Wounds

[Haszor]

The rulebook says that wounds received at the end of a skirmish are simultaneous.  Does this mean that if Eowyn, Sister-Daughter of Theoden has one wound and loses a skirmish to an uruk-hai that she can't use her text to save her as the wounds are placed at the same time?  Help would be useful

[Doom]

That's the whole point of her text. See keyword "Response".
Otherwise, she's completely useless.
The fact that wounds are placed simultaneously doesn't have anything to do with that.
And if you're referring to damage +1, you'd be able to discard 2 cards, then another 2, as damage +1 simply adds another wound when the uruk wins a skirmish.

[Haszor]

Yes it does actually.  She isn't exhausted when she takes the wounds and therefore her text wouldn't be triggered until after the first wound, implying that if the wounds are simultaneous that she wouldn't have the opportunity to prevent it.

[Doom]

Oh I see. So you are talking about damage +1, right?
I guess it would depend on how damage +1 wounds are assigned. But if the rulebook says that, it's probably correct, and you can't discard 2 cards to prevent a wound.
BTW, love your avi  

[TheJord]

You will have to quote the Rulebook (page and version) before I can confirm this. I do not see anything in the Comp Rulebook that says damage +1 gets resolved simultaneously.

Hardly anything happens in this game simultaneously.

[Tbiesty]

Each wound is taken (and can be responded to) separately.

[TheJord]

Page 8 of The Hunters Starter Rulebook explicitly states that wounds are placed one at a time.

[Doom]

Hmm. Seems to be conflicting opinions here. Haz, can you cite where in the rulebook you saw that?

[Haszor]

I can't site mine as I lost the few rulebooks I had but I know it was from A) Fellowship block B) Towers so if it says differently in the hunters than its probably correct. 

[Zurcamos]

I miss the days when this wasn't Haszor's personal board for asking questions that have already been asked before (usually followed by enraged Ket replies).  Looks like I beat the latter here.

Forget the simple search engine, all you need to do is pay attention to the one in three rules posts that isn't yours, Haszor, and voila.  You were definitely here in full force when I asked the question a few months ago.

http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,6145.msg64986.html#msg64986

[ket_the_jet]

I miss the days when this wasn't Haszor's personal board for asking questions that have already been asked before (usually followed by enraged Ket replies).  Looks like I beat the latter here.

Haszor, you need to stop saying "I read this in a rule book" when you ask a question. I've now taken the time to review each rule book to confirm that at no point has Decipher ever said anything happens simultaneously.

I repeat: NOTHING HAPPENS SIMULTANEOUSLY. There is an order for everything that happens in the game.

Zurcamos is right in that this has been answered before, and here's the most obvious example: damage bonus Gollum and Promise Keeping. Or Promise Keeping and threats. Or Promise Keeping and They Stole It (while skirmishing a companion).

This kind of stuff has gotten really old. We all know your play group doesn't have a strong grasp of the rules so don't try to pass off the group's ineptness as "I read in the rule book somewhere." See how that can confuse newer members, like Doom above?
-wtk

[Haszor]

You guys do realize that this board is for questions, right?  If I read something in the rulebook and I want to know if it's changed elsewhere then I'll ask a question.  If you guys really want to get pissed at me for not using the search function fine.  But under no circumstance should you start going off on a rant about my non-mentioned group and the random crap that occurred 6 months ago, before I joined the forum.  I don't want to be a part of a community where every time I talk I am disregarded, lectured and complained about because I'm not the most resourceful person on the planet.

[ket_the_jet]

You guys do realize that this board is for questions, right? If I read something in the rulebook and I want to know if it's changed elsewhere then I'll ask a question.

I understand your reaction and where you are coming from, but I think the real #$&*@!-ish reaction was skipped: "Oh yeah, well scan the rule book where it says that preposterous rule to prove that it exists." You've gotten your question answered, but I think you should appreciate the rest of the group's point of view as well. A few months ago or not, you've effectively become the boy who cried redundant rules questions around here and some kind encouragement [from everyone else] and more straight-forward encouragement [from me] to use the resources around you have largely fallen upon deaf ears.

As for your play group, I don't really know what to say, but I'll just assume you play "house rules."

One of the guys in my group says that Return to it's Master is A) Illegal B) useless.

During the next regroup phase I used it again and the guy I was playing with said I couldn't because it was limit once per turn.

I have run into a large number of people who have hit site 5 and played the balrog from their decks after playing power and terror and saying that it's legal.

now what I've been told is that the other player can only heal one companion regardless of how many cards there are, because it says may thus implying an action.  I'm not sure whether or not this is a house rule or if the guy was just mistaken

Cheers.
-wtk

[Haszor]

Only 2 of those instances were from my play-group, the other two were GCCG and are relatively common mistakes which was why I was addressing them.  As for the two valid ones, one was given to us by a someone who helped run the Decipher tournaments and was evidently misinterpreted.  And the other was just a down right mistake.

[azogsbane]

C'mon people, give Haszor a break.