4 hours ago, MikeGracey said:

It is a question that has been answered in multiple places (for example, the new hero smeagol has rules that say he can't be used in the shadows of Mirkwood cycle due to... You guessed it. Uniqueness clashes).

I understand the Smeagol case, and you keep seeming to reference it as the rule in this situation, which is: "Players are not allowed to run a unique character that appears in the encounter deck as an objective ally." But, to be technical (as one probably should with any rules question), this is not the general rule, as the Smeagol case is a particular exception to that. The general rule that has long existed is that if the Encounter deck reveals a unique card that is already in play as a player card, that player card is discarded.

The rules completely allow (as far as I've always been aware) for a player to run Grimbeorn the Old during the Conflict at the Carrock, even though Grimbeorn the Old also exists as an Objective-Ally in that Quest's encounter deck. There's just a risk that, IF Grimbeorn the Old reveals form the Encounter deck--which isn't terribly likely in 1-Handed and can be avoided entirely through effects that scrye the Encounter deck like Firyal, Lorethor, Scout Ahead, etc.--the player must discard Grimbeorn the hero. This is how it has always worked for these sorts of cases (Smeagol's special rules in ASITE exist presumably because he's especially thematically weird to have running around as a primary hero in the Mirkwood cycle since the players are supposed to be trying to find him during the entire Mirkwood cycle, and he already starts in play in 33% of the quests as an Encounter card). So the Smeagol ruling you keep referring as the "answer" to this question is not, in fact, the answer to this question. It's only an answer to the question "Can I run Smeagol in Mirkwood?" It has no bearing on the general form of this question: "What happens if the encounter deck reveals a unique card that is already in play as a player card?" And we already know the answer to that question.

We know how the rules work with unique objective-ally cards like Grimbeorn: If the character enters play from the Encounter Deck, it discards any other player card copy of the character (hero or ally). So if Objective-Ally Gwaihir character enters play, Gwaihir Hero or Ally would be discarded immediately. But Gwaihir is an odd case, because his When Revealed effect has an option that immediately discards him for an effect ... and the big question is if the players choose that option, does Objective-Ally Gwaihir Character enter play? Or does the character not enter play? Subtle timing of things, especially those involving "revealing" cards, is not a clear-cut issue.

I can only wonder why would you run Gwaihir, or Grimbeorn, or whoever in a quest where they are present already. Its not just about your deck; its about the quest as well. The designers didn't insert cool objective allies into quests so that we can ignore them, or worse, try find ways to discard them.

Theres enough terrible cards in the deck, why get rid of one that helps you...

When a quest is designed with certain objective allies, the designers expect you to use them properly because they are part of the quest.

Btw I only mentioned Smeogol to you once... As 1 example. Heres more.

3 unique Harad allies in long arm of mordor

One ring in campaign

Faramir in Blood of Gondor

Amarthiul in Treachery of Rhudar

If Gwaihir or Grimboern or whoever is you're favorite hero, then you're going to want to run them as much as possible. Especially in the campaign if you give him permanent boons.

12 hours ago, RogueSeventeen said:

If Gwaihir or Grimboern or whoever is you're favorite hero, then you're going to want to run them as much as possible. Especially in the campaign if you give him permanent boons.

So you have to options.

1. Play by the rules of the game.

In this case, even if its your favorite hero, you gotta find a different one to avoid uniqueness clashes. Sure its your favorite but as I previously mentioned in this thread, theres over 100 heros. Just find another one. Trust me, it will be fine.

2. Disregard the rules.

Hey its your game, if in your own private game you wanna run a uniqueness clash, no one is going to stop you! Go for it. However, if you play in a public setting (Con of the Rings) disregarding rules is generally frowned upon.

Hey guys I know this is a heated discussion, but i would like some clarity...

A unique encounter ally that appears that happens to have the same name as a character you have in play forces the discard of the already in play character, right?

I think this question needs to be asked-- I like bringing gildor in my Gandalf/vilya decks but my sister chose the gildor boon for saga play. I would still like to bring him as an ally and I still think discarding him after a couple of uses makes him worth it... also running the risky play that gildor might not show at all.

9 minutes ago, player3351457 said:

A unique encounter ally that appears that happens to have the same name as a character you have in play forces the discard of the already in play character, right?

I think this question needs to be asked-- I like bringing gildor in my Gandalf/vilya decks but my sister chose the gildor boon for saga play. I would still like to bring him as an ally and I still think discarding him after a couple of uses makes him worth it... also running the risky play that gildor might not show at all.

This is correct. Strategically, I think you're also right that Gildor Ally is still worth running. As you note, about the half the time Gildor Objective-Ally probably won't reveal from the Encounter deck (he may be discarded as a Shadow Effect instead or you may not stage through the whole Encounter Deck), and in those cases having Gildor ally still as an option is worth it. Even when Gildor Objective-Ally comes up and discards Gildor-Actual-Ally from play, having Gildor as your chosen Boon is still probably worth it because having a player-card without Surge in the Encounter deck is amazingly powerful -- when Gildor stages, it means you've effectively staged one less card during the Quest, which can be a huge swing for the players. Even then, you can let Gildor Objective-Ally later leave play (sacrificing him to attacks or cards like Bulwark of the West or simply not paying his upkeep) to allow you to again play a copy of Gildor Ally from your deck.

48 minutes ago, MikeGracey said:

So you have to options.

1. Play by the rules of the game.

In this case, even if its your favorite hero, you gotta find a different one to avoid uniqueness clashes. Sure its your favorite but as I previously mentioned in this thread, theres over 100 heros. Just find another one. Trust me, it will be fine.

At this point, I have to wonder if you are trolling. As has now been pointed out a few times in this thread: that is not what the rules of the game actually say . There are no rules that say you cannot choose to run Grimbeorn in Conflict at the Carrock or that you cannot run Gildor during the LotR Saga. Choosing to run those characters means accepting the risk that they may be lost to an Encounter card version of themselves entering play, but it does not violate any game rules. Even the question in the OP recognizes that IF objective Gwaihir enters play it means Hero/Ally Gwaihir must be discarded. The question, instead, is does Objective-Ally Gwaihir "enter play" if the discard option of his When Revealed is chosen by First Player.

Thanks for the help

7 minutes ago, player3351457 said:

Hey guys I know this is a heated discussion, but i would like some clarity...

A unique encounter ally that appears that happens to have the same name as a character you have in play forces the discard of the already in play character, right?

I think this question needs to be asked-- I like bringing gildor in my Gandalf/vilya decks but my sister chose the gildor boon for saga play. I would still like to bring him as an ally and I still think discarding him after a couple of uses makes him worth it... also running the risky play that gildor might not show at all.

I would say that since Gildor is actually present in the quest(since your sister chose him as a boon), the ally (or hero) version of him should not be used during those quests due to the unique clash.

Since you are running Gandalf with Elrond and Vilya (very powerful combo) I would suggest playing the Imladris stargazer instead? Shes thematic (kind of), cheap, and is excellent for setting up Vilya. Gandalfs pipe can set up cards in your hand

10 minutes ago, EBerling said:

At this point, I have to wonder if you are trolling. As has now been pointed out a few times in this thread: that is not what the rules of the game actually say . There are no rules that say you cannot choose to run Grimbeorn in Conflict at the Carrock or that you cannot run Gildor during the LotR Saga. Choosing to run those characters means accepting the risk that they may be lost to an Encounter card version of themselves entering play, but it does not violate any game rules. Even the question in the OP recognizes that IF objective Gwaihir enters play it means Hero/Ally Gwaihir must be discarded. The question, instead, is does Objective-Ally Gwaihir "enter play" if the discard option of his When Revealed is chosen by First Player.

I am only saying that uniqueness clashes should be avoided. Caleb designed the black gate/Mt Doom with Gwaihir as an objective ally and this is part of the quest. So I don't think the hero Gwaihir is meant to be played here, because Caleb designed the quest with him as an ally, and one that is meant to be part of the quest. Bringing that particular hero is clashing with a part of the quests mechanics.

I am not trolling EBerling, I am simply saying that if uniqueness clashes were applied in every game, then Gwaihir is not a legitimate option, but only for Black Gate/Mt Doom. He is free game in any other quest though.

2 hours ago, MikeGracey said:

I am only saying that uniqueness clashes should be avoided.

But that's not "only" what you have been saying. You're expressing your opinion, not the actual rules on the situations in question. Which is fine--I firmly believe that everyone should play this game however they prefer. But you've used this thread to tell people that they are not following the rules (e.g. "Play by the rules of the game"), when really all that you should be claiming is that, in your own opinion , you'd approach certain situations differently. I think that's what causing the points of confusion/tension. Heck, your way of approaching it (avoiding the characters in particular quests) is probably the safest and most rational approach, but other players may have legitimate reasons to want to stick with a particular character(s) in a particular quest despite the risk of losing them to Encounter card versions of themselves.

25 minutes ago, EBerling said:

But that's not "only" what you have been saying. You're expressing your opinion, not the actual rules on the situations in question. Which is fine--I firmly believe that everyone should play this game however they prefer. But you've used this thread to tell people that they are not following the rules (e.g. "Play by the rules of the game"), when really all that you should be claiming is that, in your own opinion , you'd approach certain situations differently. I think that's what causing the points of confusion/tension. Heck, your way of approaching it (avoiding the characters in particular quests) is probably the safest and most rational approach, but other players may have legitimate reasons to want to stick with a particular character(s) in a particular quest despite the risk of losing them to Encounter card versions of themselves.

Let's say you love playing thematically and you enjoy running Grimbeorn and the Beorning subtheme -- there is no more thematic quest in the entire game than Conflict at the Carrock to do so. You could rationalize losing Grimbeorn Hero to his Encounter version as "he's gone into a terrible fit of Bear-Rage and is no longer as reliable or dependable, until you can coax him into calming down and working with the team again (e.g., spend enough Leadership Resources to bring him back to his less animalistic senses). Someone may really want to play Gwaihir in the LotR Saga, especially since giving him Boons like Valiant Warrior and Intimidation are some interesting ways to beef him up, considering in particular that the game's range of non-restricted attachments he can be equipped with are already pretty slim. If a Player wants to run a Gwaihir deck through the entire Saga, recognizing that they might lose him to an Encounter card in the final quest, well what's wrong with that? They still get to use him for 19 of the 20 quests without issues, and again thematically it can be that Gwaihir--being a big wild bird and all--tears off from the group to go help his flock against the enemy. These are just two possibilities off the top of my head--less thematic "One Deck" players might just want to see if they can get a deck using Character X through the quest(s) that said character is a possible encounter card objective-ally, since that will be one hurdle to the One Deck's run since that quest will mean they are down (or might be down) that character for the quest.

Yes you can make a quest work if you create a scenario for yourself, like the examples you mentioned, where you run a character who is already present or in the encounter deck.

Its just that while I can't pull up a specific ruling here, I do believe its more than my opinion. I do agree with you that people should play the game the way they want to and have fun, but I think the uniqueness clash is a legit argument. For example, if you play Celebrians Stone on your hero and I draw my copy, the reason I can't play it is because its already in play and since 2 Celebrians stones don't exist in the world of middle earth, 2 can't possibly be in play. Thats how the game has worked. How can Gwaihir be under your control and come off the encounter deck at the same time? In reality he can't because this game doesn't allow 2 of the same characters to be in play at the same time.

But I know we don't agree that this rule is right and I can't pull out an official document, its just what I know as a long time player of this game. Im a bit of a nerd and probably know every player card off the top of my head. But ultimately it is a game and the aim is to have fun. I don't mean to spoil fun for anyone, I love this game and think its a great community too.

1 minute ago, MikeGracey said:

For example, if you play Celebrians Stone on your hero and I draw my copy, the reason I can't play it is because its already in play and since 2 Celebrians stones don't exist in the world of middle earth, 2 can't possibly be in play. Thats how the game has worked. How can Gwaihir be under your control and come off the encounter deck at the same time?

It's kinda the same thing, just as much as a unique card can be present in two decks at the same table, but only be played if there is not already a copy in play by the same token a card can be both in a player deck and in an encounter deck. If there is a situation in which both the player and encounter version "meet" the encounter deck version by the rules takes precedende.

If you want to go down that road (no unique cards in my deck which I know are copies of cards in an encounter deck) then you should play by taking away the chance to have copies of the same unique card in different decks. Which is definitely a legitimate way to play and you are welcome to do it. Just don't pretend it's the "right" way to play morally or by the actual rules.

21 minutes ago, MikeGracey said:

... since 2 Celebrians stones don't exist in the world of middle earth, 2 can't possibly be in play. Thats how the game has worked. How can Gwaihir be under your control and come off the encounter deck at the same time? In reality he can't because this game doesn't allow 2 of the same characters to be in play at the same time.

I think we're ships passing in the night, at this point. I'm certainly not suggesting that there be two copies of the same unique card in play at the same time. The rules most assuredly do not allow for that. But, again, that's not and has never been the question being asked here.

59 minutes ago, Alonewolf87 said:

It's kinda the same thing, just as much as a unique card can be present in two decks at the same table, but only be played if there is not already a copy in play by the same token a card can be both in a player deck and in an encounter deck. If there is a situation in which both the player and encounter version "meet" the encounter deck version by the rules takes precedende.

If you want to go down that road (no unique cards in my deck which I know are copies of cards in an encounter deck) then you should play by taking away the chance to have copies of the same unique card in different decks. Which is definitely a legitimate way to play and you are welcome to do it. Just don't pretend it's the "right" way to play morally or by the actual rules.

Oh Im not pretending at all, I can assure you.

I don't think 'morally' is an appropriate term here as we are talking about a game, not a court matter, but alas, I think we are all worn out on this discussion.

As EBerling poetically puts it, we are just kinda ships passing. I think you understand what I am saying, but we may just have to agree to disagree.

On 5/2/2020 at 8:50 AM, MikeGracey said:

I can only wonder why would you run Gwaihir, or Grimbeorn, or whoever in a quest where they are present already. Its not just about your deck; its about the quest as well. The designers didn't insert cool objective allies into quests so that we can ignore them, or worse, try find ways to discard them.

Theres enough terrible cards in the deck, why get rid of one that helps you...

When a quest is designed with certain objective allies, the designers expect you to use them properly because they are part of the quest.

Btw I only mentioned Smeogol to you once... As 1 example. Heres more.

3 unique Harad allies in long arm of mordor

One ring in campaign

Faramir in Blood of Gondor

Amarthiul in Treachery of Rhudar

Why would you run Gwaihir and Grimbeorn or whoever in a quest where they are present already? *Because you want to*. It's that simple. It's a cooperative game, so what the player *wants* is not a matter of small significance to be brushed aside. In addition, Gwaihir is a *highly* thematic pick for Black Gate/Mount Doom, and was canonically present at both locations -- but there's no guarantee that Gwaihir will show up in Mount Doom or be earned for Mount Doom at all. Grimbeorn is a *highly* thematic pick for a quest whose *premise* is about Grimbeorn getting mad and charging down the trolls at his Carrock -- but he may not show up at all and if he shows up may not be earned.

In the case of Gwiahir, the designers *explicitly* added a cool objective ally into the quest *and* gave us a way to discard him! Besides, the designers have done their bit already. Our job is not to do the things that the *designer* would do in our place to maximize his enjoyment, but to do the things that maximize *our* enjoyment.

Why get rid of a helpful card in the encounter deck? Because you want to play Gwaihir against Black Gate a quest where he was *canonically present*. Why would another reason be needed?

It's true that certain quests with objective-allies are designed to be "used properly" because they are mechanically required for quest balance. Playing Nin-in-Eleph without Nalir would be both less difficult and more enjoyable, but that's not how the quest is designed. Ally Arwen in Redhorn Gate and Road to Rivendell is mechanically required by the scenario design. But no one has suggested *eliminating* the Arwen ally, the "Barwen" solution keeps the quest mechanically the exact same, it only permits player cards to be played which have *no effect* on the mechanical design of the quest. The only complaint is thematic, and if you put a different name on Arwen's hero card (or ally card), the thematic issue goes away.

Grimbeorn and Gwaihir are in a different category. They are favorable encounter cards that you might never see at all, and even if you do see them they might never be under your control. They are *not* remotely integral to the design of the scenarios.

AFAIK, there is absolutely no prohibition of using "3 unique Harad allies" in Long Arm of Mordor. Nothinig in my printed copy of either Sands of Harad or Mumakil seems to exclude them. Obviously the uniqueness rules would cause an objective hero *in play* from blocking their ally counterparts, but unless you're playing four player there may be allies that are not in play. Why wouldn't you be able to play Jubayr if objective-hero Firyal was in play, or all three of the Harad allies if Kahliel were the objective-hero. Indeed, it would be *highly thematic* to get unused Harad allies and/or Kahliel in play during this quest, because it's their hometown under assault!

Unless I'm missing something, Blood of Gondor does not have a scenario-specific rule prohibiting Faramir, as the objective ally starts in play and remains in play after being captured, uniqueness rules are sufficient. Morgul Vale *does* remove Faramir from the game, this is purely a thematic touch and not required mechanically to make the quest work.

Amarthiul in Wastes/Ettenmoors/Rhuadar does not have a scenario-specific rule and relies solely on uniqueness to exclude hero Amarthiul. Escape From Mount Gram does not prohibit Amarthiul, even though the text has Amarthiul doing the rescuing. Aside from the uniqueness conflict, there is no *mechanical* reason to forbid Amarthiul's use in those quests, indeed, since Dunedain is *the* most thematic build to run in that cycle, Dunedain decks relying on the powers of hero Amarthiul are unnecessarily handicapped by being restricted, powers that the objective ally does *not* duplicate. And since Amrthiul is an *invented* hero, I see no grave thematic harm in renaming one or the other for these scenarios.

17 hours ago, MikeGracey said:

Its just that while I can't pull up a specific ruling here, I do believe its more than my opinion. I do agree with you that people should play the game the way they want to and have fun, but I think the uniqueness clash is a legit argument. For example, if you play Celebrians Stone on your hero and I draw my copy, the reason I can't play it is because its already in play and since 2 Celebrians stones don't exist in the world of middle earth, 2 can't possibly be in play. Thats how the game has worked. How can Gwaihir be under your control and come off the encounter deck at the same time? In reality he can't because this game doesn't allow 2 of the same characters to be in play at the same time.

If Gwaihir comes off the encounter deck *and is used for the enemy discard*, it never even reaches staging. In practical terms, what you have is not "two Gwaihirs in play", but Gwaihir dropping an enemy from a great height, which (thematically) is incredibly fitting when Gwaihir is already in play!

It's important to remember that the uniqueness rules serve a dual purpose in the game, and the thematic clash of having two of a unique object in play is arguably the less important of the two. Being able to guarantee a single copy will be in play allow cards to be more powerful than non-unique cards at the same price. Celebrian's Stone provides 2 willpower for 2 leadership resources, the best willpower bargain in the entire core set. Allowing multiples doesn't just create a thematic problem, it could be a *balance* problem in that environment, though not as badly as multiple Stewards of Gondor. There is only one Celebrian's Stone and it's unique. But Palantir *also* has the uniqueness indicator despite multiple palantirs existing, and two separate heroes that personally own (different) Palantirs. There are *lots* of elves with the Light of Valinor -- but it has the unique symbol all the same. There's abstract concepts like Hardy Leadership and Visionary Leadership that are "unique", but multiple copies of these non-unique things in play certainly could cause balance issues.

No one is calling for uniqueness rules to be repealed in general.

20 hours ago, MikeGracey said:

Its just that while I can't pull up a specific ruling here, I do believe its more than my opinion. I do agree with you that people should play the game the way they want to and have fun, but I think the uniqueness clash is a legit argument. For example, if you play Celebrians Stone on your hero and I draw my copy, the reason I can't play it is because its already in play and since 2 Celebrians stones don't exist in the world of middle earth, 2 can't possibly be in play. Thats how the game has worked. How can Gwaihir be under your control and come off the encounter deck at the same time? In reality he can't because this game doesn't allow 2 of the same characters to be in play at the same time.

Luckily there is no need for a ruling as this is directly addressed in the Rules Reference:

Quote

Unique cards

If a unique version of a character enters play from the encounter deck and there is already a copy of that character under a player’s control, that player must discard the version he or she controls.

Ok, so I think the consensus is:

1. As a shadow effect, Gwaihir does not force a Gwaihir Hero discard.

2. As a when revealed effect, Gwaihir still forces a Gwaihir Hero discard even if you immediately use his ability to discard him from play.

So if you run this quest with hero Gwaihir, uses Firyal, LoDenethor, Scout Ahead and other such tactics to try and avoid the noid.