Hero Saruman's effect states that any time a player card effect would reduce your threat by any amount, that amount is reduced to 1. Pillars of the Kings says to set your threat level equal to 40. So what would happen if I'm playing Saruman and my threat is 48 and I play Pillars of the Kings? Does my threat become 40, or does the game somehow recognize that in this case my threat is being reduced and so it would only be reduced by 1 to become 47 threat?

My gut tells me that setting is fundamentally different from reducing , so it would still be set to 40. After all, I'm not reducing my threat by any fixed amount. However I also recognize that this may break the way Saruman is meant to be played, so I figured I'd check :)

Page 11 of the online rules reference on Modifiers :

"If a value is “set” to a specific number, the set modifier overrides all non-set modifiers. If multiple set modifiers are in conflict, the most recently resolved set modifier takes precedence."

Saruman's ability is not a set modifier so you should be able to use Pillars of the Kings to set your threat to 40.

EDIT: Naive of me to think what's written the the actual rulebooks matters at this point in the game.

I think that Saruman will interact unfavourably with the card. I think it's clear that in your example that the card is reducing your threat. The reason is on the card itself - you get an extra effect if the card raises your threat. If the card can raise your threat, then it can also reduce it.

Presumably the reason the word reduce isn't on the card is because it can do either, unlike other similar cards that set threat to certain amounts.

8 hours ago, Fantasty said:

My gut tells me that setting is fundamentally different from reducing , so it would still be set to 40. After all, I'm not reducing my threat by any fixed amount. However I also recognize that this may break the way Saruman is meant to be played, so I figured I'd check 🙂

I am pretty sure Caleb has already ruled that Pillar of Kings setting your threat down from 4X to 40 is still considered "threat reduction", so it won't work well with Saruman

4 hours ago, Alonewolf87 said:

I am pretty sure Caleb has already ruled that Pillar of Kings setting your threat down from 4X to 40 is still considered "threat reduction", so it won't work well with Saruman

Indeed, there is this ruling:

As Ramshackle Manor and hero Saruman have essentially identical wording re: threat reduction, the OP's attempt to get around Saruman's drawback won't work.

Aww too bad, well thanks for the answers anyway, it does make thematic sense for it to not work as well

Normally in this game you have to carefully read the cards like whether an encounter card is revealed or just added, whether a card is played or put into play or whether a card is drawn or added to the hand. But in this case setting and reducing are the same.

This would fundamentally break the scenario The Black Gates if set was ruled to be not a (possibly) reducing function. The reason for the ambiguity is the possibility of it being a reduction or a raise of threat, all encompassed in the word "set." In an opposite effect, I believe that Song of Earendil would also be triggered after resolving this card, if your threat went up.

22 hours ago, stimpaksam said:

Page 11 of the online rules reference on Modifiers :

"If a value is “set” to a specific number, the set modifier overrides all non-set modifiers. If multiple set modifiers are in conflict, the most recently resolved set modifier takes precedence."

Saruman's ability is not a set modifier so you should be able to use Pillars of the Kings to set your threat to 40.

EDIT: Naive of me to think what's written the the actual rulebooks matters at this point in the game.

While you're certainly right that it's very hard to keep track of all the rulings (and ruling reversals), in this instance it's just that you picked a passage not related to the question. That line you quoted instructs you how to play when multiple instances of the word "set" are being used. It doesn't do anything else. In other words, it's just irrelevant to the question (which was" does "set" count as "reduce").