lleimmoen said:

I was responding to the part where you said: "I myself am not much inclined to do stuff that is not written on cards or in the rulebook..."

I know. Not a big deal. I thought better of it (the line I wrote) myself and said so in the next post (if you noticed) but I see I could just edited it.

I have played games. Perhaps not as many as you but perhaps before you yourself were born. Anyways, most of the errata (as far as I remember) is usually clarification of the rules, not changing them - less so after less than a month of play or so.

I hope they print the Nazgul again and include it for free in one of the adventure packs so I can have the proper card in my game. Same for the ChieftaIn (proof-read anyone?) or the big bug for me The FavoUr of the Lady - how come there is an American spelling in a Tolkien game, for Tolkien's sake.

yeah... every card game has its erratas... because of the language "barrier"

but it doesn't bode well for the designers... even I saw this combo like the first time I played scenario 2 or 3... oh, cool, I'll just use forest snare to halt the nazgul or the troll... they should have taken that into consideration... but, ah, well, doesn't matter... it's actually more fun that way... we beat the nazgul anyway today... with legolas and gimli and gandi he just doesn't stand a chance

So... due to the way damage works with multiple defenders, Stand Together doesn't do anything whatsoever?

It appears many of the official FAQ answers use the most counter-intuitive solution possible. While it's nice to have official word on who controls (or doesn't control) Caught in a Web, I find many other card interactions have become less clear. Important ones have already been mentioned.

Ah well, I suppose we'll be waiting for a clarification of the clarification, then. Such are FAQs.

HyenaSpotz said:

I think it changed only with regard to where/who you can apply the damage to. Multiple defenders still add up their total Defense, subtracting that total from the attacker's Attack. If any damage is left to be dealt, then that damage must go to a single defender. Before the FAQ, you were able to split the remaining damage however you liked, so 3 dmg to be dealt with 3 2HP units defending, all would survive (by assigning 1 dmg to each), now one of them dies.

Dam said:

I agree that appears to be the most intuitive way of handling the situation, but do they add together? I see nothing in either the rules or on Stand Together to suggest that multiple defenders actually add their Defense Strengths. Judging from this thread and others, and the material from the FAQ, intuition or common sense appears to be a poor way of figuring out the rules.

I should clarify I'm not upset by any of these things, since emotion is hard to read in text. It is just a minor frustration.

HyenaSpotz said:

Normally you are only allowed to defend with one character, then you deduct Defense from Attack.

"This is done by
subtracting the defense strength (Ú) of the defending
character from the attack strength (Û) of the attacking
enemy." (p. 18)

Stand Together allows you to declare multiple characters as defending character, for me it merely adds a 's' at the end of "character" in that above quote. If you don't add up their defense values, then ST is about as coaster as it gets, absolutely no use.

Each card should have some benefit (events and allies) or detriment (enemies and shadow cards). If one interpretation of the card text forces the card to be completely useless, then it's obviously not the correct interpretation. Since "Stand Together" is not a useless card then it must provide some benefit and the only benefit it can provide (with the restriction stated in the FAQ) is that you combine the defense rating of all characters committed to defending against that attack.

The same argument can be used for the Wargs. Since one interpretation of their card text is obviously useless then that cannot be the correct inerpretation. They remain engaged until the shadow card is revealed and then their special instructions take effect.

The Legolas / Gondolin Blade interpretation can go either way. Each interpretation is beneficial. However, in gameplay it is actually to your benefit to place the progress markers on the Active Location. Just try it.

It's nice to see an official ruling on Chieftan Ufthak since it really can be interpreted either way. I don't like it but at least it is now the official way to play.

Dol Guldor Beastmaster also only has one interpretation that makes sense. Dealing the second shadow card after his attack is resolved would be completely useless and can't possibly be the correct interpretation. If you are engaged with five enemies, deal each enemy a Shadow Card based on their threat level (highest first). After those cards are dealt, deal another to the Dol Guldor Beastmaster.

Not being able to Snare the Nazgul? I can live with that. I can snare other enemies if I need to.

Robert

GodRob said:

Again, I don't see how it can be interpreted more than one way.

"Instead, an active location acts as a buffer for the currently revealed quest card. Any progress tokens that would be placed on a quest card are instead placed on the active location."

ANY progress tokens that WOULD be placed...

I'm not trying to be rude by hammering this point over and over, but I am trying to understand the argument for any other intepretation.

You are right. The rulebook only says "placed" it really doesn't say anything about "removed" so I'd probably always take them from the quest itself.

I'm confused as to why people don't understand the Legolas /Blade question. The rules SPECIFICALLY say that the cards break the rules when there is a discrepency. Legolas and the blade place on the quest plain and simple. The only time you place tokens meant for the quest on a location is during the quest phase when you have more influence than shadow and when a card specifically says to. IE Rangers and such. Now if they come out and say the opposite they are contradicting themselves.

Legoals is designed to help tactics decks which have notoriously LOW influence keep their deck moving along on the quest. If you want abilities that place on quests instead of locations play with Rangers and such.

I do however disagree with the Stand Together ruling. If you play it and keep it to the letter of the rules they should be allowed to spread the dmg out form whatever wasn't blocked. This is actually a pretty dangerous ruling considering the rules aren't very tight in some sections. It certainly doesn't make the card bad or worthless but it doesn't justify it being a one per box. IE Rare. They also set another dangerous precedent just arbitarily changing the wording on cards.

I certainly hope these were all answered by the games designer but looking at how little info we got form a FAQ i am skeptical about that. They need to be very careful how they proceed form this point forth or they will sink their own game before it even get soff the ground.

Baenre said:

But I don't think any card is breaking the rules here, so I don't see a contradiction. The way I see it, Legolas places two progress tokens on the current quest. Any progress tokens that would be placed on the current quest get placed on the active location instead. Where's the contradiction?

And I don't see anything in the rulebook that even implies the marked sentence in the above quote.

conykchameleon said:

I concur. Legolas only "breaks" the rules insofar, as he gets to place progress tokens after a kill... that's the only exception... everything else - progress tokens are placed "normally", i.e. active location if one is there.

And in do so, Legolas is still helping the group move a long on their journey.

I'm yet to beat the 3rd scenario, but I bet you can guess which card I was sitting with two copies of when the staging area was empty other than the Nazgul

Why couldn't that have happened last week!

Geoff

Too bad they haven't clearified the Northern tracker discussion yet. Hope this will be added to the FAQ in the following weeks.

I didn't realize there was a debate going on about the Northern Tracker. What is the issue with it?

Mestrahd said:

yes, please clarify?