noted- im not so much trying to be right here- im just trying to satisfy my own curiosity- i could have sworn that there was an official ruling, i just cant remember when..............

richsabre said:

You'd think that if it was as long ago as you say, that it would be addressed in the FAQ today. I think that is what is hanging most of us up on following the text literally. I mean, the effect makes perfect sense as it is. The undefended portion is just that much more harsh.

starhawk77 said:

well the thing is that YOU are playing incorrectly and YOU are making it EASIER for yourself. ... now on the surface I do not care about this.. I have said many times that as this game is not pvp it is all about player experience.. make up w/e the **** rules you like... Just know there is 2 things happening here.. 1 you are invalidating all your scores, on this quest and most likely others.. and this is one of the reasons we will never see a torny play system and as much as I admire Juice all this stats and scores are meaningless... as everyone is playing incorrectly, due to no one getting check by there assonants in a competitive environment. Still. this is only the most minor of results.

The real problem here and what i am concerned for you about is that you are failing to understand a basic "supporting structure" of the game so to speak. What I mean is that the game has some basic core rules that everything is built off. The reason you can not sack a condition attachment is from one of these core conceptual rules. So you will make similar mistakes all the time for as long as you play. The card text doesn't specify condition attachments as the core rule dictates what cards you can sac already. The attachment type is just a reminder of this....

It has been said so many time... you can not satisfy the cost of a card or the effect of a card though the payment of a card you do not control. This card is cast on you by the encounter deck, you can not choose to discard it as there is never a choice on your part.. it is not your card to go.. "yeah I choose that". As you need to satisfy the cost of the shadow effect from your own card pool. Ask Nate if you do not belive me... as rich said this came up when teh game 1st came out and there was a ruling about how card payments function.

Edit... Found the ruling.... from the FAQ

(1.06) Control of Non-objective Encounter Cards Players do not gain control of encounter cards unless control of the card is explicitly granted by a card effect. When an encounter card (such as Caught in a Web, CORE 86) becomes an attachment and attaches to a character, that character’s controller does not gain
control of the attachment.

booored said:

That doesn't matter. Driven by Shadow does not require that you control the attachment. Like I have said approximately ten million times now, Nate may issue an errata/ruling that the card functions as you have suggested. But that would be a change or a clarification: the card as written and the body of rules we currently have mean Driven by Shadow CAN discard Caught in a Web.

As for the argument about paying costs, let's look at the actual rule book text (p. 25):

Paying Costs
Many cards are written in a “pay or exhaust X to do Y” manner. When confronted with such a construct, everything before the word “to” is considered the cost,
and everything after the word “to” is considered an effect. Costs can only be payed with cards or resources that a player controls. If an effect is canceled, the cost is still considered to have been paid.reset back into the encounter deck.

If Driven by Shadow said something like, "Discard an attachment to cancel this effect," that would fall under this section, since that fits the clearly defined formula of paying costs. You could not discard Caught in a Web to pay that cost, since you don't control the treachery attachment (per the FAQ ruling you yourself cited). DbS doesn't say anything of the sort. There is no cost being paid. There is simply an effect.

In short, I still see no evidence that suggests Caught in a Web is immune. I appreciate your concern for my invalidated scores, but I'll bet on my interpretation of core rules principles and take my chances.

Look, we all know that the wording in this game is often less than ideal. This may be one of those cases where Nate intended for a card to function a certain way, but where the execution of the text muddled the original meaning. That's fine, and I'll acknowledge it if I see proof. Short of that, though, there is no reason to assume DbS works in the way you have posited.

exactly... . you are simply failing to understand some basic core concepts on how the game is played...

So are a lot of other people, apparently. Those of us who play the cards using, you know, the text on the cards.

I'm going to stop feeding you now, since I don't have radiskull's patience. You've made your case, and I've made mine. The debate is there for players to consider and decide for themselves until such time as someone produces an actual ruling from Nate. I don't think one is even necessary, since the resolution seems clear, but that might be the only way to get clarification here.

happy birthday starhawk (sorry for going off topic)

There is absolutely no cost of any kind on Driven by Shadow. Any discussion of cost in that context is erroneous. Control of the attachment you are discarding is irrelevant (in the defended case). The text of the card is clear. I like to think I understand this game pretty well, and I'm pretty **** confident that Driven by Shadow's text contains no sort of cost.

To accuse your fellow forum-goers of missing a fundamental aspect of the game which you yourself do not understand (apparently) is, in my opinion, pretty rude. Especially when stated in the abrasive way you did.

Please produce a clarification by Nate, if you can.

richsabre said:

Thanks, rich! I'm finally legal today. Gonna celebrate by quaffing some orc draught while the ten-hour "Taking the Hobbits to Isengard" video plays in the background

(If you haven't seen it, look it up on youtube. You have nothing to lose besides valuable time better spent doing...pretty much anything.)

starhawk77 said:

haha yes i have seen that- very annoying, and 10 hrs will take some doing

oh well, have fun destroying your liver orc style! and we dont want to see any drunken posts epxressing your undying love for boooored

Call me one of those who don't get the whole cost thing. There is no cost to pay, as the defending character has to discard an attachment. And what about Miner of the Iron Hills? Isn't he allowed to discard Caught in a Web, too?

leptokurt said:

This is a good point. Everyone, including booored I think, uses Miner of the Iron Hills in this way. Let's compare text.

Miner of the Iron Hills: After Miner of the Iron Hills enters play, choose and discard 1 Condition attachment from play.

Driven by Shadow: Choose and discard 1 attachment from the defending character. (If this attack is undefended, discard all the attachment you control.)

So both cards say to "Choose and discard" but the differences are the modifier "condition" and the fact that one removes any condition attachment in play while the other is restricted to the defending character.

That's all I'm gonna say. You guys take it away.

leptokurt said:

Absolutely. I'm sure the entire purpose of him is to discard threatening attachments like that.

The ability has a Response to trigger it, so the only thing that is needed is the fact that the Minor of the Iron Hills is entering play. Technically it has no cost because it is not in a format of "Do x to do y". If a cost was associated with this effect it may say something like "Response: After Miner of the Iron Hills enters play, exhaust a Dwarf character to choose and discard 1 Condition attachment from play."

Here, X is "exhaust a Dwarf character" and Y is "choose and discard 1 Condition attachment from play".

You don't pay costs for any effects that are not your own unless a rule or card specifies this specifically. A notable one is Eowyn.

"Action: Discard 1 card from your hand to give Eowyn +1 Willpower until the end of the phase. This effect may be triggered by each player once each round."

This one specifically states any player may trigger this effect and it is done by paying it's costs.

As most encounter cards, like Treachery cards, Shadow effects, or Objective cards, they have no costs associated with them. Some may have some ways out of the effect going through where it is like paying for a cost(place 2 resources on Gollum. A player may pay 1 resource to place only 1 resource on Gollum for example), but they are basically effects that just happen. You are not paying anything to enforce or power them.

Think of it this way:

If this game is a walk to a lemonade stand, you might have some encounters on your way to lemonade stand and back.
Someone jumps you and just takes your wallet. This is an example of a Treachery card that just enforces an effect(stealing your wallet).
At the lemonade stand you give the vendor 50 cents to take and drink 1 cup of lemonade(let's pretend it gives you +1 willpower). This is an example of paying a cost for an effect. Do X(pay 50 cents) to do Y(take and drink a cup of lemonade).
On your way home, you find the person that jumped you and beat them over the head with a broken bottle(exhaust a character for a fun reference) to take back your wallet(take back your attachment from the discard pile). This is an example of paying a cost to take back the attachment.

Hope that helps clear it up for you and if not, feel free to comment. :-)

It seems pretty straightforward...

Attachments = anything attached to character. Player controlled attachments are a subset of attachments. Conditions attachments are a subset of attachments. If the card says "attachments" it automatically includes all attachments whether they are condition attachments and whether or not the player controls them. Thats how sets and subsets work. *Only* if the text limits the sort of attachments meant would it not include all types of attachments.

Driven by Shadows says "Choose and discard 1 attachment from the defending character." "Attachment" is not restricted here and thus includes ALL types of attachments.

I can understand how one might argue that this doesn't make sense thematically but it IS what the card says. So, unless there is some ruling that the card should have said something else (so far it seems no such ruling exists), it seems obvious that Driven by Shadow can discard "bad" attachments. I see no gramatical, logical or rules basis to come to any other conclusion.

A cost for Driven by Shadows? Where the heck is that coming from?

booored is not only wrong but he is being ignorant. Perhaps the creators wanted the card to behave the way booored has stated, perhaps not. Until there is an errata or they explicitly clarify the ruling themselves there is no way for us to tell. Until that time, the text on the card should be followed.

The defended part of the card does not specify that you must CONTROL the attachment, while the undefended part specifies that you must discard attachments that you CONTROL. Control is explicitly stated in the undefended portion of the card. I refuse to believe that they just forgot to state it in the defended portion. What if the defending character contained only attachments from other players. With booored's explanation those cards would be unaffected since the defending player does not control them.

Also, as it has been stated many times previously, there is no cost involved in the shadow card. The card is entirely an effect. Therefore, when defended, any attachment on the defended player may be discarded, regardless of control. Caught in the Web is an attachment, be it a condition attachment or not. The condition is just a subset of the attachment type.

kirkus said:

Yes, he/she would. Unlike other LCGs, a player assumes control of any attachments played on his/her characters by other players.

Budgernaut said:

Sorry, I recognize I'm teh n00b to this game, but I've come across situations like this one before. My take here is purely a thematic one, so while the card does explicitly state, "Remove attachment," and Caught is "an Attachment," the intent to my way of thinking is that it came from the Encounter deck. The Encounter Deck is "The Home of Bad Things," and not "Suddenly, a party of Elfin Archers ride to the rescue." Looking at the body of the cards, I would frame this with the likely intent, which is to harm the party.

That, as they say, is my 0.02. I'm not saying I'm right! I'm saying that makes the most dramatic and common sense to me.

Thematically, that sounds right, but you may find that using thematic considerations to answer rules questions will lead to an illogical mess. (Some would argue that that's already the case, but I'm not among them.)

You have to apply the rules rigidly and non-thematically, otherwise you'll be saying "But Legolas can't use his Rivendell Blade when he's using his Ranged ability - what, he's gonna shoot his sword like an arrow with his bow?" Down that path lies madness. Just go with it.

Oh, that's easy.

S'a Magic Sword. It magically makes him... awesomer!

Bomb said:

Thanks for explaining the "cost" stuff a bit more detailed. Until now a "cost" was only something that you had to pay for with rour resources.

no cost is anything that you need to do to satisfy a condition on a card. Like say discarding an attachment. You do not control the condition attachments, as they are controlled by the encounter deck, so you can not satisfy that "cost" by discarding that card, you need to choose one of your own player card attachments.

booored said:

I give up.

booored said:

booored said:

That is not a cost, that is an effect. Discarding an attachment is what the card does . Send it to Nate if you don't believe me. The location that has as a Travel effect "The First Player must discard 2 cards from his hand at random to travel here" is an example of a cost. "Do X to do Y" is the formulation. Here, X = discard 2 cards at random, and Y = travel to this location. Traveling to the location is not the cost of the travel effect by any stretch.

Here is the rulebook's definition of "cost":

"Many cards are written in a “pay or exhaust X to do
Y” manner. When confronted with such a construct,
everything before the word “to” is considered the cost,
and everything after the word “to” is considered an
effect."

If it doesn't cost resources, and it doesn't have a "pay X to do Y" construction in its text, then it is costless. Nate will tell you the same thing.

What Radiskull said.

Also, isn't cost always optional? IOW, you may have to do X to get Y, but you also never *have* to do X.

It depends on the context. If an event said "Discard an ally you control to eat extra pie", you'd have to discard the ally if you played the event. It is optional in that you don't have to trigger it, but if you trigger it, you must pay all costs.