ppsantos said:

I strongly agree that we have to be careful not use Magic assumptions/rules. However there may not be a stack, but there is a sequence of events when it comes to triggers and resolutions. I what you said about card effects not interacting was interesting, but I don't think it applies in this situation and here is why:

1. Flooding is revealed from the encounter deck

2. Doomed, Surge and When revealed all trigger simultaneously.

3. Eleanor's cancel ability is then used to cancel the when revealed effect and flooding is discarded

4. At this point surge is no longer interacting with flooding because it has already triggered, it is just waiting to resolve until after the when revealed effect has. if there is no longer a when revealed effect to resolve it then resolves.

5. when it resolves the only out of play card it does interact with is the card on top of the encounter deck wich it is allowed to becase the Surge effect speciffically says it can on P24 of the rules.

silverhand77 said:

After reviewing the rules again myself, I agree. Eleanor only cancels part of the card, not the card itself. The same goes for "A Test of Will." Keywords are separate from "when revealed" effects and are still triggered. Thalin on the other hand regarding "Eastern Crows" functions differently. His ability precedes both "when revealed" effects and keywords. This much is clarified in the most recent FAQ.

I'm beginning to think that Eleanor's ability is more of a last resort. "A Test of Will" does such a better job of dealing with treachery cards, since it doesn't require that you draw another card from the encounter deck.

Anduril82 said:

Yes, but A Test of Will also requires you to a) have the card in your hand in the first place and b) spend resources to play. Eleanor's ability is simply always there when you need it (unless she is exhausted, of course).

Anduril82 said:

Anduril82 said:

The FAQ only says that Thalin's ability resolves before Keywords, it doesn't say that it triggers before them. If t he keyword was to trigger either before or simultaneuously, why wouldn't it still resolve after Thalin's?

silverhand77 said:

Can you point to me where "trigger" and "resolve" are defined like you are using them? Or where mention of some sort of queue/stack exists for effects that "trigger"?

There is nothing in the rules that I can find to support triggers in this way.

Svenn said:

Svenn said:

Also true. Decisions, decisions, decisions. I'll just wait until I get Boromir, and then kill everything that moves. Surge won't be much of a problem then.

Anduril82 said:

Unless you find yourself heavy on locations instead of enemies. Or faced with a treachery that would kill Boromir...

And that's why I love this game. So many decisions to make, none of which are always better.

Svenn said:

There's nothing like going out in a blaze of glory.

Svenn said:

Svenn said:

That's the problem my friend, I can't find anything in the rules that doesn't support it either. I guess what makes me think this way is when I read a sentence like the one that explains Thalin's ability in the FAQ that I referenced above. It indicates that one card effect resolves after another so I can see a sequence of events here, and also I'm thinking that an effect has to trigger before it can resolve surely. there are instances in the rules such as on page 25 where it talks a bout a lasting effect being triggered. So I glean from that the effects trigger and resolve and I glean from Thalin's FAQ that there is a sequence in which they occur. It just makes sense to me that of you have multiple effects happening that there has to be a sequence to it, otherwise its just really messy and confusing and it makes it hard to work out how to interpret the same effect that occurs on different cards. It is just my interpretation of how the cards should be played, but when an updated FAQ comes out, if says different I will defer to it gladly and with all humility or also if someone can point out something in the existing rules or FAQ I may have missed

In all likelihood, almost all of us will can't find anything in the rules that doesn't support it"be wrong about something when the next FAQ arrives. However, I would be wary about assuming your rules interpretation is correct because you." The absence of rules does not mean that those rules exist.

silverhand77 said:

Well, I see it in the simplest terms possible... Since there is no stack, queue, or other similar mechanic then you resolve things one at a time. The closest thing we have to any sort of queue is that if effects are supposed to occur simultaneously the first player chooses the order. This seems to indicate things happening 1 at a time, and not all at once.

Bohemond said:

Bohemond said:

The absence of rules doesn't mean that those rules don't exist either. That is why we interpret the best way we can and that is why the FAQ will be updated when it is. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that my interpretation is absolutely definitely right, I'm saying this is what I think and I can't find anything in the rules which shows me otherwise and until I do, this is how I will play. Everyone else can play however they want. I value your opinion and the opinion of everyone else who cares to comment. I appreciate it because it helps me understand better and makes me check the rules and FAQ more thouroughly.

Svenn said:

The first player only decides if two or more conflicting effects would occur simultaneously (P2 Official FAQ). They don't get to choose how all simultaneous effects resolve, only the conflicting ones. You are right though, the rules don't explicitly mention a stack/queue etc. but it seems to me that they imply something like that.

So, let me make sure I have all this right:

-When Eleanor cancels the “when revealed” effects of a Treachery card, we still resolve Surge/Doomed/Guarded even though they happen simultaneously with the “when revealed” ability and I could have canceled the “when revealed” first.

-When you Sneak Attack Beorn and then return him to your hand at the end of the phase, Beorn does not then shuffle back into your deck, even though these two effects happened simultaneously.

-When Thalin is committed to a Quest, he will kill the Crows before the Surge keyword triggers even though it's "as it is revealed" and thus simultaneously resolving Surge and Thalin’s ability.

I have been playing all of these situations right I believe, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what the difference is with Eleanor. It seems like all other times with simultaneous effect timing (and First Player choosing the order) the other effects do not resolve and yet with Eleanor they do.

What is the difference?

Is Nate saying that Keywords and "When Revealed" are not simultaneous? Because the rules don't seem to say that:

-Rulebook PG 23 - "When revealed effects are a special case of forced effects, that occur automatically as soon as the encounter card is revealed."

-FAQ (1.01) - "Encounter Keywords - Surge, Doomed, and Guarded keywords should be resolved any time the card on which they occur enters play, including during setup."

Or is he saying that since Treachery Cards do not "enter play" there is some sort of difference?

Or that this is just a special ruling that goes against the rules because that's how the card was intended?

*head explodes*

Mattr0polis said:

- with Eleanor, even if you cancel the when revealed effect first, all three effects trigger immediately and simultaneously the card is revealed, so you'd stil have to resolve surge and dooomed.

- with sneak attack and Beaorn because the effects resolve simultaneously and they conflict, the first player gets to choose the order in which they do.

- With Thalin, he kills the crows before the surge keyword resolves . It still triggers immediately the card is revealed and when the card is revealed, Thalin's ability triggers and resolves, then surge resolves.

That's how I Interpret it anyway. To me this seems to be the most uniform way. Doomed and surge would be treated the same way pretty much all the time.

You know, I figured that FFG should see the 5 page discussion about a simple rules clarification and step in and resolve it for everything relatively simply... that would solve all our problems, no?

FFG employees do not post on these forums in almost all cases. Don't hold your breath.

The really interesting part about separating "Trigger" and "Resolution" is that Keywords don't have a listed "Trigger" anywhere.

Every instance in the rules and FAQ only lists when they "Resolve" which (according to ME, not Nate) IS the Trigger.

Resolution = What Happens

Trigger = When it Happens.

So this is my rule: If a card is gone, when it should resolve. There is no resolution to be had. There is also NO Trigger crap, because that is just a temporal tag for the Resolution itself.

And if there is a conflict, WHEN to Resolve stuff.... First player decides.

That is our Group Ruling... Nate be damned.

/wolf

silverhand77 said:

jhaelen said:

Yes I thought you might respond like this and I understand your reasoning. What I meant was that my interpretation of how the game is played is neither directly supported by the rules nor is it denied by them. Our standpoints are two sides of the selfsame coin. You seem to be saying that we can't play that way because it doesn't say so in the rules and I'm saying that we can play that way because it doesn't say we can't. Essentially we need a bit of clarification because this could go on forever ROFL I do appreciate your insights though, it is a pleasure discussing with you

silverhand77 said:

Sorry for stepping into the line of fire here but I wanted to add:

Normally Game rules are including what you CAN do. Anything else is out of bounds.

Sometimes they explicitly mentions something you CANNOT do, to illustrate a specific situation where they realise mistakes can be made.

Using the "the rules doesn't explicitly forbid this, therefore I CAN do it" argument is more or less bound to fail.

The reason is that it is impossible to write a rule book that lists everything you CANNOT DO.

Example:

Show me where in the rules it says Gimli cannot attack an Enemy in the Staging area... The rules doesn't say? Oh, then I guess he can!

That way lies madness guys. You should stick to what you CAN do as far as possible, and wait for FFG to tell you otherwise.

Just my two cents.

/wolf

GhostWolf69 said:

All through this huge thread I have given references to rules, FAQ's and the way things are worded in an effort to show that the rules can be interpreted to imply that surge etc can be played the way i suggest. I'm not just making it up out of thin air. I have spent time studying the rules and FAQ and discussing with the people I play with. I have done my best to hear (if that's the right word) what you and others who agree with you are saying and to understand why feel the way you. I have then gone back to the rules and FAQ etc to see if I have missed anything and also to verify what you guys have said. I have never suggested that FFG list everything you can't do, but I have suggested that they clarify points like the theme of this thread. You say that using the "The rules don't explicitly forbid this thing is more or less bound to fail, yet going on the quotes from Nate that appear on this thread it would seem to support my interpretation for the most part. But I do agree we need to wait for FFG to clarify.

About the original topic (Eleanor vs. Surge and Doomed), I'm with GhostWolf; When Revealed resolves first, Eleanor cancels the effect and discards the card, no Surge nor Doomed since the card is now out of play. As for Nate's answer of "Treachery cards don't enter play, so they're never discarded", that indeed contradicts the FAQ saying that Surged and Doomed happens "any time the card enters play " (so they would never occur on Treachery cards according to this ruling...).

However, I fully agree that Surged and Doomed would still happen when using A Test of Will on a Treachery card (if that was ever in question).

As for everyone who believes Nate French is omnipotent and never changes his mind about this game: remember Chieftain Ufthak? In FAQ 1.0, to make the game harder, they decided that "when he attacks" meant before the attack, which made Ufthak stronger... But also weakened the Wargs considerably, which used the same term. After this was brought up, FAQ 1.1 changed the ruling (to a definition which makes a lot more sense)... So, I take anything Nate French says with a grain of salt, especially when it contradicts (or seems to) the established rules and order of resolving events.

silverhand77 said:

I did not comment on the Topic at hand.

My comment was just the way the argument in the last couple of posts before mine were conducted.

It was a generic statement about how To Logically build up an argument.

You can never Logically Prove a Negative. That is why Rules can never be written to explicitly exclude all things you are NOT allowed to do.

That was my point.

When it comes to the topic at hand (Timing etc.) you seem to be winning this one (if Nate is the Ref in this battle). I give you that. Well done. Doesn't mean I think it's good or that I will conform to that style of playing. But I will not be arguing about whether you are right or not any more. I have expressed my concerns and tried to explain why I think this is the wrong way to go. But I don't argue the "point" any more.

I hope you see that.

/wolf