Hi All.

Let me address a few things before I ask my question.

• I'm new, recently aquiring the LOTR Card Game, so hello everyone
• Apologies if a thread exists for Rhosgobel, I looked and it didn't appear on the search bar.
• Obviously it's got spoilers on a card

Swarm of Insects card, Shadow effect:

"Shadow: If a character (including Wilyador) has more damage than each other character, deal 3 additional damage to that character."

I read it as: If one character has 3 damage, and all the rest only have 1 damage, then the character with the 3 damage gets and additional 3 damage.

If so, what would happen if two characters had the exact same damage as each other, but still had more damage than everyone else?
Would they both get 3 damage each? Or is the Shadow effect ignored as no single character has a higher damage count than the rest?

Hope that makes sense. Thanks.

This came up a while back and I believe the consensus was that no character would take damage. The "If" part of that seems to indicate that it's possible for it to not happen, and the requirement is to have more damage then every other character. Since no character fulfills the requirements then this shadow effect does nothing.

You sure? I'd rule that the treachery card will do damage in any case and that you can't avoid it via text interpretation. As in most other situation in LotR LCG where there is one effect but two eligible targets, I guess the first player choses which character gets the damage...

I figured as much, and thanks for the response.

When I read it I felt it's main purpose was to worsen Wilyador's condition, as he would likely have been the one with the most damage.

Cheers for the clarification.

Very interesting question.

According to official FAQ we have:

(1.03) Conficting Effect Targeting
If an encounter or quest effect attempts to target a single player or card, and there are multiple eligible targets, the frst player selects the target of the effect from among the eligible options.
Example: The card Caught in a Web (CORE 80) has an effect that reads, "The player with the highest threat level attaches this card to one of his heroes." Tom and Kris are tied for the highest threat level when Caught in a Web is revealed, so the frst player determines whether the card affects Tom or Kris.

But in this example player have to attach item. In our example there is a condition. So I rather agree with Svenn.

This is true, but if we implement the Golden Rule and read the text:

"If" implies that it might not be applicable, (as pointed out),

and "a character" has more damage than the others, implying that it will only apply to one.

I'm mildly Autistic and can interpret text too literally sometimes, (ironic statement, I know), and sometimes just need a bit of direction as to whether I'm reading it right or not.

Shelfwear said:

The problem is the text specifies a character with more damage than every other character. No character fits that description. If all characters have 2 damage except for Gimli and Legolas who both have 2 damage, then neither Gimli nor Legolas have more damage than ALL other characters. The multiple targets rule doesn't take effect here because there are no eligible targets, not multiple eligible targets.

Svenn said:

I would tend to agree with you here. It does say "each other character". The only thing that gives me pause is the frequent ambiguity present on several cards and how Nate pretty always tend to use the Golden Rule 2.0 i.e. the encounter deck wins in case of ambiguity.

The problem I see is that if all of your characters have say 0 damage... then every single character takes 3 damage?

I could see it affecting multiple characters in the case of a tie, but it should be specified such as "If any character or group of characters have more damage than every other character..." Unless we get an errata or something specifying otherwise, that's simply not the case though.

Classical "if" case in programming:

If (character A has more damage than each other character)

deal damage;

esle

do not deal damage;

As no one character meets the condition (more than), no one will be damaged.

To meet that condition there should be clarified that "more or equals" as is specified in some treachery cards. In such case the first player should make a choice.

Alternately, if they had worded it such that "If no other characters have more damage than a character, then that character takes 3 damage." then it would apply in cases of a tie. That wording is a bit more confusing though, I think.

"Shadow: If a character (including Wilyador) has more damage than each other character, deal 3 additional damage to that character."

Since it uses the term "if a character" then surely it has to be just one character?

Svenn said:

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.

It's probably one of those cases where the text-writer wrote it in a way he/she understood, and didn't think areas would be confusing. I'm still leaning on the if section, and that if there are no characters with higher damage then no affect is placed. I think cards like this should include a 'what happens if no condition exists'.

So would I be right in saying that it should have said:

"Shadow: If a single character (including Wilyador) is the only character with the most damage out of all other characters, deal 3 additional damage to that character; otherwise, this Shadow has no effect.

The text as written may be confusing, but it is logically consistent and parses correctly. If they wanted to do it the other way, they'd have said "The character with the most damage takes 3 damage" and then that would leave it to the First Player to resolve the tie. Alternately, they could have said "If a character has at least as much damage as every other character" to achieve the same goal.

In this case I'd have to agree with Sven. Since there is no single eligible target the shadow effect would do nothing because the required condition does not exist. I also agree that the card could be worded better.