Hey all,

Trying to think through the ramifications of revealing the objective cards (see card errata to CORE 123) and can't seem to come up with anything. I assume Nate's ruling of the attchments when revealed effects not happening is still correct since the article didn't say anything. Does revealing the objective card cause the guarded keyword to now be resolved normally (i.e. reveal and attach) or does that cause some other issue I am not thinking about?

You're not the only one who found that errata confusing (I did too). But I think revealing the objective cards makes it clear that the guarded keyword resolves normally. So the text attaching the encounter cards to the objectives is just a reminder to execute the guarded keyword (I could, of course, be wrong).

radiskull said:

Yes, that's for sure, the 3 cards guarding the objectives now have their "When revealed" effect resolved. And I hope you're right about the "attach an encounter card to each objective" as a reminder! And that this sentence will get deleted in the next FAQ... Oh man... Because, if you now read the card literally, it means 1 guarding card and 1 attached card for every objective card, so 2 attached cards in total for every objective...

radiskull said:

That was my take so I'll just continue to execute the guarded keyword as normal. I hadn't played the "Nate way" yet up to this point regardless so it shouldn't affect the way I tackle the quest.

HilariousPete said:

I suppose that would be the absolute literal translation but I doubt that was what they were going for haha. Pretty interesting catch there though.

I submitted the question to Nate - if/when I get a response, I'll share it!

Wow! we were just discussing this very topic yesterday. Feels a bit weird, my original interpretation (and also the way I played) was in line with this new ruling, but then the point was raised that the card says attach, so I thought that might have been right, I even said so and now the FAQ comes out and says otherwise. Oh well I'm just glad it has been cleared up one way or the other

I think a whole rewritting of the text card would be better. Because now you resolve the guarded keyword before re-shuffling the encounter deck and even if you re-shuffle it, the Nazgûl is still in the encouter deck and could be attached to an objective. Nobody will do that (I hope) but if you apply the rules strictly, it is what happens.

@Xylan: Ah, you've found another "bug"... Didn't realize that possibility until you mentioned, but right, the Nazgul could come up as a guard! Rewriting the whole text seems to be a good solution, to instruct the players to remove the Nazgul before the objectives are revealed, and not mentioning a second attaching of encounters to the objectives.

@Silverhand: Yes, your original way of playing now is the new official one (at least when FFG confirms that the "and attach 1 encounter to each..." sentence is only meant as a reminder and be considered invalid). I forgot to update the other thread, but will do it now.
I also agree that it's good that FFG tries to clear up such things. I don't like rules where I have to guess or do too much interpretations on my own...

When I first read the FAQ errata, I thought the "reveal and place in the staging area" was a reference to the encounter cards, but reading the quest card does make it seem like they are referring to the objective cards. That doesn't really clear up anything.

Kiwina said:

Really?

It means that any card that is attached to the objective cards as a guard must now have its when revealed effects and keywords resolved. You may have already been playing this way but it it apparent that not everyone was, so much so that there was a whole thread devotoed to it on this forum. I'd say it clears up a lot.

Xylan said:

Not possible. A previous errata prevents anything from being attached to the Nazgul card. Or at least that's what I thought that meant. At the least, that's the most sane interpretation and how I plan on playing.

silverhand77 said:

Really?

It's not clear it's referring to that at all. If it had been referring to that the wording should have been "reveal and attach to an objective". Your intepretation is contradictory to the original Nate "decision" that started that whole thread where he said as it used the word attach but not reveal, the guard cards were not revealed.

I really hope the clarifications are changed so that the when revealed/keywords do trigger, but I don't think this FAQ entry makes it clear that's what happens.

No one else in the thread thought so either based on other people's responses, so how can that be clear?

Everyone is reading it based on whether they wanted to agree with Nate's original decision (or not), and placing their own bias on what the intepretation is, so it's still unclear.

FFG should have put the entire card text into the errata, that hopefully would have made things clear.

@pumpkin: I think the new erratum did clear something up, although not everything. It did do some change, but only in an indirect way: Now the 3 objectives are revealed (and not just placed into the staging area as before), which means their "Guarded" keyword is resolved as normal. And this means that the 3 guarding cards are revealed just as normal, with their "When Revealed" effect being resolved. (I hope that's right and I'm not overlooking something...)

What's still unclear to me is the remaining "attach 1 encounter to each objective" sentence after the instruction to set aside the Nazgul and to shuffle the encounter deck, and long after putting the objectives into the staging area. As I said before, if you read the card literally, it means that you'd have to attach another 3 encounters to the objectives. radiskull sugested that this could be meant just as a reminder, and I think that's a probable explanation. Perhaps FFG will make another erratum deleting this last sentence of the card. (Or even better publish a new erratum which contains the whole card text, like you said.)

HilariousPete said:

Ah, but that's my point - you've assumed it is referring to the objectives, which means they are revealed and the guarded keyword triggers (and I think you are right) BUT Silverhand77 has assumed it is referring to the cards that are attached to the objectives and therefore it is referring to their when revealed and other effects (personally, I don't think that's right but I can see why he has interpreted that way).

So I don't think it has cleared anything up, because people can still validly interpret the meaning in different ways....

It's a terrible FAQ entry, in my opinion, as it's not clear which text on the card is being replaced

radiskull said:

Hi radiskull,

did you get confirmation from FFG about Dol Guldur?

I did not, sadly.

:-(

ok, thanks