Good afternoon, team!

I've only recently begun playing LOTR:TCG with my wife, just using the box set. We'll be getting everything shortly, so I can start deck building in earnest. There are some things I'm really fuzzy on, even having read teh r00lz0rz, the FAQs and this forum, and I'm hoping I can get a clean breakdown from one of you fine folk. In no particular order, we'll start with the two I'm certain are straightforward (and please forgive me, as IDHMDIFOM) --

Basic Card Question:

Core Set: There is a card that requires it be exhausted to function. This was a o.0 moment for me, as I couldn't understand how the Attachment would exhaust independently of its user, unless the intent is that the Character (say, Boromir) can exhaust it independently of his own action. In which case, if the character is exhausted, can they still use the card? That one threw me.

Card has a cost of X (literally, X). I'm assuming that X = number of resources I'm willing to devote to it, ala MTG?

----

Combat (basic)

A card deals X damage upon meeting Y effect (non combat). I'm assuming Defenses do not apply? For example...

Hummerhorns: Deal 5 damage when they Engage an enemy. If they engage, then 5 damage is dealt regardless of defense, am I correct?

Hummerhorns: Deal 5 damage when they Engage an enemy. If I engage them first, I'm figuring this effect is bypassed, since they never made and subsequently passed an Engagement Check, and their special effect of "SURPRISE!" is then sidestepped, as my heroes approach them prepared.

----

Combat (*drools quietly in a corner while trying to understand this part*)

The core of what I'm asking is: based on my reading of the roo-elz to this point, only my party can attack the enemies with which I am engaged. This is making combat frustrating and nerve wracking, since it seems there's no co-op in my combat, which would sort of defeat the purpose of a cooperative game. To that end:

Please clarify in plain English the whole player declare/character attack thing. It has me completely lost. I keep reading y'all discuss it at length but it isn't sinking in and I haven't seen any reference to it in the rules themselves.

Please, also, clarify "Ranged," and what it means. Is it similar to Death Angel where a character with Range can reach across the table to support the other player's party (or parties)? Once that character attacks, regardless of where that attack goes, they are again exhausted and would need to be Readied once more to engage, correct? There was a bit where someone got a Sword of Someone or Other and they could consistently re-ready with another effect, "letting them kill lots of monsters." I'm a combat guy. I want a deep combat experience. Help.

Booored noted (perhaps erroneously) that one Character can only make one attack against one given monster per turn; I'm assuming that Legolas can only attack Cave Troll once, Naz-Gul once, and so on. Is this correct? I'm beginning to understand that the combat is not as cut & dried as "my power, your def, take damage" but from where I am, it still seems like I can only engage opponents threatening me, thus removing a lot of the "co-op" from my co-op.

---

That's my opening salvo. Any and all help is appreciated!

Thia Halmades said:

Welcome to the game! I'll do my best here:

Yes, attachments and characters exhaust independently of one another (if it helps, consider a card like Unexpected Courage - it'd be pretty weird if the game didn't work like that).

Occasionally a card with cost X will truly be variable (search the top X cards of your deck), but it's far more common for X to be defined by the card's own text (X is the cost of the ally you wish to put into play, for example).

If a card deals X damage, you're correct that that bypasses defense. Unfortunately for Hummerhorns, he is considered to engage a player regardless of who initiated the engaging - basically, if you engage Hummerhorns, 5 damage. If he engages you, 5 damage. He is a beast.

You're right that in general, your characters can only attack enemies that you are engaged with. Essentially, after the enemies attack you, you choose which enemy you'd like to attack, then exhaust any number of characters to attack that enemy. Then you may choose a different enemy engaged with you and repeat the process.

Ranged is a keyword that breaks the rules a little bit. I haven't played Death Angel, but it sounds similar. Basically, a Ranged character can pretend that they are in front of any other player. If that player declares an attack, your Ranged character can exhaust to join in. Or, when you're declaring attacks, your Ranged characters can declare attacks on ANY engaged enemy (although not ones in the staging area). Just like any other attack, your character will exhaust, so if you want to use them more than once, you need to ready them.

The co-op aspect comes from things like Ranged and your ability to play events and attachments to help out your opponents. Also, trying to determine which player can engage which enemies to optimal effect is a huge co-op event.

Finally, booored is wrong about this. Each player can only attack each enemy once per turn. If my Legolas attacks the Cave Troll alone, my Boromir can't attack it again later. However, if Boromir attacks the Cave Troll, I can still ready Boromir (using his ability) and have him attack Mr. Fluffy the Friendly Warg on the same turn.

Hope that helps!

radiskull said:

When he says that each player can only attack each enemy once per turn he means that each player may initiate an attack against an enemy once per turn - that is, each player may declare each enemy as a target only once per turn (see step 1 of the attacking enemies in the rules). However, this does not restrict characters from attacking an enemy more than once in a turn *as long as the attacks are initiated by different players*. Note this distinction only matters if you have characters who are "ranged".

For example:

Player A controls Legolas (who is ranged). Player B is engaged with Hill Troll. On his turn to attack, Player A may choose to attack the Hill Troll and declare Legolas as the attacker. Now, normally this would not be allowed as players are restricted to targeting only enemies they themselves are engaged with and characters may only engage enemies their controlling player is engaged with, but ranged characters bypass both restrictions to make this possible. Then after this attack the player may use some card effect to ready Legolas (exhaust Unexpected Courage attached to Legolas for example).

Player A may not choose Hill Troll as the target of an attack for the rest of this turn. However, on his turn to attack, Player B may himself designate Hill Troll as the target of an attack --> AND Player A may still declare Legolas as one of the attackers <-- (again, this would not normally be possible but "ranged" allows characters to be declared as attackers on other players attacks as well).

Hope that helps clarify this tricky distinction.

<deleted as forum ****** up>

radiskull said:

I have never said anything different.You can not attach the SAME monster twice with the same character is what I said. Ranged characters do not break this rule as far as I can see. Andos has some well though out if miss guided reasoning though, so I have put in a rule request as his argument is pretty good. Still with the kind of thought the he has put in I do not think there is much chance of productive chat about it apart form "is to, is not , is to, is not" type stuff.

From the FAQ

"When a player is the active attacker during the combat
phase, the game rules grant him the option to declare
1 attack against each enemy with which he is engaged.
If, through card effects such as ranged, a player is able
to declare attacks against enemies with which he is
not engaged, he is still only permitted a single attack
against each of these enemies.

Characters are not limited as to how many times they
can participate in attacks against the same enemy ,
provided each attack can be legally declared, and the
character is ready and eligible to be declared as an
attacker." (emphasis added)

The FAQ explicitly states that a character is NOT limited to how many times they can participate in attacks against the same enemy. Characters most certaily may attack the same enemy multiple times. The restriction is on how many times a player can declare an enemy as the target of an attack. I am not seeing how you come to your conclusions booored considering the FAQ says the exact opposite with regards to characters and enemies.

that read to me as explicitly saying you can not attack the same enemy twice with the current tools. (as i said b4) The restriction of once per character dose not get wiped after the player turn phase ends. It carries over. As I see it there is no way to attack the same card twice with the one card.. for the moment, I believe this ruling is to allow the printing of cards in the future to grant this effect with a explicit card rule modification.

Still I can see were you are coming form on this one and you make a good argument, so I am getting confirmation.

I'll be very disappointed if this is true as it really alters the difficulty in multiplay witch his extremely easy as it is, basically giving every ranged character the ability to attack twice at a single character when you ha a untap effect. This is truly overpowered.

booored said:

Again "Characters are NOT LIMITED as to how many times they
can participate in attacks against the same enemy..." What else can this mean but that a character can participate in an attack on the same enemy multiple times?

Thats pretty explicit. The restriction of once per character does not get wiped out is true... but that's *because the rules never state such a restriction in the first place*. The restriction is solely for players declaring attacks, not for characters participating in attacks. The FAQ explicitly clarifies that the rule is not intended to restrict characters in the first place. By all means, wait for confirmation, but the FAQ seems pretty dang explicit. I am really not seeing the room for misunderstanding.

Welcome Thia Halmades !

Welcome to the boards, and to the game...the more the merrier !

Can't add much more to what radiskull has said, he summed it all pretty well. As for the coop aspect of the game and combat the Encounter phase (right before combat itself), in which you choose who engages who before making the engagement checks, is where the magic happens. There, the players share the burden according to their strenghts, and spread around the enemy's troops. That's why mutliplayer is so fun : you can have a dedicated Tactics deck geared solely towards killing the baddies. When you're in these shoes, you really feel like you're helping the team.

Ranged is a nice keyword for coop, but do not forget Sentinel, which enables a character to defend attacks on other players. It frees up attackers and can save a teammate.

As for the whole thing concerning how many times enemies can be attacked, I will side with radiskull and Anodos on that one. For instance :

-Two player game, player 1 has Legolas among his heroes (who is a ranged hero), and player 2 doesn't have a Ranged character, but has a mean of readying a character. This round, Player 2 is the First player.

-After the Encounter phase, player 2 is engaged with one enemy. The enemy attacks, everything is resolved, and we go on to player attacks.

-Player 2 is the first player this turn, and declares an attack on the enemy engaged with him (which is a very tough monster, maybe a troll). As he declares his attack, player 1 has the option to join in the attack and declare Legolas as an attacker because he has the Ranged keyword. The two team up, seriously damaging the enemy, but they are unable to finish him off, he has a few HP left. Since Player 2 can only declare one attack per enemy he is engaged with, he can do no more, and it is now Player 1's turn.

-On Player 1's turn, Player 2 plays a card that readies Legolas. Legolas has juuuust enough firepower to finish off the monster engaged with Player 2. As per the rules, Player 1 can only declare one attack per monster, BUT nothing forbids Legolas from attacking the monster again since he has not, as a player, declared an attack against him so far : he only helped out on Player 2's attack. Thus, through his Ranged keyword, Legolas is declared as an attacker on the enemy engaged with Player 2, and finishes him off.

So there you have it. Ranged characters can declare attacks on their own against enemies engaged with other players, or participate in attacks declared by other players. You can only declare one attack per monster as a player, but characters can attack the same monster more than once in the same round, if you can find the means to ready them and if the circumstances and rules permit.

P.S. In retrospect, the exemple supplied by Anodos was clearer :-p

Hey team,

First, thanks for the warm welcome! I always enjoy a good community, and I was lurking long before I was posting. I got into LOTR:TCG ... well, by accident, actually, because I love cooperative games, and I was really missing a lot of the 'feel' of MTG, but not the combat. Cause it was lame. Truly the best combat system I ever played was RAGE, and while this doesn't come close, I'm seeing some new depth tha I didn't see before, such as Sentintel (mentioned above) and Ranged ). And, I just ordered... um... nigh on 2,000 card sleeves and all the expansions. In one go.

So let me get this straight:

* I may declare one "attack" -- not character, but one total attack -- against each enemy with which I am engaged. There is no restriction with how many times one character can attack the same opponent, but (ah, but) I only get one "declaration" per Round. So if I declare all three of my Ready characters, all three exhaust (Tap). So two can attack Hummerhorns, and one can attack Ungolianth Spawn (Frex).

* Now its YOUR turn. You also have Ranged. You DECLARE an attack on Ungolianth Spawn. You burn an ability and untap Legolas. On YOUR declaration, I can now tap Legolas to add his attack to the total value. The character (Legolas) is acting independently of my Declaration, and is now, additionally, participating in yours.

Am I grokking this?

My wife had an independent question: Healing is a bit of a tricky beast. Other than Green, do any of the other colors gain any sort of reliable healing ability, or does Green = Cleric, Red = Tank/Warrior, Purple = Marshal/Paladin and Blue = Rogue? Roughly?

Also, check the new avatar. Finally found a TI3 Avi that I like enough to keep!

Aha. I think I found the thing that was confounding about Elladan (sp, don't have him yet). The bit where he can re-ready himself and someone had mentioned that with the Rivendell Blade he can chew through multiple opponents.

I declare an attack. I resolve that attack. I play an effect that untaps Elladan. I declare a new attack, but I can't attack the same creature I declared against previously . It isn't a matter of which characters did or didn't hit it, but purely a matter of the meta-perspective of the player. Am I correct?

to your wife- i have no idea about clerics rogues etc, as i am not familiar with any of those terms (edit:radiskull set me straight )

anyways lore is pretty much the only healing sphere......yeah cant think of any cards out side it that heal

the others arent as straight cut as you pointed out, but i think you have the right idea

rich

Thia Halmades said:

You are! That's correct.

Rich - cleric, rogue, paladin, etc. are essentially DnD terms.

Your characterization of the colors is pretty close, yeah. Blue is sorta roguish, although it's less about backstabbing and lootgrabbing and more about keeping under the enemy's radar and doing tricksy things like getting cards out of your discard pile and stuff.

What they are saying I think is that the deceleration with causes the restriction resets between each players step of the phase..... (and I disagree)

• Player 1 has Legolas (for example) with UC on him.
• Player 2 has Ungolianth Spawn in his combat area.

Combat Phase Starts

Player 1 Combat

• Player 1 declares Legolas as an attacker vs the Spawn on the opponents side. This is his deceleration, so now he can not attack the spawn again, even if he untaps.
• end Player 1 combat

Player 2 Combat

• Player 1 untaps Legolas.
• Player 1 Declares Legolas as joining the attack with the P2's guys on the Spawn (as this is player 2s turn so now decelerations are reset)
• Player 1 joins in Players 2's attack on Spawn, End result he has attacked the same enemy twice in a single round..

The idea they have here is that the deceleration resets between attacks of each player. I am not convinced of this,. Legolas has already declared an attack on Spawn and that dose not reset until next turn. Unless a card effect (witch as yet dose not exist) contradicts that.

booored said:

This is perfectly legal, as it is Player 2 who is declaring the attack on the Spawn. Legolas may participate since player 1 is not the one declaring the attack.

What they are saying I think is that the deceleration with causes the restriction resets between each players step of the phase..... (and I disagree)

Nope, aren't saying this at all. We are saying (and I AGAIN refer to the very explicit statement in the FAQ) that no such restriction on *characters* exists. Period.

The restiction is on players ability to iniate attacks. It has NO direct restriction on what attacks a character can participate in.

Anodos said:

This is my current understanding based on RAW. If we agree that the sequence is: Declare, assign, resolve, and we equally agree that multiple declarations can be made, but another declaration cannot be made against the same creature twice in one round by the player, and finally, that per the FAQ which has been mentioned by Anodos multiple times, then we have to conclude that Legolas can attack the same target indefinitely so long as each time he is legally Readied and can assist someone else who has legally declared an attack.

I grok this now, again as radiskull noted, going purely by RAW and not thematics.

I still contend that in a deck where nothing good ever happens and it has the barking Eye of Sauron on the back, a card that removes Attachments is meant to remove player supporing attachments , not Caught in a Web . I'm going to side with Booored on that one for common/dramatic sense (my house, my rules). I will concede that until it is clarified, RAW says "attachment." I will play it one way, but the card in fact says "attachment."

Thia Halmades said:

More power to you. It's your game, so do what creates the most enjoyable experience for you and your play group. Until the mythical tournament format actually materializes (or if you are competing in one of the many fantastic community competitions), you can play with 50 Gandalfs (Gandalves?) if that's fun for you. However, if you think "nothing good" ever comes off the encounter deck, I'd direct your attention towards Grimbeorn, Ranger of Ithilien, and Durin's Helm from the upcoming AP (Foundations of Stone?). Driven by Shadow is clearly not one such card, but don't be so quick to assume that the encounter deck won't throw you a bone once in a while.

Thia Halmades said:

this is absolutely what it means.. there is no doubt in my mind.. I have a rule confirmation in the email.. so we will know soon enough... but this seams very obvious to me. Though I do expect a lot of embarrassed people in this thread to suddenly go silent

booored said:

Thia Halmades said:

I still contend that in a deck where nothing good ever happens and it has the barking Eye of Sauron on the back, a card that removes Attachments is meant to remove player supporing attachments , not Caught in a Web .

this is absolutely what it means.. there is no doubt in my mind.. I have a rule confirmation in the email.. so we will know soon enough... but this seams very obvious to me. Though I do expect a lot of embarrassed people in this thread to suddenly go silent

Here I will politely disagree; I have not thought once among this peer group that they would be the embarassed go silent type. Each of them has raised a valid point, and I also conceded that the wording on the card is materially relevant to the discussion. Regardless, if a concrete ruling overturns or clarifies it, I would expect some general relief that the argument can be laid to rest.

I for one eagerly await the day when one of us will be embarrassed.

Even if booored is correct, I will not be embarrassed.

I use only current text, FAQ, rules, and fellow players interpretations to justify my position. If that is incorrect, then it must be put in the FAQ.

In the original topics case and in the case of Driven by a Shadow, I see these as how the RAW.

radiskull said:

I do not get embarrassed, I am kind of shameless really. Still regardless of the reply I will post it. I also have the range double attack thing in the post.. but the arguments are pretty strong on that one so I will not be shocked if it comes back you can.. only extremely disappointed... if it is true we are going to house rule it the other way as it would be way over powered. Mulktiplayer is easy enough to deal with board threats wit out having a pumped gimli for example attack twice a turn. That is just stupid.

booored said:

Here, really, we completely part ways. If you can run a risk/reward gambit and have Gimli with a Dwarven Axe, having taken damage, etc., and find a way to untap him and declare a new attack, that's not just legal, that's kind of the point. I'm still fiddling with my first tactics deck before I throw it at the milk-run scenario to see what happens. But when you look at Elladan and Boromir, that's what they do . Declare, tap, resolve. Spend threat, untap. Declare again. Attack different creature.

If you find it too easy, booored, then why not manipulate the rules to suit your skill level? I would think that -- from what I've heard -- massing at Osgiliath should be a significant challenge.

"Mulktiplayer is easy enough to deal with board threats wit out having a pumped gimli for example attack twice a turn. That is just stupid."

Is there a way to make Gimli ranged?