I've been stung a couple of times by this card, which treats itself like an attachment and i havent found a way in the rules to seem to get rid of it. its a condition but cant find any specific rule for that so i assume it remains with the hero even after they pay two resource to refresh.

the only way i have found to get rid of attachments is via shadow effects and as caught in a web is a negative effect against a hero, it seems sort of wrong to use the shadow effect to get rid of it.

have i missed somewhere a description of how conditions are supposed to work and have others resorted to shadow effect to remove caught in a web?

Miner of the Iron Hills lets you discard a condition when it comes into play. Of course that is a Lore card and not all decks have access to it. I believe that is the only way in core to discard Caught in a Web. Spirit has a couple of ways of avoiding it when it is revealed. Eleanor can let you discard and draw a different card and A Test of Will negates the Treachery completely.

I suspect that future expansions will add more ways of getting rid of negative Attachments however I suspect that will mostly be the domain of Lore.

I suppose if you just happen to have the Shadow effect of Driven by Shadow discard Caught in the Web then you should just consider yourself lucky. Page 25 of the rules say that you control any attachments that are on your characters so I don't see a problem with that happening.

Yer, just done my Spirit deck run through, and found Eleanor's response action. Completed the first quest with the second attempt and used Eleanor to avoid the web at one point. Still think Leadership is the most powerful of the single decks, Aragorn and Theodred combine so well, and Aragorn is one of the most overall poweful heroes in the core set IMO.

I guess it is lucky and not always likely to happen with the shadow effect, it just seems that a shadow effect should never benefit the Heroes, or at least that is their intention, but the rules as written don't prevent it.

Primary theme in The Lord of the Rings: Evil always defeats itself

Would Aragorns ability allow him to ready at the end of the quest phase?

johydee said:

Yes, he would be ready/standing immediately after paying the the one resource. This means he would not be effected by The Necromancer's Reach (Deal 1 damage to each exhausted character) if it comes out during the staging part of questing.

The shadow text on Forest Spider reads "Defending player must choose and discard 1 attachment he controls." I would guess that the player does not control either Caught in a Web or Iron Shackels when attached and so Forest Spider would not affect it.

Think of it this way: If you were playing a CCG/LCG against a human player, and that human player played an attachment on one of yours cards, you would not control it - the other player would.

I think it is in the rules somewhere, and I dont have the book with me

Something about a player always controls attachments on his characters.

But yes, seems very odd that a bad shadow effect can actually help a player.

Paul Grogan said:

It's page 25, and if you don't have the manual with you, you can look at the pdf of the rules here on the FFG site (go to the game section in the catalog, and see the "Support" area).

It says exactly that, that "Players always assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters." See the "always", and no exception has been specified for encounter cards.

You can see it like the attacking ennemy slashing the web while hitting the party. It is not so irrelevant. And that's not very easily done either since this effect pertains to the defending character, or all attachments if there is no defense to this attack. So you have to either defend with the webbed character (which most often than not won't be able to defend because he remained engaged due to the web), or not defending at all (and lose all attachments and not only the web, in addition to raising threat level).

Dncan said:

On the other hand, the very first paragraph of that section seems to describe "ownership" of a card as a prerequisite of "control" of a card :

A player "owns" his heroes and the cards that he has chosen for the player deck he is playing. A player "controls" all cards that he owns, unless another player or the encounter deck takes control of the card through a game effect.

The sentece you quote is in a paragraph that starts by talking about attachements played by other players into a different player´s heroes, and I am not so certain as if that also applies to cards played by the encounter deck on a player´s heores.

Official FAQ will hopefully enlighten us.

Acererak said:

The sentence I quote starts by talking bout attachments played by players, but it's the only place where they talk about ownership and control of cards. To me, the paragraph is about attachments in general.

But... I must confess that I am not so certain either that it is the intended meaning. If the rules are complete as they are, then it could only mean that it does apply like I described, but it could also be that some specific instructions have been forgotten.

As you say, let's hope the official FAQ will cover this.

Yes, but is "Caught in a Web" an "Attachment"? Attachments have the key word "Attachment" at the bottom. Caught in a Web is a "Treachery"

I don't know, but I figured it should be treated differently than an "Attachment", even though it attaches...

TheProfessor said:

it does say that it counts as a condition attatchment!

I dont know, I dont see what the big problem about using a negative effect to your benefit is. Ive found in Every card game Ive played over the years there are always a few situations where your oponent doing something negative towards you could result in a net positive for you. I always get a little kick out of exploting the game beyond the core intentions of the rules. I mean, you could consider using Sneak Attack to play Gandalf the same way. Gandalf is clearly intended to be a one hit wonder but Sneak Attack lets you recycle him up to 3 times (and then you can use stand and fight too if you really want to). Its just a mechanic that rewards cunning players!

I did that sneak attack with gandalf in my first game. Works out brilliantly.

mason240 said:

Forest Spider's shadow effect would definitely be able to remove Caught in a Web or Iron Shackels. The encounter deck has "Ownership" of these cards but when they become attached to a character it no longer "Controls" them. That player is now the controller. It is no different than playing an Unexpected Courage from your hand onto a different player's Hero. You "own" the Unexpected courage but the other player now "Controls" it. This is all covered under Control and Ownership on p.25. The last paragraph explains it well, mainly, "Players assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters."

Hastur360 said:

exactly, whether played by another player or played by the encounter deck, that card has still been "played" on their character. Therefore they assume control of that card.

I have another question regarding caught in a web: Since there seems to be no limitation, can i put 2 caught in a web on the same hero, so he just has to pay 4 to be ready or do i have to put the second web on another hero?

Yes you can, though this could change barring an FAQ officially released. There are no limits to the number of attachments a character can have. It just can only ever have 2 restricted attachments maximum.

Greenleaf said:

Judging by what the card says, it appears not only can you put a second one on the same hero, but you still only need to pay 2 resources to ready him or her.

I think it falls under Lasting Effects on pg. 25. The last sentence of the second paragraph reads

Any time a new effect is applied to a card, the net sum of all active effects should be recalculated.

So two Caught in a Web Condition Attachments would force a character to spend 4 resources to ready during the refresh phase. As you have to add the net sum of effects together.

widowmaker93 said:

I'll repeat this from the FAQ thread, Cards in the encounter deck are never described as being played, they are staged, placed, revealed and resolved. The rulebook makes a clear distinction that player cards are played and encounter cards are staged. You would not have control of attached cards from the encounter deck.

I have fixed the wording on Caught in a Web:

"When Revealed: A crack opens up in the earth, vomits forth flame, and then a balrog emerges and devours the players."

Exactly I conceded this to Darksbane in the FAQ thread. So my previous attempt at ruling is null and void. A forest spider's shadow effect cannot remove Caught in A Web, Condition Attachment. As you do not "own" or "control" that card. Though I do believe you can attach multiple Caught In A Web on the same character and you would have to spend 4 resources to ready during the refresh step if the character has two Caught In A Web on it.

I must disagree with Hastur and Dark(whateverhisname). You STAGE the card into the "staging area" but treachery cards are then "resolved" - as per wording on pg.14. The question is what does "resolved" actually mean. Attaching the card onto a character is a "resolving" effect - not a "staging" or "placing" effect, as the Dark(whateverhisname) said. As stated on pg.25, "Players always assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters". I think there is some dithering on whether "played" and "resolved" is the same action. Secondly, "if control of the character changes, so does the control of any attachments on that character." Note here, it doesn't say "any played attachments", just "any attachments". I agree things are not perfectly clear, but it seems to me that the intent is - your character - your attachment.

Kraken77 said:

I can only assume since it took you much longer to type Dark(whateverhisname) out than it would have to have simply typed my forum handle that you are for some reason trying to be insulting. Can we please stick to the issue at hand.

Anyway, resolved means resolved. You want resolved to mean played but no where in the rulebook does it equate the two. I provided more examples in the other thread as to how the rulebook is very clear to only use the word played when referring to hero deck cards. If you can show some counter examples from the rulebook I'm totally open to being wrong, however, as I said in the other thread my interpretation is consistant with how FFG handles their other games, it has been confirmed by a playtester, and no counterexamples have been given from the rulebook as of yet by anyone.

Sorry man not really meant to be insulting...just extremely lazy on my part, and I type pretty fast. I got you right in the other posts...LOL!

As per other post as well. After much consideration I defer to your interpretation. Still feel that word choices are poor and clarification will be up and coming, but I agree they will probably clarify that encounter cards are always uncontrolled unless stated otherwise.