I've had this game for two weeks now and am enjoying it very much. I've got some questions regarding gameplay however:

1.) If "Driven by Shadow" comes up as a shadow card, can I use its shadow effect to discard the "Caught in a Web" Treachery card attached to one of my heroes? I have so far assumed this is a legal move but am not 100% sure.

2.) If a Location leaves the staging area by having a number of progress tokens placed on it (i.e., using Northern Tracker or Snowbourn Scout) equal to the amount of quest points on the Location, is it considered explored? If I discard "Mountains of Mirkwood" in this way, does its response trigger? Again, I have so far assumed this is a yes.

3.) In the "Hunt for Gollum" scenario, can I claim an Objective the same turn/phase that I advance from Stage 2B to the next card without the reset occuring? I.e., can I just leave the Objective(s) in the staging area until the very moment I finish 2B, or do I need to claim it the turn before? Further, what if the Objective is guarded by the current Active Location, and this Location is explored and Stage 2B finished in the same quest -- can I still claim it and proceed?

newdarkages said:

1. Yes, but only if you are defending with the hero to whom Caught in a Web is attached (since Driven by Shadow says, "Choose and discard 1 attachment from the defending character."). Note, though, that if the attack is undefended, you CANNOT discard Caught in a Web, since that part of Driven by Shadow's shadow effect only discards attachments you control.

2. Yes. A location is "explored" whenever is has progress tokens on it equal to its quest point value. All relevant responses/effects trigger at that time.

3. Basically, yes. Signs of Gollum can only be claimed at a very specific time. Per p. 5 of the FAQ, players have "quested successfully" after staging, as soon as you determine that the total willpower exceeds the threat in the staging area (i.e. before placing progress tokens). At this point--and ONLY this point--you can claim Signs of Gollum if it is unguarded. THEN you place progress tokens. So, in the scenario you presented, you cannot technically "wait" to claim the objective until the very moment you finish Stage 2B; however, in the instant that you tally your willpower and recognize you will be placing enough progress to finish the stage, you CAN claim the objective BEFORE placing progress.

This timing answers the second part of your question. Basically, if the objective becomes unguarded after progress tokens have been placed, you won't be able to claim it until the next turn (since it was guarded at the moment when you "quested successfully"). If that were the only Signs of Gollum in play, you would immediately reset the quest deck.

Hope that helps

Thank you, and yes, very helpful. I will try to check out those FAQ's pretty soon, but really quick, here's something that came up last night:

We were playing Passage Through Mirkwood. During the Combat phase, Player A destroyed an enemy with Legolas, and per Legolas' Response, 2 progress tokens were placed on Stage 2B. We drew "Don't Leave the Path" for the next quest card, and picked out a Forest Spider and Ungoliant's Spawn, placing them in the staging area. Player B was playing with Dunhere, who was readied. Player A was the first player. Could Dunhere then attack the enemies that were just added to the staging area? I don't see why not.

newdarkages said:

Sure. You flip quest cards immediately after placing the requisite amount of progress tokens on them, even if it happens during the combat phase. When you flip to "Don't Leave the Path," its "when revealed" effect triggers immediately. By the time Player B's attack step rolls around, there will be two new targets in the staging area. So, in your example, Player B could indeed attack either spider with Dunhere. In fact, this would work even if Dunhere were under the control of Player A (since Player A can make other attacks besides the one with Legolas). If Dunhere were ready after the sequence of triggers, he could legally attack either spider.

Cool, thank you.

starhawk77 said:

Agreed with 2. and 3.

I'm not sure if your answer to 1. is correct. Sure, technically it's true that the card text only says that one ttachment from the defending character has to be discarded. However the text in the bracket implies that Driven by Shadow is directed at player controlled cards: "If this attack is undefended, discard all attachments you control ."

I don't think that the game designers ever intended to help a player with this shadow effect by making it possible to remove Caught in a Web, but the card reads as if it was possible. I guess there should be an errata for Driven by Shadow that includes the words " controlled by a player " in the first sentence.

It's a literal reading of the card text. Admittedly, straight interpretations of card wording can be problematic in this game (I'm looking at you, Stand and Fight...), so I can see where you are coming from. But there are other attachment discarding effects that specifically mention player "control," while Driven by Shadow does not. I suppose you could read the second part of the effect as implication that the first part couldn't discard Caught in a Web, but that would be you adding meaning to the text beyond the actual words (again, not necessarily the wrong idea in this game).

In general, I think it's usually best to abide by the literal wording on the card unless it leads to a blatantly nonsensical outcome. Otherwise, you're trying to read Nate's/Lukas's mind(s). There are plenty of encounter cards that can occasionally prove somewhat beneficial, so I don't think the players managing to acquire some advantage from Driven by Shadow is that far-fetched. Some clarification here would be welcome, but I don't know that Driven by Shadow would receive errata, since FFG has been pretty consistent about specifying control in other instances. Seems to me like the effect would have said, "Discard one attachment you control from the defending character" if that had been the intent.

1) - No, not in any way is this legal. Treachery cards that are played as "condition attachments" are NOT attachments. Yes, it is pathetic that they are called attachments but they are so get used to it. When a card is like Caught in the Web is attached to hero the the only way currently to remove it is to cast Miner of the Iron Hills. "Response: After Miner of the Iron Hills enters play, choose and discard 1 Condition attachment from play. " The card Driven by Shadow ONLY effects player cast attachemtns like songs or armour or weapons.... treachery cards turn into "condition attachments" and remain un affected.

I would tend to agree with booored...it would also be more in keeping with the spirit of a treachery card, which is never meant to really help.

Honestly, I think the text on the card speaks for itself. I see no reason why the defending character can't have the treachery attachment discarded. The undefended condition sounds like a way to protect characters that additional players have in play and to increase the penalty for being undefended even further. The initial effect says nothing about it being an attachment you control.

Also, Treachery cards that become attachments ARE attachments for ALL purposes once their lasting effect(that makes itself an attachment) is in place. It is now an attachment that you do not control.

There are Treachery Cards that exist that actually help you more than hurt you sometimes. The ones that say "Return an exhausted Ally to your hand." for example is tremendous in combination with Allys that have put into play abilities.

The_Fallen_Arises said:

But sometimes they can help you. Canceling cards like those isn't the only way to fight against them.

See Pursued by the Shadow in combination with Gandalf or Snowbourn Scout. Gandalf being available for his put into play effects again can be huge.

All attachments count as "attachments".

Discard an attachment.............encounter card or player card.

Discard an attachment you control........only player cards.

yes the rules (or at least faq) are clear about this- you only control player attatchments

Bomb said:

Well...can't argue with that...I stand corrected, and rally to your position. If we abide by the letter of the rules, that's how it should work.

no... the effect dose not affect condition attachments. End of story. There is no argument about this and it has been confirmed by Nate I am sure of it, though it has been so long I forget when. As has been said you do not control condition attachments, you can not discard them

muemakan said:

Forgot to mention objective cards.

So it would be:

Discard an attachment.............encounter card or player card.

Discard an attachment you control........player cards and objectives.

booored said:

From the FAQ:

(1.23) Attachments
Any card that attaches to another card is treated as an Attachment in addition to its other card types.

booored said:

If the attack is undefended, then I completely agree with you because that falls in line exactly with the condition of the shadow effect. However, I completely disagree when the Condition Attachment is attached to the defending character and this shadow effect is revealed. It makes no mention of the need to control the attachment you choose to discard. You should not read past that part of the effect's text because you do not meet the conditional requirement to trigger the undefended portion.

I don't think it's right to dismiss any debate on this subject without a pointer to the ruling.

If the effect said "Discard a Lore character from play (If this attack is undefended, discard a Leadership character from play).", we wouldn't discard a Leadership character from play if the attack is defended, right?

I have no issue with there being a preexisting ruling made from the game designer, but in this case I think the text is clear enough that it would be unnecessary. Normally, undefended shadow effects are supposed to be a lot stronger, so in this case it is even worse when undefended.

If there truly is a ruling by Nate on this very subject...it only heightens once again the need for a clarified rulebook...

I'm aware of no such ruling, and after searching these forums and the BGG forums, I can't find reference to it. (Not that the search function here is anything to be confident in...) But If the attack is defended, Driven by Shadow does not specify that you need to control the attachment you're discarding, so you can discard any attachment, even Caught in a Web (since once it attaches to a character, it is an attachment.) If the attack is undefended, Caught in a Web stays.

Your probably looking for the wrong thing, the ruling wasn't on condition attachments but on how card costs and conditions are met. The condition attachment may be on your card but you do not control it, it is still part of the encounter deck. It is just cast on you. You can not sac it as a cost payment, anymore than you can use any encounter card for any other function. This is highlighted with the keyword "condition attachment" to separate it, but it is the global rule about how card costs work that dictates that this can not be sacked.

I don't understand what you mean by card costs.

radiskull said:

It still doesn't make sense that a card named "Driven by Shadow" frees one of your heroes out of a spider web. It just doesn't make sense. And I need no BGG forum to know that.

Imagine everyone is looking for missing Frodo, and then he shows up and everybody is puzzled how the hell he made it out of that trap, and he says: "Guys, you won't believe what happened, but just as the spider wanted to eat me and my second breakfast, a drug driven Orc junkie came along and slew that beast with his bare hands. He must have been driven by a shadow!" Everyone nods in agreement.

And no one would ask him if he controlled that web.

though my memory be crap im siding with booored- i remember this coming up but it was several months ago, infact could have been last year- so dont ask me for links

and i also agree with leptokurt- doesnt make any sense thematically

Infact reading the card i read it like the words controlled were missed out on the first text, it seems to read that the 2nd shadow part is a follow up of the first

richsabre said:

Maybe not, but there are a number of encounter card interactions that happen to prove "beneficial," even though the cards themselves appear designed to hinder the players. Freezing Cold can prevent a character like Glorfindel from becoming committed to a potentially fatal Avalanche!-induced quest to complete Stage 2B of The Redhorn Gate. When Many Roads shuffles locations back into the encounter deck, it minimizes Cave Torch's drawback. As much as I enjoy thematic consistency, the rules don't always conform to how card effects "should" play out.

Personally, I'd be all for an errata to add a control requirement to Driven by Shadow. Unless that happens, or unless someone can produce an official ruling from Nate, the wording is pretty clear. But I don't see a big problem with playing it your way, since you'll only be making things more difficult. If that keeps your conscience clear, so be it--it's the opposite of gaining an unfair advantage.

Basically, if you want to hamstring yourself, feel free But the text doesn't obligate you to do so.