And while I'm at it: If player 1 optionally engages a monster during the Encounter phase, is he also, at the same time, prone to engagement from the highest Threat monster? So in essence, player 1 could be engaging two monsters?
Unoffical FAQ (and suggested answers) thread....
Yes after the optional engagements the first player must do engagement checks as usual.
Cabelos said:
1) What happens if you have no Heroes or Ally's left with which to defend an attack? Does one assign the full amount of damage to a single hero, in the case of Undefended?
2) Once a baddie becomes engaged to the player, and a Shadow card is dealt to that player, and the baddie isn't killed in the first round of combat, are additional Shadow cards dealt in subsequent rounds or just that first round.
1) If no one CAN defend or if no one CHOOSES to defend is the same thing. The attack is undefended.
2) As noted in the rulebook on page 20, all shadow cards, whether resolved or not, are discarded at the end of the combat phase.
Cabelos said:
And while I'm at it: If player 1 optionally engages a monster during the Encounter phase, is he also, at the same time, prone to engagement from the highest Threat monster? So in essence, player 1 could be engaging two monsters?
Yes he still makes engagement checks. And engagement checks are made until no more enemies can engage anyone. So you can easily get more than two if there are plenty in the staging area.
just bumping the thread... seems we might have just about answered all the FAQs from the core set - time for an expansion methinks!
- Does the "when revealed" action of a card trigger when it's revealed by a shadow effect or just when it's revealed due to a quest?
- How does "Wandering Took" work in single player? Is he useless?
- Can Gandalf deal it's entering play damage to an enemy in the staging area?
- What happens if you choose not to quest with anyone? You raise your threat in the amount in the staging area directly?
1 - Only the part under the shadow effect separator bars is resolved when "revealing" a card for shadow effect. If it has none, it does nothing. For example, turning over a The Necromancer's Reach as a shadow card has no effect (you don't deal damage to your engaged characters).
2 - He's not useless, but his ability is. You can't give him to another player since you're alone. He remains a nice ally for 2 resources.
3 - Yes.
4 - Yes, after revealing new cards for the staging step of the quest phase.
pumpkin said:
36. Can a character such as Legolas or dunhere, who can attack enemies with which they are not engaged attack those enemies more than once per round using cards such as Unexepcted Courage?
In the rulebook it clearly states that a player cannot attack an enemy, with which they are engaged, more than once per round.
Legolas' Ranged keyword and Dunhere's ability clearly allow them to attack enemies with which the player is not engaged, overiding this rule but it is not clear which part of the rule is overridden.
Currently, there are basically two options
1. Legolas and Dunhere, can attack the same enemy twice, provided the player is not engaged with that enemy. In essence the characters special ability completely overrides the rule as stated in the rule book, allowing Legolas and Dunhere to attack the same enemy twice in a single round.
2. Although Legolas and Dunhere can attack enemies that are NOT engaged with the player, the limit of an enemy being attacked once per round, per player is still in force. In this case Legolas and Dunhere could not attack the same enemy using Unexpected Courage, although they could attack two different enemies in the same round.
There is no clear concensus on which option is correct, so take your pick until the official FAQ.
I would argue that Legolas can attack the same Creature twice, even if the player controlling him cannot declare more than one attack against the same creature. Simply because the Ranged ability says:
"A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks, or it can participate in attacks that are declared by other players."
The way I see it is that the PLAYER is the one limited to declaring only one attack per creature per round.
So Legolas can attack once in my round and then again in my co-players round, becuase at that time he can participate in my CO-PLAYER's declaration. As the ability says.
So... this being said... I think I would also argue that Dunhere can only attack the same creature once, since I cannot come up with a way to allow another player to include him in a Declaration against the same enemy. But maybe there is one, I don't know.
/wolf
ps. Just felt like contributing a third option here.
GhostWolf69 said:
pumpkin said:
36. Can a character such as Legolas or dunhere, who can attack enemies with which they are not engaged attack those enemies more than once per round using cards such as Unexepcted Courage?
In the rulebook it clearly states that a player cannot attack an enemy, with which they are engaged, more than once per round.
Legolas' Ranged keyword and Dunhere's ability clearly allow them to attack enemies with which the player is not engaged, overiding this rule but it is not clear which part of the rule is overridden.
Currently, there are basically two options
1. Legolas and Dunhere, can attack the same enemy twice, provided the player is not engaged with that enemy. In essence the characters special ability completely overrides the rule as stated in the rule book, allowing Legolas and Dunhere to attack the same enemy twice in a single round.
2. Although Legolas and Dunhere can attack enemies that are NOT engaged with the player, the limit of an enemy being attacked once per round, per player is still in force. In this case Legolas and Dunhere could not attack the same enemy using Unexpected Courage, although they could attack two different enemies in the same round.
There is no clear concensus on which option is correct, so take your pick until the official FAQ.
I would argue that Legolas can attack the same Creature twice, even if the player controlling him cannot declare more than one attack against the same creature. Simply because the Ranged ability says:
"A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks, or it can participate in attacks that are declared by other players."
The way I see it is that the PLAYER is the one limited to declaring only one attack per creature per round.
So Legolas can attack once in my round and then again in my co-players round, becuase at that time he can participate in my CO-PLAYER's declaration. As the ability says.
So... this being said... I think I would also argue that Dunhere can only attack the same creature once, since I cannot come up with a way to allow another player to include him in a Declaration against the same enemy. But maybe there is one, I don't know.
/wolf
ps. Just felt like contributing a third option here.
Except the explanation of the ranged ability uses the word OR, so Legolas can attack a target using his ranged ability when Legolas' controller declares attacks OR Legolas can attack the same target using his ranged ability when other player's declare thier attacks.
Don't think he can do both (against a single target).
pumpkin said:
Except the explanation of the ranged ability uses the word OR, so Legolas can attack a target using his ranged ability when Legolas' controller declares attacks OR Legolas can attack the same target using his ranged ability when other player's declare thier attacks.
Don't think he can do both (against a single target).
I agree with wolf.
I think the OR is going on the assumption that a ranged character exhausts to make the attacks, so you normally have to choose one. It is possible that it means you can only do one or the other each round. If that is the case, it's still possible for Legolas to attack the same enemy twice, but only in a 3-4 player game where another player also has ranged characters. Legolas helps player 1 attack an enemy. UC readies Legolas. Player 2 chooses to also attack the enemy engaged with player 1 using something like Silverlode Archer, and Legolas also chooses to help. Thus he gets to attack the same enemy twice while only attacking when other players declare attacks. There are situations where you can actually do more damage that way. Specifically enemies with high HP and a defense of 2 or less.
Kiwina said:
I agree with wolf.
I think the OR is going on the assumption that a ranged character exhausts to make the attacks, so you normally have to choose one. It is possible that it means you can only do one or the other each round. If that is the case, it's still possible for Legolas to attack the same enemy twice, but only in a 3-4 player game where another player also has ranged characters. Legolas helps player 1 attack an enemy. UC readies Legolas. Player 2 chooses to also attack the enemy engaged with player 1 using something like Silverlode Archer, and Legolas also chooses to help. Thus he gets to attack the same enemy twice while only attacking when other players declare attacks. There are situations where you can actually do more damage that way. Specifically enemies with high HP and a defense of 2 or less.
I agree with pumpkin. Rules, especially card game rules, generally use EXCLUSIVE OR. If this wasn't true then cards like Protector of Lorien would be able to give a hero both +1 Defense and +1 Willpower when you discarded a card.
Admittedly the ranged rules are about procedure and might be INCLUSIVE OR but since all other attacks are limited to once per enemy I will assume you can do one or the other but not both.
Apophenia said:
I agree with pumpkin. Rules, especially card game rules, generally use EXCLUSIVE OR. If this wasn't true then cards like Protector of Lorien would be able to give a hero both +1 Defense and +1 Willpower when you discarded a card.
In fact you can get BOTH, if you use the Action more than once discarding a card each time.
Just like using a card effect on Readying Legolas and attacking again. You use his Ranged Atack ability or more than once.
First time you chose one effect, second time you chose the other.
The only limitation I see for attacking the same Creature is PLAYER DECLARATION. I cannot find anything in the rules supporting the notion that Heroes or Allies would be limited to one attack per creature, per round. But a PLAYER is.
But I think we all agree this is a grey area where some official clarification would be very welcome indeed. I could be wrong.
/wolf
GhostWolf69 said:
In fact you can get BOTH, if you use the Action more than once discarding a card each time.
Just like using a card effect on Readying Legolas and attacking again. You use his Ranged Atack ability or more than once.
First time you chose one effect, second time you chose the other.
The only limitation I see for attacking the same Creature is PLAYER DECLARATION. I cannot find anything in the rules supporting the notion that Heroes or Allies would be limited to one attack per creature, per round. But a PLAYER is.
But I think we all agree this is a grey area where some official clarification would be very welcome indeed. I could be wrong.
/wolf
With Protector I was meaning that if the OR was INCLUSIVE then by discarding a single card (and taking a single action) you could get both +1 Willpower and +1 Defense. (Sorry if my explanation was confusing)
I'll admit there is ambiguity in the rules which could go either way. Since only being able to attack each enemy once feel right and fits with player attack restriction (And I support exclusive or interpretations of the rules) I think that a ranged character could only attack any specific enemy once per turn.
New question from BGG forums: if Strength of Will is used on Tower Gate, does that prevent the "Forced" event on Tower Gate from occurring? Why is this a "Forced" event instead of a "Travel" event?
GhostWolf69 said:
But I think we all agree this is a grey area where some official clarification would be very welcome indeed. I could be wrong.
/wolf
..Which is why both options are offered in the FAQ.
To be honest, I'm not sure how your third option differs from option 1, in the FAQ, it just really gives a specific example that fits into option 1 doesn't it?
The reason I struggle with option 1, is that it is relatively convoluted to pull off, so why would FFG purposefully put that "combo" into play, while actively preventing other characters from benefiting from it?
The ranged keyword and Dunhere's ability is already good, do they really need a special layer placed on top using UC that other characters can't get?
kirkbauer said:
New question from BGG forums: if Strength of Will is used on Tower Gate, does that prevent the "Forced" event on Tower Gate from occurring? Why is this a "Forced" event instead of a "Travel" event?
Perhaps the 2nd question answers the first?
A complete assumption follows - Yes SoW can prevent the forced action, because you can play the response before the forced action occurs, however if it was a travel event, you could NOT prevent it with SoW because the travel event excutes at the point of travelling whereas SoW executes after travelling.
It's a neat answer that explains everything, but I'm not saying its right.
If you check out the latest news item for THfG http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=2373 then Strider's path can be used against travel effects but not forced effects, so there are certainly reasons why FFG have used both on the Location cards.
pumpkin said:
..Which is why both options are offered in the FAQ.
To be honest, I'm not sure how your third option differs from option 1, in the FAQ, it just really gives a specific example that fits into option 1 doesn't it?
In my opinion my option is different in that it doesn't limit any Character to only attack attack a certain Creature once per turn. (That is the feeling I get from the FAQ as you wrote it, but I could be misstaken.)
The Only limitation I can find is around Player Declaration.
As long as the Player is limited to only declare ONE attack per Creature per Round, it doesn't really matter how many attacks a certain Character could perform.
But in Legolas case he has the ability to be included in OTHER Players Declarations.
You see your FAQ seems to Focus on the "Engaged with" part of it. I'm trying to apply ONE declaration per monster per round to ALL Monsters regardless of Engagements, but at the same time ALLOW Legolas to be included in other players attacks because that is what the Ranged ability says he can do.
... I'm sorry mate, but I feel like I'm doing a really crappy Job explaining my view here.
Option 1 said:
"Legolas and Dunhere, can attack the same enemy twice, provided the player is not engaged with that enemy. In essence the characters special ability completely overrides the rule as stated in the rule book, allowing Legolas and Dunhere to attack the same enemy twice in a single round."
Ok so I'm reading the rules like this:
1. A Player can only ever Declare ONE attack against the same Enemy per Round. (I would apply this to all Enemies, and ignore the "engaged with" part because it feels like that was the intention. Nothing will overrule this.)
2. There is nothing in the rules preventing a certain Character from Participating in more than one attack against the same Enemy in the same Round. The limitation only applies to Player Declaration. (Regardless of whether you use apply this rule on Engaged Enemies or not, it is still only limiting Player Declarations and not Characters. That is pretty clear to me at least.)
3. So by that rationale if more than one Player can include a certain Character in his Declaration should be allowed even if that Character has participated in an attack against the same creature earlier that round. In my opinion this does not "override" any rules. Since the rule only limits Player Declaration and not Character Participation.
/wolf
And conserning this EXCLUSIVE OR thing I hear you and agree up to a point. Usually OR is exclusive.
But it is only EXCLUSIVE when you use it. And usually when you use something you "Exhaust" it or "Discard" it so the question becomes moot.
But I would argue that any card that is a) Readied again or b) brought back into play again, in short USED again, will allow for it's Controller to make that choice again. Right?
If for instance I have a Card that can be exhausted to give me A OR B. I Exhaust it and choose one or the other but not both. Right?
But if a card effect later Readies this card and I can use it again... which would be true:
a) I'm allowed to make a new choice, or,
b) I have to chose the same thing I did the first time, or,
c) It cannot be used again even though it is Readied.
I would go with A. Effectively this card has now given me A AND B.
As a Result, Ranged Characters can participate in Attacks Declared by me and all other Players around the Board provided I can Ready him between each Attack.
/wolf
pumpkin, thanks for compiling this list, could I ask that you add something like the following to the opening paragraph of the first post.
BG: means Best Guess.
It took me a while before I found buried deep in the thread as to what BG meant 
xris said:
pumpkin, thanks for compiling this list, could I ask that you add something like the following to the opening paragraph of the first post.
BG: means Best Guess.
It took me a while before I found buried deep in the thread as to what BG meant
Done! I think originally the first couple of answers had best guess, with the remaining ones then abbreviated to BG, then at some time the best guess ones became official
I've sort of stopped using BG in the later posits though, so there's no total consistency now, some of those without BG could still only be forum based answers. If I get time, I'll try and go through and make them all accurate to properly distinguish official from BG.
FAQ 1.2 is on the way.
Good news all. I've been speaking with FFG and FAQ 1.2 is being worked on right now. I've been asked not to discuss the contents so far as it may change before final publication and the last thing everyone needs is me saying "I've spoken with Nate and it is like this..." only for the FAQ to change just before it is printed.
However, what I have been asked to do is to trawl through these forums (especially this thread) and let them know if there are any burning questions which are still outstanding which are not in the new FAQ.
Please dont ask me to reveal anything here, I'm not allowed to give you the "current" answers, but just trying to help them ensure that FAQ 1.2 answers most (if not all) outstanding queries.
Thanks all.
Paul Grogan said:
FAQ 1.2 is on the way.
Good news all. I've been speaking with FFG and FAQ 1.2 is being worked on right now. I've been asked not to discuss the contents so far as it may change before final publication and the last thing everyone needs is me saying "I've spoken with Nate and it is like this..." only for the FAQ to change just before it is printed.
However, what I have been asked to do is to trawl through these forums (especially this thread) and let them know if there are any burning questions which are still outstanding which are not in the new FAQ.
Please dont ask me to reveal anything here, I'm not allowed to give you the "current" answers, but just trying to help them ensure that FAQ 1.2 answers most (if not all) outstanding queries.
Thanks all.
Nice one. I tell you what is needed, when FFG answer questions in the FAQ they should try and give enough information into how the answer was determined so that we can then apply that logic to other cards. As an example, the FAQ for Dol Goldur Beastmaster and Chief Uftak explains how those cards are to be played, but doesn't explain if that is how "after" should be played or if the wording on the card was wrong. Because we don't know which is which we can't apply any logic to Wargs and we are left waiting for another FAQ update until everyone knows how Wargs should be played.
Assuming some logic is being applied to the FAQ answers, it would be good where possible to have that logic spelled out as well as the answer itself, I think.
Here's hoping...
Paul Grogan said:
FAQ 1.2 is on the way.
/.../
That is excellent news.
/wolf
pumpkin said:
Nice one. I tell you what is needed, when FFG answer questions in the FAQ they should try and give enough information into how the answer was determined so that we can then apply that logic to other cards. As an example, the FAQ for Dol Goldur Beastmaster and Chief Uftak explains how those cards are to be played, but doesn't explain if that is how "after" should be played or if the wording on the card was wrong. Because we don't know which is which we can't apply any logic to Wargs and we are left waiting for another FAQ update until everyone knows how Wargs should be played.
Assuming some logic is being applied to the FAQ answers, it would be good where possible to have that logic spelled out as well as the answer itself, I think.
Here's hoping...
Not a bad idea - Its not in there, and no other FAQ's seem to have a details reason in there. However, do not fear, the reason why this was needed because of the first FAQ having to be interpreted. What I can say is that the whole "after" discussion is something they have properly addressed in this FAQ, so hopefully it will clear everything up and not leave us in a position where other cards need to be interpreted.
I don't see anything on Wolf Rider in this thread: do you get to attack Wolf Rider or does it run away immediately after its attack?