The "equal number" part can be confusing; does it refer to the equal number you counted or the equal number you shuffled? Caleb ruled it's equal to the number you counted, not shuffled. The card could be clearer, for sure.

My rule of thumb is, when in doubt, go for what makes it more difficult for the players. There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example), or even this one. So, basically, if it makes it harder for me, I'll typically go with that interpretation. If it gets clarified that I was wrong later, all the better!

I am with you here - harder is better, but I also want clear and consistent rules!

There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example),

Are you thinking about the card immunity fiasco? I'm totally fine with Hands being illegal against immune cards, it just bugs the hell out of me that Quick Strike (copy paste of same wording) is not illegal. Text is all-important. Anyway, it makes it worse that there was a ruling last year that Hands WAS a legal play against immune enemies, which is more consistent with how the card is written (or cards, since QS and Hands are written the same).

But maybe you're not talking about this at all... it's just a festering open wound in my legalistic approach to the interpretation of card text.

There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example),

Are you thinking about the card immunity fiasco? I'm totally fine with Hands being illegal against immune cards, it just bugs the hell out of me that Quick Strike (copy paste of same wording) is not illegal. Text is all-important. Anyway, it makes it worse that there was a ruling last year that Hands WAS a legal play against immune enemies, which is more consistent with how the card is written (or cards, since QS and Hands are written the same).

But maybe you're not talking about this at all... it's just a festering open wound in my legalistic approach to the interpretation of card text.

I think that consistency is important really important. I do not like having, what now appears, to be inconstant rules for the same text with the cards Quick Strike & Hands upon the bow... (after all they are both immediate effects )

1) - The Masters malice (so often been game over, thanks for coming. Unless mono sphere)

2) - The power of Mordor (the times its shown up have been brutal! or confusing with captains... edit reading dain's post adds to brutality even if less confusing)

3) - Local trouble (I love Elven decks this sucks for Elrond or any other Hero that you want to ready a lot)

4) - Sleeping Sentry (though have seldom come across it)

5) - Wind-Whipped rain (only this low as I don't play the saga its in much... think my lip quivered the first time I lost all my attachments)

3. True, i hate Local Trouble. I hate.... hate ... hate....

5. Lol, the lips are very good...

There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example),

But maybe you're not talking about this at all... it's just a festering open wound in my legalistic approach to the interpretation of card text.

no, i'm avoiding that can of worms

I'm actually not a fan of the "immune to player card effects" at all. I think a better approach would be to introduce specific keywords that nullify certain effects, but not all of them. "Relentless" could prevent players from stopping an enemy from attacking, "Resilient" could make an enemy immune to direct damage, "Cunning" would mean an enemy could only be attacked through the declare attacks step of normal combat, etc. This might be more complex, but it would make enemies feel more distinct and avoid crazy ruling confusion. It's too late to do it now, but maybe for the future...

I too have submitted a request for a ruling and will also post any response.

You should put it in that other thread as well so all the "then" bollocks is in one location.

I'm actually not a fan of the "immune to player card effects" at all. I think a better approach would be to introduce specific keywords that nullify certain effects, but not all of them. "Relentless" could prevent players from stopping an enemy from attacking, "Resilient" could make an enemy immune to direct damage, "Cunning" would mean an enemy could only be attacked through the declare attacks step of normal combat, etc. This might be more complex, but it would make enemies feel more distinct and avoid crazy ruling confusion. It's too late to do it now, but maybe for the future...

Problem is we have a ton of cards that do not have these limitations. So unless they do a mass errata the old pre-trait specific cards will be bonkers powerful in relation to the new ones. This could lead to more "must include" cards making decks even more alike.

Also a trait limiter on a card could limit the use vs new quests that might not have that location or monster type.

quest card trumps all for those cards that can't leave play. I just really don't see it as that confusing

Yes this is correct.

My rule of thumb is, when in doubt, go for what makes it more difficult for the players. There are lots of folks trying to contort cards to make them do what they want it to do (Hands Upon the Bow is a prime example), or even this one. So, basically, if it makes it harder for me, I'll typically go with that interpretation. If it gets clarified that I was wrong later, all the better!

I completely agree here as well. People like to bend the rules into whatever they think is best and while the game is a co-op so it doesn't matter like it dose in a competitive card game, I think this is still a real issue with rule interpretation.

When in doubt take the worst option.

I'm actually not a fan of the "immune to player card effects" at all. I think a better approach would be to introduce specific keywords that nullify certain effects, but not all of them. "Relentless" could prevent players from stopping an enemy from attacking, "Resilient" could make an enemy immune to direct damage, "Cunning" would mean an enemy could only be attacked through the declare attacks step of normal combat, etc. This might be more complex, but it would make enemies feel more distinct and avoid crazy ruling confusion. It's too late to do it now, but maybe for the future...

Totally agree. It sucks that we have all these cool cards with cool effects that would allow you to outfox and defeat the Witch-King or a Nazgul, only to have him be immune to literally every effect you have except damage. I understand "Cannot have attachments" more so than the immune to player card effects one.

I think this is one of the "worst".. not that I would use that term. Still this one will end the game for most players most of the time if you haven't got a cancel ready. This results in 7-10 dmg on one of each players heroes.. assuming they are not tapped.. otherwise it is completely undefended.

This is one of my most hated though. I really like the Steward's Fear quest. With this card if you do not have the cancel and for some reason your not running condition removal (shock) your looking at some massive threat gain. I find this really stressful and it gets under my skin. Even if you have condition removal and you can't stop it, every draw when you can not fix the problem becomes more and more frustrating.

+1 threat on Tap and Untap and triggered ability? wow

Side note.. do you think effects like Dain's buff or Thalin's dmg, or Dunhere's thing.. all those card texts that are not action or response but "always on" also trigger this? I'm thinking no.. but what do you guys think? The word "triggers" says NO, but the word "ability" says YES.

Side note.. do you think effects like Dain's buff or Thalin's dmg, or Dunhere's thing.. all those card texts that are not action or response but "always on" also trigger this? I'm thinking no.. but what do you guys think? The word "triggers" says NO, but the word "ability" says YES.

I think NO - going by rulebook p.23 ("These effects have no bold trigger, as they are always active"). This would also allow certain effects to operate while characters are unconscious in Flies and Spiders.

yeah exactly.. but they are still "abilities"... I agree with you it is just a example of some of the terrible rule text in this game.

'Triggers' is about active actions or responses. Passive text doesn't count: it doesn't triggers.

yes.. that is true.. but not my point. There is no doubt what ruling is. the POINT is that is it murky wording.

We all know what a trigger is... but we also all know what a ability is. So why would you put both words on the same card. It is just retarded.

A Passive ABILITY

A Triggered ABILITY

It is just a silly thing to put on a card.. why make it confusing at all... for while I and others might not be confused.. I guarantee other are.

THAT is the point.. that is the joke. I'm not trying to start a rule discussion here... it is a joke.. Things are always way funnier when you have to explain them.

* 2 treacheries that you say: 'omg!' in the start of game, in setup:

...when you have a deck with 27-29 starting threat level and you was thinking about having 2 rounds to be ready for combat against the troll. Agh! This same first round you shall engage!!! Reset... lol

And this other, not matters which deck you play:

When it is revealed (we said eleanor not counts), your eyes open so: O.o

PD: yes booored, severals words are confused, you need study a master to play all well. But the game continues be funny

@Boored, as for immunity and «then» I agree with you, as for local trouble it's pretty straighforward. «Trigger an ability» is exatly what it say on the tin... putting both word is not retarded, it's just the right way to exclude passive abilities...

I vote for watcher in the wood.

I mostly play in 3-4 players game, and when you have 20 characters questing wich is not that hard in 4 players, revealing this card is simply a Game Over. And even in first turn, having at least 6 characters commited is barely the minimum, and it ruins most of the combat phase...

Only one word: DREADFUL

I had to ask if it only counts for a player himselve or all joined...., all: dreadful

For the most part I don't mind the treachery cards - there are two I hate, though: Sleeping Sentry and The Masters Malice. Both have the potential to either take you out instantly, or severely wreck your board position so the game is unwinnable.

It's the Shadow effect on Sleeping Sentry that I hate - it just breaks the game. You need to exhaust characters to do anything, so wrecking your board for using a basic mechanic of the game is bad design.

The Masters Malice is crippling if you aren't playing monosphere. And yet, playing more than one sphere is a key component of building balanced decks. One or two damage would be bad enough, three is enough to kill most allies and a lot of heroes.

I don't mind other cards that mean you have challenging play decisions, like the ones that become condition attachments, but cards like these two that penalise you for using basic elements of the game are poor design.

Hi Matthew,

The Power of Mordor should read:

"When Revealed: Count the number of encounter cards in the staging area and shuffle them into the encounter deck. Reveal an equal number of cards from the encounter deck and add them to the staging area. This effect cannot be canceled."

It should not use the word 'Then'. That will be corrected in the next FAQ.

Without the word 'Then', The Power of Mordor interacts with To The Tower and a Captain enemy like this:

-You count the number of encounter cards in the staging area, including To The Tower and the Captain enemy.

-Shuffle all the cards counted into the encounter deck, except To The Tower and the Captain enemy.

-You reveal the number of encounter cards that you counted and resolve their staging.

This does make The Power of Mordor a nastier treachery card in The Morgul Vale than in any previous scenario, since you are in a way revealing 2 additional encounter cards. However, it seemed fitting to us that The Power of Mordor should be stronger when you are in fact on the very doorstep of Mordor in that scenario.

Cheers,

Caleb

Snap, just got the same answer. I'm glad that the errata will make this fit with the "Then" rule.

^ Glad to see agreement on a treachery card with the key word "Then"...

More votes for Wind-Whipped Rain (run very attachment heavy decks...), Sudden Pitfall and Local Trouble. Masters Malice is always horrid too.....

Really wish there was ever ever so slightly more treachery cancellation/manipulation... even if it was just a single extra card or a third copy of A Test of Will in the core... I know too much would ruin the game but to me treacheries are usually the nastiest encounter cards and its so painful smashing through a quest and just one single treachery completely destroys you when nothing else could..... for me wind-whipped rain and Sudden Pitfall are good examples..

plus so goddamn many of them have surge.... haha

sorry.. double post

oh and Old Wive's Tales as well...... you are right Mndela! Your eyes open wide and you curse Gollum and his **** reputation!

Southron Support all the way. Just...so much hate. ESPECIALLY in Into Ithilien and Siege of Care Andros. Hardest Quests in the game for me, bar none, and this card was a good part of the reason why. Ugh.

New addition to this list!

Nightfall.... in Wastes of Eriador.

Whats that? Its day? NOT ANYMORE!

Whats that its already night? DOOMED 4 FOR EVERYONE!