also defined in the RR. Confusing at times, but probably inevitable when you're using English words to explain rules text which is also in English.

(Your play with Ithilien Lookout is indeed how the card is intended to work.)

On 2/2/2019 at 6:08 PM, player3351457 said:

For example. You play "Open the Armory.", its Valour action...

It always looks weird to have British English and American English mixed on one card.

If you exhaust O'Lorien and THEN plan Man the walls, do you get to play a 2 cost silvan ally for free?

I'd say O Lorien's minimum one restriction references the extent of its own effect and does not affect the ally's cost itself. So yes, in my book.

I think a similar question has been asked before and the official answer was that combining "reduce to a minimum of 1" and "reduce to a minimum of 0" can get you to 0.

Reference ruling:

Of ancillary interest, as I do not believe this has been reproduced on the forum before (this was shared on Discord in 10/2017):

When you play an ally with Hirgon's ability, his reduction has to be applied first because it is part of his effect. That works out nicely for [Spirit] Theoden since reduction (to a minimum of 0) is then applied after.

Cheers, Caleb

Idle curiosity, for the sake of Inspiring Presence I guess I should consider the threat cost of any ally that somehow got the hero type (Sword-Thain, SpImrahil, Thalion etc...) as 0 correct?