Son Of Arnor question?

By CrowOfPyke, in The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game

Posted at

"Response: After Son of Arnor enters play, choose an enemy card in the staging area or currently engaged with another player. Engage that enemy."

What am I missing here or is this card just "the suck"?

You engage an enemy outside of the normal Engagement Phase. But you don't do combat yet as per the text of Son Of Arnor because it doesn't say 'then do combat' or 'attack it' or something like that. So you wait around to the Combat phase. The the Enemy cards attack first. The Son Of Arnor dies horribly because it has *zero* defense - no damage to the Enemy you engaged, SOA just dies.

Is that the point of this card? Just a buffer to slow down Enemy? If so seems kind of a spendy buffer for the cost of 3 resources....

Posted at

It pulls the enemy out of the Staging Area so you don't need to deal with its threat value.

In the 2nd quest during the 2nd phase of that quest you can only pull 1 monster normally. He allows you to engage another monster.

Just some thoughts.

Posted at

Double post due to forum not showing post. Sorry.

Posted at

There is also a sneaky way of allowing one enemy to not attack for one turn. Lets say you are the first player and your partner is engaged with a Hill Troll (or whatever). In the Combat phase you let all your enemies attack you as normal, then it becomes your partners turn to defend. But before any attack gets resolved, you play Sneak Attack + Son of Arnor moving that Hill Troll to your side, which now has no legal attack window left. And you got 2 extra ATK to hurt the Troll this turn.

For more Combo ideas, you might want to visit this link:

http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/66685/lord-of-the-rings-combo-compendium

Greetings

Posted at

plueschi said:

There is also a sneaky way of allowing one enemy to not attack for one turn. Lets say you are the first player and your partner is engaged with a Hill Troll (or whatever). In the Combat phase you let all your enemies attack you as normal, then it becomes your partners turn to defend. But before any attack gets resolved, you play Sneak Attack + Son of Arnor moving that Hill Troll to your side, which now has no legal attack window left. And you got 2 extra ATK to hurt the Troll this turn.

This particular combo will NOT work. Page 31 of the rulebook on the Turn Sequence - there is no window after you resolve attacks against you for you to play a card and pull the Enemy to your side of the table.

Posted at

It will work. Read page 18, under Resolving Enemy Attacks:

Players may play event cards and take
actions at the end of each step.

So you can do it after step 4.

Edit: Nevermind, I am wrong. If you use the Sneak Attack after step 4 of the 1st player's last attack, they now have an additional eligible attacker (Hill Troll) who immediately attacks them. I'm not clear on what would happen if you used this after step 1 during player 2's attack resolution. But it seems pretty clear this combo would work if player 2 is engaged with 2 enemies, as you could play Sneak Attack any time during the resolution of the first engaged enemy, allowing you to disengage the 2nd enemy before it can attack.

Posted at

This card is great to engage the pesky goblin sniper. It's also good to help out your questing partner, when they are the first player and multiple monsters are in the staging area, by allowing you to voluntarily engage a second monster the turn the card is played.

Very useful catd IMHO.

Thanks,

Posted at

Entropy42 said:

It will work. Read page 18, under Resolving Enemy Attacks:

Players may play event cards and take
actions at the end of each step.

So you can do it after step 4.

Edit: Nevermind, I am wrong. If you use the Sneak Attack after step 4 of the 1st player's last attack, they now have an additional eligible attacker (Hill Troll) who immediately attacks them. I'm not clear on what would happen if you used this after step 1 during player 2's attack resolution. But it seems pretty clear this combo would work if player 2 is engaged with 2 enemies, as you could play Sneak Attack any time during the resolution of the first engaged enemy, allowing you to disengage the 2nd enemy before it can attack.

Yeah, the flowchart is a poor guide. And yeah, even if you follow the steps on Page 18 and play Sneak Attack+Son Of Arnor, the attack still resolves and someone is taking damage. There is no way to take zero damage in this case. Which means, this combo still does not work.

Posted at

Why doesn't the combo work if you play it during the resolution of the 2nd players 1st engagement? (Assuming he's engaged with Hill Troll and 1 other thing)

In that case, you are engaging the Hill Troll after your defense round is over, but before he attacks your opponent.

Posted at

Entropy42 said:

Why doesn't the combo work if you play it during the resolution of the 2nd players 1st engagement? (Assuming he's engaged with Hill Troll and 1 other thing)

In that case, you are engaging the Hill Troll after your defense round is over, but before he attacks your opponent.

The reason is the timing of the Combat Phase and the exact wording of the Combat Phase steps and your insertion of words into it that do not exist in the rulebook. The Combat Phase is per turn, not per player - a per turn Phase wherein enemy attacks are resolved one by one.

Attacks are resolved per enemy. You repeat steps 1 to 4 of the Combat Phase for each Enemy card. Just because you resolved all enemy attacks against you, that doesn't mean the attacks of enemies engaged by other players are resolved yet, nor is there such a thing as your "Defense Round". You resolve attacks against the First Player first, but that doesn't mean the First Player has a "Defense Round" - which means if an enemy gets pulled to you, for whatever reason, but its attack is not resolved, it still attacks you since attacks are resolved per enemy.

The Combat Phase rules on Page 18 give you the steps for resolving enemy attacks, and merely gives you the order of starting with the first player and going clockwise from there, resolving enemy attacks one at a time. Even though an enemy is engaged with your allied player, that enemy attack will resolve fully once picked.

But let's say you use SOA immediately after attacks against you are resolved, so before your allied player goes. Play has not passed to your allied player because he/she has yet to execute Step 1-Choose An Enemy. You then still have to pick an enemy, then a defender, resolve shadow effect, etc. at that point. Which means the enemy attacks will still deal out damage against you.

Now let's say you use SOA immediately your allied player chooses an enemy as per Step 1-Choose An Enemy. That enemy attack is still resolving and you still have to do Step 2-Pick A Defender. Your allied player is no longer engaged with that enemy and cannot pick a Defender. You get to pick defender if you want since you are now engaged with that enemy during the Pick A Defender step of *that enemy's attack*. Which means it still does damage.

Either way, someone is taking damage.

Posted at

CrowOfPyke said:

Entropy42 said:

Why doesn't the combo work if you play it during the resolution of the 2nd players 1st engagement? (Assuming he's engaged with Hill Troll and 1 other thing)

In that case, you are engaging the Hill Troll after your defense round is over, but before he attacks your opponent.

The reason is the timing of the Combat Phase and the exact wording of the Combat Phase steps and your insertion of words into it that do not exist in the rulebook. The Combat Phase is per turn, not per player - a per turn Phase wherein enemy attacks are resolved one by one.

Attacks are resolved per enemy. You repeat steps 1 to 4 of the Combat Phase for each Enemy card. Just because you resolved all enemy attacks against you, that doesn't mean the attacks of enemies engaged by other players are resolved yet, nor is there such a thing as your "Defense Round". You resolve attacks against the First Player first, but that doesn't mean the First Player has a "Defense Round" - which means if an enemy gets pulled to you, for whatever reason, but its attack is not resolved, it still attacks you since attacks are resolved per enemy.

No offense, but where do you see this? Per the rules on page 18:

"The first player then repeats these 4 steps for each enemy that he is engaged with. After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy. If playing with more than 2 players, proceed clockwise around the table with each player resolving all of his enemies’ attacks." (emphasis mine)

Attacks are resolved per enemy, per player. Once a player has resolved all of their enemy's attacks, you move on to the next player, who then resolves all their enemy's attacks, and so on.

In other words, this combo works just fine in the example given.

Posted at

Zambo said:

No offense, but where do you see this? Per the rules on page 18:

"The first player then repeats these 4 steps for each enemy that he is engaged with. After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy. If playing with more than 2 players, proceed clockwise around the table with each player resolving all of his enemies’ attacks." (emphasis mine)

Attacks are resolved per enemy, per player. Once a player has resolved all of their enemy's attacks, you move on to the next player, who then resolves all their enemy's attacks, and so on.

In other words, this combo works just fine in the example given.

I could ask you the same thing about your notion of "Defense Round" - where is that in the rulebook? It isn't.

Your answer is right in front of you from Page 18, and you even quoted it yourself: "After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy."

Your allied player picks an enemy as per Step 1. That enemy's attack is now resolving. You play Sneak Attack+SOA. ***The enemy attack is still resolving.*** (There is nothing in the resolution steps that, or in SA+SOA, prevents this continued attack resolution.) The resolution of that enemy's attack now moves to Step2 where a defender is picked... then step 3 and step 4.

In other words, this combo still doesn't work like you think it does.

Posted at

CrowOfPyke said:

Zambo said:

No offense, but where do you see this? Per the rules on page 18:

"The first player then repeats these 4 steps for each enemy that he is engaged with. After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy. If playing with more than 2 players, proceed clockwise around the table with each player resolving all of his enemies’ attacks." (emphasis mine)

Attacks are resolved per enemy, per player. Once a player has resolved all of their enemy's attacks, you move on to the next player, who then resolves all their enemy's attacks, and so on.

In other words, this combo works just fine in the example given.

I could ask you the same thing about your notion of "Defense Round" - where is that in the rulebook? It isn't.

Your answer is right in front of you from Page 18, and you even quoted it yourself: "After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy."

Your allied player picks an enemy as per Step 1. That enemy's attack is now resolving. You play Sneak Attack+SOA. ***The enemy attack is still resolving.*** (There is nothing in the resolution steps that, or in SA+SOA, prevents this continued attack resolution.) The resolution of that enemy's attack now moves to Step2 where a defender is picked... then step 3 and step 4.

In other words, this combo still doesn't work like you think it does.

When did I mention a "Defense Round"? sorpresa.gif

You may be misinterpreting the rule question. Here's the scenario:

You are player 1 in a two-player game. You have one Enemy engaged; player 2 has two Enemies. You resolve the Enemy attacking you, then you move on to player 2's Enemies. In the middle of resolving player 2's first Enemy attack, you play Sneak Attack and Son of Arnor, engaging the Enemy that has not yet begun to resolve its attack. After the Enemy's attack resolves, player 2 has no other Enemies engaged with him to resolve, so players move onto Attacking Enemies. This is explained with the rule I quoted as well as delineated in the Combat Phase Turn Sequence breakdown on pg. 31.

In other words, each player resolves attacks from all engaged Enemies in player order; you don't continually go around the table until all engaged Enemies have attacked.

Posted at

Zambo said:

When did I mention a "Defense Round"? sorpresa.gif

You may be misinterpreting the rule question. Here's the scenario:

You are player 1 in a two-player game. You have one Enemy engaged; player 2 has two Enemies. You resolve the Enemy attacking you, then you move on to player 2's Enemies. In the middle of resolving player 2's first Enemy attack, you play Sneak Attack and Son of Arnor, engaging the Enemy that has not yet begun to resolve its attack. After the Enemy's attack resolves, player 2 has no other Enemies engaged with him to resolve, so players move onto Attacking Enemies. This is explained with the rule I quoted as well as delineated in the Combat Phase Turn Sequence breakdown on pg. 31.

In other words, each player resolves attacks from all engaged Enemies in player order; you don't continually go around the table until all engaged Enemies have attacked.

Sorry, different user referenced a "defense round", which doesn't exist.

Your scenario still doesn't work. You still haven't fulfilled this basic requirement/tenet of the Combat Phase as per page 18: "All enemies that are engaged with the players attack each round, and the players resolve those attacks one at a time."

You still have an enemy that hasn't attacked. Starting with the first player is just that, a starting point. You go around resolving enemy attacks one by one. All enemies still resolve all of their attacks.

Think about this as well: If it worked the way you want it to, it would be possible to pass enemies around to different players ad nauseum ad infinitum and *never* have any of their attacks resolve, ever. Which makes no sense of course, and *if* it did exist I am pretty darn sure the rules hole for that would be clamped shut right quick.

Posted at

CrowOfPyke said:

Zambo said:

When did I mention a "Defense Round"? sorpresa.gif

You may be misinterpreting the rule question. Here's the scenario:

You are player 1 in a two-player game. You have one Enemy engaged; player 2 has two Enemies. You resolve the Enemy attacking you, then you move on to player 2's Enemies. In the middle of resolving player 2's first Enemy attack, you play Sneak Attack and Son of Arnor, engaging the Enemy that has not yet begun to resolve its attack. After the Enemy's attack resolves, player 2 has no other Enemies engaged with him to resolve, so players move onto Attacking Enemies. This is explained with the rule I quoted as well as delineated in the Combat Phase Turn Sequence breakdown on pg. 31.

In other words, each player resolves attacks from all engaged Enemies in player order; you don't continually go around the table until all engaged Enemies have attacked.

Sorry, different user referenced a "defense round", which doesn't exist.

Your scenario still doesn't work. You still haven't fulfilled this basic requirement/tenet of the Combat Phase as per page 18: "All enemies that are engaged with the players attack each round, and the players resolve those attacks one at a time."

You still have an enemy that hasn't attacked. Starting with the first player is just that, a starting point. You go around resolving enemy attacks one by one. All enemies still resolve all of their attacks.

Think about this as well: If it worked the way you want it to, it would be possible to pass enemies around to different players ad nauseum ad infinitum and *never* have any of their attacks resolve, ever. Which makes no sense of course, and *if* it did exist I am pretty darn sure the rules hole for that would be clamped shut right quick.

I have fulfilled the requirement of the Combat Phase: Player 1's attacks have resolved, Player 2's attacks have resolved. You don't go back to Player 1. Again, look at the Turn Sequence of the Combat Phase to understand this.

Unless otherwise specified through some sort of card effect, engaged Enemies stay engaged with the same player. How would they be able to be "passed around ad nauseum ad infinitum", just out of curiosity?

Posted at

Zambo said:

I have fulfilled the requirement of the Combat Phase: Player 1's attacks have resolved, Player 2's attacks have resolved. You don't go back to Player 1. Again, look at the Turn Sequence of the Combat Phase to understand this.

Unless otherwise specified through some sort of card effect, engaged Enemies stay engaged with the same player. How would they be able to be "passed around ad nauseum ad infinitum", just out of curiosity?

Have all the enemy attacks resolved? No. Then you are not fulfilling the requirements of the Combat Phase. There is no "Turn Sequence" of the Combat Phase. There is however a starting point and a requirement that all enemy attacks are resolved.

Posted at

CrowOfPyke said:

Zambo said:

I have fulfilled the requirement of the Combat Phase: Player 1's attacks have resolved, Player 2's attacks have resolved. You don't go back to Player 1. Again, look at the Turn Sequence of the Combat Phase to understand this.

Unless otherwise specified through some sort of card effect, engaged Enemies stay engaged with the same player. How would they be able to be "passed around ad nauseum ad infinitum", just out of curiosity?

Have all the enemy attacks resolved? No. Then you are not fulfilling the requirements of the Combat Phase. There is no "Turn Sequence" of the Combat Phase. There is however a starting point and a requirement that all enemy attacks are resolved.

You are incorrect. There is a turn sequence. It is spelled out on pg. 18:"After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy. If playing with more than 2 players, proceed clockwise around the table with each player resolving all of his enemies’ attacks." and also in the Turn Sequence of the Combat Phase. How is this not a turn sequence?

Posted at

I am pretty positive that this Combo even works, if the second player has only one enemy engaged with him. The relevant part for my argumentation is the Turn Sequence chart on pages 30 and 31.

Under Phase 6, the Combat Phase, there is a step labelled "Next player resolves attacks made by his enemies against him, etc.".

This step is highlighted in green, which implies that actions can be taken by either player even before any part of any attack against the second player gets resolved. And afterwards the enemy is not longer engaged with player two, while the step for attacking player one has passed...

Posted at

CrowOfPyke said:

Attacks are resolved per enemy. You repeat steps 1 to 4 of the Combat Phase for each Enemy card. Just because you resolved all enemy attacks against you, that doesn't mean the attacks of enemies engaged by other players are resolved yet, nor is there such a thing as your "Defense Round". You resolve attacks against the First Player first, but that doesn't mean the First Player has a "Defense Round" - which means if an enemy gets pulled to you, for whatever reason, but its attack is not resolved, it still attacks you since attacks are resolved per enemy.

Now let's say you use SOA immediately your allied player chooses an enemy as per Step 1-Choose An Enemy. That enemy attack is still resolving and you still have to do Step 2-Pick A Defender. Your allied player is no longer engaged with that enemy and cannot pick a Defender. You get to pick defender if you want since you are now engaged with that enemy during the Pick A Defender step of *that enemy's attack*. Which means it still does damage.

Either way, someone is taking damage.

There's no need to get so nasty about it, I was just trying to understand why the combo didn't work in the scenario I proposed. I was not claiming "defense round" to be an actual turn structure, I was just using that as shorthand for saying I have finished defending and we are resolving the next player's attacks. That's why I didn't capitalize it.

The 2 scenarios you wrote were not what I was asking about. Zambo has already clarified what I was asking though. I'll take his word for it that combat does not "cycle back around" to the first player to look for more viable attacks.

I think the rules are pretty unclear about what happens if you play Son of Arnor after each step of Resolving Enemy Attacks. If I "steal" the enemy from you after step 1, who is the active player? It seems like I could steal him after step 2 or 3, and then he would still hit your defender, since you've already declared the defender. If its undefended though, I'm not sure who is the active player, and who would have to assign the damage to a hero. Pretty minor point either way, at least for now. Hopefully combat will be spelled out more clearly in the FAQ.

Posted at

Zambo said:


Have all the enemy attacks resolved? No. Then you are not fulfilling the requirements of the Combat Phase. There is no "Turn Sequence" of the Combat Phase. There is however a starting point and a requirement that all enemy attacks are resolved.

You are incorrect. There is a turn sequence. It is spelled out on pg. 18:"After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy. If playing with more than 2 players, proceed clockwise around the table with each player resolving all of his enemies’ attacks." and also in the Turn Sequence of the Combat Phase. How is this not a turn sequence?

Where is it stated that there is a turn sequence? The words "turn sequence" do not appear anywhere on Page 18. You are inserting words onto that page which do not exist. Here are some words that do exist on Page 18 that I have quoted before, which you continue to ignore: "All enemies that are engaged with the players attack each round, and the players resolve those attacks one at a time."

The principal question remains: Have all the enemy attacks resolved? The answer is still no in your scenario. You have a starting point and a requirement that all enemies engaged with the players attack each round.

Play it however you want, I am sure we will get an official ruling one way or the other soon enough.

Posted at

Entropy42 said:

There's no need to get so nasty about it, I was just trying to understand why the combo didn't work in the scenario I proposed. I was not claiming "defense round" to be an actual turn structure, I was just using that as shorthand for saying I have finished defending and we are resolving the next player's attacks. That's why I didn't capitalize it.

The 2 scenarios you wrote were not what I was asking about. Zambo has already clarified what I was asking though. I'll take his word for it that combat does not "cycle back around" to the first player to look for more viable attacks.

I think the rules are pretty unclear about what happens if you play Son of Arnor after each step of Resolving Enemy Attacks. If I "steal" the enemy from you after step 1, who is the active player? It seems like I could steal him after step 2 or 3, and then he would still hit your defender, since you've already declared the defender. If its undefended though, I'm not sure who is the active player, and who would have to assign the damage to a hero. Pretty minor point either way, at least for now. Hopefully combat will be spelled out more clearly in the FAQ.

There was nothing "nasty" about what I posted - no caps, no yelling, etc. I did post some logic and interpretations to be sure, but there was no name calling or anything like that.

I agree with you, there looks to be two ways to interpret this scenario at the moment - at least two camps of thought on the matter. And yeah, the Combat Phase rules on Page 18 *and* the flowchart on Page 31, could use some serious refining and clarity. It may be a cooperative LCG, but it is still a card game and as card games are wont to do, they need specific steps and clarity. I am hoping for an official FAQ soon as well.

Posted at

Email Nate to get the answer instead of arguing about it. He is quick to respond.

Posted at

CrowOfPyke said:

Where is it stated that there is a turn sequence? The words "turn sequence" do not appear anywhere on Page 18. You are inserting words onto that page which do not exist. Here are some words that do exist on Page 18 that I have quoted before, which you continue to ignore: "All enemies that are engaged with the players attack each round, and the players resolve those attacks one at a time."

On pages 30-31. The Turn Sequence, specifically: 6. Combat Phase. That's where it's stated. This, in addition to the wording on pg. 18 ("The first player then repeats these 4 steps for each enemy that he is engaged with. After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy. If playing with more than 2 players, proceed clockwise around the table with each player resolving all of his enemies’ attacks.") shows that there is a specific order that engaged enemies attacks resolve. I'm not inserting anything. I'm reading the rules.

CrowOfPyke said:

The principal question remains: Have all the enemy attacks resolved? The answer is still no in your scenario. You have a starting point and a requirement that all enemies engaged with the players attack each round.

Play it however you want, I am sure we will get an official ruling one way or the other soon enough.

Sure, the answer is no. That's because I'm following the rules as they are written and not presupposing anything. Nor am I ignoring anything. I am following the rules.

Posted at

Zambo said:

On pages 30-31. The Turn Sequence, specifically: 6. Combat Phase. That's where it's stated. This, in addition to the wording on pg. 18 ("The first player then repeats these 4 steps for each enemy that he is engaged with. After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy. If playing with more than 2 players, proceed clockwise around the table with each player resolving all of his enemies’ attacks.") shows that there is a specific order that engaged enemies attacks resolve. I'm not inserting anything. I'm reading the rules.

Sure, the answer is no. That's because I'm following the rules as they are written and not presupposing anything. Nor am I ignoring anything. I am following the rules.


And yet you still have not resolved all the enemy attacks.


Okay, so now we are discussing the Turn Sequence flow chart on Page 31 and not the Combat Phase rules on Page 18? Okay then.


Under Combat Phase of the Turn Sequence flowchart on page 31 you have this line "Next player resolves attacks made by his enemies against him, etc." Let's say you do you have 4 players. And let's say you do use SA+SOA as you describe in your scenario example. Let's then say you get to the end of all enemy attack resolutions on player 4. Guess what? You still have have one enemy whose attack has not resolved, which means you have not fulfilled the basic requirement of the Combat Phase on Page 18 "All enemies that are engaged with the players attack each round, and the players resolve those attacks one at a time." So, then the Turn Sequence flowchart on page 31 says "Next player resolves attacks made by his enemies against him, etc."


Around and around and around until all enemy attacks have resolved. Starting with the first player is merely that, a starting point. You still have to resolve all enemy attacks, as clearly state on Page 18 and exemplified by the flowchart on page 31....


Sigh. I have made myself clear as can be on this issue or rules interpretation, or at least I think I have anyway. I don't know who Nate is, or what his email address is, otherwise I'd just hit him up and reference this thread to ask for his help as Toqtamish suggests. Otherwise, I don't think we are going to get anywhere else but back and forth.