I think the only time a player is restricted to attacking an enemy once per round is if that enemy is engaged with that player. Enemies in any other state (engaged with other players or in the staging area) may be attacked as many times as a player has eligible attackers.

I can completely understand your point of view, I just don't believe it's supported clearly in the rules as written.

Does anyone have the email for rules questions? I think it used to be at the bottom of the page but I can't find it...

Once again another bit of not great wording by FFG. It's pretty clear that you can only attack an enemy engaged with you once, but there doesn't seem to be anything about number of times you can attack enemies in the staging area on engaged with another player- I guess the assumption is that you can usually only do it once, having to exhaust a character in order to do so.

Is there any news on this? I bought the game last week and have that same question: can Dunhere attack a character in the staging area that has been attacked by one of my other characters prior to that enemy being pushed back to the staging area via A Light In The Dark? Or, more clearly:

- Eleanor attacks the enemy

- A light in the dark pushes the enemy back to the staging area

- Can Dunhere NOW declare an attack against that enemy? (Errata 1.1 has an example, but it uses other cards for it)

cashew137 said:

Out of curiosity... why wouldn't you just attack with Eleanor and Dunhere at the same time? Doing it this way means you have to count the enemy's defense twice, once for each attack. I suppose if the enemy has 0 defense and you want the extra +1 attack for Dunhere... but how often does that even come up?

You answered your own question.. and yes, that situation came up and the +1 from Dunhere would have finished off the enemy...

Vyron said:

I have to disagree... one shouldn't try to analyze the wording of every card in any possible way, only to create another advantage and thus make the game too simple - to many law students here, I guess

more important is also to play the game "as intended" - now, in lack of an official statement, anybody can say the game was intended like this and that, I have to admit - but wouldn't you also admit, that it seems logical - the fact being that you can attack normally once - that you can't attack twice at all?

This is the most insane statement i have read on this forum in ages. These kind of card games are ALL about rule interactions. That is what makes deck building fun.. exploiting rule interactions to build ubr wicked combo or engine decks. It is up to the designers to write sufficient keyword qualifiers and situational global rules to explicitly describe common game states. It has nothing to do with logic, logic is self deceptive, when you follow your own logic no matter what it seams perfectly correct, and something completely different will seam correct to others. This is why we have rules to begin with to define these things so subjective opinions are not taken into account

Now, I understand that for the very reason deck building is fun, designing one of these games is very hard. There is just no way you can predict the entire scope of the rule interactions, the designer himself might not have considered some of these situations, you see this all the time in other card games leading to banning of cards, cause the card itself witch seamed so neat in development has had some awesome deck builder work out a way to completely break it. So having "errors" isn't a bad thing for a game like this... I think we all understand this.

BUT, especially when a new game is starting off, we are not out of line to expect a more hands on and verbal approach from the designers to official put to rest the myriad of rule complications that have been cropping up. I mean this thread isn't even about a card rule interaction it is about a base global rule witch affects a ton of cards, and most likely many more down the line. And no, while I am on the subject, I do not count the unofficial FAQ... this is just a load of forum members making "best guesses". Many of us, especially those who come from competitive dueling card game background.. what official word form the game company itself before we take anything seriously.

This thread is a prime example, no matter what the designers intention, Brad Harrington is dead right about what the rules themselves allow us to do. Even if teh unofficial faq adds a qualifyer to prevent this, it is not more "legitimate" than any random posted made in this thread.

Like most things the rules are just not robust enough to answer these questions, for now ... So there is no right or wrong way.. just the way you want to play for NO ONE can say you are playing it wrong as the only legit place is the official faq and the rule book, and in there.. it is allowed. So just play as you see fit, follow your own logic and have fun.

Just read this back and I sound a bit pissed... .. Well that is cause I kind of am.. thread after thread pops up and the unofficial faq get larger and larger and more and more subjective and still no word form the designers or official faq. I think it isn't to much to expect him to pop onto teh forums once a week and check out the larger threads and see what people are saying and chime in.... though of course as Brad Harrington so correctly states, that the very act of defining some of these "errors" dose limit game design options for the future... so I understand what a tricky situation he is in.. but... . .. . still..... sigh...

You cannot attack the same enemy twice in a round. The rulebook reads on page 20, "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." So, if a player already declared an attack against an enemy, he cannot declare another attack on that same enemy (except when a card specifically overrides this, ie. a "golden rule" situation). The "ranged" ability is handled a little differently since "participating in an attack" is not "declaring an attack".

We all know the game can be hard and we all are trying to search for ways to win. When interpreting the rules, we should be careful so as to avoid focusing only on the beneficial interpretation and not the "other side of the coin". For example, "Each player can declare an attack (with any number of eligible attackers he controls) against each enemy with which he is engaged once each round." One possible interpretation for the preceding statement is that the limitation of declaring an attack once each round only applies to enemies you are engaged with; that enemies not engaged to you is not limited to once per round attack declaration. Another intrepretation is that you could only declare an attack against enemies engaged to you; if they are not engaged to you, you don't even get that once per round opportunity to declare an attack. This second interpretation is what I think is the reason why the phrase "enemy with which he is engaged" was included in the rules statement. If the rule statement were to be reworded, it will probably be "Each player can declare an attack (with any number of eligible attackers he controls) against each enemy once each round; enemies must be engaged to you for you to declare attack against them".

Brad Harrington said:

No. After Dunhere's first attack, the target is no longer eligible to be attacked a second time by that player. However, he can attack a separate eligible enemy using Unexpected Courage.

'Nuff said.

yea both you guys seam to be missing that the rules say the oposite of what your saying.

I feel like I am missing something in the debate. People keep citing the rule book which is ambiguous. Doesn't the FAQ cover this situation explicitly?

"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."

Bohemond said:

I think what might be confusing is the next paragraph and example which reads:

"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 elligible to be declared as an attacker".

Example: Tom exhausts Aragorn to attack a Hill Troll, and Kris exhausts Legolas to particpate in the attack. The Hill Troll takes 3 wounds but survives/ All characters in play are then readied via Grim Resolve. Because the Hill Troll has already been attacked by Tom. he cannot declare another attack against it this round except through a card effect. So if Tom exhausts Aragorn to plat Quick Strike which reads. 'Action: Exhaust a character you control to immediately declare it as an attacker...' both Aragorn and Legolas could attack the Hill Troll again.

One paragraph says you can't, the next says you can. I think FFG need to employ An English Major to proof read the rules and FAQ so that they are not confusing and Ambigous. They way some of this stuff is written just sucks. as I've said before rules and their associated FAQ need to be clear and concise. I'm seriously hoping that they are working to release an updated and improved FAQ ASAP.

silverhand77 said:

My interpretation of the rules is as follows:

You can't attack an enemy with Legolas, use Unexpected Courage to ready him and attack the same enemy again, but you can use Unexpexted Courage to Ready him and then use quick strike or a card with similar effect to do it because the card effect says so.

Tom gets to declare another attack because Quick Strike says he can (and he otherwise would not be able to).

Legolas can participate in the attack - participating in an attack is not the same as declaring an attack.

silverhand77 said:

Quick Strike allows you to declare an attack against an eligible enemy so that doesn't help get around the rule.

So in your example, you would not be able to ready with UC and QS the same enemy just attacked.

@Gamestar

Did you read the example? it shows that you can.

silverhand77 said:

Examples do not concern me, Admiral...

But the question in this thread wasn't about quick strike. People where asking about using Dunhere to make multiple attacks against an unengaged target. Which the FAQ clearly do not allow.

Bohemond said:

I see what you mean, but quick strike can also be played on Dunhere to the same end.

The official FAQ has been updated - Quick Strike now requires its target to attack alone.

Yep, I just got it

radiskull said:

Agreed. and I for one think that was a better ruling than keeping the Ranged guys in there and not the rest of the team. I like it.

However.... can Quick Strike still be played to Effectively Declare a Second Attack against the Same Enemy the Same Round?

That is still a little vague... if you ask me.

The rules speak about Limitations on Player Declaration in the Combat Phase.

example 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 I say, I can play a Quick Strike in the Planning Phase.... what? I'm not allowed to Attack the same Enemy again in Combat? I'd say yes.

/wolf

My take on it - the game rules allow you one attack. Quick Strike grants you another, regardless of when in the round you play it. So the attack you make with QS in no way affects what attacks you're allowed to make during the combat phase.

radiskull said:

That is my interpretation as well. Card text truphms Game Rules.

/wolf

Let me push this subject a little bit further! Can I attack the same enemy three times in a round?

From the LOTR FAQ 1.2:

"(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. 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."

Okay, I have a fictive example regarding multiple attacks against the same enemy.

Merry and Pippin are playing their favorite game, The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game!
They are making a last stand against a Hill Troll. Merry has only one Hero left: Legolas with two Unexpected Courage and two Dwarven Axe. Pippin has only Aragorn at his disposal. Merry is the first player and the Hill Troll is engaged with Pippin. During the Planning phase Merry plays a Quick Strike, he exhausts Legolas and declares an attack against the Hill Troll. After resolving the attack, he exhausts the first Unexpected Courage and readies Legolas. Later in the Combat phase Merry as the first player declares an attack against the Hill Troll and exhaust Legolas again. After resolving the attack, he exhausts the second Unexpected Courage and readies Legolas again. Now it's Pippin turn to declare an attack against any eligible enemy. He chooses the Hill Troll and exhaust Aragorn. Merry is joining the attack and exhaust Legolas (using his Ranged trait).

Please tell me, if there was anything against the rules in the above mentioned example.

ShadowGhost said:

I think yes this is correct nothing against the rules. To have 3 Quick Strike and 2 U Courage is really lucky but yes is should to play like this.