Hi I don't know if I can understand well conflict at the Carrock...I set aside all the 4 named trolls at the beginning...then I chose a troll at random at the begginig of 2B quest part...but i don't fell that i right...can yuo explain how to manage the trolls in that quest?

I searched th forum but couldn't find any help on this...

Thx u so much!

When stage 2B of Conflict at the Carrock is revealed (when you start that stage), you place all four Trolls into the staging area, not just one.

Ah ok now its clear...I referred to "troll" and not to "cardS"...so it's explained why it all seemed so dumb!

Well, I feel like we're going in circles now. I understand what you are saying. Yes, they did not specify in that half of the sentence that the targets must be engaged with another player.

Let's try this... Here's another similar set of sentences.

We can go get ice cream. We can go get some ice cream at Friendly's, or we can go to Dairy Queen.

Same sentence structure. What are you going to Dairy Queen for? That was established in the first sentence... for ice cream. You don't need to include the "ice cream" (aka engaged with other players) part because it was already established in the first sentence. If anything the "ice cream" part in the second sentence is redundant.

If it were not an "or" here I might almost be inclined to agree with you, but this is a clarification sentence explaining the legal situations in which you can attack an enemy engaged with another player, not a new part of the rule. This is even indicated by the "these targets" in the first part of the sentence. It just doesn't make sense for the "or" part here to be something completely different than the first part of the sentence that is clearly expanding upon the wording from the first sentence. If that was the case, it would be a separate sentence or even a separate paragraph.

Wow, Kiwina, that's the LONGEST post I ever saw in this forum. You should get a prize ;-)

No, your arguments don't come across to me as an attack. I like discussing subtleties of the rules, and we're focussing on the game here and don't get personal, so everything's fine.

Like before, Svenn already made a good point. In addition, I have this argument:

If it really were the case that the 2nd sentence is no clarification of the 1st (the clarification that it doesn't matter if the attack has been initiated by me or by another player), but instead the 2nd sentence provides another option of using the ranged keyword - why is the 1st sentence there at all? There would be no information in it. Why would FFG not have skipped the 1st sentence and just used this version of the 2nd:

"A character can declare ranged attacks against targets which are engaged with another player while its owner is declaring attacks; or it can participate in attacks that are declared by other players."

I think the answer is: Because there is information in the 1st sentence, and the 2nd is a clarification of it.

The ice cream analogy turned on a lightbulb. I finally see what I kept missing when you kept pointing at the first sentence, and how it ties in with the second. I am very curious to see what FFG's responses to my queries about the Ranged keyword and Brand are.

Do they do Mint Choc Chip at Dairy Queen and when are we going?

Now I'm lost... Characters without the Ranged keyword can't get Ice Cream???

/wolf

GhostWolf69 said:

What? That does it! I'm not playing this game again!

GhostWolf69 said:

Unless you're Dunhere. Then you can get pie.

I got my answers back from Nate,

pumpkin, Svenn, and HilariousPete were correct. A ranged character may only participate in attacks declared by other players that are targeting enemies engaged with other players.

I also asked about this:

HilariousPete said:

The reply was:

So in your example, with Legolas (under your control) declaring the
attack, your other ranged characters are not eligible to participate
because:

1) They are not declaring the attack (Legolas is).

2) Another player is not declaring the attack (You are).

The situation in which the combo does work is this:

A) You play Quickstrike, declaring an attack with one of your
characters against an enemy with which you are engaged.

B) Now, by virtue of the ranged keyword, my characters can participate
in the attack.

Thx a lot for sharing this info!

Good to know that we were not too far away from the rules ;-) But to be honest, I'm not really sure to which example you were referring to afterwards (you quoted my example with player A and B and C, and Nate answered for a Legolas example with "you" and "me"...), and I'm having some difficulties with that. I suppose you did ask him about an example like this:

"I am player A, I have Legolas and another ranged character under my control, and I am using Quick Strike to declare Legolas as an attacker against an enemy engaged with me. Now can my second ranged character join?" (Nate's reasons (1) and (2): no, he can't) and "Can ranged characters of my buddy, player B, participate?" (Nate's answers (a) and (b): yes, they can).

Is this the case? If yes, then puh, very good ;-)

Or did you ask (more like my quoted example): "I'm player A, I have Legolas and a 2nd ranged character under my control. I'm playing Quick Strike on an enemy engaged with my buddy player B, declaring my Legolas as the attacker. Can my other ranged character participate? Can ranged characters of my buddy participate?" If this were the case then... wow, then I'm puzzled, I'd have to do a lot of thinking again, because I can't understand the reasoning yet, or I have misunderstood something....

Or perhaps did you ask a completely different example than those two I stated above?

Best regards, Pete

The A) and B) in Nate's response are sequential actions. He is merely pointing out that when using Quickstrike another player's characters could participate, however your characters cannot because they do not meet the requirements 1) and 2).

So Quickstrike + Ranged:

The character chosen for the Quickstrike is attacking. Ranged characters from other players may participate, so long as the enemy is not engaged with that player. The attacking player may not use his Ranged characters to participate because Quickstrike allows you to declare 1 character to attack (not multiple) and someone else is not declaring the attack so your Ranged keyword does not allow you to participate in their attack.

HilariousPete:

My question was more along the lines of the second one. Something to the effect of: If I played a Quick Strike during the questing phase, and I exhaust Legolas to declare him an attacker against an enemy engaged with another player, can I also declare my other ranged characters as attackers?

Svenn's explanation is correct.

Svenn said:

Svenn said:

Just to make sure I'm perfectly clear on the underlined bit - So ranged characters may only participate (help out) in attacks against enemies engaged with other players.

For example, I'm engaged with a Hill Troll. I have Legolas and a Horseback Archer. I declare Legolas to attack the Hill Troll. Horseback Archer cannot participate in this attack. Had the Hill Troll been engaged with another player, both Legolas and Horseback Archer could have been declared as attackers/participated in an attack. Is this correct?

I'm sorry to belabor this, I just really want to make sure I understand correctly.

Lenbo said:

No, your ranged characters cannot help out if you are playing Quickstrike. Quickstrike allows you to desginate 1 character out of turn to attack, so you can only pick one (not multiple ranged characters). The ranged keyword allows you to attack enemies engaged with another player during your combat phase, OR it allows you to participate in attacks by other players. Since YOU are the one attacking, and it is out of phase with Quickstrike specifying 1 character, neither of these applies.

However, if your friend had a ranged character he COULD participate assuming all other requirements were met (the enemies cannot be engaged with him). So if you were engaged with the Hill Troll then your friend could use his ranged characters, you cannot. If your friend were engaged with the hill troll then neither of you may use your ranged characters. If a third player were engaged with the Hill Troll you would not be able to use your ranged characters nor would the third player with whom the Hill Troll is engaged... but your friend who is NOT engaged with the Hill Troll would be allowed to add his ranged characters.

Svenn said:

However, if it's your turn to declare attacks during the combat phase you can have any characters you control participate in the attacks. That answer was specifically about using Quick Strike.

Alright, forget the Quickstrike part. I understand that.

How about this:

2-player game. I'm engaged with Hill Troll. I have Legolas and Horseback Archer. I declare attack against Troll with Legolas. My partner has a Silverlode Archer, who may participate, but my Horseback Archer cannot participate, because Hill Troll is engaged with me, and I declared Legolas to attack. Is this correct?

Alternate case, if the Hill Troll were instead engaged with my partner, I could use both Legolas and my Horseback Archer as attackers/participate in an attack against the Troll.

Kiwina said:

Okay. So when I declare attacks against enemies engaged with me, I can have any characters participate, whether they're ranged or not. I think I've got this now.

Yes, that is how it works. Now, if the Hill Troll was engaged with your friend you could still attack with both your ranged characters, but your friend wouldn't be able to assist with his archer. In that situation you are better off waiting for your friend to declare an attack against the troll and then assist with your ranged character.

I didn't read through everything for an answer, but here's my question:

Can you lower your threat below 0 (into the negatives) with cards such as Galadrim's Greeting or Gandalf?

That is a good question, and I'm not sure if it has been addressed from a rule standpoint. My opinion is no, but I have no solid basis (nothing from the rulebook or FAQ) for that answer.

I would rule, consistens with Nate's ruling on quest tokens - if a quest can have infinite amounts of progress tokens, so your threat can sink under 0... 0 being the optimal score anyway and everything else just a nice achievement...

ps: anybody ever read rulebook p. 22??? ..."it is even possible, if the players do remarkably well, to achieve a negative score on a quest???" that is PRETTY CLEAR...

Vyron said:

Well, that specifically says negative score, not threat. If your threat is 0 and you have VPs you can easily go negative.

Personally, I would rule that you cannot go below 0. It seems silly from a gameplay perspective to keep going below that and it seems silly from a story perspective (how can you have less than no threat?).