Hi!

I'm a french speaking player and in the frech version of the game, I have a problem understanding the text of "Men in the Dark". The english text doesn't help me, but maybe I don't understand english enough. So I ask the question :

Have I the choice or not ?

Can I choose to deal 1 damage instead of paying 1 resource or must I pay a resource by hero and only the heroes that can't pay are dealt 1 damage ?

Thanks!

Hi!

I'm a french speaking player and in the frech version of the game, I have a problem understanding the text of "Men in the Dark". The english text doesn't help me, but maybe I don't understand english enough. So I ask the question :

Have I the choice or not ?

Can I choose to deal 1 damage instead of paying 1 resource or must I pay a resource by hero and only the heroes that can't pay are dealt 1 damage ?

Thanks!

If you didn't have a choice it would be worded as "each hero must pay 1 resource. If they cannot, they must take 1 damage."

The last part is more clear. If nobody took damage it gains surge.

Dunno, seems crystal clear to me. The word "or" defines the choice pretty well. And the word "must" tells you pretty clearly that you have to do one of them -- if you can't choose to pay (if you have no resources), gotta take the damage.

It is not that clear. Especially in the German translation. I always play this card like I have to pay one resource for each hero, otherwise I have to assign the damage.

@GrandSpleen : Here is an other card worded the same way (the shadow effect) but when I play it, I don't think I have a choice.

What do you think about it ?

I interpreted that "or" means "otherwise" (but English is not my first language).

Loosely coupled to this question was a similar thread about interpreting "if able": Caleb ruled that for "if able" you have to apply the condition in full or ignore it ( http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1048484/encounter-card-effects-and-if-able ). So for "Cut off" undefended, I would say that if you have only 1 ally to discard, then you do not discard it and attacking enemy gets +3 Att (despite there is no "if able").

I see the confusion now and agree that it's not as clear as I originally thought.

So it's either:

Each hero must [pay 1 resource or take one damage]. That understanding implies a choice, and "must" applies to both clauses, indicating that you have to do one of them.

or it is:

Each hero [must pay 1 resource] or [take 1 damage]. That understanding implies no choice, with "must" applying only to the first clause "pay 1 resource," indicating that the resource has to be paid, if possible.

I'm guessing now that, because they used "must," they intended *no* choice. Otherwise they probably would have written something like "Each hero takes one damage. A hero may pay 1 resource out of his resource pool to cancel his damage."

Let's take the "Cut off" example:

Defending player must discard 1 ally card from his hand or attacking enemy gets +3 ATK. (2 allies instead if this attack is undefended.)

Let's say the attack in undefended. So it reads: Defending player must discard 2 ally cards from his hand or attacking enemy gets +3 ATK.

If the "or" is an option, then there is no penalty of leaving the attack undefended compared to defended, if you chose to get +3 Att. On the other hand, if "or" means "otherwise", then it is the classic: undefended = double fine. I know this is not a perfect explanation, but seems right to me.

I agree with you zeb for Cut Off. It seems to me too that there is no choice.

So, as the two cards are written the same, there is no choice for Men in the Dark.

I've read it that you a have a choice. You must do one of the following two actions (pay or take damage) and you get to choose which one. (I can see how it could be taken either way)

Is anybody planning to ask the developers for clarification?

I am coming back to my answer. Let's take this card:

When Revealed: The first player must discard 3 resources from each hero he controls.

There is no "or" conditional here. However the FAQ clarified that "must" means that players should resolve as much of any “discard” effect as they are able to (FAQ p.10). This contradicts a bit what I wrote for "Cut Off" undefended, because if you were ruling in a same way, you would have to discard up to 2 allies.That is why they introduced "if able" to give an all-or-nothing sense to "must".

Of course, the fact there is "or" after the "must" effect may change this completely.

Is anybody planning to ask the developers for clarification?

Done

So to summarise, we have several cases of obligations/conditions:

• "must do X": means do X as much as you can (FAQ p.10)
• "(must) do X, if able": means do X exactly/fully, otherwise ignore it ( answered here )
• "must do X... or Y": this is where we need a ruling because interpretation is ambiguous.

Answer from Caleb :

When a card says "a player must do this or this happens" that player must do the first part if able. If he cannot, then he resolves the second part. When a card says "either do this, or that" the player resolving that effect has a choice of either effect.

Hi, I come back with another question about the resolution of "must do this or this happens" written cards.

The step 1b of the Blood of Gondor adventure says "At the beginning of the combat phase, each player must turn each of his hidden cards faceup or take 1 hidden card.". So, it is a "must do this or this happens" written card. Am I right ?

So, I must turn each of my hidden cards faceup and only if I don't have any hidden card, I take 1 hidden card. In other words, there is no strategic choice at this point!

What about the use of Faramir ? It seems quite less useful than expected with that ruling...

Next exemple, is a card that you can chose:

Text here is clear: 'choice 1'...

PD: I'm interested about the answers of Jefrey question . Very interested. I see in the quest card of Blood of Gondor one faq rule..., or may i played it badly.