Edit: double post
Nameless Things and Forest Snare
This ruling also surprises me. I am trying to think of other implications.
For example: a Dwarf ally that became attached to Nameless Thing would still be an ally (therefore character) by the FAQ ("Any card that attaches to another card is treated as an Attachment in addition to its other card types.") Therefore, it would still give a boost to Erebor Battle Master, for instance.
Another more absurd point that springs to mind: if Gleowine (say) becomes attached to a Nameless Thing, what will stop me from exhausting him to draw a card? Gleowine is in play, I still control him, and I don't think any explicit rules principle states that I can no longer use the action printed on him in this situation. Someone please tell me this is wrong!
PS I did receive official responses to a few other FOS questions which I have posted in a separate thread.
I somehow expected that to come, and I'm not too worried about Forest Snare actually working that way. But jjeagle made a good point how this ruling might lead to rather absurd situations. However, if my intrepretation was correct allies would turn into attachments when attached to Nameless Thing, so Gléowine would deifinitely loose his action, but a dwarf might stll boost Erebor Battle Master. That's why I'd prefer to blank the text of an attached card and be done with it without further complications.
Thanks for asking, Rashley and jjeagle!
jjeagle said:
This ruling also surprises me. I am trying to think of other implications.
For example: a Dwarf ally that became attached to Nameless Thing would still be an ally (therefore character) by the FAQ ("Any card that attaches to another card is treated as an Attachment in addition to its other card types.") Therefore, it would still give a boost to Erebor Battle Master, for instance.
Another more absurd point that springs to mind: if Gleowine (say) becomes attached to a Nameless Thing, what will stop me from exhausting him to draw a card? Gleowine is in play, I still control him, and I don't think any explicit rules principle states that I can no longer use the action printed on him in this situation. Someone please tell me this is wrong!
PS I did receive official responses to a few other FOS questions which I have posted in a separate thread.
Well, both are predicated upon control of the cards attached to a Nameless Thing; the Battle Master is boosted by each Dwarf you control , while effects like that on Gleowine may be triggered by the card's controller (p.23 of the rulebook).
According to p.25 of the rules, a player maintains control of the cards he or she owns unless another player or the encounter deck "takes control of the card through a game effect." One might argue that the Nameless Things have a de facto "control" over the cards attached to them, but this seems like a shaky line of reasoning considering other examples of changing control (e.g., Wandering Took, Rider of the Mark) explicitly mention the transition in question. Since the Nameless Things don't explicitly "take control" of the cards attached to them, and since players maintain an antecedent right of control, the assumption must be that players indeed control all player cards--allies, attachments, and events--attached to said enemies.
As you pointed out, this conclusion might have some significant ramifications. We don't have to worry about events--those must be played from a player's hand, which is obviously impossible when they are attached to a Nameless Thing--and most attachments apart from Forest Snare won't have any practical effect. But allies represent a gigantic can of worms. Apart from their abilities, what's stopping you from using those allies to quest, defend, or attack? Per the FAQ, they are attachments in addition to being characters; being attached does not strip them of their ally designation. They are in play, and, as I have suggested above, there's little reason to suppose that you wouldn't control them. This could lead to the ultimate absurdity: using an ally attached to a Nameless Thing to defend against that Nameless Thing, destroying the ally--and, consequently, the Nameless Thing's attack/health.
Now, I am as great a proponent of strict textual interpretation as any person on this forum. But having jumped headlong into the theoretical rabbit hole, it strains credulity to believe FFG intended players to use attached allies in this manner. I expect we'll see a ruling that the Nameless Things gain control of the cards attached to them. Forest Snare would still work, and that would avoid all of the messy situations we continue to conceive.
starhawk77 said:
jjeagle said:
This ruling also surprises me. I am trying to think of other implications.
For example: a Dwarf ally that became attached to Nameless Thing would still be an ally (therefore character) by the FAQ ("Any card that attaches to another card is treated as an Attachment in addition to its other card types.") Therefore, it would still give a boost to Erebor Battle Master, for instance.
Another more absurd point that springs to mind: if Gleowine (say) becomes attached to a Nameless Thing, what will stop me from exhausting him to draw a card? Gleowine is in play, I still control him, and I don't think any explicit rules principle states that I can no longer use the action printed on him in this situation. Someone please tell me this is wrong!
PS I did receive official responses to a few other FOS questions which I have posted in a separate thread.
Well, both are predicated upon control of the cards attached to a Nameless Thing; the Battle Master is boosted by each Dwarf you control , while effects like that on Gleowine may be triggered by the card's controller (p.23 of the rulebook).
According to p.25 of the rules, a player maintains control of the cards he or she owns unless another player or the encounter deck "takes control of the card through a game effect." One might argue that the Nameless Things have a de facto "control" over the cards attached to them, but this seems like a shaky line of reasoning considering other examples of changing control (e.g., Wandering Took, Rider of the Mark) explicitly mention the transition in question. Since the Nameless Things don't explicitly "take control" of the cards attached to them, and since players maintain an antecedent right of control, the assumption must be that players indeed control all player cards--allies, attachments, and events--attached to said enemies.
As you pointed out, this conclusion might have some significant ramifications. We don't have to worry about events--those must be played from a player's hand, which is obviously impossible when they are attached to a Nameless Thing--and most attachments apart from Forest Snare won't have any practical effect. But allies represent a gigantic can of worms. Apart from their abilities, what's stopping you from using those allies to quest, defend, or attack? Per the FAQ, they are attachments in addition to being characters; being attached does not strip them of their ally designation. They are in play, and, as I have suggested above, there's little reason to suppose that you wouldn't control them. This could lead to the ultimate absurdity: using an ally attached to a Nameless Thing to defend against that Nameless Thing, destroying the ally--and, consequently, the Nameless Thing's attack/health.
Now, I am as great a proponent of strict textual interpretation as any person on this forum. But having jumped headlong into the theoretical rabbit hole, it strains credulity to believe FFG intended players to use attached allies in this manner. I expect we'll see a ruling that the Nameless Things gain control of the cards attached to them. Forest Snare would still work, and that would avoid all of the messy situations we continue to conceive.
Hmmh, the answer to jjeagles first question states that an attached hero is not counted as a hero, because he wasn't brought back as a hero. Perhaps the same applies to allies?
Rashley said:
I got my reply from FFG this morning and it surprised me. I believe it will cause a lot more questions, but this is what Caleb stated:-
The word 'attached' was deliberate as many other rules relate to Attachments. If Forest Snare is played as an Attachment on a Nameless creature it will add its 'cost' to the enemy as well.
He didn't specify the reverse, but it looks like ANY card attached to a Nameless creature either as an Attachment or through its or other cards effects, will add its cost and apply its ability if appropriate. Obviously cards that affect Heroes, Dwarves, Allies etc., wont affect an enemy but others may. Let us hope this doesn't lead to more problems. I think jjeagle has had clarification about a Hero being attached to a Nameless thing. I shall now have to start playing this method and see what effects it has. Cheers!
Could you please post your question, too? Because it seems like Caleb answered the question "What happens if a player pays 3 and attaches Forest Snare to a Nameless enemy" and some of us are talking about "What happens if a Forest Snare is attached to a Nameless enemy by its forced effect"…
HilariousPete said:
Rashley said:
I got my reply from FFG this morning and it surprised me. I believe it will cause a lot more questions, but this is what Caleb stated:-
The word 'attached' was deliberate as many other rules relate to Attachments. If Forest Snare is played as an Attachment on a Nameless creature it will add its 'cost' to the enemy as well.
He didn't specify the reverse, but it looks like ANY card attached to a Nameless creature either as an Attachment or through its or other cards effects, will add its cost and apply its ability if appropriate. Obviously cards that affect Heroes, Dwarves, Allies etc., wont affect an enemy but others may. Let us hope this doesn't lead to more problems. I think jjeagle has had clarification about a Hero being attached to a Nameless thing. I shall now have to start playing this method and see what effects it has. Cheers!
Could you please post your question, too? Because it seems like Caleb answered the question "What happens if a player pays 3 and attaches Forest Snare to a Nameless enemy" and some of us are talking about "What happens if a Forest Snare is attached to a Nameless enemy by its forced effect"…
My own Q&A on this (and other issues) are now posted in full on this thread . I think this clears up most of the FOS rules issues.
This game… or maybe just most games,seem to have a bad combination of the game designers thinking "we don't need to nitpick, they will get it" and players going "haha! I can interpret the rules to make this work to my advantage **** the intent" FF seems to not really be on to how card games work in an official format and seem to come from a board game "let the players sort it out" stand point. Now maybe I have high standards being a long time CCG player and playing mainly the only game that could keep a set of cards balanced and almost errata free for 14 years (The only banned cards were for how annoying/ time consuming they were for tourny play) and not all card games can be made by the master after he learned from his mistakes (that mistake was M:TG). Can't we as players move beyond that. Do we need tiny text on every card or a massive rule book to stop obvious abuse? Can't we untie the hands of the developers to let them make a cool card without having to dig into every interaction to see if they need to rephrase something or add an addenda to the rules? I've played every type of game-from the play it like a tourny-strict V:tES that does have every interaction mapped out to the most free form rules ever made-Amber. The game that got me started with FFG was the aGoT CCG; I remember playing a B-rath rush deck from the base set. Then I took a break and my deck was obsolete there were rules I never heard of card types that were foreign. That game had bad power creep. After that FFG was off my radar for a while Then I found the best board game ever made-Arkham Horror-every time I played that game I was sure we were going to lose and scrambled around making sacrifices and barely pulling through, every time. Every game was nail biting intense almost lose but out of 50 games I think the total losses were about 4, Then I found the LotR board game- you think anything in this is hard or has a steep learning curve-play that. That wasn't "going to lose we are going to lose, we won!" like Arkham it was just "we are going to lose, we lost". The ideas behind a co-op game board and card are new and don't fit into the heroic ideal we expect. FFG picked 2 great places to use this (Lovecraft and Tolkein). Both worlds depict comparatively helpless people fighting against overwhelming odds. It's safe to assume that if there are 2 ways to look at how a card works the one you don't like is the right one. The Lord of the Rings book is a Eucatastrophe. The idea of the card game is that you fulfill the role of Frodo, the game makes the rules, the encounter deck is there to hurt you, the game is designed to make you lose. Do you have what it takes to win? Everything is stacked against you, accept that your fate is a cruel one and overcome.
just Logan said:
Now maybe I have high standards being a long time CCG player and playing mainly the only game that could keep a set of cards balanced and almost errata free for 14 years (The only banned cards were for how annoying/ time consuming they were for tourny play) and not all card games can be made by the master after he learned from his mistakes (that mistake was M:TG). Can't we as players move beyond that. Do we need tiny text on every card or a massive rule book to stop obvious abuse? Can't we untie the hands of the developers to let them make a cool card without having to dig into every interaction to see if they need to rephrase something or add an addenda to the rules?
The Magic: the Gathering rules are 195 pages long. Every bit of card text is subject to change in the Oracle database, and many, many cards' "official text" varies from the printed text.
Or are you referring to Netrunner? A game which hasn't seen official support since 1999?
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.
I think most high-level players would actually quite like to see a ruleset for this game that is as well-templated and specific as Magic's.
MyNeighbourTrololo said:
It makes no sense in terms of game rules.
Attachment card types are attached during the planning phase by the player.
Player cards from player deck are attached to Elder Things when they engage, and by sharing the same word "attach" - it's a completely diffrent mechanic, attaching all - events, attachments, allies. And in this mechanic card text doesn't matters, the only thing that matters is cost.
So much for 'makes no sense'
