The Eaves of Mirkwood

By silverhand77, in The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game

Posted at

Dam said:

soullos said:

I also wonder if a Shadow Card is also considered an Encounter Card. I was playing solo on one of the Khazad quests and I used Thalin as one of my heroes. I quested with him one turn and when the combat phase started one of the shadow cards dealt was a Goblin Swordsman and it's shadow effect puts that little turd right into the staging area. So does Thalin deal 1 damage to that Goblin Swordsman?

This doesn't require clarification, Thalin is only questing during the quest phase, not anymore during the combat phase.

"Characters committed to a quest are considered
committed to that quest through the end of the quest
phase" (p. 14)

Ah, that explains it perfectly, thank you. Maybe I shouldn't play this game at 5 in the morning lol.

Posted at

There is a thread in the cardgamedb forums, that compiles some Nate French's answers to rules questions. You can find it here.

Posted at

radiskull said:

My question and then Nate's response:

Q: Are shadow cards considered to be 'encounter cards' for purposes of things like The Eaves of Mirkwood?

A: "Shadow card effects" are a distinct category from "Encounter card effects." Eaves of Mirkwood does not protect Shadow effects.

Hi, I want inform you guys that this isn´t correct.

From the german community someone asked Caleb Grace:

Q: are shadow effects considered to be encounter card effects?

A: Great question. The answer is: Yes, shadow effects are card effects on encounter cards. Therefore, they are considered encounter card effects. That means while Crebain is in the staging area, you cannot cancel shadow card effects.
Cheers,
Caleb

That answer confused us because Nate French should have said it otherwise.

So someone from the german distributor of the lord of the rings lcg card game asked FFG about the conflict:

On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Marco Reinartz wrote:

LoTR-German FAQ
Hi Rick,

One fan told me the following was an official statement of Nate French concerning Lord of the Rings:

Q: Are shadow cards considered to be 'encounter cards' for purposes of things like The Eaves of Mirkwood?

A: "Shadow card effects" are a distinct category from "Encounter card effects." Eaves of Mirkwood does not protect Shadow effects.

Can you verify this?

I look forward to hear from you.

Kind regards
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Marco Reinartz

The Answer from FFG:

Greetings Marco,

I talked to Nate and he said that shadow effects should be considered encounter card effects.

Thanks,

Rick Nauertz
Fantasy Flight Games
International Sales Manager

Posted at

Guess the designers had change of heart?

I hope this doesn't mean we need to reask all the ambiguous rule related questions all over again…

Posted at

Ellareth said:

Guess the designers had change of heart?

I hope this doesn't mean we need to reask all the ambiguous rule related questions all over again…

Sounds like a big mess there among designers…… ha ha ha……. They even counter each other. I would like they should be more serious about the game and rules……

Posted at

What a mess… the responses could be a bit more professional, even. "I talked to Nate and he said X." Really? It sounds like we are trying to clear up whether dinner is at 7 or 8 o'clock.

Posted at

GrandSpleen said:

What a mess… the responses could be a bit more professional, even. "I talked to Nate and he said X." Really? It sounds like we are trying to clear up whether dinner is at 7 or 8 o'clock.

good grief, talk about nitpicky! a response is a response. there are lots of game companies that don't respond to individual rules questions.

with that said, the person composing the e-mail isn't even a designer, it's the sales manager. so, of course he'd have to ask nate! what's wrong with saying he did? would you prefer an ad hoc response from the sales manager?

it's one thing to be frustrated by a change in rulings (though, it's a co-op game, so who really cares?) it's another thing to complain about the method in which it was delivered - at least FFG responds! cut them some slack.

Posted at

Glaurung said:

Ellareth said:

Guess the designers had change of heart?

I hope this doesn't mean we need to reask all the ambiguous rule related questions all over again…

Sounds like a big mess there among designers…… ha ha ha……. They even counter each other. I would like they should be more serious about the game and rules……

you should love this ruling, glaurung, as it makes the game more difficult! no cancellation of anything, during any phase while these cards are active! :D (even if your thorin deck doesn't use cancellation. haha)

Posted at

Dain Ironfoot said:

GrandSpleen said:

What a mess… the responses could be a bit more professional, even. "I talked to Nate and he said X." Really? It sounds like we are trying to clear up whether dinner is at 7 or 8 o'clock.

good grief, talk about nitpicky! a response is a response. there are lots of game companies that don't respond to individual rules questions.

with that said, the person composing the e-mail isn't even a designer, it's the sales manager. so, of course he'd have to ask nate! what's wrong with saying he did? would you prefer an ad hoc response from the sales manager?

it's one thing to be frustrated by a change in rulings (though, it's a co-op game, so who really cares?) it's another thing to complain about the method in which it was delivered - at least FFG responds! cut them some slack.

Dain Ironfoot said:

GrandSpleen said:

What a mess… the responses could be a bit more professional, even. "I talked to Nate and he said X." Really? It sounds like we are trying to clear up whether dinner is at 7 or 8 o'clock.

good grief, talk about nitpicky! a response is a response. there are lots of game companies that don't respond to individual rules questions.

with that said, the person composing the e-mail isn't even a designer, it's the sales manager. so, of course he'd have to ask nate! what's wrong with saying he did? would you prefer an ad hoc response from the sales manager?

it's one thing to be frustrated by a change in rulings (though, it's a co-op game, so who really cares?) it's another thing to complain about the method in which it was delivered - at least FFG responds! cut them some slack.

I agree! at least FFG responds.

Posted at

You're right, it was a dumb thing to complain about. Sorry for that.

Posted at

Dain Ironfoot said:

Glaurung said:

Ellareth said:

Guess the designers had change of heart?

I hope this doesn't mean we need to reask all the ambiguous rule related questions all over again…

Sounds like a big mess there among designers…… ha ha ha……. They even counter each other. I would like they should be more serious about the game and rules……

you should love this ruling, glaurung, as it makes the game more difficult! no cancellation of anything, during any phase while these cards are active! :D (even if your thorin deck doesn't use cancellation. haha)

Yes iove this rules for me is sound more logic. But i dont like when they start to change they minds like this. First he say Shadow effect is not encounter cards effect . Now he say yes this is encounter cards effect. Not serious.

Posted at

Glaurung said:

Dain Ironfoot said:

Glaurung said:

Ellareth said:

Guess the designers had change of heart?

I hope this doesn't mean we need to reask all the ambiguous rule related questions all over again…

Sounds like a big mess there among designers…… ha ha ha……. They even counter each other. I would like they should be more serious about the game and rules……

you should love this ruling, glaurung, as it makes the game more difficult! no cancellation of anything, during any phase while these cards are active! :D (even if your thorin deck doesn't use cancellation. haha)

Yes iove this rules for me is sound more logic. But i dont like when they start to change they minds like this. First he say Shadow effect is not encounter cards effect . Now he say yes this is encounter cards effect. Not serious.

i doubt that they aren't serious. nate has moved on, and caleb is lead designer. i think the overarching problem is, again not lack of seriousness, but lack of clarity in language. so, it makes sense that different people will read it different ways.

Posted at

Would it be so wrong to use the same pharasing from day one onward ?…I'm puzzled…Ok Nate moved on, but I guess he could have written a note or something…like " Hi Celeb, this rule should be phrased like this and so on, if you invent new rules feel free to phrase them however you want, cheers"…is that so hard ?…

Posted at

Now I'm even more happy that I don't even try to counter shadow effects (only cowards do ;-)). However, I have to say that Nate's version sounds more logical to me.

Posted at

Dain Ironfoot said:

Glaurung said:

Yes iove this rules for me is sound more logic. But i dont like when they start to change they minds like this. First he say Shadow effect is not encounter cards effect . Now he say yes this is encounter cards effect. Not serious.

i doubt that they aren't serious. nate has moved on, and caleb is lead designer. i think the overarching problem is, again not lack of seriousness, but lack of clarity in language. so, it makes sense that different people will read it different ways.

Exactly… The rules were just written so badly that once the original designer moved on they are open to interpretation form the new designer as they are simply not concrete enough to have meaning on their own. The entire game has been like this. Most games are so carefully planned but it is obvious that this game is just being made up as they go alone.. this is not the 1st or the last (I bet) that they completely reverse a ruling.. and it is no coincidence that the FAQ and errata list for this game is so large so quickly.

I called this at teh very start of the thread… just saying.

Posted at

booored said:

Dain Ironfoot said:

Glaurung said:

Yes iove this rules for me is sound more logic. But i dont like when they start to change they minds like this. First he say Shadow effect is not encounter cards effect . Now he say yes this is encounter cards effect. Not serious.

i doubt that they aren't serious. nate has moved on, and caleb is lead designer. i think the overarching problem is, again not lack of seriousness, but lack of clarity in language. so, it makes sense that different people will read it different ways.

Exactly… The rules were just written so badly that once the original designer moved on they are open to interpretation form the new designer as they are simply not concrete enough to have meaning on their own. The entire game has been like this. Most games are so carefully planned but it is obvious that this game is just being made up as they go alone.. this is not the 1st or the last (I bet) that they completely reverse a ruling.. and it is no coincidence that the FAQ and errata list for this game is so large so quickly.

I called this at teh very start of the thread… just saying.

Yes totaly agre with you Boored. I didn see you for some time. Glad you back to us.