What are the exact definitions of these cards in the rules, and what do these words mean when it comes to the following cards:

1) The upcoming Boromir hero reads: "Action: Discard Boromir to deal 2 damage to each enemy engaged with a single player." Heroes can't be "placed in the discard pile" so would he be destroyed? And if so, would his text work with Landroval's "Response: After a hero card is destroyed, return Landroval to his owener's hand to put that hero back into play with one damage token on it. (Limit once per game.)

2) Eastern Crows' text reads: "Forced: After Eastern Crows is defeated, shuffle at back into the encounter deck." When Thalin's text: "While Thalin is committed to a quest, deal 1 damage to each enemy as it is revealed by the encounter deck." comes into play, does this "defeat" the crows, and would the card be reshuffled, or is being "defeated" only refer to combat?

Heroes can be put in the discard pile, they just can't be placed in the deck. (Otherwise the card Fortune or Fate has no meaning.) This would not work with Landroval, though. A character is "destroyed" when they have damage tokens on them equal to their hit points.

Similarly, an enemy is "defeated" when they have damage tokens on them equal to their hit points, and so Thalin would send the crows back into the encounter deck.

df90DAIN2 said:

I haven't seen any definitions from FFG on destroyed or defeated. I would say that defeated refers to any damage caused by combat and destroyed would refer to discarding your own characters with the effects of your own cards. There is, however, a bit of a gray area here and that is what about opposing card effects? What happens if you lose a hero due to the effect of The Necromancer's Reach, for example? My understanding on Eastern Crows is that if they are killed by an effect like Thalin's, they do go back to the encounter deck, which would mean they are defeated, not destroyed. Following that logic, then if any of your heroes are killed by an opposing card effect, they would be considered defeated.

1) I believe that this means Boromir would be considered destroyed and therefore would combo with Landroval's effect. In fact, these two cards seem made for each other.

2) As mentioned above, I think it would mean the Crows are defeated and therefore go back to the encounter deck.

Titan said:

The rulebook uses the word "destroyed" ONLY in the context of a character or enemy taking lethal damage. It's also clear that enemies destroy players, so your definition seems a bit off. The rulebook also states that characters remain in play until "destroyed or removed from play by a card effect" so there is some distinction between a character being discarded from play and one being destroyed.

radiskull said:

df90DAIN2 said:

df90DAIN2 said:

There is 4 ways how card can live the game.

1 Defeated. go to discard pile

2 Discarded. go to discard pile

3 Remove from the game. set aside.

4 Return to hand.

When card is defeated is discarded to discard pile. Only remove from the game make card go aside instead to the discard pile. Heroes card aslo go to discard pile when discarded or defeated but heroes cards dont belong to discard pile. So if you shuffle your discard pile back to your player deck heroes cards will stay in discard pile.

So different between discard and defeated : the card effect of landrovar will not work in case of Boromir ability cose is discarded not defeated. But if Boromir is defeated (means killed in combat or some effect of treachery card say defeat the hero or deal some damage over his life points) than Landrovar helps.

The rules are not treating these terms consistently, but mixing and matching a little.

I asked something similar in another thread.

In short: The Terms are more or less interchangeable IMO.

When reading about "Hit Points and Damage" (p20) they always use the word "Defeated" in the rules... This is the ONLY place in the whole Combat Section of the rules where they use this word... the word "Destroyed" is not used there at all.

But in the examples, and Combat Sequence they frequently say "Destroyed" instead.

The result is the same; the card goes to discard-pile... i.e. is "Discarded".

/wolf

GhostWolf69 said:

That's because Defeated and Destroyed are the same thing.

GhostWolf69 said:

This reasoning is completely off. Just because a card goes to the discard pile does not mean it was Discarded. For something to be Discarded, it has to be sent to the discard pile by a discard effect.

The reason the rulebook doesn't explain explicitly is because the concepts have been card game basics for the past 15-20 years.

I would agree with sWhiteBoy. as for the specific case you proposed, Bormorir's ability would not give you a chance to trigger Landroval's response. Boromir is discarded, but not destroyed.

1. Since the text says "discard", if can you think in terms of M:TG, you are "sacrificing" that card. It is not destroyed, it is being discarded to pay for an effect and thus shouldn't trigger any abilities that require a "destroyed" target. Landroval's response would not trigger from discarding Boramir.

Well, in looking back to all the examples in the rulebook, it appears, as was mentioned before, that the oficial explanation uses the word defeated, but the examples use the word destroyed. I guess then I'm mistaken, and Landroval would only work if a hero exhausts it's hit points and is therefore destroyed or is it defeated? Yeah, I know, both. This is the one thing that really frustrates me about FFG and their card games, the inconsistent and seemingly careless way in which they word some of their effects.

Hey guys!

Page 4: A player is eliminated from the game if all of his heroes are destroyed, or if his threat level reaches 50.

So if Boromir is discarded but not destroyed, or if your heroes are victims of the Nazgul or Muck Adder and so are discarded but not destroyed - then you can remain in the game with 0 heroes?

Another nice one at the end that shows what a mess this issue is:

Page 22: A player is eliminated from the game if all of his heroes are killed...

So presumably being killed is the same as being destroyed. But then are we saying that Boromir isn't killed by his effect? What is it that it's meant to be modelling then? Are we saying that the Nazgul and Muck Adder aren't killing heroes when they force you to discard them?

My point isn't to support one side or the other... my point is to show that we are assuming a level of consistency that just isn't there. Tight wording wasn't a concern of the designer (the difference in wording between Legolas and Blade of Gondolin was the first red flag that this was going to be messy). We think that if we just compare enough cards and rules, then we'll find the answer - like algebra but substituting in sentences - but I don't think the cards and rule set stand up to that level of scrutiny.

I expect that eventually they will make a ruling to separate being destroyed and discarded, and just being discarded. I'd consider that a new ruling though - rather than a clarification of a rule that is already in there if only we had spent enough time trying to find it and understand it.

Tony Irwin said:

You make an interesting point, but my question is how can a person continue playing when they have no heroes. They wouldn't be able to play any cards, or collect resources and any resources that they had would be discarded at the time they lost their heroes. I don't think there are any cards which allow other players bring back one of your heroes to play are there? I suppose FFG might bring out a card like that in the future, but I don't think we will see it for a while yet if ever. The way I play is that if a person has no heroes left they are out of the game.

2 Years from now...

Player 1: "Thalin takes two more damage and is defeated, I pay 10 resources to play Reinforcements and put Boromir into play. Welcome to the party, pal."

Player 2: "What's your threat at?"

Player 1: "76, we're still in good shape."

Player 2: "I'm going to play Unfinished Business and bring Thalin back into play for you. Now you're back up to 5 Heroes. Let's try to actually kill one of these enemies this round."

silverhand77 said:

Hey there - you're not eliminated till all your heroes are destroyed - so you'd keep your allies in play, and I guess Rhadagast would let you play any creature cards you draw.

My point though isn't to argue for the idea that you can play this way.

I'm arguing against the idea that the rules and cards make a clear and consistent distinction between a hero being defeated and discarded, being destroyed, and being discarded. If someone argued to me that my discarded hero isn't destroyed... then I would argue that I can keep playing even after all my heroes have been discarded - their mistake is that they have assumed that there is a dependable level of clarity and consistency in the rules and on the cards. I don't think there is.