All Individual Card Rulings at TLHH

[Tbiesty]

Here's another try at the golden rules. I think the wording can be tightened up, but hopefully the gist is there.

Rule 1. If a card's game text or rule says an action or situation happens, must happen, or always happens in some manner, a card's game text can make that action or situation happen in another manner.

Example 1: The Red Arrow can play a Man during the assignment phase, even though the rules describe only a situation where companions are played during the fellowship phase.

Example 2: Some Secret Art of Flame can play a condition during the regroup phase, even though a rule says "A condition is always played during the fellowship phase (if it is a Free Peoples card) or the Shadow phase (if it is a Shadow card)..."

Rule 2. If a card's game text says to perform an action, and that action is directly prevented by a rule, that rule is ignored.

Example 1: Diversion ("...you may add 2 burdens to play this event during a skirmish involving a Hobbit") is directly prevented by (and therefore ignores) the rule that says "You cannot play an event during a phase that does not match its phase action." In contrast, the ability of Bilbo, Bearer of Things Burgled ("Regroup: Add a burden to play a tale.") cannot be used to play Nine-fingered Frodo and the Ring of Doom (a skirmish event), because that text does not directly reference playing an event outside its phase.

Example 2: Sent Back ("Fellowship or Regroup: Play a Wizard (even if another copy of that Wizard is in your dead pile).") is directly prevented by (and therefore ignores) the rule that prevents a unique companion from being played if another copy of that card is in your dead pile. In contrast, Delving ("Fellowship: Exert a Dwarf companion to draw 3 cards.") is not directly prevented by The Rule of 4, which allows cards to be drawn, but limits the number drawn.

Rule 3. If a card's game text says a situation can happen, and this situation is directly prevented by a rule, that rule is ignored.

Flaming Brand reads: "This weapon may be borne in addition to 1 other hand weapon." This text ignores the rule that says "Each character may bear one possession or artifact of each class at one time."

Rule 4. Whenever a card's game text says an action/situation can happen, and another card's game text says that action/situation cannot happen, the "not" case takes precedence.

Faramir, Bearer of Quality uses his skirmish special ability ("Skirmish: ...make a minion...roaming...") on a Nazgûl while Bill Ferny, Swarthy Sneering Fellow ("Nazgûl are not roaming.") is in play. Since Ferny represents the "not" situation, the Nazgûl will remain not roaming.

---

The above doesn't cover Whisper in the Dark; for that I'd add "A follower can bear cards that specifically allow its bearer to be a follower" to the rules.

Thanks Elessar!  I appreciate what you are doing here.  What a great way to help out our fellow LOTR TCG players!

Here's my input:

What you have listed for Rule 1 and Rule 2, I do find kind of vague.  Instead, I think the following specific clarifications would be a more concrete way to clarify it.  (I know exactly where to add these clarifications, too).

"For Free People's and Shadow card types other than events (i.e. companions, minions, possessions, conditions, artifacts, allies, and followers), they are played, by default, during the Fellowship (or Shadow) phase, but cards may allow them to be played during other phases."

"For events, they may not be played out of their phase unless allowed by the game text of that event."

Changed the wording of Rule 3 (covers Rule 2 to as well):
Rule 3. If a card's game text says to ignore a restriction or that the restricted situation "may" occur, that restriction is ignored.

No change to Rule 4.  Looks good.  Very nice!

For Whisper in the Dark, I was thinking a cleaner option is just clarifying that "Followers can't bear other cards, except conditions."
A couple reasons for this choice:
1)  It more simply accomplishes the same thing.  Think about this:  A follower can only bear conditions that say a follower is allowed to bear it.  So adding a statement that "A follower can bear cards that specifically allow its bearer to be a follower" is not really adding anything.  Instead you would have a rule "Followers can't bear other cards", and another rule that says "If a follower must be the bearer, then a follower can be the bearer".  Two separate conflicting rules, to me, is more confusing than a single, simple rule.  (The goal is to make things as clear as possible, right?)
2)  It allows the possibility for future conditions.  Who knows, maybe some virtual cards will be created that say things like "Each time bearer is transferred to a companion, wound that companion" or "While the fellowship is ahead on the site path, bearer may not be transferred to a companion"... You get the idea.

Thanks!

[Cw0rk]

"Followers can't bear other cards, except conditions."

You have been proposing that several times already. I'd like to make it clear and say that I do not like this idea because it is a MAJOR modification of the rules. If I DC version of Faramir as a follower is created, he could be able to wear Boromir, my Brother.

A follower can bear cards that specifically allow its bearer to be a follower.

This is better.

[Tbiesty]

If I DC version of Faramir as a follower is created, he could be able to wear Boromir, my Brother.

Good point, now that is a valid argument.

I'd say that any card a follower is allowed to bear will need to say "May be borne by a follower" on the card, which at this point is just one card, so just one clarification/errata.

I'm cool with that.  How's that work for you guys?

[MuadDib85]

Here's another try at the golden rules. I think the wording can be tightened up, but hopefully the gist is there.

Rule 1. If a card's game text or rule says an action or situation happens, must happen, or always happens in some manner, a card's game text can make that action or situation happen in another manner.

Example 1: The Red Arrow can play a Man during the assignment phase, even though the rules describe only a situation where companions are played during the fellowship phase.

Example 2: Some Secret Art of Flame can play a condition during the regroup phase, even though a rule says "A condition is always played during the fellowship phase (if it is a Free Peoples card) or the Shadow phase (if it is a Shadow card)..."

Rule 2. If a card's game text says to perform an action, and that action is directly prevented by a rule, that rule is ignored.

Example 1: Diversion ("...you may add 2 burdens to play this event during a skirmish involving a Hobbit") is directly prevented by (and therefore ignores) the rule that says "You cannot play an event during a phase that does not match its phase action." In contrast, the ability of Bilbo, Bearer of Things Burgled ("Regroup: Add a burden to play a tale.") cannot be used to play Nine-fingered Frodo and the Ring of Doom (a skirmish event), because that text does not directly reference playing an event outside its phase.

Example 2: Sent Back ("Fellowship or Regroup: Play a Wizard (even if another copy of that Wizard is in your dead pile).") is directly prevented by (and therefore ignores) the rule that prevents a unique companion from being played if another copy of that card is in your dead pile. In contrast, Delving ("Fellowship: Exert a Dwarf companion to draw 3 cards.") is not directly prevented by The Rule of 4, which allows cards to be drawn, but limits the number drawn.

Rule 3. If a card's game text says a situation can happen, and this situation is directly prevented by a rule, that rule is ignored.

Flaming Brand reads: "This weapon may be borne in addition to 1 other hand weapon." This text ignores the rule that says "Each character may bear one possession or artifact of each class at one time."

Rule 4. Whenever a card's game text says an action/situation can happen, and another card's game text says that action/situation cannot happen, the "not" case takes precedence.

Faramir, Bearer of Quality uses his skirmish special ability ("Skirmish: ...make a minion...roaming...") on a Nazgûl while Bill Ferny, Swarthy Sneering Fellow ("Nazgûl are not roaming.") is in play. Since Ferny represents the "not" situation, the Nazgûl will remain not roaming.

---

The above doesn't cover Whisper in the Dark; for that I'd add "A follower can bear cards that specifically allow its bearer to be a follower" to the rules.

This is excellent. 

[Elessar's Socks]

What you have listed for Rule 1 and Rule 2, I do find kind of vague.  Instead, I think the following specific clarifications would be a more concrete way to clarify it.  (I know exactly where to add these clarifications, too).

"For Free People's and Shadow card types other than events (i.e. companions, minions, possessions, conditions, artifacts, allies, and followers), they are played, by default, during the Fellowship (or Shadow) phase, but cards may allow them to be played during other phases."

"For events, they may not be played out of their phase unless allowed by the game text of that event."

The original intent was to cover more than card plays. For example, the rules say a character is overwhelmed if his strength is doubled. Rule 1 says cards like Bounder and The Tale of the Great Ring can modify the way overwhelming works. Maybe a bit obvious, but it serves as a counterpart to Rule 2.

Changed the wording of Rule 3 (covers Rule 2 to as well):
Rule 3. If a card's game text says to ignore a restriction or that the restricted situation "may" occur, that restriction is ignored.

I think there'd be phrasing issues to work out--an action that is prevented by a rule seems to have a different meaning from an action that says to ignore a restriction, and the "may" check might leave out some stuff--but fine by me if they can be unified.

Think about this:  A follower can only bear conditions that say a follower is allowed to bear it.  So adding a statement that "A follower can bear cards that specifically allow its bearer to be a follower" is not really adding anything.

The statement gives followers permission to bear those cards, as technically neither the current passage in the Hunters rulebook nor Whisper in the Dark does so.

Instead you would have a rule "Followers can't bear other cards", and another rule that says "If a follower must be the bearer, then a follower can be the bearer".  Two separate conflicting rules, to me, is more confusing than a single, simple rule.  (The goal is to make things as clear as possible, right?)

The effect when this document and the Hunters rulebook are combined is for the ruling to be "Followers can't bear other cards, unless those cards specifically allow its bearer to be a follower." Though granted, I could've just written that out in the first place.

Personally I'd still favor fixing the source ruling, since the "May be borne by a follower. Bearer must be a follower." approach seems to be jumping through hoops. People have a good idea of how it should work anyway, so it puts the mechanism behind the scenes.

---

As for other rules issues:

- Formalizing when game text can be used when the card's not in play (e.g. Plotting Deceiver works, but Sentry Uruk doesn't).

- Figuring out where targeting ends and "perform as much as you can" begins. For example, when playing Hard Choice, if you have two companions with the Aragorn signet, but only one can be healed twice, do you have to pick that one?

[Tbiesty]

I like what you've done here.

- Formalizing when game text can be used when the card's not in play (e.g. Plotting Deceiver works, but Sentry Uruk doesn't).

Something like, "A card can be spotted or have its game text used when in an "inactive" location, if a card (even the same card) specifies to spot it or use its game text from that location."

I've started adding a few clarification in the "Unofficial Rulebook" (see link also in the initial post). I was thinking we can add things to it as we get the wording of things down.  Having it in document form should make it easier for us to see things in context and make reviewing easier for everyone.  All changes are marked with a "delta symbol" and are in red text.  Tell me what you think. :-)

By the way, is this topic going to be moved to that new child board?

[jdizzy001]

So I have a question, maybe it was covered else where, but here goes.  We all know the intent of Whisper in the Dark was to allow the condition to be played on a follower.  If we know the intent of the card, why are we struggling with how to use it in the game?

[Witchkingx5]

Because some people say that "bearer must be a follower" doesn't allow a follower bearing a condition.

[chompers]

Establishing a common set of rules may help solve other problems.

This thread discusses some of the other issues that directly link to permitting the use of this card in its current form within the current framework of the rules.

Intent and how a card actually work are two different things.

[MR. Lurtzy]

So I have a question, maybe it was covered else where, but here goes.  We all know the intent of Whisper in the Dark was to allow the condition to be played on a follower.  If we know the intent of the card, why are we struggling with how to use it in the game?

Because the rules specifically prevent it. Intent does not overrule the rules.

[jdizzy001]

No, but cards over rule the rules.  Flaming Brand allows you to bear 2 hand weapons, and that is specifically against the rules. So why cant a follower bear a card that says the bearer of the condition must be a follower?  i guess I just don't understand why this is too hard to accept, grasp, endorse, or whatever word you want to use.

[MR. Lurtzy]

No, but cards over rule the rules.

You are right. Flaming brand specifically allows for an exception in its own text. But WITD does not. It simply states who can bear it. It does not grant permission.

Seriously if you have read the discussion, this wouldn't be so hard to understand.

[mardukra]

Allowing followers to bear WitD is not hard to understand.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Allowing followers to bear WitD is not hard to understand.

Have you read the rulebooks? You should, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[jdizzy001]

No, but cards over rule the rules.

You are right. Flaming brand specifically allows for an exception in its own text. But WITD does not. It simply states who can bear it. It does not grant permission.

oh, i get it.  well, i've said my piece.  Y'all know where i stand for right or for wrong.