radiskull said:

Hehe yeah

radiskull said:

Yes, and its this perversion that makes me think it simply isn't right, but I guess its something for FFG to clarify. Is there a similar precedent/ruling in other LCGs we could use?

Just bumping the thread as I've seen several posts asking the same questions, all of which are already answered here...

STICKY ANYONE?!

On the third page? This can't be allowed... BOUNCE!

and bounce again for first page....

If Player 1 has a character with ranged and declares an attack against an enemy engaged with Player 2 and Player 2 has characters that are ready, can Player 2 have her characters participate in the attack declared by Player 1? I have played that they can, since the enemy is something Player 2's characters could attack already.

Kiwina said:

I don't think it works that way. The rules don't support it. The rules for combat say nothing about the non-active player participating in an attack normally. Characters with Ranged have a special rule that allows them to participate when an attack is declared by another player.

I would say that if you are declaring attacks against enemies engaged with another player via Ranged, that player cannot interact. There is nothing in the rules to support this.

Gentlemen, can you tell me how you ask mr French? What is the email or other way via which you send your questions?

radiskull said:

This cannot be right. He is using 0 resources to pay for a creature card, is he not? Or was the whole thing just a kid?

radiskull said:

And sorry to have jumped on this so late, and I do not feel like digging this up off the new FAQ, is the deal so that every player can declare an attack against an enemy once? Or players can only declare only one attack against each enemy?

lleimmoen said:

No, I don't think radiskull was kidding. Radagast's ability allows you to override the resource match rule (via the golden rule), when you pay for a card. But if you have a 0 cost card, you don't pay anything, and therefor you don't use Radagast's ability. So the rule on p. 12 is in effect: "Cards with a cost of zero do not require a resource to be spent in order to pay their cost, but they do require at least one hero under that player’s control to have a resource icon that matches the card’s sphere". (I hope I'm recalling radiskull's arguments properly, but the arguments above make sense, at least to me.)

This is very odd (why can't Radagast gather a 0-cost creature ally when he is capable of gathering a 5-cost Landroval?), so I think if we ask we get an explanation/errata. But currently there is no 0 cost creature card ;-) so nothing to worry.

The page for submitting can be found under "More...", Customer Service, and the a few over clicks. Or just use this link: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_faq.asp

I believe when the cost is 0, you do pay it nonetheless. X is the cost and there is not difference between 0 and 1, as far as the logic and mechanics go.

And thanks a lot for the link!

You do "pay a cost" of 0 when putting a 0-cost ally into play, but you're not using Radagast's resources to do so. This, I think, is the crucial difference.

And no, I wasn't kidding about the East Bank thing.

lleimmoen said:

You should try to read the FAQ. It answers this question very clearly. (Honestly, the two options you provided seem identical to me.)

Ok, so since I love answering questions, I'll give you this one - each player may declare an attack against a particular enemy one time. In a 2-player game, this means that every enemy may be attacked at most twice. FAQ 1.11: "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."

But seriously - read the FAQ. You're basically saying "I don't wanna do the work to figure this out, can someone else do that same work for me and get back to me?"

Sorry if I have taken your valuable time

But wow! there has been like a ton of questions that could be easily answered by reading something somewhere. As I did not have access to the FAQ I asked since I thought it seemed the answer has been known around.

Has it really offended you, or the previous post about kidding has? Because I did not mean to and I understand you're not being childish here.

And by the way, you can be using Radagast's 0 resources.

radiskull said:

And no, I am not saying anything of the kind.

Sorry if I came off as harsh. I should know better than to post while I'm in a bad mood.

You haven't offended me at all, no worries. I think I just got tired of reading the posts at boardgamegeek about the people who are like "OMG I put 3 Songs on my hero and now they get 4 resources a turn LULZ" and something in me died a little. :-P

Seriously, though. I apologize for my rudeness.

radiskull said:

No problem at all. It was not rude, really. And I was also in a bad mood when I asked (and replied). By the way, thanks for posting the answer from mr French here, I am Jakub from BGG, and I did not know you were Andy, if you are... These internet times! Haha.

Thanks for clarifying the attacking thing. I had known it well, then I got confused, having read only part of the discussion.

Svenn said:

I agree and playing Kiwina's way does have a significant game changing effect.

Based on the way combat is described in the rules, it is clear without the use of a card or ability that enemies engaged with players attack before that player.

Now consider player A (first player), player B and player C.

If player A has a ranged character he can declare an attack on an enemy engaged with player B, as part of that attack if player C has a ranged character he could also participate, this is fully supported by the rules.

If player B could also attack at that time, then it would grant player B the advantage of being able to attack his engaged enemies before they have attacked him. Not only is this not supported by the rules, it also directly conflicts with the standard way in which combat is defined.

I see the combat structure as a way of replicating initiative in an RPG, and "melee" heroes and allies basically always lose initiative against engaged enemies, unless a specific card or ability (quickstrike) overrides it.

Ranged characters have the ability to gain the inititative in some cases, but that only allows them to gain initiative for themselves not other heroes/allies (such has those controlled by player B).

Interestingly, if player B had a ranged character, i think it could participate in the attack of player A, even against an enemy engaged with player B.

Edit: Sorry pumpkin, after re-reading your post again, I figured that you wanted to second Svenn and provide an counter-argument against Kiwina's reading of the rules. I totally misunderstood that, sorry. Ignore my following post, or read it as another confirmation of yours/Svenns reading of the rules ;-)

My original post:

pumpkin said:

I don't think combat works this way. Here's how I play it. Let player A be the first player:

All enemies get dealt shadow cards. Then the player A has to fend off the attacks of enemies that are engaged with him, resolving shadow cards, etc. If he's done, player B defends against "his" enemies, and then player C.

Only when all enemy attacks are finished, player A starts his attacks (perhaps on an enemy engaged with B, if he's using a ranged character, and B may join with his ranged characters). After A finished all his attacks, player B attacks (could be the same enemy, but now also non-ranged may attack. If A readied his ranged character somehow, he could also participate in this attack). And then it's player C's turn to attack the enemies. Then combat is finished.

So the ranged attack / ranged participate doesn't grant you the option of taken initiative before your enemies. But if you somehow are able to ready characters between the attacks, a single (ranged) character can attack the same enemy twice (or theoretically thrice, because here we have 3 players).

HilariousPete said:

Yer, you are right, I got my ideas wrong around combat - I mostly play solo so ranged combat doesn't normally even come into my games and I was sleepy this morning when I replied and for some reason got it in my head that each player when through the entire combat phase before moving onto the next player!

The original point still stands though, there is no support for melee characters being able to participate in attacks made by the player of ranged characters, only ranged characters are able to participate in attacks declared by other players.

Now, if player A played quickstrike to use his ranged character to attack an enemy engaged with player B, before any enemies have attacked, i think the above still applies, any ranged characters controlled by player B and C could also particpiate in the attack (as the ranged keyword doesn't seem to restict participation in attacks only to those attacks made during the players phase of combat..) - what do you think?

pumpkin said:

I agree to both points.

To the first point, Svenn and you already said it - nothing in the rules suggest that non-ranged characters can join an attack of another player (even if the target is an enemy engaged with you).

To the second issue: This is pretty difficult, you can interpret it in both ways. I would want to answer "no", and I even prepared some arguments for it, but then I found out that this case has already been covered by the official FAQ, the example after rule 1.11, which says "yes" (because Legolas is allowed to join the attack with Quick Strike, again).

I think this is odd in some way, because why would Legolas be allowed to join the attack with Quick Strike again? The logic/the answer might have been "because he has ranged and therefor is an eligible attacker". Ok, and now suppose Tom had another ally under control, e.g. Beorn: could he also have joined the Quick Strike? Because he also is an eligible attacker too, because the Hill Troll is enganged with Tom.
Following this logic, when you play Quick Strike, can you declare all your characters as attackers, as long as they are legal attackers? I'd like to say no, but the example in 1.11 tells otherwise... So I play it as the FAQ tells ;-) Of course this makes Quick Strike even better than I thought of it before.

What do you and others think? Does Quick Strike allow all eligible attackers to attack? Or am I interpreting too much into the example 1.11?

A character can participate in an attack instigated by using quickstrike if a rule states that they are eligible to join (such as ranged) but quickstrike in and of itself does not make them eligible.

So if quickstrike is played during the quest phase by player A, for example, then ranged characters controlled by other players could participate in that attack, as ranged clearly states that ranged keyword allows you to participate in attacks declared by other players (and makes no mention of limiting this to a certain phase).

Other characters controlled by player A could not join in however, as the only time players are allowed to declare multple attackers (without the golden rule coming into play) is during the players attack phase of the combat phase.

Even if quickstrike is played, as in the FAQ example (later in the player's attack phase) because this attack is instigated via quickstrike and isn't player A's "regular" attack against that enemy, player A can't use more than one character in the quick strike attack, IMO.

So in summary, quickstrike doesn't say declare eligible attackers, it says declare a character (singular). To participate in that attack, another charatcer must have a specific card, ability or keyword that allows them to do so.

I reckon anyway!

pumpkin said:

Yeah, those arguments of you sound good :-)

Ok, two (hopefully) last questions: If a player A uses Quick Strike on e.g. his Aragorn and on an enemy he is engaged with, can his Silverlode Archers (ranged) join? I'd say no, because the keyword "ranged" always talks about participating in attacks against enemies of other players on p.24, and not against your enemies. Right? And if player A supposedly had 2 Silverlode Archers and he played Quick Strike on an enemy engaged with player B and on A's 1st Archer, then A's 2nd Archer could join, right?

HilariousPete said:

I agree on the first point, ranged attacks occur against enemies engaged with other players, so they can't join Aragorn in that instance.

For the second question though, if player A is using quick strike (and hence the one declaring the attack) then I'm not sure his 2nd archer can also participate - ranged allows you to participate in attacks declared by other players and quick strike itself allows a single character to declare an attack out of phase, so I'm not sure there is a ruling that supports the 2nd silverlode archer being able to join in.

Conversely if player B played quickstrike, then both of player A's archers could join in, in those circumstances, and if Player A attacked as part of the regular player's attack phase, then i think both his archers could attack then, just not when using quickstrike.