After Gondorian Spearman (or any defending character) killed the attacking enemy with his response (or Goblin Cleaver), is he still considered a defending character to use Behind Strong Walls?

I can't see anywhere in the rulebook saying missing attacking enemy will immediately end the attack.

Yes.

Actually, that is a great question. From the manual:

GrandSpleen said:

Interesting thought.

So, to see if understant it right, if you trigger Gondorian Spearman or, by that matter Spear of the Citadel, response, and your enemy as only 1 hit point remaining, then you kill your enemy and as the attack is resolved (o enemy to attack, so enemy attack ends), Gondorian Spearman or any defender with Spear of the Citadel is no longer considered a defender and is no longer regarded as an eligible to be the character affected by the action on Behind Strong Walls.

I agree with it. The response is imediate so if you play the action, you lose the opportunity to trigger the response.

Yeah, defender, sorry about the typo!

GrandSpleen said:

the question is, in the rulebook it is only stated what will happen if the defender is missing (dead, or removed)

but mentioned nothing about what happen when the attacker is missing, you can assume the attack end immediately, but it is only assumption until clarified

Interesting because there are conflicting arguments at other sites. I would think if the attack doesn't resolve it isn't satisfying the condition any longer and the response comes before action window. Reminds me of when vassal defended the tenticles and it all became neutralized. It would be nice for an official response on this.

If no one say they already have before 24hours from now, I will send the question.

My inclination is that the attack is over, and therefor he is no longer a defender, as soon as his Response resolves killing the attacker and ending the combat step. If you choose to skip his Response ability you can absolutely play Behind Strong Walls, but your window for his Response is now gone because you've played an Action and it is no longer within the "immediate window" of him being declared as a Defender.

On the other hand, I've seen stranger timing rulings so I would send them a question if it is eating at you >_<

You could argue that the attack isn´t over. Most of the steps of the attack just do not have an effect any longer

Question sent

Very fast response here :

The rules say that a character is only considered a defender while resolving the attack. Once the attack ends that character is no longer "defending." Therefore, if a Gondorian Spearman destroys the attacking enemy with its Response, then the attack is resolved and the Spearman would not be a legal target for Behind Strong Walls.

Hi Folks,

I did not want to open a new thread ... after a the question if you can play Behind Strong Walls on a defending Gondor-character which is not exhausted my first thought was no. But others say yes .. so i asked Caleb:

Quote

Hi Jan,
You cannot play an event if it has no legal target. In this case, the legal target must be an exhausted defending Gondor character. Otherwise you cannot ready it.
The second part of the effect depends on the first part being resolved because it begins with ‘that character’ and that refers to the character who was readied.
Cheers,
Caleb

That answer feels good for me, but for about 2 years i asked a similiar question refering to Elwing's Flight , so i asked him again about the differences:

Quote

Hi Jan,
The difference between Elwing’s Flight and Behind Strong Walls is that the ready effect and stat boost are part of the same effect in Elwing’s Flight whereas they are two separate effects on Behind Strong Walls. In order to have a legal target for Elwing’s Flight, you only need a questing character to receive the +1 WP, whereas the way Behind Strong Walls is worded requires that you need an exhausted Gondor defender.
Cheers,
Caleb

Ok .. i'm fine with this ruling and guessed it before asking. But one hour later i received a new email from Caleb:

Quote

Hi Jan,
We had a long discussion in the department about your rules question. The long and short of it is that I was basing my ruling off the idea that Behind Strong Walls is targeting an exhausted Gondor defender, but the other guys in the department pointed out that “ready” is the effect and “defending Gondor character” is the target. Basically, it’s written backwards from how I typically write my effects, so I was having a hard time seeing it that way. In any case, I need to revise my previous ruling about Behind Strong Walls. The answer is: “Yes, you can play Behind Strong Walls to give a ready Gondor defender +1 DEF because its only targeting requirement is that the defending character has the Gondor trait.” Sorry for the confusion.
Cheers,
Caleb

So .. in the end .. you can play Behind Strong Walls on a defending Gondor-character which is not exhausted... :-(

This would also mean that you can use Flame of Anor on Gandalf even if he is not ready. That has previously been ruled illegal (thread here ).

We might end up seeing this ruling reversal getting reversed. "Ready a defending Gondor character" pretty clearly indicates you need to have a character who can be readied. So...he needs to be exhausted. If the card said 'Exhaust a defending Gondor character' we would perceive that as the cost, but since 'readying' is a positive effect, we don't perceive it that way. Even though the wording would be identical. If we can't trust the card wording, how are we supposed to parse card effects?

Anyway, allowing us to use a 'readying' effect on a ready character would probably lead to other problems.

13 hours ago, GrandSpleen said:

This would also mean that you can use Flame of Anor on Gandalf even if he is not ready. That has previously been ruled illegal (thread here ).

Seriously stretching here, but Flame of Anor is mildly different in that it explicitly is a COST -> EFFECT wording in its first sentence where you cannot fulfill the EFFECT (in the case of a ready Istari). Behind Strong Walls is being parsed by Caleb here more like hero Sam's Response, where the target of the effect, a defending Gondor character, is undergoing two separate effects: 1. readying, 2. +1 DEF.

Also the target of BSW is a defending Gondor character, whereas the target of the attack boost in Flame of Anor is the Istari you just readied.

The target of the 2nd sentence (the defense boost) in Behind Strong Walls is "that character."

Hmm. I think you should not be able to "ready" a ready character. That character must refer to the character you just readied, which will be no one; therefore leaving no legal target.

14 hours ago, sappidus said:

Seriously stretching here, but Flame of Anor is mildly different in that it explicitly is a COST -> EFFECT wording in its first sentence where you cannot fulfill the EFFECT (in the case of a ready Istari). Behind Strong Walls is being parsed by Caleb here more like hero Sam's Response, where the target of the effect, a defending Gondor character, is undergoing two separate effects: 1. readying, 2. +1 DEF.

I don't see the difference here between FoA and BSW. They both have costs (pay one resource; pay one resource, add to the victory display, and discard the top card) that are payed for to trigger an effect (ready a defending Gondor character, that character gets + defense; ready an Istari, that character gets + attack). In both cases though, I do think the target character must be exhausted (BSW clearly refers to "that character," whereas Sam has two different effects triggering off the engagement).

I can see how Sam and Elwing's Flight (and Lembas) work differently and don't require the target character to be exhausted, though. Thoughts?

1 hour ago, Wandalf the Gizzard said:

Hmm. I think you should not be able to "ready" a ready character. That character must refer to the character you just readied, which will be no one; therefore leaving no legal target.

The disconnect here may be that, for FoA, you are correct—"that character" refers to the Istari that was readied by the first part of the effect, and the ruling agrees with the general principle that indeed you cannot ready a character that is not exhausted.

But, per Caleb's last ruling above, for BSW, "that character" merely refers to a defending Gondor character. It is as if he is parsing it like the card was written as follows:

Quote

Action : Choose a defending Gondor character. Ready that character. That character gains +1 [defense] until the end of the round.

i.e., that it's really two separate effects occurring sort of in parallel.

Why precisely FoA is not treated the same way is, I think we can all agree, rather confusing, but my presumption is that it's the specific "[cost] to [effect]" wording of its 1st sentence. I'd be curious to see how Caleb would respond if pressed on this point.

For easy reference:

Oh, I see. That does make sense.

BTW, my head hurts.

3 hours ago, sappidus said:

Why precisely FoA is not treated the same way is, I think we can all agree, rather confusing,

I think the reason is just a human one. He didn't have FoA in mind during this discussion, and he forgot about the old ruling.

In my opinion the real problem is that we don't rely on solid rules but on his human interpretation, who lead to confusing ruling like this.

For me, the ruling for BSW is a little bit odd. Action-Events are always "readable" like "Pay X resources to do the action". Why FoA is relevant because it has additional costs. It could be worded like ...

Quote

As an additional cost to play Flame of Arnor, add Flame of Arnor to the victory display and discard the top card of your deck.

Action: Ready an Istari character you control. That character gets +X ATK until the end of the phase where X is the dicarded card's cost.

So it were equal to BSW. Otherwise .. if BSW were an action on a card in play (character or attachment) it would be worded like ...

Quote

Action: Pay 1 tactics resource to ready a defending Gondor character. That character gets +1 DEF until the end of the phase.

So it were equal to FoA ..

.. for reference:

and ... with Ever Vigilant i can spend 1 resource to ready an not exhausted ally ^^

1 hour ago, JanB said:

Action: Pay 1 tactics resource to ready a defending Gondor character. That character gets +1 DEF until the end of the phase.

The issue with translating BSW this way is that it privileges the first sentence in a way that the actual event itself does not. In a way, it would be more precise to say this:

Quote

Action : Pay 1 tactics resource to ready a defending Gondor character and give that character +1 DEF until the end of the phase.

Or:

Quote

Action : Pay 1 tactics resource to execute the following steps.

• Ready a defending Gondor character.
• That character gains +1 DEF until the end of the phase.

which are subtly different from your formulation.

That said, maybe someone should reinquire about Flame of Anor. Maybe we'll get that ruling reversed.

That's the problem .. Flame of Arnor has the additional costs which makes the "to" important. And so your Istari character has to be exhausted.
I think, i will link Caleb this thread, so he can read it.. and decide.