Neat! Guess that explains why all the old hands are playing it correctly then. Good to know. We were all looking in the Long Dark rule sheet.

Still regardless like the "Next Player" ruling it should be added to the FAQ so it is in a easy to locate place.

So does this means that i have to start again all guests because i havent followed those Zigil miner and Legolas rules.

Would be REALLY annoying.

Yeah this is why the quest log is completely useless. People make mistakes, card rules change.. there is no reason to record anything.. the recorded wins and losses has no meaning until the game is finalised.

Sure wish they would release an "Errata Pack," with all of the cards that have had changes made to them in it. They're getting hard to keep track of!

I agree whole-heartedly with this. By my count there are now 23 cards that have been errataed (not just clarified but having changes to text).

I would gladly pay a regular AP price to get corrected versions of all the errataed cards.

I didn't notice that the designers "errata'd" their own point to being no more able to attach attachments to cards that are immune to player cards. That was quite surprising.

hasn't it always been like that... I mean a attachment is a player card ... so if it is immune.. how can you attach it?

You were allowed to attach those things, they just couldn't affect the immune card. "Ancient Mathom" or "Path of Need" are examples that worked while being attached to an immune location, since their effects didn't targt that location

ahh yes.. I know what you mean now.. sweet. In truth I missed that distinction.

Mathom for example I would call the act of placing it ON the location as a target function. A function that would be illegal as the location can not be targeted due to immunity.

Either way.. I guess it is mute as they have changed it anyway. I makes a lot more sense this way.

Hands says exhaust the player card, AND target a encounter card, and then do a combat-attack step vs the selected target.

edit:

Thanks for trying to explain how this works. It's very clear how the distinction is "supposed" to work, I just don't see it supported by the card text... at all. Literally, the wording on the cards is a copy/paste job. They just added "ranged" and a clause about the staging area.

I agree with GrandSpleen. Hands Upon the Bow does not specify any targeting, it simply changes the definition of "eligible enemy". I have an additional question related to this, which may be answered in the FAQ, but I'm too lazy to look for it right now: Does this also mean that Dunhere can't be used against immune enemies in the staging area? I assume so, considering his ability specifically mentions targeting enemies. Which would mean you can't use Quick Strike plus Dunhere.

Hands says exhaust the player card, AND target a encounter card, and then do a combat-attack step vs the selected target.

edit:

Thanks for trying to explain how this works. It's very clear how the distinction is "supposed" to work, I just don't see it supported by the card text... at all. Literally, the wording on the cards is a copy/paste job. They just added "ranged" and a clause about the staging area.

The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Qucik Strike iniiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.

And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense.

ETA:

Quick Strike tells your character to start an attack. An immune enemy is not involved here, as he only suffers from the attack itself (which follows the card effect), but not from the card effect.

Hands Upon the Bow tells your character to attack an enemy in the staging area. You have to pick that enemy. In that moment the enemy says: "Sorry, immune, can't pick me!" and you can't even start the attack.

The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Qucik Strike iniiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.

And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense.

Hands Upon the Bow ALSO just initiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The difference is that change "eligible enemy" to "enemy in the staging area". It seems to me that the rule is based off the fact that if the enemy isn't normally eligible, then it is technically being targetted outside the standard rules. So if the enemy IS normally eligible for the effect, then it's not really an effect against the enemy, but since we're changing the eligibility of an enemy from ineligible to eligible, that counts as targeting it.

That's the idea they put in the FAQ: Quick Strike targets a character only, Hands targets both a character and an enemy.

It's just that... the card text...

Select Quick Strike. Copy.

Select Hands. Paste. Add the words "ranged" and "staging area." And a bit about +1atk. Voila!

That's all. The bit about "you have to pick that enemy" is the part that gets lost in the identical text, since you do have to pick an enemy for Quick Strike in the physical world. If Hands and QS are to be differentiated based on "picking" an enemy, it should be reflected in the text... Hence, they needed to errata Hands, or QS, or make them both illegal plays against immune enemies.

As for Dunhere, he doesn't work, nor will Great Yew Bow. That came out of designer clarification given discussion in the community awhile back. Dunhere uses the word "target"

but since we're changing the eligibility of an enemy from ineligible to eligible, that counts as targeting it.

Thank you, joe, for making a legitimate attempt at reconciling this with the actual card text! I just wish they had done that in the FAQ.

but since we're changing the eligibility of an enemy from ineligible to eligible, that counts as targeting it.

Thank you, joe, for making a legitimate attempt at reconciling this with the actual card text! I just wish they had done that in the FAQ.

It's the only way that the ruling makes sense to me... and it DOES make sense, but I agree they should have mentioned that in the ruling.

The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Qucik Strike iniiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.

And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense.

Hands Upon the Bow ALSO just initiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The difference is that change "eligible enemy" to "enemy in the staging area". It seems to me that the rule is based off the fact that if the enemy isn't normally eligible, then it is technically being targetted outside the standard rules. So if the enemy IS normally eligible for the effect, then it's not really an effect against the enemy, but since we're changing the eligibility of an enemy from ineligible to eligible, that counts as targeting it.

That's what I was trying to say. You have to pick the enemy because he isn't eligible.

That's what I was trying to say. You have to pick the enemy because he isn't eligible.

The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Quick Strike initiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.

And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense.

ETA:

Quick Strike tells your character to start an attack. An immune enemy is not involved here, as he only suffers from the attack itself (which follows the card effect), but not from the card effect.

Hands Upon the Bow tells your character to attack an enemy in the staging area. You have to pick that enemy. In that moment the enemy says: "Sorry, immune, can't pick me!" and you can't even start the attack.

The issue with what you said is that it doesn't mention eligibility. You need to pick an enemy either way, otherwise you can't make an attack, which should make the two cards identical in this respect. Hands Upon the Bow does not explicitly state to target/pick an enemy, and neither does Quick Strick; they say to attack an enemy, which is a normal action in the game that isn't considered a card effect. The only difference (besides the obvious +1 attack) is that Hands Upon the Bow is making normally ineligible targets eligible.

Please try to understand that I'm not trying to put you down. I just want everyone to understand why GrandSpleen and I were having issues with the distinction between these two cards.

Sure wish they would release an "Errata Pack," with all of the cards that have had changes made to them in it. They're getting hard to keep track of!

I agree whole-heartedly with this. By my count there are now 23 cards that have been errataed (not just clarified but having changes to text).

I would gladly pay a regular AP price to get corrected versions of all the errataed cards.

And if they could put missing cards that are only in x1 or x2 in core set... having +1 test of will and +2 unexpected courage would be marvelous.

(Also, +1 gandalf's search and +2 beorn's hospitality, YEAH! )

I'm really glad they clarified the Must X or Y vs Must Either X or Y thing, I was looking for an answer to that and couldn't find one for a while.

The most important part is that when it says, "either" you have to choose one that you can do (if you can do either). There have been many games where I just chose the option I couldn't do and made the Treachery card have no effect essentially.

I'm really glad they clarified the Must X or Y vs Must Either X or Y thing, I was looking for an answer to that and couldn't find one for a while.

The most important part is that when it says, "either" you have to choose one that you can do (if you can do either). There have been many games where I just chose the option I couldn't do and made the Treachery card have no effect essentially.

Still does not sound that clear to me:

The Ambush (errated) now reads: "At the beginning of the combat phase, each player must either turn each of his hidden cards faceup, or take 1 hidden card."

Even if I have no hidden cards, I could still choose to turn each of my hidden cards (none) and face no effect... No ?

I'd rather apply the rule that says "if ambiguous, interpret as worst case scenario for the player" here.

I'm really glad they clarified the Must X or Y vs Must Either X or Y thing, I was looking for an answer to that and couldn't find one for a while.

The most important part is that when it says, "either" you have to choose one that you can do (if you can do either). There have been many games where I just chose the option I couldn't do and made the Treachery card have no effect essentially.

Still does not sound that clear to me:

The Ambush (errated) now reads: "At the beginning of the combat phase, each player must either turn each of his hidden cards faceup, or take 1 hidden card."

Even if I have no hidden cards, I could still choose to turn each of my hidden cards (none) and face no effect... No ?

I'd rather apply the rule that says "if ambiguous, interpret as worst case scenario for the player" here.

No, you can only choose an option that you are able to fulfill. Because you have no hidden cards, you can't turn any faceup. You have to turn at least 1 hidden card faceup to satisfy that option, otherwise you have to take the other one.

That's what I was trying to say. You have to pick the enemy because he isn't eligible.

The point is that HUtB targets the enemy, as you have to pick him specifically for this attack while Quick Strike initiates an attack sequence during which you pick an enemy. The latter doesn't target the enemy directly, the further does.

And yes, it's silly, but I long gave up on card game rules following common sense.

ETA:

Quick Strike tells your character to start an attack. An immune enemy is not involved here, as he only suffers from the attack itself (which follows the card effect), but not from the card effect.

Hands Upon the Bow tells your character to attack an enemy in the staging area. You have to pick that enemy. In that moment the enemy says: "Sorry, immune, can't pick me!" and you can't even start the attack.

The issue with what you said is that it doesn't mention eligibility. You need to pick an enemy either way, otherwise you can't make an attack, which should make the two cards identical in this respect. Hands Upon the Bow does not explicitly state to target/pick an enemy, and neither does Quick Strick; they say to attack an enemy, which is a normal action in the game that isn't considered a card effect. The only difference (besides the obvious +1 attack) is that Hands Upon the Bow is making normally ineligible targets eligible.

Please try to understand that I'm not trying to put you down. I just want everyone to understand why GrandSpleen and I were having issues with the distinction between these two cards.

I'm fine with what you're saying and I get the point you're trying to make.

I'm really glad they clarified the Must X or Y vs Must Either X or Y thing, I was looking for an answer to that and couldn't find one for a while.

The most important part is that when it says, "either" you have to choose one that you can do (if you can do either). There have been many games where I just chose the option I couldn't do and made the Treachery card have no effect essentially.

Still does not sound that clear to me:

The Ambush (errated) now reads: "At the beginning of the combat phase, each player must either turn each of his hidden cards faceup, or take 1 hidden card."

Even if I have no hidden cards, I could still choose to turn each of my hidden cards (none) and face no effect... No ?

I'd rather apply the rule that says "if ambiguous, interpret as worst case scenario for the player" here.

No, you can only choose an option that you are able to fulfill. Because you have no hidden cards, you can't turn any faceup. You have to turn at least 1 hidden card faceup to satisfy that option, otherwise you have to take the other one.

I'm not certain this is necessarily correct: I would argue that you can chose to turn zero hidden cards face up and therefore fulfil that option. Not 100% confident either way.

I'm really glad they clarified the Must X or Y vs Must Either X or Y thing, I was looking for an answer to that and couldn't find one for a while.

The most important part is that when it says, "either" you have to choose one that you can do (if you can do either). There have been many games where I just chose the option I couldn't do and made the Treachery card have no effect essentially.

Still does not sound that clear to me:

The Ambush (errated) now reads: "At the beginning of the combat phase, each player must either turn each of his hidden cards faceup, or take 1 hidden card."

Even if I have no hidden cards, I could still choose to turn each of my hidden cards (none) and face no effect... No ?

I'd rather apply the rule that says "if ambiguous, interpret as worst case scenario for the player" here.

No, you can only choose an option that you are able to fulfill. Because you have no hidden cards, you can't turn any faceup. You have to turn at least 1 hidden card faceup to satisfy that option, otherwise you have to take the other one.

I'm not certain this is necessarily correct: I would argue that you can chose to turn zero hidden cards face up and therefore fulfil that option. Not 100% confident either way.

I get what you're saying that there is a layer of ambiguity, but I think it's pretty clear that you have to turn at least 1 hidden card face up. Think about it: by a similar logic, if a treachery asked you to deal 1 damage to each ally in play or raise your threat, and you have no allies in play, you can't just say, "i'm dealing 1 damage to zero allies". It's been made clear in the past (and in this FAQ) that you have to fulfill one. You can't pick an option that has no gameplay impact.

Actually, this new FAQ totally answers one of the real questions that really matter :

I was hoping the FAQ would explain the Planning action of Haunted Valley from Stone of Erech.

While this location is in the staging area, all ready heroes lose all [Lore], [Leadership], [spirit], and [Tactics] icons.
Planning Action: Exhaust a hero. Any player may trigger this action.

Does this simply mean that a hero must be exhausted during planning? Since it doesn't say "Forced" I am confused.

I was hoping the FAQ would explain the Planning action of Haunted Valley from Stone of Erech.

While this location is in the staging area, all ready heroes lose all [Lore], [Leadership], [spirit], and [Tactics] icons.

Planning Action: Exhaust a hero. Any player may trigger this action.

Does this simply mean that a hero must be exhausted during planning? Since it doesn't say "Forced" I am confused.

The location deprives all "ready" heroes of their icons. It then gives you the option of exhausting a hero during planning as an action. Normally, this is a bad thing, but since they are no longer "ready", that hero would get their resource icon back. Basically, the location gives you a way to get your resource icon back, but at a price.

So you're not required to do it, but it's an option. It's kind of like the action on Zigil Mineshaft.

I was hoping the FAQ would explain the Planning action of Haunted Valley from Stone of Erech.

While this location is in the staging area, all ready heroes lose all [Lore], [Leadership], [spirit], and [Tactics] icons.

Planning Action: Exhaust a hero. Any player may trigger this action.

Does this simply mean that a hero must be exhausted during planning? Since it doesn't say "Forced" I am confused.

The location deprives all "ready" heroes of their icons. It then gives you the option of exhausting a hero during planning as an action. Normally, this is a bad thing, but since they are no longer "ready", that hero would get their resource icon back. Basically, the location gives you a way to get your resource icon back, but at a price.

So you're not required to do it, but it's an option. It's kind of like the action on Zigil Mineshaft.

Ah. I skipped over the "ready" in the first sentence. Penalty for reading too fast. Thanks much.