HyenaSpotz said:

That would seem to work similarly to the interaction between Aragorn and Theodred as discussed in the FAQ thread. You get your two progress tokens for free if you want.

monkeylite said:

Wait, that doesnt make sense. You cant pay for the effect of Strength of Will with the effect of Old Forest Road. Effects can only be payed with cards you control (this is the case in Agot anyway, maybe its different in Lotr) and even if they Can be payed with cards you dont control (which seems very unlikely) youre not exhausting the character for the purposes of Strength of Will. Infact, this raises the question of how action windows Work in this game. Whats the timing on playing Strength of Will? both effects active "after you travel" but does this game have a window for simultanious card effect resolution or does there have to be an order to effect resolution. Ie. can you resovle SoW and OFR at the same time? Or does one of them have to take precidence?

Oi Weh this hurts my head o.O

DerBarchen said:

the clarification of timings for actions like this is exactly what the FAQ Monkeylite mentions is for.

I have added this further example to it.

DerBarchen said:

Don't think he can attack the same creature twice, or be counted twice in a single attac k against a creature. He can however attack two different creatures,

When resolving effects that read...."After you commit to the quest..." or "After you travel to this location..." each player has the option to resolve effects in the order he/she chooses. So if you want to ready your character then use him to pay for your second effect that is perfectly legal.

widowmaker93 said:

Sounds good enough to me. How would Thalin's effect interact with Enemies with When Revealed abilities, though? If he kills the Enemy (rare chance), does its effect still happen? It was revealed, after all.

Apophenia said:

Nothing in the rules gives you control of shadow cards.

Players always assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters. (pg.25 under Control and Ownership) Caught in a web is a Treachery card that counts as a Condition Attachment when attached to a character.

Cards from the encounter deck are not played, they are staged, placed, revealed and resolved.

The distinction is made when they highlight the word "play" in the phase 2 Planning rules and when they highlight the word staging in the staging rules

Their emphasis not mine:

Phase 2: Planning
This is the only phase in which a player can play ally
and attachment cards from his hand. The first player
plays any and all ally and attachment cards he wishes to
play first.

Step 2: Staging
After each player has had the opportunity to commit
characters to the quest, the encounter deck reveals
one card per player. This is known in the game as
staging. These encounter cards are revealed one at a
time, with any “when revealed” effects being resolved
before the next card is revealed. Enemy and location
cards revealed in this manner are placed in the staging
area, treachery cards are resolved and (unless otherwise
indicated by the card text) placed in the discard pile.

Can't argue with that you are completely right on about it Darksbane. Played and Staged are two distinct things. Played is only referred to under Control and Ownership section. Then my previous attempt to clarify a ruling under Caught in a Web is null and void. Unless of course something comes up in an official FAQ.

Yes Thalin will deal lethal damage to that character but you are correct in assuming that their ability will still go off since it was technically "revealed." The only ability that won't come into play if Thalin kills that enemy is a Surge keyword.

Never mind what I said, youre completely right. The precise wording for the cards is tricksy indeed!

What happens when a "Hill Troll" attack goes undefended.

1.) Hill troll's damage all goes directly to threat.

2.) Damage goes unto a hero and spills over into threat.

I assume it is #2 but wording is unclear.

In Reply to Darksbane...

The emphasis on the word "STAGING" is as reference to the phase step. Just as on pg. 16 they did the same thing with "ENGAGEMENT CHECK" not because of its particularly important wording just to emphasis the phase step. Important words sure, but it does not negate the inferred - your character - your attachment - in the control and ownership section. Your statement would mean that if they ever talk about a "played" card - it would require that wording in card text. Therefore, if card would say "place attachment on target character" - you would argue that it had been "placed" not "played" or as many other effects "resolved" and not "played". This seems counter-intuituve. I would agree, clarification would be nice, and, as with all new card games, common woding must be consistently used to differentiate actual effect from intended effect.

For me - Your charcter - Your attachment.

Hate to belabor this point but there is also this card to pondor - Driven by Shadow - Shadow: Choose and discard 1 attachment from the defending character. (If this attack is undefended, discard all attachments you control.)

From Darksbane's ruling - defending character could get rid of "Caught In A Web" - (no control required, as per text) but if it were undefended - all attachments would go except "Caught in a Web".

Once again, bad wording, but counter-intuitive. I'm sure a FAQ will be coming from FFG shortly.

Kraken77 said:

The ruling is consistant with FFG's other LCGs and how they handle "play" as opposed to other ways cards come into play. For example see AGOT's FAQ entry on Play and Put Into Play, and even though you think it counter intuitive it is pretty much like your example above.

(4.4) "Play" and "Put into Play"
Character, Location, and Attachment cards are
“played” from the hand during the marshalling
phase, by taking a player action and paying
their gold cost.
Event cards are “played” by placing the card
on the table, paying the specified cost, and
triggering the effect.
"Put into play" effects are not considered to be
"played." Similarly, when a card is "put into
play," it does not trigger any "when played"
effects, and vice versa. Both, however, would

trigger effects that occur when a card "comes
into play” or “enters play.”
"Put into Play" is a game mechanic that
bypasses all costs (including all gold penalties)
and play restrictions.

Also notice in the rulebook the difference in the discriptions of Treachery cards and Event cards

Treachery Cards
Treachery cards represent traps, curses, maneuvers,
pitfalls, and other surprises the players might confront
during a scenario. When a treachery card is revealed
from the encounter deck, its text effects are resolved
immediately, and it is then placed in the encounter
discard pile.

Event Cards

Event cards represent maneuvers, actions, tactics,
spells, and other instantaneous effects at a player’s
disposal. An event card is played from a player’s hand,
its text effects are resolved, and the card is then placed
in its owner’s discard pile.

You can look at the other card types too, no where but in the hero card section is anything described as played, and all hero cards which are played from hand are described with either play or played. The rulebook makes a clear enough distinction between using the word play or played only in refrence to Hero deck cards that as far as game terms are concerned that only hero deck cards are ever played and thus only hero attachments come under your control.

As for your other issues, given Driven by the Shadow's text yes you could discard Caught in a Web with it. Also see this thread on Board Game Geek, Zambo IIRC playtested the game and confirms. I do agree a FAQ entry will be nice but I fully expect it to not consider encounter cards to be under the control of the player whose character it is on.

I defer to your ruling. The use of a credited playtester to support your statement is pretty freakin strong. FAQ should clear up some of these issues but I believe you are correct and the control issue will remain as you said. Still, I think it is foolish for "Driven by the Shadows" to clear the attachment when another card won't, and when it won't when undefended. But, like I said before, new card games always run into wording issues.

Few questions of my own

1. Are attachments considered their own card for purposes of exhausting (such as "Steward of Gondor") or does the hero they are attached to need to be exhausted to use them? The card says "Exhaust Steward of Gondor" which makes me believe it is just the card, and you can use it every turn to get a bonus 2 resources. Seems pretty powerful, but sounds like that is how it should be.

2. When does... darn, I forgot his name, the guy that can attack enemies in the staging area. When does his ability trigger? We assumed it was during the normal Attack part of Combat, but his card really didn't specify much.

3. One of the Spirit ally cards allows him to place a single progress token on every location in the staging area when he commits to a quest. This is done *before* new cards are drawn and you compare Willpower vs. Corruption, correct?

pumpkin said:

Just a suggestion, but if this thread is going to be useful to players (and not just FFG employees), it needs to put up at least consensus answers to these questions. I've noticed that some of the questions in this thread are ignored as "clearly" outlined in the rulebook, while others that seem pretty clear to me are still included in the FAQ. Maybe put up the "working" answer to these questions if there is one, then make a note or a link by those that are officially answered. It may be a long time before we have an official FAQ, and it would be really helpful for new players to be able to come to this forum and get an answer as to how most people are interpreting a rule. Maybe some of the answers turn out to be wrong and you have to amend the FAQ, but I bet a lot of these questions can be answered with 90% certainty.

Entropy42 said:

Good idea, assuming we can come up with a concensus!?

I'll trawl through the thread picking out the latest questions and updating with Forum answers as best I can.

Kraken77 said:

The text is poorly worded though in that case, right. No one thinks the Driven by Shadow is actually supposed to work like this?

Its the same as Dol Guldor Beastmaster and Chieftain Ufthak, they both have the phrase "after xxx attacks, but general concensus is that the two actions occur at different times in the combat phase. General concensus is that Dol Guldor beastmaster is poorly worded....

I'm just clarifying because following Entropy42's suggestion, I'm going to start to put best guess answers against the questions and I didn't want to put that Driven by shadow can remove caught in the web under certain circumstances because that sounds daft....

Adding some clarify to question 5, where i had incorrectly used the term action rather than response and answered question 13.

If you put up a ruling on a question, and no one comes along and says "thats wrong and here is the passage in the rules that supports my argument" then you've probably got a decent answer. Sometimes the wording is just ambiguous and both sides can make a good case.

You might want to add the Q on the timing of Feint to the list, as currently debated in the Gondorian Spearman + Feint thread.

ClydeCloggie said:

Yep, just about to add it, but I'm not sure there is a concensus answer yet!

Despite what I said in that thread, i think you can't do both by the letter of the rules, due to the definition of what attack means, and when defenders are declared, but I'm not sure that was the designers intention....

pumpkin said:

i find it hard to argue with my reasoning in that thread .