booored said:

I actually think the Wandering Took ruling informs other similar situations, including the one you presented. It seems that, once an attack begins and a defender is declared, the participants (enemy and ally) are "locked in" unless one or the other leaves play. Wandering Took will still be the defender if it changes control midway through an attack. So--and here I extrapolate a little, though hopefully within reason--removing a character or enemy from play can change the execution of an initiated attack, but simply moving them around on the table will not.

So, in the Son of Arnor example, the attack has already been initiated by the time Sneak Attack is played. Based on the Took ruling, I'm inclined to say that the attack would simply continue against the original defender. Even though the enemy is the one moving around in this instance, both participants in the attack are still on the board. I don't see any reason why engaging the enemy with SoA would break off the attack.

I don't mind the Wandering Took. I don't use him very often but he has proven useful in the past. Mainly as a bail-out to help a teammate in an emergency as a sac-blocker. Spirit just has nothing Sentinel or Ranged. Wandering Took is a different way you can help.

And Plueschi and others are correct, his stats do make him pretty versatile. When he's not needed as a wandering sac-blocker, there's a few times where a teammate will be just 1 attack away from killing an enemy and you can send him over as well. Or if needed, help quest.

There are indeed some "better" allies for the same cost, but every card has it's uses. It just depends on what your deck needs.

Sprenger said:

Very well thought, my friend.

In 2-player mode, one deck being focused on battle and another on quest (with secrecy cards) this idea could be a really nice strategy.

starhawk77 said:

I submitted this question to Nate last August, and he ruled that the attack would proceed against the NEW defender in that case. So it appears we have one standard for allies and another for enemies. That's not inherently problematic, but I'd like to see it in the FAQ at some point.

radiskull said:

Interesting. Just to be clear, I meant "defender" as "defending character," though I don't think that changes your response. If a hero or ally has already been declared as a defender before SoA comes into play via Sneak Attack, but the attack then proceeds against the player with whom the enemy is newly engaged, does the attack simply go undefended? The chance to select a defender has already passed.

In any event, both this and the Took scenario definitely warrant inclusion in the FAQ.

I like the Wandering Took. As has been mentioned it's a low-cost, versatile card with an ability that I've used to good effect in multi-player games.

I submitted this question to Nate last August, and he ruled that the attack would proceed against the NEW defender in that case. So it appears we have one standard for allies and another for enemies. That's not inherently problematic, but I'd like to see it in the FAQ at some point.

exactly, in every other instant in the game, if there is an attack, and through some effect the attacker is moved or the defender disappears the attack becomes undefended.

So this wandering thing is a rule anomaly... wtf... that is lame..

and it makes no sense... the monster swings his club, the took disappears and appears elsewhere AND it still hits him.. lame...

Granted the other versions of this the cards are getting removed form play, but the sons of arnor effect dose indicate that the attack is relevant to position.. why is the defence.. different.. why?

I am still waiting for the response.. but if this is a real rule then is is just another example of these guys making bad game rule decisions.

radiskull said:

Sorry to dig up this "old' post, but I've just read from the Official Nate Rule Clarification thread over cardgamedb.com that the part about Took has been answered officially. Re-reading this thread Rediskull mentioned the official answer for Son of Arnor, too; however, that answer has not been consolidated into the cardgamedb thread. Would you, Rediskull, mind posting the original question and answer between you and Nate so that it can be added to the above thread? It would be very helpful since the rulings seems to be quite confusing, being different from Enemies to Allies. Thank you very much.

I'm still waiting for nate to get back on me on this.. i simply can not believe this rules is real.. it is a perfect t example of how this game just makes **** up as it gose alone with out any consideration for rule consistency/.

I'm happy to repost it, but it's possible that the reason it didn't make it into the subsequent FAQ is that the design team changed their mind about how it was supposed to work. It's entirely possible that this answer will be superseded in the future, especially given the recent ruling about Wandering Took. With that caveat, here's my question and Nate's answer, from 12 Aug 2011:

Q:
I had a question about attack resolution:

Player 1 is engaged by a Nazgul. The Nazgul is dealt a shadow card, declared as attacker, and Gandalf defends. The shadow card is revealed and has a shadow effect. After the effect resolves, Gandalf is chosen to be discarded.

At this point, player 2 attempts to save player 1 and plays Sneak Attack to get Son of Arnor into play. Son of Arnor's response triggers and player 2 engages the Nazgul before damage is dealt.

It's pretty clear that the Nazgul's attack is now undefended, but against whom? Is it player 1, who was attacked originally, or is it player 2, who is now engaged with the Nazgul? Or is it door number three, where the attack simply fizzles?

A:
There are 4 steps to enemy attack resolution, and event cards/ actions can be played at the end of each step (p. 18 core rulebook):

1. Choose an enemy.

2. Declare defender.

3. Resolve shadow effect.

4. Determine combat damage.

In your example, Sneak Attack/ Son of Arnor would have to be played after step 3. Damage will then be determined against the new player with whom the Nazgul is engaged.

(Once step 4 begins, there is no opportunity to play an action until it has resolved.)

Booored, I have to say, and I'm speaking only for myself here, but your constant sharp negativity is beginning to become rather tiresome. Is there a chance you could try to be a bit more constructive and more than a bit more polite? Telling someone new to the forums that tournaments "are never gonna happen" and that the "rules are ****" makes this community look like every other forum community on the internet.

radiskull said:

truth hurts

radiskull said:

On a more positive note, though, I have to personally thank Booored for helping me to open up a lot of extra free time in my schedule, since I no longer have any interest in regularly checking these boards.