no ,radiskull is saying that it can be the same enemy (given it survives the first attack) that both players attack with the same characters because the "declaring of attacks" is done once by each player.

Ok, in all honesty I hope to play the way that has been stated by Radiskull, I like the mechanic and the playability of this ability with coenciding cards. My only hang up is in the interpretation of the rules that state

1. After a players first attack has resolved, he can declare another attack against any eligible enemy target that he has not yet attacked this round.

2. A character with the ranged keyword can be declared by its controller as an attacker against enemies that are engaged with other player. 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.

Now the use of participate in the second clause of part two seems to for all purposes to differentiate participating from declare, however because of the use of declare in the preceding clause, I cannot decide indefinitely that this is correct.

Because of this I may be hesitant, until a new revision to the FAQs is printed, to play it this way. It would make playing less of a challenge, but if the new FAQs came out and this playing method turned out to be wrong I would feel somewhat cheated by the games that I won prior to the printing.

However, if this is true, it would make any card that readied allies turn into a double shot for ranged attackers. And that would be awesome.

The key difference is between players declaring attacks and characters being declared as attackers. A character who participates in an attack is also being declared as an attacker, regardless of who controls them. (I believe that "being declared as an attacker" leads to "participating in an attack".)

FAQ (1.11) is instructive here: "Characters are not limited as to how many times they can participate in attacks against the same enemy, provided each attack can be legally declared, and the character is ready and eligible to be declared as an attacker."

So, from this, it seems clear that participating and being declared as an attacker are the same thing. FAQ 1.11 very explicitly restricts the number of attacks a player declares against an enemy to 1 per round. But that's all.

radiskull said:

provided each attack can be legally declared, and the character is ready and eligible to be declared as an attacker okay so what classifies the attack as a legally declared attack? Because the second part stipulates that the character must be "ready and eligible" as well as "can be legally declared". (sorry I got stuck on bold, I can't turn it off)

Bonus Card said:

My understanding of "ready and eligible" is this:

Ready-The character is not exhausted, they are in the ready position.

Eligible-The enemy is within the character's range. This normally means the enemy is engaged with the player controlling the character, but characters with the Ranged keyword may be declared as an attacker against enemies who are engaged with other players as well. Dunhere is another exception since he may be declared as an attacker against enemies in the staging area.

Legally declaring an attack is explained pretty well in the FAQ:

(1.11) Limitations on Attacks
When a player is the active attacker during the combat phase, the game rules grant him the option to declare 1 attack against each enemy with which he is engaged. If, through card effects such as ranged, a player is able to declare attacks against enemies with which he is not engaged, he is still only permitted a single attack against each of these enemies.

Whether an attack is legally declared depends on who the active player is. If the active player has already declared an attack against a particular enemy, another one against the same enemy can't be declared until the active player changes. It really does come down to "who started it".

radiskull said:

Just to complicate matters I would like to add that the above is only true as long as a card doesn't allow Active Player to declare an attack. If such a card comes along he can use it to declare a second attack against the same Enemy again. It is only the "free" or "inherent" declaration that is limited to once per enemy per player. Card effects that allow extra Declarations can be used without this limitation.

Example: "Quick Strike"

/wolf

GhostWolf69 said:

Exactly,

I've try to add a succinct explanation to the FAQ - answer 55

pushing the FAQ forward for the new players, as to avoid 1000 new threads...

btw: FFG WE NEED ORDER IN THE FORUM!!! AND SUBFORUMS!!!! it's pretty confusing right now...

Vyron said:

I tried to get this post stickied once or twice, but to no avail...

You are right though, it stays on 1st page about a day if lucky and then disappears again!

therefore I consider it my duty (or yours ) to push this always onto the first page, the fact is people are just lazy to go further then one page ))

Hi all,

I still have two questions for which I don't know the answer. I hope they're not answered elsewhere, in which case I apologize.

First: if Bilbo is Sacked!, is the starting player allowed to make a second draw? First I thought no, but then I read rules page 23 again ("Constant Effects have no bold trigger"). I think Bilbo's ability is a constant effect. Thus a sacked Bilbo would still allow you to draw another card. Do you think this is correct?

Second: I didn't really understand how Radagasts playing-creature-ability works. I can think of those two options:
a.) Radagst allows you to play creatures, because his ressource tokens override the ressource matching rule on p. 12 of the rulebook. So creature cards can be bought with Radagast's still sphere-less ressource tokens.
b.) Radagast allows you to play creature cards, because his tokens adapt to the required sphere. E.g. Radagast can pay a Winged Guardian because the 2 ressource tokens become tactics ressource tokens. (This does not mean that Radagast is a tactics hero or that his ressources are tactics ressources all the time - they're only converted right in that moment when he's using his special ability).

The text on Radagast doesn't specify the details further, so both options could be possible. Option a.) is the straight-forward one, I play it like this and it also seems to be the conclusion of the people of this thread: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=201&efcid=4&efidt=540519 Yet in that thread I found no arguments against option b.) (I agree with that thread's opinion that a 0-cost tactics creature card requires a tactics hero, but that's not what I'm asking myself.)
While further thinking about option b.), it has the advantage that there is no need for the Golden Rule (overriding rules by card texts). Referring to the FAQ rule 1.00 about the Golden Rule: "If it is possible to observe both card text and the text of the rulebook, both are observed." With option b.), no rule is overridden. So this would be preferable?? What dou you think?

Note that this actually makes a difference, when The East Bank is the active location ("ally cards cost 1 additional matching resource to play from hand"). With interpretation b.), Radagast can play Winged Guardian when he has 3 ressource tokens on him; with interpretation a.), 2 ressource tokens can come from Radagast but the 3rd one has to be from a tactics hero, which is not good, because of the Old Wive's Tales.

Regards,
Pete

I agree with your interpretation re: Bilbo. I think that since his ability is a constant effect, it'll still provide an extra card while sacked.

As for Radagast, I think that choice (a) is correct. I think (b) is not correct just because there is no support for the idea on the text of the cards. The only "ability" Radagast's resources are imparted by his text is the ability to ignore resource match. (This is easily the kind of thing I could see being changed via errata/clarification, but for now, I'd go with choice a.)

I would like to second Radiskull.

In regards to Radagast, I do believe (a) is more correct, and that Radagast's "Resource Match" is tied to a trait instead of a sphere. However, using that logic, I also think you could pay three resources from Radagast to play a Winged Guardian while The East Bank is active.

Thanks for your answers!

@radiskull: Someone could argue, that Radagasts card text also doesn't tell anything about overriding the ressource match rule - but then, Radagast could only pay for neutral creature cards, which obviously is not how Radagast is meant to function. But I get your point: option (a) needs less text added to Radagast than option (b), which adds "more" complex ideas to it. So I'll stick with option (a) because of this argument. And hopefully the next official FAQ will clear things up!

@Kiwina: I don't know if I got your idea right - you mean, Radagast does produce "creature-matching" ressource tokens instead of overriding the ressource match rule and instead of producing tactics ressources? Hm, that is a new variant of option (b), I think. Again, this would "add more ideas" to Radagast than option (a), so I'll play with (a). But interesting thought, thx for sharing!

yes, very unclear, but... in re: Bilbo I second you all because Sacked is NOT THE SAME as being taken prisoner in Dol Guldur! so his effect still affects the game...

in re: East Banks... I'd probably say that Radagast can summon creatures regardless of sphere, and can therefore summon guardians for the 3... even with east banks...

I'm copy-pasting something from another thread - Woz asked Nate about Radagast:

Regarding Radagast and his ability to pay for creatures if you don't have a hero of their sphere, I sent an email to FFG and received this response from Nate French.

"Yes. Radagast's ability allows his resources to pay for Creatures
without a resource match. (Since he has no sphere icon, he'll never
have a match.) There is no need to have a hero with the same icon as a
Creature being payed for with Radagast's resources."

I also read Nate's answer, but sadly it doesn't answer the East Banks question: "Since he has no sphere icon, he'll never have a match" is for option (a), "There is no need to have a hero with the same icon as a Creature being payed for" is for option (b)... I submited a rules question and will post the answer here

Yeah, I noticed that too Let us know if you hear anything!

I received Nate's response today (wow, really fast!). Here is the text of my question:

Hi, I've got a rules question which I can't answer. I also posted it in the forums, but there seems to be no general consensus.
The question is: Can creature cards be played by Radagast's resources, because he is implicitly overriding the resource match rule, or because his resources are transformed to matching resources at the moment he is using his ability? (I can reformulate the question with an example: if I want to play a Winged Guardian with Radagast and The East Bank is the active location, can all 3 resource tokens come from Radagast's pool; or only 2, and the 3rd has to be from a tactics hero's pool?)

Thanks very much in advance,
kind regards,
Manuel

Nate's response was:

Manuel,

There is nothing in Radagast's effect that is transforming the resources to create a match, his text is simply "overriding" the need for the resources he spends to matchthe sphere of a Creature.

So, to play a Creature, you could pay the entire cost from Radagast, or you could pay part of the cost from Radagast and part from a hero with a matching resource icon.

You could not pay part of the cost from Radagast and part of the cost from a non-matching hero.

Nate French
Senior Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games
[email protected]

So it's for option (a). Nate didn't mention the East Banks specifically, but I think it's clear that you have to have at least one matching resource not coming from Radagast, because Radagast isn't producing matching resources.

HilariousPete said:

I think he was specifically responding to the East Banks here. Radagast overrides the resource matching rule and thus he can pay for the full cost (including East Banks). This makes perfect sense to me.

Svenn said:

I'm with Svenn here - East Bank increases the cost of an ally by one, it doesn't require that you pay a resource to play an ally. It's a very subtle difference, but an important one. Winged Guardian costs 3 while EB is in play, and Radagast can pay that. If East Bank said "While EB is the active location, pay 1 matching resource to play an ally from your hand", then the cost would be "paid to" the location, and Radagast couldn't pay for it.

IMO, it's a very subtle difference, but an important one.

Ah, yeah, now I get it - the East Bank is increasing the cost up to 3, and then Radagast can pay because of his resource match override of the whole costs - now just 3 instead of 2. Yes, that's really an important difference which I didn't notice until now. Thx!

radiskull said:

THIS

So that is that cleared up but currently in the FAQ we had the statement that Radagast can't put 0 cost creatures into play, because he doesn't override the need for a matching sphere icon to play the card - I'm so so about this, but everyone else still thinks it stands?

I still believe Radagast can't put 0 cost creatures into play, since his resources aren't being used. Perversely, Radagast could put a 0-cost creature into play if its cost were made 1 by East Bank.