About attack,After attack (Wargs, Ufthak and other things)

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

Posted at

Paul Grogan said:

lleimmoen said:

Glaurung said:

So now is clean they bite and run. So i like eat now Wargs is more danegorus. You was right Pumkins there is my hat.

It's hard to say who was right because the ruling on CU has changed since the previous FAQ. And now the wording matches.

Nobody is right or wrong here. :) Technically I was 'wrong' because I said the wargs should be played one way, and the new FAQ says they should be played the other way. However, turns out I was actually correct with my reasoning, which is why I got an email from Nate to discuss the new FAQ. It was along the lines of "Based on the first FAQ, your interpretation of the wargs is right, and since this isnt right, we need to change it back so that the wargs work as intended". Thanks to Pumpkin for helping me help them with the new FAQ.

I used to play the wargs did damage and ran away. Then FAQ 1.0 came out and I played them the other way. Now I'll go back to playing them the original way, which is now correct again :)

I do same. Before i use to play them with damage. But after FAQ i start to play them no damage. Also there is confusion with the location from Hill Of Emyn Muil Adv pack shadow effect: after the attack is resolved return this enemy to the staging area. So i though should be different between 2 game termins :After Attack and :After attack is resolved. But looks like they them self dont know where they going. Anyway now is clean and i like it.

Posted at

Paul Grogan said:

lleimmoen said:

Glaurung said:

So now is clean they bite and run. So i like eat now Wargs is more danegorus. You was right Pumkins there is my hat.

It's hard to say who was right because the ruling on CU has changed since the previous FAQ. And now the wording matches.

Nobody is right or wrong here. :) Technically I was 'wrong' because I said the wargs should be played one way, and the new FAQ says they should be played the other way. However, turns out I was actually correct with my reasoning, which is why I got an email from Nate to discuss the new FAQ. It was along the lines of "Based on the first FAQ, your interpretation of the wargs is right, and since this isnt right, we need to change it back so that the wargs work as intended". Thanks to Pumpkin for helping me help them with the new FAQ.

I used to play the wargs did damage and ran away. Then FAQ 1.0 came out and I played them the other way. Now I'll go back to playing them the original way, which is now correct again :)

It makes sense. The first FAQ was bad in this sense. Because I played both as it is now then changed both because of the FAQ, now switched back to previous. I also had this reasoning that the wording should match. I am glad thematically also now.

Posted at

Paul Grogan said:

Thanks to Pumpkin for helping me help them with the new FAQ.

np, I will continue to keep he FAQ thread up to date as much as I can with new questions and you have my email so if Nate asks you to help with the next inevitable installment of the FAQ you know how to contact me if you need to.

I think the new FAQ is a great improvement, although the attack limitations section could still be a bit clearer, I think I get what they are saying but there's still plenty of questions about it appearing on the forums.