Player 2 did not declare defenders (he couldn't), so yes, one of player 2's heroes will take all the damage.

If player 1 already defended, I think that player 2 engaging the Nazgul would be a bad idea, but I would extrapolate that instead of being defended by player 1, it becomes undefended by player 2.

Once player 1's enemies finish attacking him, player 2's enemies will attack him, including the Nazgul (again) in this case. There aren't two combat phases in a row, the first Nazgul attack came during the part of the combat phase where enemies attack player 1. The rules state that you repeat the combat steps "for each enemy that [you are] engaged with." Thus, it doesn't matter that the Nazgul already attacked player 1. It is engaging player 2 during the time when enemies attack player 2, thus it attacks.

Finally, shadow cards attach to an enemy, so if the enemy moves after step 2, so does its shadow card, which will then be revealed in step 3.

Presumably, if you moved the Nazgul after step 1, the second player would then have the opportunity to declare one of HIS defenders, since it moved before the "Declare Defenders" step.

P.S. I'm using male pronouns because that's what the game does. I in no way want to disparage any female gamers. What I wouldn't give for English to have a non-awkward, gender-neutral, singular personal pronoun. Sigh...

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

In the practical use now, it makes little difference. You just need to get SoA in play before the attacks starts. You do your defending, then ****** the enemy from the player who were about to do his. I have always played it thus.

radiskull said:

Haha.

I find it very annoying when someone does the "he or she" thing. Language is there to get a point across, is it not?

lleimmoen said:

It is interesting, and strange that the combo has a significantly different effect depending when it is played in the round. It almost throws some question marks around the validity of using SoA before the attack starts, does that really mean the Nazgul misses an attack that round? From the rules though that seems clear how that should be played and is now the only sensible way to play SoA and Sneak attack.

Based on the rules though i would never have surmised the damage was dealt to the player who played SoA....

radiskull said:

So, to sum up: let's say that player 1 already defended successfully all the attacks from his engaged monsters. So he finishes his "defense sub-phase". We move to player 2 (he has the nasty Nazgul engaged and is the only one). Player 1 decides to play the combo Sneak Attack + SoA after dealing the shadow card. Then player 2 ends his defense phase (no engagements now). And now we return to player 1, because he has a new engaged enemy (even if he already passed successfully his defense sub-phase)? I assume that he can declare defenders in this case (he engaged the Nazgul before the defense declaracion), as you said, radiskull.

It sounds a bit strange, but well, I'll get used to it , if that's the way it's meant to be played .

This is the best summarization of the issues I can come up with:

Sneak Attack + SoA could easily be used to force the Nazgul to skip an attack, as long as it is used before the Nazgul is chosen to attack (step 1). Here's the framework as I see it, with ** explaining what happens if SA + SoA is played at that particular time. I'm assuming that Nazgul is attacking the Player A, and Player B is playing the card combo.

**If played here, Nazgul will not attack Player A, and may possibly force the Nazgul to skip its attack this round if player B has already resolved attacks against him.

1) Nazgul is chosen to attack Player A.

**If played here, Nazgul will shift its attack to Player B, enabling Player B to declare defenders during step 2.

2) Defenders are chosen.

**If played here, it will mean that the attack will be undefended against Player B, unless someone used a Sentinel character to defend. It also means that player B will bear the brunt of any shadow cards referring to the "defending player". The defender that Player A chose, if any, will do nothing in this attack unless it a) has Sentinel or b) has a Response pertaining to when it is declared as a defender.

3) Shadow effects are resolved.

**If played here, player A will be affected by the shadow card (and thanks to the Nazgul effect, player A will need to discard a character). Player B will take the undefended damage.

4) Damage is resolved.

**If played here, there is not a big effect.

In any event, if player B uses the combo at any time during player A's defense phase, and player B has yet to resolve attacks against him, then the Nazgul will attack player B during B's defense phase also, albeit without a shadow card.

Nicely explained. Let's see if FFG decides to put this ambiguity solved in the FAQ, it will come handy to other players that don't read forums .

radiskull said:

A very accurate but pretty convoluted process, especially the attacking a second time without a shadow card as you state above - seems unneccessarily complex for not a great deal of gain.

If I were FFG/Nate, I would simply clarify the card can only be used to move an enemy who has not yet attacked this phase - thats the most practical way to play it anyway, as others have said.

radiskull said:

That is incorrect. Step three is not to reveal the shadow card, but to resolve the shadow card. Shadow cards are not discarded until the end of the combat phase or until the enemy it is attached to is removed from play. That means player B will still have to resolve that shadow effect when the Nazgul attacks a second time.

radiskull said:

Nice summary. What I find most interesting now from this is that there is still a little sensibility for playing it at point 2) if you are defending Nazgul with Gondorian Spearman and also want Nazgul to switch a player with whom he is engaged.

Iliemmoen, that's a great example of an instance when you'd actually want to use this combo at an odd time.

Kiwina, good catch. You're absolutely right. In the case of the Nazgul, that means that player B is also gonna lose a character

Pumpkin, I'd be pretty upset if the next FAQ contained something like that. Surely SoA will not be the only card that can move an enemy during the combat phase, and I'd prefer a coherent framework that can handle all such cards, rather than an ad hoc ruling for each and every card. We don't have any Actions that are restricted to some sub-part of a phase, and I'd prefer to keep the flexibility, even if there aren't a lot of reasons to use it now.

I just read this thread for the first time, and some of the conclusions make no sense. Specifically, the ones that include Nazgul attacking a player when they are not the active player. The rules say, "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."

After Nazgul switches from Player A to Player B; Nazgul's attack is now resolving against Player B. As a result, Nazgul's attack doesn't resolve until Player B's turn, where Player B treats him like any other bad guy (meaning that Player B goes through all 4 steps, regardless of where Nazgul was in his attack cycle when he switched players). So, your example would work like this:

**If SA+SoA is played here, then Nazgul will not attack Player A. Nazgul will resolve his attacks against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

1) Nazgul is chosen to attack Player A.

**If played here, then Nazgul will not resolve the attack against Player A. Nazgul will resolve his attacks against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

2) Defenders are chosen.

**If played here, after Player A declared a defender against Nazgul, then the declared defender will stay exhausted, but Nazgul will not resolve the attack against Player A. Nazgul will resolve his attacks against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

3) Shadow effects are resolved.

**If played here, player A will be affected by the shadow card and Nazgul's effect. If Player A declared a defender, then it will stay exhausted, but Nazgul will not resolve the attack against Player A. Nazgul will resolve his attack against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

4) Damage is resolved.

**If played here, Nazgul has resolved all the steps of his attack against Player A. Nazgul will resolve his attack against Player B when Player B is the Active player.

There is no rule that says an enemy can only attack once per turn. That is why he will attack both Player A and Player B if Player B uses SA+SoA after the attack has completely resolved against Player A.

If Player B (the one who plays SA+SoA) has already had their turn as the Active player during the Combat Phase, then Nazgul will not resolve his attack against Player B.

sWhiteboy, there is nothing in the rules to suggest that once an attack begins to resolve, it can be aborted by anything other than the death of the attacker or the elimination of the defending player. Once an attack has begun, it MUST resolve, which means that if the Nazgul moves to player B, the attack still finishes, then attacks AGAIN when it is player B's turn.

The outcome you're describing is one of the three options I included in my question that Nate French answered. He specifically stated that your outcome is NOT what happens.

radiskull said:

Busted!

radiskull said:

The Rules say, "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."

So, let's break it down.

1. The first player then repeats these 4 steps for each enemy that he is engaged with.

- The first player must resolve all 4 steps for each enemy that they are engaged with.

2. 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...

- The first player must resolve the 4 steps of all enemy attacks made against him, before any player can resolve attacks made against him.

3. ...following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy.

- When any player resolves an attack made against them, they have to resolve all 4 steps.

I know that Nate French is a lead designer, but that doesn't mean what he says is the official answer. This happens from time-to-time with other card games too. For example, in the Resident Evil DBG there is a Jill card that ran into a similar issue. The card allowed you to skip your turn, but on your next turn you would draw double the cards and have double the attacks. At least, that is what Tylar (the lead designer) said the card did. But, the wording of the card, in conjunction with a strict look at the rules, make it so you draw the normal amount of cards. So, when the official FAQ came out, the FAQ decided to go with the weaker version (ignoring what the lead designer said).

So, until we have an official FAQ answer. I have to play it like the rules say.

sWhiteboy said:

What happens when the bolded part changes? One of the three possible resolutions was that the attack went through against Player A. Nate said that this was incorrect.

sWhiteboy said:

I agree that we need an official FAQ answer to settle this, but "like the rules say" is open to interpretation, as the length of this thread indicates. You and I disagree, and I'm gonna play it like Nate says. He made the game, and he knows what he's doing. We will just have to wait for the FAQ, I guess, but I stand by my analysis.

sWhiteboy said:

Sometimes I think the designer of a game has a vision of what a certain card or mechanic will do, and then balance and/or consistency require something different from the original vision. The way I interpreted the rules was the same way you did, but in this case Nate French isn't choosing the stronger option for players. He's choosing the one that makes the game even more challenging. We won't know what the official ruling is until the FAQ clarify's it for us, but even FAQ's change. FAQ 1.0 had the Dol Guldur Beastmaster and Chiertain Ufthak resolving their Forced abilities at step 1 of the combat phase, but for ver. 1.1 only Dol Guldur Beastmaster retained the change. For now, the most official ruling is Nate French's response to radiskull, but since it isn't FAQ official we can still interpret the gameplay however we see fit. I personally am going to go with Nate French's interpretation and add that extra challenge to the game. If he does end up being wrong, it shouldn't be that hard to switch back.

Here's a question. Why not just SA+SoA at the end of the Engage phase or before the Active player starts the combat steps with the specific enemy? That would side-step any of the rules questions.

It would, and it's also the most sound strategy. That doesn't change the fact that you can play SA after any of the steps, and SoA could be brought out at those times because of it.

I agree that the strategy is best, based on Nate's response (there are ways the attack could resolve that would make other timings more optimal). But I would like to play a card a particular time because it's best, not because playing it at another time is simply too complicated. Hence our lively rules debate in this and other threads.

Good point on the FAQ reversion - hopefully this issue can be settled quickly (I hear FAQ 1.2 is in the works).

Well I understand the "flow" of these mechanics better now. But a doubt has raised into my head, concerning simultaneous effects.

Let's say that the player that uses SA+SoA did it in combat phase (for instance, before the declaration of defenders). So when he has to resolve his combat phase, he declares de SoA as a defender. He then reveals the Shadow Effect and later on (let's say that there's no shadow effect when revealed), calculates the damage. As weak as it is SoA, he will be killed with high probabilities (more if the enemy is a Nazgul, as in examples here).

So then we have a conflict between the dead of SoA and the effect of Sneak Attack. In the FAQ it is said that the player chooses the order of resolution. The player chooses, of course, SA effect.

Correct me if I did something wrong in this scenario, but I think that this way we have a pretty solid combo, because we can cancel an attack if played on the right moment, plus we can save SoA if he's going to defend.

Jekzer said:

I'm not sure there is a timing issue here, unless I misunderstand your query.

SA timing effect only comes into play at the end of the phase (as stated on the card).

SoA dies before the end of the phase (it could be the last thing that happens before the end of the phase, but it is still before...), so SoA dies and SA's card text for returning SoA into hand never comes into effect.

I have realised though that SoA and forest Snare now make a great combo, when played without SA. I'm sure that must have been posted by others, but it is one combo that has passed me by, primarily because I don't really play a Leadership sphere often and until now have always seen SoA's ability as pretty pointless - using it with forest Snare is a great option though.

pumpkin said:

I don't say I was the first but I did point that combo rather early in the game history. I find Son of Arnor very flexible and super useful in some instances.

Just when I saw the Carrock, SoA was the first card I thought of, Sneak Attack or Stand and Fight him and you do not have to worry about the troll's attack for a round. And you can then Forest Snare it if you do not finish it in one blow. Perfect to me, especially with For Gondor! Son of Arnor not only brings the enemy in after they cannot attack, he also deals 3 points of attack (instead of the usual 2), you then only need a few more characters to finish even the strongest enemies we have seen in a single attack.

Pumpkin, I think that you clarified better the time framework here. So thanks .

And yes, I normally try to play SoA + FS (Forest Snare) too!

If played well you can nullify nasty trolls, adders, and so on .

lleimmoen said:

Yep, I was trying out a new Leadership/tactics deck last night and For Gondor was pretty useful for taking down the troll; I think with SoA, because I mostly play solo, although i know about the tactic of the first player engaging an enemy from the 2nd player, to nulify an attack for a round, its never really been something of interest for me and as a result i think i have overlooked SoAs other uses, namely with forest snare - no more though!