Do I still deal out shadow cards to enemies that have the Forest Snare attachment and cannot attack? I assume no, but cannot find a definitive ruling in the FAQ.
Thanks.
Forest Snare
You do. You deal a shadow card to each enemy engaged with you at the start of the combat phase.
This seems like a dumb rule, but there is a shadow effect that makes you discard attachments, so if you lose the forest snare mid-combat phase... *chomp*
ditto ... it feels wrong... but it is in the rule book... they sill get shadow cards but they are instant cancelled
radiskull said:
You do. You deal a shadow card to each enemy engaged with you at the start of the combat phase.
This seems like a dumb rule, but there is a shadow effect that makes you discard attachments, so if you lose the forest snare mid-combat phase... *chomp*
Just to specify this a bit more for clarity:
That doesn't mean that if the trapped enemy gets dealt said shadow effect he would get rid off his card (his shadow effects are still cancelled), but if another enemy gets a shadow effect that forces you to discard an attachement (and you have only played Forest Snare or you don't want to disard one of the others), then you're in trouble.
Just as I think I have got this game sussed, along comes a thread like this. I always played it that all enemies engaged were given Shadow Cards - unless the encounter deck runs out - wether they would attck or not. The Shadow effect still applies - unless cancelled by a card play or effect - but I see nothing about it being 'auto cancelled'. Have I missed something in the rules from day one? Did I miss a FAQ? If the Shadow effect increases the enemys' attack strength, removes defenders' defence or even removes the defender completely, it won't have any effect as the enemy doesn't attack and do damage. However, other Shadow effects take effect - don't they? What have I missed? Cheers!
Rashley said:
Just as I think I have got this game sussed, along comes a thread like this. I always played it that all enemies engaged were given Shadow Cards - unless the encounter deck runs out - wether they would attck or not. The Shadow effect still applies - unless cancelled by a card play or effect - but I see nothing about it being 'auto cancelled'. Have I missed something in the rules from day one? Did I miss a FAQ? If the Shadow effect increases the enemys' attack strength, removes defenders' defence or even removes the defender completely, it won't have any effect as the enemy doesn't attack and do damage. However, other Shadow effects take effect - don't they? What have I missed? Cheers!
A shadow effect takes place after a player chooses an attacker and declares a defender. As the trapped enemy won't be able to attack you don't have to choose him as an attacker or declare a defender against his attack - in other words, there is no attack sequence that you have to go through, thus the shadow effect is auto-cancelled and no shadow effect takes place.
Also, shadow effects interacts with the defender.
If there is no attack, there is no defenders.
cordeirooo said:
Also, shadow effects interacts with the defender.
If there is no attack, there is no defenders.
Not always. Some shadow effects force you to damage all exhausted characters or to take any one exhausted defender back to your hand. In KD there are lots of shadow effects that don't effect the defender at all.
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
Also, shadow effects interacts with the defender.
If there is no attack, there is no defenders.
Not always. Some shadow effects force you to damage all exhausted characters or to take any one exhausted defender back to your hand. In KD there are lots of shadow effects that don't effect the defender at all.
The way I understand, there is always an attacking enemy and a defending player, it's part of the chain of the Combat Phase.
cordeirooo said:
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
Also, shadow effects interacts with the defender.
If there is no attack, there is no defenders.
Not always. Some shadow effects force you to damage all exhausted characters or to take any one exhausted defender back to your hand. In KD there are lots of shadow effects that don't effect the defender at all.
The way I understand, there is always an attacking enemy and a defending player, it's part of the chain of the Combat Phase.
Ok, looks like I got you wrong. I thought you were speaking of shadow effects interacting with the defender, not about the shadow card being revealed as the third step of the combat chain.
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
Also, shadow effects interacts with the defender.
If there is no attack, there is no defenders.
Not always. Some shadow effects force you to damage all exhausted characters or to take any one exhausted defender back to your hand. In KD there are lots of shadow effects that don't effect the defender at all.
The way I understand, there is always an attacking enemy and a defending player, it's part of the chain of the Combat Phase.
Ok, looks like I got you wrong. I thought you were speaking of shadow effects interacting with the defender, not about the shadow card being revealed as the third step of the combat chain.
Hmm, I really don't got you here.
As I said in another post, I'm always the most direct possible.
You said: "I thought you were speaking of shadow effects interacting with the defender [...]"
And I said: "[...] (S)hadow effects interacts with the defender."
So... How could that be more simpler? I did said that s.e. (for short) interacts with the defender, and later I expanded explaining why I thought that way.
I wasn't talking about cards being revealed as any step of the chain. Don't know where the confusion came from.
Anyway, I do not own KD, so I'm not aware of a shadow card that can affect you without you being attacked; so I'll just bow to you.
Assuming nothing gets rid of the attachment, there is no sequence of events that will cause you to reveal a face-down shadow card attached to a Forest Snared enemy.
radiskull said:
Assuming nothing gets rid of the attachment, there is no sequence of events that will cause you to reveal a face-down shadow card attached to a Forest Snared enemy.
Hmmm, good catch.
cordeirooo said:
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
Also, shadow effects interacts with the defender.
If there is no attack, there is no defenders.
Not always. Some shadow effects force you to damage all exhausted characters or to take any one exhausted defender back to your hand. In KD there are lots of shadow effects that don't effect the defender at all.
The way I understand, there is always an attacking enemy and a defending player, it's part of the chain of the Combat Phase.
Ok, looks like I got you wrong. I thought you were speaking of shadow effects interacting with the defender, not about the shadow card being revealed as the third step of the combat chain.
Hmm, I really don't got you here.
As I said in another post, I'm always the most direct possible.
You said: "I thought you were speaking of shadow effects interacting with the defender [...]"
And I said: "[...] (S)hadow effects interacts with the defender."
So... How could that be more simpler? I did said that s.e. (for short) interacts with the defender, and later I expanded explaining why I thought that way.
I wasn't talking about cards being revealed as any step of the chain. Don't know where the confusion came from.
Anyway, I do not own KD, so I'm not aware of a shadow card that can affect you without you being attacked; so I'll just bow to you.
Perhaps it's my bad English, but you said "a shadow effect interacting with the defender" and nothing about a "shadow card being revealed in the process of an attack". That's two different issues. Apparently you meant the latter, but worded it as if it was about the former.
shadow effect - shadow card
--> it's not the same! 
Conclusion:
A shadow effect does not interact with a defender, becuase it does not happen, because the shadow card will never be revealed.
As for KD, there are shadow effects like "Place this bloody card into the staging area, dude!", "Raise the players threat by 2, sucker!" or "Sorry, this MF cannot be harmed this round in any way, *****!"
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
leptokurt said:
cordeirooo said:
Also, shadow effects interacts with the defender.
If there is no attack, there is no defenders.
Not always. Some shadow effects force you to damage all exhausted characters or to take any one exhausted defender back to your hand. In KD there are lots of shadow effects that don't effect the defender at all.
The way I understand, there is always an attacking enemy and a defending player, it's part of the chain of the Combat Phase.
Ok, looks like I got you wrong. I thought you were speaking of shadow effects interacting with the defender, not about the shadow card being revealed as the third step of the combat chain.
Hmm, I really don't got you here.
As I said in another post, I'm always the most direct possible.
You said: "I thought you were speaking of shadow effects interacting with the defender [...]"
And I said: "[...] (S)hadow effects interacts with the defender."
So... How could that be more simpler? I did said that s.e. (for short) interacts with the defender, and later I expanded explaining why I thought that way.
I wasn't talking about cards being revealed as any step of the chain. Don't know where the confusion came from.
Anyway, I do not own KD, so I'm not aware of a shadow card that can affect you without you being attacked; so I'll just bow to you.
Perhaps it's my bad English, but you said "a shadow effect interacting with the defender" and nothing about a "shadow card being revealed in the process of an attack". That's two different issues. Apparently you meant the latter, but worded it as if it was about the former.
shadow effect - shadow card
--> it's not the same!
Conclusion:
A shadow effect does not interact with a defender, becuase it does not happen, because the shadow card will never be revealed.
As for KD, there are shadow effects like "Place this bloody card into the staging area, dude!", "Raise the players threat by 2, sucker!" or "Sorry, this MF cannot be harmed this round in any way, *****!"
I know there is a difference. I never stated otherwise, maybe is your bad English indeed.
And, about your conclusion, yes, I do agree; but I only realized that after radiskull said that, because it wasn't that clear in any of your posts I read.
Good to know about these KD effects! I'm more eager than before to get my hands on KD! 
After all these responses - and in some cases quite impassioned - I have to admit that I have been playing this part incorrectly from the beginning. My appologies to all those I play with and have taught. At least the game will be very slightly easier now.
Yes, you deal a Shadow card to ALL engaged enemies, but since an enemy with 'Forest Snare' - or even one that a stop attacking event has been played on - doesn't 'attack', the Shadow card is not revealed. I assume this is because you don't go through the 'Attack' section of combat for that enemy.
Just one small point though. Does that also mean you cannot choose that stopped enemy to do its (non) attack before choosing any others, just in case one of those removes say the 'Forest Snare'? Logic would imply that you can't as it doesn't attack. Therefore, you should choose the proper attacking enemies first to give the game a chance to get rid of the 'Forest Snare' or similar. Have I got it correct now?
Thanks to all in this thread. I must be getting closer to full rule comprehension now. At first I thought this correction would improve my winning chances by as much as 2%, but my 'small point' above probably means only a 1% increase. Still, every little helps! Sorry Tescos. Cheers!
Rashley said:
Just one small point though. Does that also mean you cannot choose that stopped enemy to do its (non) attack before choosing any others, just in case one of those removes say the 'Forest Snare'? Logic would imply that you can't as it doesn't attack. Therefore, you should choose the proper attacking enemies first to give the game a chance to get rid of the 'Forest Snare' or similar. Have I got it correct now?
I am still learning the nuances of the game myself, so it is probably pretty risky for me to weigh-in on rules issues, but I'm going to give it a shot. :-)
The active player determines the order in which the enemies he/she is engaged with attacks (or, in the case of "snare", NOT attack). Therefore, you could declare that the snared enemy's attack fizzles before moving on to the non-snared enemies. This would prevent a follow-up attack should the snare be cancelled via a shadow effect.
Pericles said:
Rashley said:
Just one small point though. Does that also mean you cannot choose that stopped enemy to do its (non) attack before choosing any others, just in case one of those removes say the 'Forest Snare'? Logic would imply that you can't as it doesn't attack. Therefore, you should choose the proper attacking enemies first to give the game a chance to get rid of the 'Forest Snare' or similar. Have I got it correct now?
I am still learning the nuances of the game myself, so it is probably pretty risky for me to weigh-in on rules issues, but I'm going to give it a shot. :-)
The active player determines the order in which the enemies he/she is engaged with attacks (or, in the case of "snare", NOT attack). Therefore, you could declare that the snared enemy's attack fizzles before moving on to the non-snared enemies. This would prevent a follow-up attack should the snare be cancelled via a shadow effect.
That is correct.
See? Anyone can help anyone.
Doesn't matter if he is the best player in his country or just starting to play. 
I actually don't agree with that interpretation. The rules state you need to choose an enemy to attack. The FAQ says that the word "cannot" is absolute. Ergo, the Snared enemy can't be chosen to "not attack". You need to choose each enemy that's capable of attacking and then pass to the next player. If, as a result of those attacks, the Forest Snare is discarded, then that enemy is going to get its shot as well.
radiskull said:
I actually don't agree with that interpretation. The rules state you need to choose an enemy to attack. The FAQ says that the word "cannot" is absolute. Ergo, the Snared enemy can't be chosen to "not attack". You need to choose each enemy that's capable of attacking and then pass to the next player. If, as a result of those attacks, the Forest Snare is discarded, then that enemy is going to get its shot as well.
Hmmm.. You're very attentive sir.
Then if the snare is discarded, the ex-Snared is now a valid choice to attack... I see, I see.
radiskull said:
I actually don't agree with that interpretation. The rules state you need to choose an enemy to attack. The FAQ says that the word "cannot" is absolute. Ergo, the Snared enemy can't be chosen to "not attack". You need to choose each enemy that's capable of attacking and then pass to the next player. If, as a result of those attacks, the Forest Snare is discarded, then that enemy is going to get its shot as well.
Yeah, I can see the logic in that arguement.
cordeirooo said:
radiskull said:
I actually don't agree with that interpretation. The rules state you need to choose an enemy to attack. The FAQ says that the word "cannot" is absolute. Ergo, the Snared enemy can't be chosen to "not attack". You need to choose each enemy that's capable of attacking and then pass to the next player. If, as a result of those attacks, the Forest Snare is discarded, then that enemy is going to get its shot as well.
Hmmm.. You're very attentive sir.
Then if the snare is discarded, the ex-Snared is now a valid choice to attack... I see, I see.
He's a law student, so he is always right and if he's not, he convinces you that he is. 
But seriously, radiskull is one of the most helpful members here. They should give him his own sub forum("Ask Dr. Radiskull").
Aww, thanks! 
But yeah, I've definitely been wrong before. The trick is to be wrong as convincingly as possible. (Although I am pretty sure I'm not wrong here.)
In the past I have followed Radiskulls' advice quite a bit and feel he is right here, but again, just another tiny little tweek. If you have the enemy with the 'Forest Snare' and you finish all your 'attacks', once you pass to the next players attacks, surely your enemy can't attack in someone elses attack turn if your 'Forest Snare' gets removed then? Ah, just thought of something. I don't think there is a way for a Shadow card of another players' attacking enemies to remove your 'Forest Snare'. This may just be an irrelevant theory. Cheers!
I'm not aware of a card that does this, as you said, but you're right - if you finish up your attacks and pass to the next player, and then your Forest Snare gets removed, you're safe (for THIS round, bwa ha).