pumpkin said:

Hm, I read the paragraph on "ranged" again, and don't think this is true, here the important sentence:

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

So a ranged attack isn't restricted to attacks of other players, it is only ristricted to attacks against enemies engaged with another player. That's a small, but important difference. (If it were restriced to attacks of companion players, there is a strange situation even without Quick Strike: You could initiate a normal ranged attack with your 1st Archer but then you couldn't participate with your 2nd ranged character - because it is your attack. And I think it should be possible for 2 Archers to work together and hit an enemy which is dealing with the characters of another player. The new Legolas+Brand combo does use this mechanic too, doesn't it?)

Regarding your "Conversely..." exaample, I fully agree to it

HilariousPete said:

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear on that middle point - you are right ranged isn't restricted to participating in attacks by other players, but I wasn't saying that's the only time a ranged character can attack, but that is the only time the ranged keyword (in and of itself) allows that character to attack out of phase.

So player A is using quick strike to allow one of his archers to attack out of phase, as that is what the card does - one character singular.

His other ranged character can't attack out of phase and participate in the attack just by using the ranged keyword, because the ranged keyword only allows attacking out of phase when participating in the attacks of other players. Player C could participate in that attack with a ranged character, because the ranged keyword all by itself is enough to allow player C to participate in player A's attack.

make more sense?

Makes sense, but I'm not convinced yet ;-)

You say that ranged allows participating an attack of another player out-of-phase (I think you are referring to the "or it [the character] can participate in attacks that are declared by other players"-part of the rules here), and you say that ranged characters can't participate in out-of-phase attacks of your own, if I got you right. And here's where I cant find the reference for - the appropriate part of the rules reads "A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks". If I'm player A and playing Quick Strike on an enemy engaged with B in e.g. resource phase, I'm declaring an attack, and while I'm doing this, I can declare another ranged participant. The rule doesn't go like "A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is in phase 6 step 1 of combat resolution against enemies"...

HilariousPete said:

Yep, you are right - I was seeing that as representing phase 6 blah, blah, but the way it is written in the rules, its clearly not restricted to that.

Interesting, ranged keyword is pretty powerful ain't it!

Oh yes it is. Too bad that I'm currently mostly playing solo ;-)

Btw, I really liked our little discussion, and arguing about such subtle things also sharpens the game skill

So then, best regards!

Pete

HilariousPete said:

yes, but what do you mean by ANOTHER ranged participant? quick strike would only allow you to declare e.g. legolas as an attacker against player B's enemy, e.g. in the resource phase! so legolas would be the sole attacker - but that's what you meant, right? if so, this is a correct interpretation of the rules!

I dind't mean only Legolas attacking. By another character I meant a 2nd Silverlode Archer, or any other ranged character I have under control and which is ready. Quick Strike states to make an attack with 1 character, but with special effects, other characters (namely characters with the ranged ability in our discussion) can participate in the attack (you can see this in the example 1.11 in the FAQ). The discussion was about how and why Quick Strike would allow for this - under which conditions ranged characters can participate, and under which they cannot.

Vyron said:

Vyron said:

The argument goes like this....

Yes, quick strike allows Legolas to attack an enemy engaged with player B (in the resource phase, for example) but if I also have a silverlode archer, then as I am declaring an attack using Legolas and quickstrike and Silverlode has the ranged keyword, then the archer should also be able to declare (adding his attack to Legolas') an attack against the same enemy, at that time.

ok, then I understood Pete correctly - this CAN'T be true! I'd love it, but the rules don't seem to support this.

you declare attackers during the combat phase (p.20 rulebook) - there, you can declare as many attackers as you want

quick strike on the other hand allows you to attack with ONE character - you have to exhaust it. though I have to admit, that the "ranged" keyword says - "while its owner is declaring attacks" (p. 24), this is in reference to the combat phase, imo... during the "declaration" step of the combat phase...

allowing this would consequently mean, that for ONE tactics resource, also OTHER players' ranged characters could attack (read p.24), because they can participate in attacks that are declared by other players, out of phase... I don't think so...

Vyron said:

...except, that is exactly what happens in the official FAQ, which is where Pete and I started our discussion.

In the FAQ Aragorn uses quickstrike and Legolas uses he ranged keyword to participate in said attack.

I have a question. I have a Gondorian Spearman with the Born Aloft attachment. What happens after I declare Gondorian Spearman as a defender and before damage (let's say after the Resolve Shadow Effect step), and I activate Born Aloft's ability to return him to my hand? My Spearman would survive, but is the attack still considered defended? Or does it become undefended?

WOW! that's wow! you got me there, I just re-read it... you're right... hmmm, ranged is PRETTY strong...

but that means, that other players could also participate via ranged? aragorn via quick strike, my ranged chara, other players' ranged charas???

btw, other "faq" - LOCATION CARROCK: the 1st quest card states - carrock becomes the active location after the 7th quest token - does this mean that I search the discard pile and encounter deck for carrock and put it into play? or ONLY active location, IF it's already in the staging area???

2. carrock: "immune" to player card effects - this means power in the earth, radagast's cunning, etc but this also affect lorien guide and northern tracker? I'd say yes! so there are no progress tokens placed on the carrock other through "genuine" progress?

thanks, let me know what you think!

soullos said:

Rulebook p.18 - if a defender is removed from play before damage is assigned the attack becomes undefended.

Vyron said:

Wow, exactly!

your ranged characters can't participate in Aragon's quick strike though as ranged characters (when using ranged keyword) can only attack enemies engaged with other players.

If you used quickstrike and Legolas though, then your ranged characters could participate, as could ranged characters of other players, except the one engaged with the enemy you are quick striking!

As for Carrock, as part of set up, you put it into staging and there is no way to get rid of it until you travel to it after getting 7th progress, so it will always be in staging.

Player effects include tracker and guide, aye, as that is the way (immune to player effects) the game prevents you from getting rid of carrock out of staging by any method other than travelling to it once you have 7th progress...

thx pumpkin, as always, great help.

and ok, now that I think about it, it does sound logical... like a VOLLEY of "quickstrike" arrows... this can be devastating in 4-player games - for the bad guys, i.e.... :-)

and when aragorn attacks via quick strike, it also makes sense, as he's a melee guy... and "ranged" is only appicable to other players' enemies...

pumpkin said:

Well blarg, you're right, it's right there in the **** rulebook. Oops. Thanks though.

lleimmoen said:

Ha! Yep, that's me! I suspect that quite a few of us are active on both forums...

pumpkin said:

Why can't the player who is engaged with the quick strike target declare his Ranged characters as participants? Based on your discussion on the last page any time a Ranged character declares a ranged attack, any other ranged characters can participate. There would be no exception, because the rules contain no exception. The player that is engaged with the quick strike target would just be participating in an attack declared by another player, which Ranged characters can do.

Kiwina said:

The Ranged keyword applies specifically to enemies engaged with another player. You cannot use the Ranged keyword to attack an enemy that you are engaged with.

The ranged keyword doesn't specify that you can only participate in an attack declared by another player if the target is not engaged with you. It simply says a ranged character may participate in attacks declared by other players. Ranged doesn't turn on and off. It's a constant effect. In Pumpkins scenario Player 1 has Legolas and some other ranged characters. Player 2 is engaged with some enemy and also has ranged characters. Player 3 likewise has ranged characters. Player 1 declares a ranged attack (meaning the target isn't engaged with Player 1) against the enemy engaged with Player 2 during the resource phase by way of Quick Strike. Because it's a ranged attack the other Ranged characters controlled by Player 1 may participate in the attack. (I'm not sure if I agree with this.) Because Player 1 declared an attack, the Ranged characters controlled by Player 3 may also participate in the attack, so what disqualifies the Ranged characters controlled by Player 2 to participate? An attack was declared by another player, so Player 2's Ranged characters should be able to participate just like Player 3's characters are. The rules say nothing about participation being affected by who the target is engaged with, just who is declaring the attack (other players) and the kind of attack (ranged only). Only one of those conditions must be met, not both.

Kiwina said:

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

It doesn't matter who declared the attack, but it matters with whom the target enemy is engaged with. In the example, the target is engaged with player 2, so ranged characters of player 2 cannot participate in the attack, because the enemy is engaged with him, and not with another player. This is the reason that disqualifies them

Okay, I can see that, but that says they can be, not that they must be. They are allowed to participate in attacks declared by other players. If the participation of a ranged character was limited to only being with enemies engaged with other players why would the rules not say something like: "A character with the ranged keyword can be declared by its controller as an attacker against enemies that are engaged with other players. A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks, or it can participate in attacks against these targets that are declared by other players. In either case, the character must exhaust and meet any other requirements necessary to make the attack."

It's no different from saying that all ranged characters you control can help Legolas with a ranged-attack Quick Strike because the the rules don't specifying which phase the attacks are being declared in.

Kiwina said:

It is very different. The rules specifically state, as you selectively skip over every time, that the ranged keyword applies to attacks made against characters engaged with another player. It says "can" and not "must" because it is overriding the basic targets rule but does not replace the original options. If it said "must" then that character would never be able to attack an enemy engaged with them, only engaged with other characters.

The "can" allows you to use the ranged keyword to target an enemy engaged with another player. That's the requirement for a ranged attack. An attack against enemies engaged with you does not count as a ranged attack, because the ranged rules do not allow you to make a ranged attack against characters you are engaged with. The part you keep selectively reading ("or it can participate in attacks that are declared by other players") is still bound by the basics of the ranged keyword (can attack enemies engaged with other players).

I'v just seen that Svenn already answered for it, but I'll post my prepared answere here too, perhaps my arguments are of any help. My original post has been:

Ah, I think I can see what you mean now.

First, to the can/must issue: If something isn't given by the rules, it's not allowed. E.g. you can't do an attack in your resource phase, just because you have a ready character and the rules don't forbid it. It has to be allowed by the rules when you can do something, not the other way.

To the missing "against these targets" in the second clause: That's a point, right. But I have 2 arguments against it. First, I think that FFG only omitted it because of lingual simplicity. Ok, this argument is weak, I know... but here's the other argument: Even when a character participates in an attack, he has to be declared as an attacker. (He's just not the first attacker, that's all.) You can see this on page 20, step 1 of combat resolution: All characters are declared as an attacker, when they attack together. So it's necessary for our ranged characters to be declared as an attacker, too. And are they allowed to be declared as an attacker? Here the first sentence of p. 24 is again important: they may be declared, but only when the attack is against an enemy which is engaged with another player. But this isn't the case, so they can't be declared as attacker, and therefor can't participate in the combat.

Svenn said:

HilariousPete said:

I understand the purpose of using can vs. must. What I was trying to say was the first sentence of the ranged keyword adds eligible targets for that character to attack, not limiting it to only enemies engaged with another player. We all agree with that, as long as the ranged character is initiating the attack.

Svenn said:

HilariousPete said:

Lingual simplicity - I have thought of that, espescially given Nate French's stance on Stand and Fight.

The first sentence (that I selectively skip over) - "A character with the ranged keyword can be declared by its controller as an attacker against enemies that are engaged with other players." My translation: "If I have a character with the ranged keyword I can declare that character as an attacker against the Misty Mountain Goblins engaged with me, or I can declare that character as an attacker against the Dol Guldur Orcs that are engaged with my friend." I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. I don't think I'm misreading it either. Our disagreement revolves less around the first sentence and more around its implications on the second sentence.

Now we get into the semantics.

This is how I look at the first sentence affecting the second one.

Second sentence - "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." This is two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. I'm going to look at each clause alone, and address the conjuntion.

"A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks." My translation: "While I am declaring attacks, I can use my character(s) with the ranged keyword to declare an attack against the Dol Guldur Orcs that are engaged with my friend." This translation is based on "these targets" referring to the "enemies that are engaged with another player."

"or": Ah, here's the conjunction. My translation: "What comes next is an alternate choice that is different from the first one."

"It can participate in attacks that are declared by other players." My translation: "My character with the ranged keyword can be declared as an attacker against an enemy my friend just declared as the target of an attack." This translation is based on "it" referring to my character with the ranged keyword. My understanding of your argument is that I need to amend this interpretation to specify that it only works if my friend is attacking an enemy that is not engaged with me. While that may be the intent of the creators, that is not how it's written.

Third sentence (so I don't skip anything else) - "In either case, the character must exhaust and meet any other requirements necessary to make the attack." My translation: "If I want to use either of the before mentioned options in the second sentence, my character with the ranged keyword must be ready and he must be able to be declared as an attacker against the chosen enemy." So far the only "other requirements" would be not having Gandalf's Map attached, and the targeted enemy is not in the staging area, since ranged won't allow me to attack enemies in the staging area. There may come a time where you have to pay a resource or raise your threat to attack. In that case those would also become "other requirements" that must be met.

All together (in case you want to skip the specifics):

"A character with the ranged keyword can be declared by its controller as an attacker against enemies that are engaged with other players. 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. In either case, the character must exhaust and meet any other requirements necessary to make the attack."

My translation: "If I have a character with the ranged keyword I can declare that character as an attacker against the Misty Mountain Goblins engaged with me, or I can declare that character as an attacker against the Dol Guldur Orcs that are engaged with my friend. While I am declaring attacks, I can use my character with the ranged keyword to declare an attack against the Dol Guldur Orcs that are engaged with my friend. What comes next is an alternate choice that is different from the first one. My character with the ranged keyword can be declared as an attacker against an enemy my friend just declared as the target of an attack. If I want to use either of the before mentioned options in the second sentence, my character with the ranged keyword must be ready and he must be able to be declared as an attacker against the chosen enemy."

I don't think keywords turn on and off. Given the example above, I'm going to say the ranged character I have is the Silverlode Archer. If I attack the Misty Mountain Goblins engaged with me, and I declare my Silverlode Archer as one of the attackers is my Silverlode Archer no longer a ranged character? I argue that no matter who the Silverlode Archer attacks, he is always a ranged character reaping the benefits of being a ranged character whether he uses the benefits or not. On a more basic level, if my archer attacks the Misty Mountain Goblins, he shoots them with an arrow. If he attack the Dol Guldur Orcs, he shoots them with an arrow.

Your main arguments against me are in reference to the term "ranged attack" which isn't even used until the second sentence and is never used again in any part of the game. I don't know of a single card or document that ever uses the term "ranged attack" other than that one sentence. It could be an official game term that has yet to be affected by cards, but it might not. We don't know. Never again does the game divide attacks into types of attacks, you just declare attacks. Dunhere doesn't make a staging attack, but he can target enemies in the staging area when he attacks alone. That text is active unconditionally. I don't see why the keywords Sentinel and Ranged are different. They don't contain the words Action:, Resoinse:, or Forced: before them. They should be active as long as the card is in play.

I apologize if this comes across as an attack. It's not meant to be one. I'm just trying to write what is going through my head when I read and interpret the ranged keyword. At this point, for me, this debate is not about whether my interpretation of the Ranged paragraph is right, but that it isn't a wonky misreading of the paragraph. With all due respect, your interpretation is probably the one the creators meant to have, but when I read it, I understand it differently than you do.