scottindeed said:

Yes you would argue but this has been argued before. A card that comes from the encounter deck is never considered as "being played" or "played". Only cards that comes from player's hands can be considered "played". So you do not control Caught in a Web. This is official.

fabest said:

Whilst I agree with the ruling (though the card is worded really bad), it isnt official until we get the FAQ or an official answer from FFG. I've not seen either yet

Question, not sure if it is answered yet.

Last scenario with Nazgul says that only one ally card played per round for entire group. Do ally cards played out of Planning Phase count for this? Example: Sneak Attack

We played today that you could use card text to bypass the rule and that "one ally card per round" was in Planning Phase only.

FiendishDevil said:

As it does not specify "during the Planning Phase," I read it as one Ally per round, regardless of how that Ally comes into play (i.e., Stand and Fight, Sneak Attack, etc).

I disagree as it says the players can only play one per round. Whereas sneak attack says Put into play. Put into play and Play is an important distinction I have learned from AGoT which is made by the same designer.

Toqtamish is 100% right.

The Necromancer's Tower says: The players, as a group, cannot play more then 1 ally card each round. If you put an ally into play, you bypass that restriction (Sneak Attack, Stand and Fight, Brok Ironfist).

For now there are no cards that allow you to play an ally outside the planning phase. But if there were any, you still can play only 1 ally per round, not only per planning phase, when TheNecromancer's Tower is the active quest.

Paul Grogan said:

In France, the person in charge of the rules on the official forums said that it should be played like that. Offical enough for me ^^

Toqtamish said:

Oops, I guess that's what I get for going off of memory for those cards. I'm going to have to change my mind and withdraw my previous post.

@ClydeCloggie, thanks! I got antsy to play towards the end of the rulebook, so that probably explains why I missed it

Maybe another question for the FAQ:

If the first card attached to an objective is a location with "surge" keyword, I reveal another card from the encounter deck but where do I place this new "surged" card? Do I attach it to the objective, together with the first encounter card - and both of them are protecting the same objective card - or do I place it separately in the staging area?

I posted the same question on bgg and there are very different answers, so I think this could be added to the FAQ.

What do you think, anyway?

Hello,

1) Do I have to add Threat of engaged enemies when I count total Threat during Quest Resolving phase?

2) Forst Spider has ability, which says that he gets +1 attack "After Forest Spider engages a player". What if I will engage him first?

wymiatasz said:

1) No (Page 14 says Staging Area so it means Staging Area)

2) Engaging is engaging. They get +1 attack. (Bottom of page 16)

You're right, thank you a lot!

One more question - should I exhaust Dunhere after I use his ability (Dunhere can target enemies in the staging area when he attacks alone. When doing so, he get +1 attack.)?

Does "enemies", in this card description, mean - as many as there is in the staging area, or only one enemy in the staging area?

wymiatasz said:

Yes, since you have to exhaust to attack. Card says "when he attacks", so he needs to be exhausted. Otherwise, you could just repeatedly attack with him over and over again on the same turn.

sorty said:

I would place it separately as nothing says in the rules that an objective can have several cards protecting it.

"Surge" says to reveal another card, just like it was another card you would have revealed anyway. So in a multiplayers game, if the first card revealed is an objective, you draw another one to protect it. If it has Surge, you draw another one as if it was the encounter card of the next player (but you will still have to draw one for him of course).

Am i right in thinking that in Scenario 3, you wouldn't resolve the Surge keyword on the Guarded Objectives at the start of the game (or Doomed for that matter). Both of these keywords say that when the card is revealed in the Staging step of the Quest phase - whereas in Scenario 3 they are played in the pre-game setup.

Yes you are right. Surge does not matter before the quest phase.

Page 24 of the rulebook:

"When an encounter card with the surge keyword is
revealed during the staging step of the quest phase,
reveal 1 additional card from the encounter deck.
Resolve the surge keyword immediately after resolving
any when revealed effects on the card."

The surge word would be ignored when the card is revealed outside of the quest phase (including the setup phase).

Doomed has the same limitations as Surge (may want to mention both of them together in the FAQ).

I don't understand the answer to #24 "How does Beorn's ability work with sneak attack"? Basically are you saying he can end up in your discard pile or your hand, your choice?

If you have two Caught in a Web cards attached to a single hero, does it cost 4 resources to ready him or only 2 (I think only 2).

Escape from Dol Guldur 1B, assuming Sneak Attack and Stand and Fight can be used to put Allies into play still.

With Dungeon Torch, do you raise your threat by a total of 2 or 3 at the end of each game round?

Thanks!

kirkbauer said:

I've updated with your comments, apart from the last two questions above, which need some form of answer before being added to main thread.

As for CiaW, question 31 answers this; each attachment is treated seperately and individual card costs must be paid independently. Therefore if you have two CiaW attachments, it costs 4 resource to refresh that hero.

About the "After xxx attacks" = "When xx attacks" wording.

Currently in the unofficial FAQ, number 2 it is written:

"Best guess: The cards are best interpreted as having the word When rather than After. The polish version of the card actually has the word “When” rather than After. This means that DGB is dealt two shadow cards and Ufthak has an initial combat strength of 5 in the first round in which he engages a player (ouch!)."

But seriously, I don't care about what the polish translator has done.

I think that Nate French is working with LCG games from such a long time that he cannot do such mistakes and bad wording. I have faith in him. "AFTER" imho means AFTER not WHEN.

So please, don't trust polish translator and follow your good sense: if Nate says "After Chieftan Ufthak attacks, place 1 resource token on him" we do it. First time he attacks with 3, second time with 5 and so on. Let's kill this damned before it becomes too strong. This is good sense, isn't it?

And if you think Ufthak is a good example, why not thinking that every other card that says "after..." is REALLY after and not "when"? Give it a try, you will discover that the game is more easy to understand than we have thought.

My two cents.

sorty said:

How would you interpret the text on the Dol Guldur Beastmaster? If it is dealt a shadow card, after it attacks, isn't that redundant (cycling the encounter deck notwithstanding)?

Kløve said:

AFTER Dol Guldur attacks, you deal another shadow card, so most of the times you don't have to do nothing, 'cause there is no shadow text or the shadow effect doesn't apply, but sometimes you DO have to face something like removing progress tokens and so on... Dol Guldur attacks with ONE shadow card, the other one you deal is a side-effect of its attack that happens AFTER you resolve the attack. In the future, expansions could add other shadow effects that deal damage directly.

After is after, after all

sorty said:

Well, after could both mean immediately after or after the attack has been resolved. Both are after the attack, wouldn't you say?