[Sep 11 02:00:20] DurinsHeir: Yes, the effect is to "prevent wounds", and triggers "if the Hobbit took 1 wound".
[Sep 11 02:01:09] bigredmf: You have to know whether or not you have already taken one
[Sep 11 02:01:10] DurinsHeir: I believe Phallen's argumentation confuses the limits between effect and trigger.
[Sep 11 02:01:11] Phallen: The effect is "Prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound." Why are you letting half of the effect take place in the present, and half in the past?
[Sep 11 02:01:40] DurinsHeir: Half is the effect, half is the condition that triggers it.
[Sep 11 02:02:22] Zurcamos: For the record, Sobean is firmly on Phallen's side, which I did not expect.
[Sep 11 02:03:01] Phallen: You've got to dismember the sentence in order to do that. The back half of the sentence is in the past, and the first half is in the future?
[Sep 11 02:04:58] Zurcamos: What if the card said, "At this site, prevent a hobbit from taking more than 1 wound"?
[Sep 11 02:06:35] Zurcamos: Skirmish: At this site, prevent a hobbit from taking more than 1 wound.
[Sep 11 02:08:15] Zurcamos: I didn't realize people were saying that "at this site" could be taken as "during each skirmish phase."
[Sep 11 02:08:30] Zurcamos: I thought it was the "skirmish:" that was bringing them there.
[Sep 11 02:09:09] Zurcamos: Unless it is, and I'm just confusing myself.
[Sep 11 02:11:09] Zurcamos: Sobean says it doesn't matter.
[Sep 11 02:11:37] tauri_p-90: Honestly, I think it just doesn't say ". . . prevent a hobbit from taking more than 1 wound *during this skirmish*" is simple and two-fold:
[Sep 11 02:11:58] tauri_p-90: 1. Decipher ran out of room on the card; and
[Sep 11 02:12:21] tauri_p-90: 2. It was assumed because all skirmish events apply for that whole skirmish unless specifically stating otherwise
[Sep 11 02:12:46] Zurcamos: "all skirmish events apply for that whole skirmish" Source?
[Sep 11 02:12:59] Dictionary: In terms of ambiguity, I am reminded of
Depart Silently. 2nd part doesn't say "until the regroup phase" but we assume that because 1) First part says it and 2) It'd be useless otherwise.
[Sep 11 02:14:11] Dictionary: And Decipher had to clarify so many little things. How many would have said Rosie Cotton couldn't use her text prior to clarification? I'd never noticed.
[Sep 11 02:14:16] Zurcamos: Does
Depart Silently make a hobbit strength +3 before it was played?
[Sep 11 02:15:59] Zurcamos: Hahaha.
[Sep 11 02:16:15] Zurcamos: They definitely assume things would be picked up.
[Sep 11 02:16:27] Zurcamos: But what were they assuming here?
[Sep 11 02:17:30] Dictionary: That's the heart of the problem I guess. Because it seems half of us assume something different to the other half
[Sep 11 02:17:54] Zurcamos: Like last time, I don't know what to think, but unlike last time, this actually can happen for me.
[Sep 11 02:30:42] Zurcamos: "I believe both
King's Mail and
Swiftly and Softly would do exactly the same thing in these scenarios."
[Sep 11 02:30:53] Zurcamos: "I agree... but in my opinion, if somehow you were to put
King's Mail on a character in the middle of that character's skirmish phase, the text of
King's Mail would only apply to things that happen after it enters play. It doesn't matter what happened before it was put on the character. I don't think the snapshot rule applies to either of these cards, the wording does not seem like the wording used for cards using the snapshot rule."
[Sep 11 02:31:05] Zurcamos: The latest from TLHH.
[Sep 11 02:35:14] DurinsHeir: I still believe the key is the trigger. Effects are "from now onwards", but triggers are not. The effect "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than 1 wound" has a trigger.
[Sep 11 02:36:38] Zurcamos: Nobody's giving me sources on these rules.
[Sep 11 02:37:15] DurinsHeir: The trigger is not explicit (darn Decipher!) but is totally necessary. If the prevention had no trigger, then the Hobbit would be prevented from taking any wound (after playing the event). ONLY after that 1 wound trigger, the prevention effect takes place.
[Sep 11 02:37:57] DurinsHeir: Response events like
More Yet to Come work AFTER a thing has happened. Not as regularly response cards do, which is when a thing "ia about to happen."
[Sep 11 02:39:01] DurinsHeir: * is about to
[Sep 11 02:39:39] tauri_p-90: it's not a rule, but a precondition for the game to work: otherwise, an event would be a condition you would have to keep in play until the end of that phase.
Dagger strike does not say "make a [character] . . . strength +2 and damage +1 . . . " and only last for as long as the card is on the table; it is persistent until the end of that phase.
[Sep 11 02:40:05] Zurcamos: "ONLY after that 1 wound trigger"
[Sep 11 02:40:16] Zurcamos: Doesn't this imply it would have to happen AFTER the event is played?
[Sep 11 02:40:24] DurinsHeir: Yes, but triggers can look backwards, like
MYTC.
[Sep 11 02:41:12] DurinsHeir: Omit that "yes", I was sending before reading your last line.
[Sep 11 02:41:58] Zurcamos:
MYTC is a response though, not a prevention, right?
[Sep 11 02:42:02] tauri_p-90:
MYTC doesn't quite look backwards; it looks at the current state of affairs. It's trigger is technically when the critter dies but the dwarf had killed it even more; the trigger is after wound 3 is applied, but before wound 4 is wasted
[Sep 11 02:43:25] DurinsHeir: Thats's the idea and flavor, but technically it works by triggering after a thing has already happened.
[Sep 11 02:46:02] DurinsHeir: Looks IMMEDIATLY backwards, but backwards still!
[Sep 11 02:46:12] Zurcamos: lol
[Sep 11 02:46:30] tauri_p-90: I think it is fair to say that no one will be convinced from here on, and that us prattling on about it is a waste of
our time and energy. Let's just agree (that Phallen, et al, are wrong) to disagree until somehow, there is a council of Elrond that makes a ruling.
[Sep 11 02:46:36] tauri_p-90: This is reasonable, yes?
[Sep 11 02:46:53] Zurcamos: unless we agree with Phallen et al until proven otherwise.
[Sep 11 02:47:01] tauri_p-90: lol
[Sep 11 02:47:09] Phallen: Sure. But you guys seem to understand my position, while I'm still struggling to make sense of your argument.
[Sep 11 02:47:26] Zurcamos: The current ruling in code is the anti-Phallen, yes?
[Sep 11 02:47:50] tauri_p-90: I believe so, but I am unsure
[Sep 11 02:48:08] DurinsHeir: "The wall on which the prophets wrote is cracking at the seams."
[Sep 11 02:48:27] Zurcamos: Sobean is so pro-Phallen that I'll probably play it that way, in paper.
[Sep 11 02:49:03] Zurcamos: That's the thing. I don't care if I am/was wrong. I just wish we could think of another angle so that we all agree.
[Sep 11 02:49:04] DurinsHeir: (prophets is a bit too much for Decipher, but still applies...)
[Sep 11 02:49:37] Zurcamos: "Your Fathers, Where Are They? And the Prophets, Do They Live Forever?"
[Sep 11 02:50:24] tauri_p-90: Phallen, the position against you is that, in the absence of a qualifying phrase (i.e. "until the regroup phase," or "for the rest of this skirmish," etc), the effect is from then on (i.e. not retroactive), but includes the wounds taken heretofore in its counting towards 1 (i.e.
Red Wrath,
whirling strike,
desert spearman, etc)
[Sep 11 02:50:31] DurinsHeir: Quantum mechanics are filled with this kind of debates. Stephen Hawking wants to shoot that cat of Schrodinger, for instance.
[Sep 11 02:50:46] Phallen: I think the best use of this card is to absorb threat wounds, no matter what the ruling. But before I complete my synopsis for the wiki, I'd like to have some certainty
[Sep 11 02:50:50] tauri_p-90: But if it's already dead, why shoot it?
[Sep 11 02:51:17] Zurcamos: "Some event cards affect only cards that are currently in play, even though their effects might seem to apply to cards played later in the same turn. These events take a "snapshot" of the current game state, and only those cards are affected."
[Sep 11 02:51:26] Phallen: The effect is from then on (i.e. not retroactive), but includes wounds taken heretofore.
[Sep 11 02:51:31] Phallen: That sounds like a contradiction to me.
[Sep 11 02:51:39] Zurcamos: Snapshot doesn't apply to the past, according to that, right?
[Sep 11 02:51:42] tauri_p-90: it doesn't prevent them, but it counts them
[Sep 11 02:51:45] Phallen: It isn't retroactive, except conveniently.
[Sep 11 02:51:52] Phallen: But why? If it isn't retroactive?
[Sep 11 02:52:22] DurinsHeir: It's either living or dead, according to Aristotle's old work. But Copenhagen's says it's not dead, nor living... a Nazgul?
[Sep 11 02:52:25] tauri_p-90: because the resolution of a skirmish must take into account all events played within it, be they strength/damage modifiers, exertions, wounds, etc
[Sep 11 02:52:27] Phallen: Yes, but I'd think this event would take a snapshot when played and start checking for a wound so it can block all others. That's how the snapshot rule would play here, in my mind.
[Sep 11 02:52:50] Phallen: Right, but this doesn't have anything to do with a skirmish's resolution except when wounds are placed from losing a skirmish.
[Sep 11 02:53:01] Phallen: This is part of the "skirmish actions," before the resolution.
[Sep 11 02:53:24] Phallen: And we all seem to agree that events take effect when they are played, not before they are played.
[Sep 11 02:54:02] Zurcamos: It seems like everyone is drawing from their memory of the rules rather than the rules.
[Sep 11 02:55:23] Zurcamos: event An event is a card played from your hand representing an important occurrence, which you discard after you play it. Most event cards have a phase action that defines when you may play that card from your hand. The game text on that event may be performed only once for each copy of that event played. You cannot play an event during a phase that does not match its phase action. Discard an event after you play it, and before the next action is taken. (See spot.) Even after being discarded, an event often has an ongoing or delayed effect until the end of the phase, or until a specified phase or condition is met. Some event cards affect only cards that are currently in play, even though their effects might seem to apply to cards played later in the same turn. These events take a "snapshot" of the current game state, and only those cards are affected.
[Sep 11 02:56:45] Phallen: And "Each skirmish action lasts only for a single skirmish."
[Sep 11 02:57:34] DurinsHeir: Nothing in all that paragraph says cards cannot look backwards for a condition needed to be played, or to use an effect.
[Sep 11 02:57:38] Phallen: Lasts, rather than "the skirmish is taken as a whole"
[Sep 11 02:57:47] Zurcamos: It doesn't say you can look backward either.
[Sep 11 02:57:49] tauri_p-90: see spot run
[Sep 11 02:58:15] Phallen: But every other time you have to look backward, the card explicitly tells you to.
[Sep 11 02:58:31] Phallen: I don't think we ought to say "It doesn't say I can't, so I can!"
[Sep 11 02:58:55] Phallen: It also doesn't tell you to wound a minion in that skirmish four times.
[Sep 11 02:59:39] Zurcamos: The text in v3.0 is the same, I think, with a different paragraph break.
[Sep 11 02:59:45] bigredmf: I still don't see how you can play the card and then say the character has not taken any wounds yet this skirmish
[Sep 11 02:59:53] Phallen: Nobody is saying that.
[Sep 11 03:00:04] Phallen: But the previous wounds don't matter, for the purposes of
Swiftly and Softly.
[Sep 11 03:00:10] Phallen: They're outside of the scope of that event.
[Sep 11 03:00:41] bigredmf: You basically are saying that. If they have been wounded this skirmish, the rest get prevented.
[Sep 11 03:00:58] Phallen: If they have been wounded in this skirmish *after the event has been played,* the rest get prevented.
[Sep 11 03:01:03] DurinsHeir:
Final Shot looks backwards for a condition.
[Sep 11 03:01:22] Phallen: And tells you to look backwards.
[Sep 11 03:01:42] bigredmf: Would it even make any sense if it didn't tell you to?
[Sep 11 03:01:53] Phallen: Didn't tell you to what?
[Sep 11 03:02:23] Zurcamos: "Response is a timing word that allows you to play an event (or use a special ability) whenever the situation described in its game text happens. Sometimes this situation is called a "trigger." You may respond more than once to the same situation. Sometimes a response action interrupts another action to cancel it before it resolves. When this happens, that other action does not have its effect, but its costs and requirements are still paid. After all required actions to a particular trigger have resolved, players may perform response actions responding to that same trigger using the action procedure."
[Sep 11 03:03:05] bigredmf: This is not a response
[Sep 11 03:03:17] Zurcamos: Sorry, just seeing if anything is helpful.
[Sep 11 03:03:28] Phallen: The text is relevant for DurinsHeir's argument.
[Sep 11 03:04:19] Phallen: If I understand their argument, it's that the skirmish event has a skirmish effect with a hidden response.
[Sep 11 03:04:35] Phallen: Which is confusing to me, at least.
[Sep 11 03:05:00] bigredmf: Why do you say a hidden response?
[Sep 11 03:05:14] Phallen: Because it isn't a response, it's a skirmish event.
[Sep 11 03:05:21] Phallen: Doesn't get more hidden than that!
[Sep 11 03:05:50] DurinsHeir: I don't say it's a response, it's a trigger. A hidden trigger if you want to say so.
[Sep 11 03:05:54] tauri_p-90: ok, thank you Zurcamos for looking to the black letter law first and providing us with that resource
[Sep 11 03:06:32] Zurcamos: I promise I'm trying to be helpful.
[Sep 11 03:06:39] DurinsHeir: Just like
Armor and
King's Mail.
[Sep 11 03:06:59] Phallen:
Armor and
King's Mail tell you, quite specifically, to stop all wounds after the first in a skirmish phase.
[Sep 11 03:07:18] Phallen:
Swiftly and Softly tells you to stop all wounds after the first. When? I argue after it has been played, because that's what the rules seem to say.
[Sep 11 03:07:27] Phallen: "Each skirmish action lasts only for a single skirmish."
[Sep 11 03:07:51] Phallen: It seems to make sense that an event starts when it is played and lasts for its skirmish.
[Sep 11 03:08:09] Zurcamos: I'm losing you on that point, Phallen.
[Sep 11 03:08:41] Zurcamos: That's just saying that S&S won't persist for Merry's skirmish when it was used for Pippin's, yes?
[Sep 11 03:08:55] Phallen: Right.
[Sep 11 03:09:00] Phallen: That rule's been quoted throughout the debate to show that events encompass a skirmish phase entirely.
[Sep 11 03:09:18] Phallen: Well, misquoted. It seems to me that "lasts" tells you when it ends, not when it starts.
[Sep 11 03:09:20] Zurcamos: I don't see how it adds to either side's point, I guess.
[Sep 11 03:09:26] Zurcamos: Okay, gotcha.
[Sep 11 03:09:40] Zurcamos: I definitely don't see it adding to the discussion, which is why I was confused.
[Sep 11 03:09:43] Phallen: And if an event starts when played, it then follows for me that it can't check what happened before it was played.
[Sep 11 03:09:50] Phallen: Yeah, clarity is better.
[Sep 11 03:10:31] Phallen: So, you all seem to understand where I'm coming from.
[Sep 11 03:10:47] Zurcamos: I don't think it says, "Check everything beforehand, to make sure you have a complete skirmish phase" or whatever.
[Sep 11 03:10:59] Zurcamos: Well, I do. I don't know if that means everyone else does.
[Sep 11 03:11:11] Phallen: Now, if an event is certainly *not* retroactive, and begins working when it is played, how does anything that happened before that event is played matter at all?
[Sep 11 03:11:32] Zurcamos: Does it say anywhere that it is *not* retroactive?
[Sep 11 03:11:35] Phallen: That's where I'm stuck on the current popular counter argument.
[Sep 11 03:11:56] Zurcamos: I haven't seen anything compelling me to believe that it's set in stone one way or the other.
[Sep 11 03:12:29] Zurcamos: That's why I'm looking at rulebooks.
[Sep 11 03:12:29] DurinsHeir: Hmmm, I think the condition "that Hobbit took 1 wound" doesn't disappear when you play S&S, if already happened. And it triggers the prevention effect.
[Sep 11 03:12:40] Zurcamos: Phallen isn't saying it does.
[Sep 11 03:12:56] Phallen: There's an argument there. In my opinion, it's harder to say it doesn't matter when an event is played because all events are for the phase.
[Sep 11 03:13:11] Phallen: But the argument could be made in that direction. It isn't right now, but it could be.
[Sep 11 03:13:14] Zurcamos: If the card said, "If someone dropped an Uruk on the floor, eat cake," you wouldn't ignore it, but you might not think it has anything to do with a skirmish even in question.
[Sep 11 03:13:23] tauri_p-90: phallen is saying that the last part of S&S only applies to the sum total of wounds taken **after** it is played
[Sep 11 03:13:29] Zurcamos: Right.
[Sep 11 03:13:52] Zurcamos: Just because they are related (unlike my cake example) doesn't mean they are automatically relevant
[Sep 11 03:14:15] Phallen: So DurinsHeir, say that the condition already happened. What does it matter, if
Swiftly and Softly hasn't started looking for that condition yet?
[Sep 11 03:14:30] Phallen: It doesn't look in the Archery phase.
[Sep 11 03:14:33] Phallen: Or in another skirmish phase.
[Sep 11 03:14:49] Zurcamos: Everyone agrees with THAT, right?
[Sep 11 03:15:14] tauri_p-90: i.e. if a hobbit is skirmishing a
desert spearman, you *should not be able to* play that after the start when the spearman removed 3 to wound him in order to prevent the wounds from both
whirling strike and the loss, but it counts the
whirling strike as its 1 wound and prevents only the loss
[Sep 11 03:15:29] DurinsHeir: The condition is "the Hobbit in question took 1 wound" and applies during the whole skirmish.
[Sep 11 03:15:47] Zurcamos: Why the whole skirmish? I need a source.
[Sep 11 03:15:48] Phallen: But why? Why does playing an event start looking for a trigger before the event is played?
[Sep 11 03:15:48] DurinsHeir: From the moment the wound happened.
[Sep 11 03:16:03] bigredmf: The wound is there already
[Sep 11 03:16:04] Zurcamos: You haven't played it when the wound happened.
[Sep 11 03:16:10] Zurcamos: It's in your hand.
[Sep 11 03:16:17] Zurcamos: Why is it active before it's played?
[Sep 11 03:16:21] Phallen: There's no condition to check for yet. Exactly.
[Sep 11 03:16:43] Zurcamos: I'm not disagreeing with anyone at this point, but I need a source.
[Sep 11 03:16:55] Zurcamos: "I want to believe," said Mulder.
[Sep 11 03:17:07] tauri_p-90: lol
[Sep 11 03:17:28] tauri_p-90: I honestly see both sides' logic and my answer to the question is "yes"
[Sep 11 03:17:35] Zurcamos: Tjat
[Sep 11 03:17:43] Zurcamos: whoops, wrong hand placement
[Sep 11 03:17:43] Phallen: I argue that the absence of proof is not proof, and it seems to me that you guys are arguing that the absence of proof *is* proof. The second one is a much bigger jump, for me.
[Sep 11 03:17:48] tauri_p-90: the question being "is phallen right or is durinsheir right"
[Sep 11 03:17:59] DurinsHeir: It's not active when at your hand, otherwise it would prevent the 2nd wound of
Red Wrath by just sitting there. But the trigger of a card in your hand, it IS ACTIVE (in case of happening) for cards in your hand.
[Sep 11 03:18:31] Phallen: But it isn't a response. How does it know to look for a trigger before the card
[Sep 11 03:18:36] Phallen: has been played?
[Sep 11 03:18:42] tauri_p-90: ok, hold on please.
[Sep 11 03:19:29] bigredmf: Phallen, you are not providing proof either. The card is worded as it is, and nobody knows what it really does.
[Sep 11 03:19:52] bigredmf: I don't see this being solved unless someone finds a rule or similar card situation
[Sep 11 03:20:03] bigredmf: Which seems very unlikely at this point
[Sep 11 03:20:16] Zurcamos: I'm trying.
[Sep 11 03:20:25] Zurcamos: You say it looks backward. Give me a source.
[Sep 11 03:20:32] Zurcamos: I'm looking for one.
[Sep 11 03:20:40] Zurcamos: I want to understand the logic.
[Sep 11 03:20:49] bigredmf: It's not looking backward
[Sep 11 03:20:58] bigredmf: A wound is already on the hobbit. That is in the present
[Sep 11 03:21:06] tauri_p-90: Here is its game text: "At sites 1T to 5T, cancel a skirmish involving a Hobbit. At any other site, prevent a Hobbit from taking more than 1 wound." The second sentence's second clause is the one at issue here: "prevent a hobbit from taking more than 1 wound." This is ambiguous in whether it means: a) "prevent . . . from this point forward;" or b) "prevent . . . more than 1 wound during this skirmish." Is that an accurate representation, Phallen and Durin?
[Sep 11 03:21:06] Zurcamos: No, it's not.
[Sep 11 03:21:16] Zurcamos: The wound can be from anywhere at that point, arguably.
[Sep 11 03:21:21] tauri_p-90: well fine, zurcamos, you explai it better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Sep 11 03:21:23] bigredmf: When the card is played, there is a wound on the hobbit.
[Sep 11 03:21:24] DurinsHeir: The condition of "a specific Hobbit has been wounded" is what the card needs to trigger effect. And is still present, if S&S is played after
Whirling Strike.
[Sep 11 03:21:30] Phallen: Yup, tauri. That's it.
[Sep 11 03:21:31] Zurcamos: How does the game know that you got it in the skirmish or in the archery phase?
[Sep 11 03:21:32] tauri_p-90: jk, that was just really good timing
[Sep 11 03:21:32] bigredmf: The wound was put there during that skirmish
[Sep 11 03:21:40] bigredmf: you are playing the game
[Sep 11 03:21:43] bigredmf: you know
[Sep 11 03:21:43] tauri_p-90: big red, is my statement accurate?
[Sep 11 03:22:01] bigredmf: the card knows where it is because it knows where it is not
[Sep 11 03:22:16] Phallen: But the card doesn't say "a specific Hobbit has been wounded." If it did, there would be no argument.
[Sep 11 03:22:32] tauri_p-90: what?
[Sep 11 03:22:39] Phallen: There is no "look for previous wounds, too" on
Swiftly and Softly.
[Sep 11 03:22:45] Zurcamos: Where are you going, tauri? Do you agree with tauri, big?
[Sep 11 03:22:59] tauri_p-90: i'm working on mediation
[Sep 11 03:23:17] tauri_p-90: ok, phallen, just hold on a moment- I'm attempting to establish a baseline.
[Sep 11 03:23:19] Phallen: Once you play the event, the effect takes place. The effect is to "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound."
[Sep 11 03:23:23] Phallen: Ah, apologies.
[Sep 11 03:23:34] bigredmf: I agree that tauri stated the dilemma correctly
[Sep 11 03:23:39] tauri_p-90: ok
[Sep 11 03:24:33] tauri_p-90: can we all agree that, in option B, the phrase "during this skirmish phase" is implied by the rule book Zurcamos quoted earlier?
[Sep 11 03:24:51] bigredmf: yes
[Sep 11 03:24:54] Zurcamos: Hmm. I didn't see it.
[Sep 11 03:25:07] Zurcamos: And I don't think it's my cognitive dissonance.
[Sep 11 03:25:29] tauri_p-90: i simply mean that its effects last from the time of play until the end of the skirmish unless explicitly stated otherwise
[Sep 11 03:25:52] Zurcamos: I would assume we all agree with that.
[Sep 11 03:26:06] tauri_p-90: ok
[Sep 11 03:27:27] Zurcamos: If I'm understanding everyone's use of "trigger," another way of putting the argument is does the effect get triggered after the event, or at the beginning of the skirmish phase?
[Sep 11 03:27:33] tauri_p-90: so then the base of the disagreement is that it either: should start its counting from that point (i.e. when it is played, for the purposes of S&S ONLY, the wounds taken is 0); or if it should look holistically at the skirmish for that counter for that understanding
[Sep 11 03:27:38] tauri_p-90: this is correct, yes?
[Sep 11 03:28:00] Phallen: That is my understanding of it.
[Sep 11 03:28:11] Zurcamos: We said the same thing in different words, yes?
[Sep 11 03:28:27] tauri_p-90: yes, but I'm trying to simplify it infantry-style
[Sep 11 03:28:50] Zurcamos: That makes me feel tough.
[Sep 11 03:28:58] tauri_p-90: and get people to agree before disagreeing, because it's all going back and forth around the mark
[Sep 11 03:30:54] tauri_p-90: so, to cite two examples used earlier- one is mine and one is Phallen's- we will look at
Gamling, Warrior of Rohan playing
King's Mail and a moron (like me- I've done this before) playing
Gimli's Helm[Sep 11 03:31:52] tauri_p-90: Gamling: He faces a
Desert Spearman who removes 3 at the start- this is wound count #1 during the skirmish, yes?
[Sep 11 03:32:00] Phallen: Quite right.
[Sep 11 03:32:45] tauri_p-90: Gamling then plays
King's Mail, game text: "Bearer must be a
![[Rohan]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/rohan.png "Rohan")
Man. ****Bearer takes no more than 1 wound during each skirmish phase.**** If bearer is Theoden, he may not take wounds except during a skirmish involving him."
[Sep 11 03:33:05] tauri_p-90: Does this then prevent the wound from a
whirling strike if the shadow player plays it?
[Sep 11 03:33:17] tauri_p-90: the portion inside my asterisks, that is
[Sep 11 03:33:46] Phallen: I think we all agree yes. My respon is because it states "during each skirmish phase."
[Sep 11 03:33:54] Phallen: Nothing is left to speculation.
[Sep 11 03:34:05] Phallen: *reason
[Sep 11 03:35:00] Zurcamos: So, the minion has damage +1. After S&S, we all agree that one of those two wounds goes away, in a loss.
[Sep 11 03:35:10] Zurcamos: So, that's a baseline.
[Sep 11 03:35:13] tauri_p-90: that much is undisputed, yes
[Sep 11 03:35:23] Zurcamos: To me, removing the other wound requires a rule to make it possible.
[Sep 11 03:35:34] Zurcamos: I don't think that there needs to be a rule proving the baseline.
[Sep 11 03:35:46] Zurcamos: Especially if we all agree on it.
[Sep 11 03:35:49] Phallen: The card is the rule.
[Sep 11 03:36:56] Zurcamos: My biggest devil's advocate, Phallen, is that the card states "At any other site," which translates to "At this site."
[Sep 11 03:37:53] Zurcamos: Which could be argued is the same as "during all skirmish involving ____ at this site."
[Sep 11 03:37:58] Phallen: I considered that on the forum. If that's the case, *all* wounds taken at this site would have to be considered. Including archery, for example.
[Sep 11 03:38:42] Phallen: If "at this site" tells you when to start checking, why limit yourself to the skirmish?
[Sep 11 03:38:49] Zurcamos: Fair enough.
[Sep 11 03:39:02] Phallen: Again, it lasts until the end of this phase - doesn't start there.
[Sep 11 03:39:11] Zurcamos: Just cuz it's a skirmish action doesn't mean it has to only look there.
[Sep 11 03:39:22] Phallen: Especially if you're specifically told "at this site."
[Sep 11 03:39:43] Phallen: Another position nobody has taken up, but to me that has more merit than a phantom trigger.
[Sep 11 03:39:57] Zurcamos: I'm swaying back to Phallen's side, bigredmf. Give me a source.
[Sep 11 03:40:13] Zurcamos: I'm not trying to be a troll or a jerk. I need something telling me I can go beyond the baseline.
[Sep 11 03:40:40] Zurcamos: I totally didn't understand why archery was brought up.
[Sep 11 03:40:48] bigredmf: The wound is there, on the table, it came during this skirmish. I don't have a source, that is just a fact.
[Sep 11 03:40:58] Phallen: Sure, but why does that matter?
[Sep 11 03:41:28] Zurcamos: It says "at any other site," not during the skirmish phase.
[Sep 11 03:41:36] Zurcamos: How is it any different than counting archery wounds?
[Sep 11 03:41:57] Zurcamos: It's a skirmish event, sure, but it doesn't say anything about looking at just the skirmish phase.
[Sep 11 03:42:47] Zurcamos: "At any other site, prevent a hobbit from taking more than 1 wound."
[Sep 11 03:43:11] bigredmf: Phallen, because that means the character has already taken a wound this skirmish.
[Sep 11 03:43:27] Zurcamos: It doesn't say that.
[Sep 11 03:43:35] Zurcamos: The rules that we've looked at don't say that.
[Sep 11 03:43:38] Zurcamos: You say that.
[Sep 11 03:43:41] Zurcamos: Give us a source.
[Sep 11 03:43:47] Zurcamos: I want to believe.
[Sep 11 03:44:42] bigredmf: That isn't a rule, it is a fact. There is a wound on the table, from that skirmish.
[Sep 11 03:45:29] Zurcamos: Again, nobody's arguing that.
[Sep 11 03:45:37] Zurcamos: Why is it relevant to the card, at all.
[Sep 11 03:45:46] Zurcamos: So, there's a wound AT THIS SITE from archery.
[Sep 11 03:46:11] Zurcamos: It's there. You know it. I know it. I can see it. Any more would be wounds AT THIS SITE, right?
[Sep 11 03:46:36] Zurcamos: It says, "at this site," not "during the skirmish phase."
[Sep 11 03:46:57] Zurcamos: So a wound earlier in the skirmish is the same as one during archery.
[Sep 11 03:47:08] Zurcamos: They're both "at this site."
[Sep 11 03:48:20] Zurcamos: Skirmish events go until the end of the skirmish phase.
[Sep 11 03:48:38] Zurcamos: Nowhere does it say that you can look at the beginning of the skirmish phase or to the archery phase.
[Sep 11 03:49:06] Zurcamos: If you're right, show us. I'd love to be wrong.
[Sep 11 03:53:14] bigredmf: Interesting
[Sep 11 03:55:08] Zurcamos: Feel any differently?
[Sep 11 03:55:40] Zurcamos: Or is that an "It's interesting how wrong Zurcamos is"?
[Sep 11 03:57:04] bigredmf: LOL
[Sep 11 03:58:22] bigredmf: No I had always considered "at any other site" to really mean "during a skirmish at any other site"
[Sep 11 03:58:45] Zurcamos: I'm just waiting for someone to say, "I agree, it counts the archery phase too, not that it only counts what happens after the event is played."
[Sep 11 03:58:56] Zurcamos: Did I just describe your situation?
[Sep 11 03:58:59] Zurcamos: lol
[Sep 11 03:59:16] Phallen: That'd make more sense to me, honestly. I can understand the argument for it.
[Sep 11 03:59:32] Phallen: I'd argue it's wrong, of course, but I can at least see it
[Sep 11 04:01:15] Zurcamos: What happens if someone switches the site?
[Sep 11 04:01:23] Zurcamos: Then S&S is countered?
[Sep 11 04:01:38] Phallen: Well, I'll take both scenarios.
[Sep 11 04:01:47] Zurcamos: "You take all the wounds! ALL THE WOUNDS!"
[Sep 11 04:01:55] Phallen: The actual case is that it's still not a site 1T-5T, so it doesn't matter. Still "any other site."
[Sep 11 04:02:02] Zurcamos: Sorry, folks, I'm liking the caps lock today.
[Sep 11 04:02:12] Zurcamos: I might be violating the C&C.
[Sep 11 04:02:28] Zurcamos: @Zurcamos - Warning. Don't be a jerk.
[Sep 11 04:02:53] Zurcamos: ...But I was just trying to make a point. I was trying to help!
[Sep 11 04:04:15] tauri_p-90: Anyone want to stop arguing long enough to playtest a (horrible) deck wif me?
[Sep 11 04:05:16] Zurcamos: Aw, I wasn't trying to argue.
[Sep 11 04:05:39] Zurcamos: I like a lively debate. I am sorry if anyone feels I was too aggressive.
[Sep 11 04:05:45] Zurcamos: I always feel I botch my tone.
[Sep 11 04:05:50] tauri_p-90: nah, debates are wonderful
[Sep 11 04:06:16] Phallen: Don't worry about it. It may seem like DurinsHeir and I were at each others throats, but it's all for the love of the game
[Sep 11 04:06:31] Phallen: We're all friends here.
[Sep 11 05:43:41] DurinsHeir: @Phallen & @Zurcamos: I think the "wounds at *this site*" reasoning isn't true. The event says "at sites 1T-5T" do this, at "other sites" do that. It's not a specification of the conditions that imply the effect, but a specification of the conditions that determine which effect will take place: a) a skirmish is cancelled, or b) *after some specific trigger*, wounds are prevented.
[Sep 11 05:44:54] DurinsHeir: Since it doesn't specify "during this turn", we have to refer to the default for events and special abilities: "during this phase."
[Sep 11 05:45:17] Phallen: Not during. "Lasts until the end."
[Sep 11 05:46:06] DurinsHeir: Still, it's not "at this site".
[Sep 11 05:46:43] Phallen: No, nobody is arguing (yet) that it should consider wounds site-wide.
[Sep 11 05:47:40] Phallen: However, that stance still makes more sense to me than a non-retroactive event retroactively checking for wounds.
[Sep 11 05:51:36] DurinsHeir: I believe it was MEANT to work the way I describe, but wording and rules are beyond intentions, so that's of no use here...
[Sep 11 05:52:16] DurinsHeir: Still, that'd make
Depart Silently (outside FOTR sites 1-6) totally useless... hmmm
[Sep 11 14:09:09] bibfortuna: As I see it, once you've played S&S, if a Hobbit has already taken a wound in that skirmish, it will prevent him from taking any further wounds
[Sep 11 14:38:21] Zurcamos: If you read the whole conversation, you've seen that at this point, I need a source for my mind to be swayed.
[Sep 11 14:38:42] Zurcamos: That seems to be the least likely, logically speaking, way for that card to work.
[Sep 11 18:54:44] DurinsHeir: @Phallen: I have things to do by now and should return in not less than half an hour. But I found some ruling that might support my point, I'll try to elaborate a good argument about that.
[Sep 11 18:55:21] Phallen: I'll eagerly await your return!
[Sep 11 18:55:46] DurinsHeir: Still, I can give you a spoiler. The rule is the following: "Sometimes game text is added to a card by an effect, even though that text is not printed on that card."
[Sep 11 18:56:25] Phallen: I'm interested to see where you'll go with that.
[Sep 11 18:56:35] DurinsHeir: I believe the text on S&S is added to that Hobbit, just like
Coat of Mail on Aragorn, or on Grima if transferred by a
![[Men]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/men.png "Evil Men")
card.
[Sep 11 20:43:28] DurinsHeir: 100 minutes later... well, he it goes: "Sometimes game text is added to a card by an effect, even though that text is not printed on that card."
[Sep 11 20:44:08] DurinsHeir: Swiftly & Softly is not doing an action like Mind Your Own Affair's "wound a minion" or Stout & Sturdy's "heal a Hobbit". It's adding a new gametext line to a Hobbit. Then, it's the Hobbit and not the event who must check if such Hobbit was wounded at this skirmish or not, to trigger the wound prevention.
[Sep 11 20:47:47] DurinsHeir: You can argue that the Snapshot Rule would make it act from the moment when S&S is played. But that's NOT how the Snapshot works. Neither how the event works.
[Sep 11 20:48:30] DurinsHeir: The event adds text to a Hobbit (if played away from 1T-5T, where would instead perform an action "cancel a skirmish").
[Sep 11 20:48:47] DurinsHeir: The Snapshot Rule is the following: "These events take a "snapshot" of the current game state, and only those cards are affected."
[Sep 11 20:49:49] DurinsHeir: There's a classical example:
Deft in Their Movements. That card doesn't do an action to a site/sites (like "play a site" or "replace a site"), it adds gametext to sites.
[Sep 11 20:50:08] DurinsHeir: The Snapshot is taken on the sites available at the moment it's played. To then them text.
[Sep 11 20:50:26] DurinsHeir: If for instance 2x
DITM are played, then each site availabe at that moment gets the text "is Shadow number -4" added.
[Sep 11 20:50:50] DurinsHeir: A Towers site 6 will have a natural Shadow number of 3, and "Shadow number -4" added, to a rounded total of 0. If later in that **same turn** a copy of
I'd Make You Squeak is played (spotting 1+ wounds on Hobbits), then the -1 "in reserve" will be considered and will absorb part of the Shadow number addition. The snapshot is not taken to the attributes (which can be rounded), but in the available cards that get affected.
[Sep 11 20:51:45] DurinsHeir: That's what the rule says: "These events take a "snapshot" of the current game state, AND ONLY THOSE CARDS ARE AFFECTED."
[Sep 11 20:52:36] DurinsHeir: So
Swiftly and Softly too takes a Snapshot **of the Hobbits currently in play**, and you then select one of them to add gametext to him/her. But the gametext will be carried by that Hobbit until disappearing (by default, at the end of that skirmish).
[Sep 11 20:52:45] DurinsHeir: So the selected Hobbit checks wounds, NOT the event!
[Sep 12 00:29:47] Phallen: Interesting argument, indeed. What's keeping me from agreeing with you is the wording. "Make a site..." and "The Shadow number of each site is..." clearly indicate that another card is being altered.
[Sep 12 00:30:33] Phallen: "Spot a Hobbit to make that Hobbit take no more than one wound" would alter a Hobbit's game text. I don't know about the event as it's written.
[Sep 12 11:58:27] Phallen: if the effect is "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound," I think we've got to take some liberty to allow it to mean "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound this skirmish phase." What I'm against is altering a card's text without reason, though I'm interested to see where the "altering a Hobbit's game text" argument goes.
[Sep 12 12:02:06] Phallen: I still think it's more complicated to assume we're altering a Hobbit's gametext rather than doing the action "prevent a Hobbit from taking more than one wound," though.
[Sep 12 12:33:37] bigredmf: As much as it may seem more complicated, I think DurinsHeir is onto something. Most events perform an immediate action. This one does not, it imparts an effect on the game that doesn't do anything immediately. I have to agree that essentially is equivalent to applying game text to a card in play, albiet until the end of that phase.
Topic: Swiftly and Softly Gemp Discussion (Read 92 times)