Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

War of the Ring (Second Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: Rule Question: Fear of Their Masters rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andrew S
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
WK, Nazgul and Isengard Elite (Saruman still alive) involved in a battle with GtW leading FP. Can Fear of Their Masters be played when GtW is negating Naz Leadership.
I believe YES as :
1) Their is a Minion in the Battle (WK)
2) SA has leadership (the Isengard Elite) and can Forfeit this all,
so all Criteria on the card met.
Guidance gratefully received.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Agreed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Poulter
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought this might be different actually, from another thread that I seem to remember.

1. The card can definitely be played as it only require the presence of a minion.

2. However the card has no effect as the entire leadership cannot be forfeited as some has already been negated.

Quite prepared to be wrong about this of course.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GamesJart wrote:
I thought this might be different actually, from another thread that I seem to remember.

1. The card can definitely be played as it only require the presence of a minion.

2. However the card has no effect as the entire leadership cannot be forfeited as some has already been negated.

Quite prepared to be wrong about this of course.
You are thinking of the discussion that took place on the Ladder Results Thread. Re: War of the Ring Second Edition Ladder Results

That was referring to using Daring Defiance with GtW, and it was decided that you can't "Forfeit the leadership of all the companions participating in the battle" if you have already forfeited GtW's leadership. I assume this is different because it doesn't require you to specifically forfeit the leadership of the minions.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raf B
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good discussion - we need a ruling.

My own read centers on the word "entire", which suggests, as with Daring Defiance, that you must have all your leaders' Leadership available to forfeit, and if a portion is negated by GtW, then your entire leadership is not available to be forfeited.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steva fields
United States
vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the card works, and there is no reason to have Wargs in the fight for leadership. (Well, it didn't work that well since I had Daylight and he only got 1 hit)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Sandston
VA
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Rafamir.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Itamar Parann
Israel
Ramat Gan
flag msg tools
badge
Magic is the Art
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Daring Defiance is a case where the FP has to decide how to use GtW's leadership. So it stands to reason that if part of the leadership was used to negate nazgul's leadership the card cannot be used.
But with Fear of their Masters, the SP has to give up leadership, and if this is effected by GtW, this increases the scope of his ability in a way I am not sure the game intends.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Sandston
VA
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Paramar wrote:
Daring Defiance is a case where the FP has to decide how to use GtW's leadership.
Not exactly. With the White Rider ability, Gandalf is not using his Leadership, but rather his ability to negate Nazgul Leadership. He can't do both at the same time, as even Gandalf can't be in two places at once, hence the forfeiture of his Leadership.

Likewise, a combat effect that requires the forfeiture of all Leadership represents a concerted effort by the all of the Leaders present to accomplish something other than leading the troops. If any of that Leadership is otherwise occupied, whether voluntarily (as with Gandalf) or not (as with the Nazgul), then it stands to reason that the resources necessary to accomplish that alternative action are not currently available.

Paramar wrote:
But with Fear of their Masters, the SP has to give up leadership, and if this is effected by GtW, this increases the scope of his ability in a way I am not sure the game intends.
I don't think so. The White Rider ability negates Nazgul Leadership, which extends to negating effects of Combat cards that rely on that Leadership.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ralf Schemmann
Germany
Siegen
NRW
flag msg tools
www.der-ringkrieg.de
badge
www.der-ringkrieg.de
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The only problem I have with that ruling is that it is non-intuitive. The normal expectation seems to be that you forfeit any leadership you still have at the moment the card takes effect. Same with Daring Defiance.

I can see that it makes sense rules-wise, but newbies generally do not expect that the rules work this way.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Naperville
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll respect the ruling because Krieghund is the man, but that is incredibly unintuitive. It feels wrong that if you have just the Mouth in the battle the card is playable, but if you have the Mouth and a nazgul the card isn't playable.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Sandston
VA
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Think of it this way: it's hard for the orcs to be terrified of the Nazgul while they're being cowed by Gandalf.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raf B
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Uncowable leadership, new keyword for next expansion?

I think where this is heading, in terms of a rule of thumb, is that unless a combat effect is triggered by the mere presence of a Nazgul or minion, the White Rider ability does not negate it. But if there is any forfeiture of leadership required, then Nazgul negation becomes a factor in determining the card's playability. Fiddly? Yes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Rafamir wrote:
Uncowable leadership, new keyword for next expansion?

I think where this is heading, in terms of a rule of thumb, is that unless a combat effect is triggered by the mere presence of a Nazgul or minion, the White Rider ability does not negate it. But if there is any forfeiture of leadership required, then Nazgul negation becomes a factor in determining the card's playability. Fiddly? Yes.

Was there ever an official response on this? I kinda think intent is that, if something says forfeit "all leadership" or "entire" leadership", there must be at least one point available to sacrifice, but if there's more it takes that, too.

I'm fine with Daring Defiance not being possible if GtW is the only companion in the battle and he's already forfeiting his leadership, but it doesn't make much sense that DD wouldn't be possible if there were other companions there...considering that they could do it just fine if GtW was absent entirely. Likewise, as noted above, it doesn't make sense that Fear Of Their Masters could be played with just the Mouth in the battle, but then not be playable if the Mouth is with a Nazgul whose leadership is being negated by GtW...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Heikki Laakkonen
Finland
Jyväskylä
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
Was there ever an official response on this? I kinda think intent is that, if something says forfeit "all leadership" or "entire" leadership", there must be at least one point available to sacrifice, but if there's more it takes that, too.

I'm fine with Daring Defiance not being possible if GtW is the only companion in the battle and he's already forfeiting his leadership, but it doesn't make much sense that DD wouldn't be possible if there were other companions there...considering that they could do it just fine if GtW was absent entirely. Likewise, as noted above, it doesn't make sense that Fear Of Their Masters could be played with just the Mouth in the battle, but then not be playable if the Mouth is with a Nazgul whose leadership is being negated by GtW...

Krieghund's answer can be regarded as an official one (as well as Veldrin's).

If Fear of the Master's is played (propably for card cycling) but +2 modifier could not be added because of the negated nazgûl leadership, the last part of the card is still effective and the sixes in FP's rolls do double damage, don't they?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Sandston
VA
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hessen wrote:
If Fear of the Master's is played (propably for card cycling) but +2 modifier could not be added because of the negated nazgûl leadership, the last part of the card is still effective and the sixes in FP's rolls do double damage, don't they?
Yes. The second effect is not dependent on the first.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
So...I've been thinking about this. I accept that using White Rider means you can't also play DD, because you can't forfeit leadership for two separate purposes. Fine; but as far as FOTM goes, aren't negating and forfeiting two different things? White Rider "negates" Nazgul leadership; it doesn't cause it to be forfeit. So, if there is a minion present, some Nazgul leadership that has been negated, and some leadership from other sources, could it not be argued that all leadership that has not been negated is the Shadow's entire leadership? If I go into a battle with 5 leadership and 3 is negated, would it not be true to say my entire leadership for the battle is 2?

1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
So...I've been thinking about this. I accept that using White Rider means you can't also play DD, because you can't forfeit leadership for two separate purposes. Fine; but as far as FOTM goes, aren't negating and forfeiting two different things? White Rider "negates" Nazgul leadership; it doesn't cause it to be forfeit. So, if there is a minion present, some Nazgul leadership that has been negated, and some leadership from other sources, could it not be argued that all leadership that has not been negated is the Shadow's entire leadership? If I go into a battle with 5 leadership and 3 is negated, would it not be true to say my entire leadership for the battle is 2?


Put another way: can negated leadership be considered leadership at all? To me, the answer is no. Negating Nazgul leadership implies that the Nazguls are not leaders in the battle at all. They have no leadership value.

The Daring Defiance ruling is about not being able to have your cake and eat it, too. It seems to me that the same logic cannot be applied to FOTM. To argue differently is to argue that negated leadership is still leadership, which doesn't make sense to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Sandston
VA
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "negate" is "to cause to be ineffective or invalid". That which is ineffective or invalid still exists. Whether Leadership is used (or forfeited) for another purpose or made ineffective, it still exists and it's still not available for use.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Krieghund wrote:
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "negate" is "to cause to be ineffective or invalid". That which is ineffective or invalid still exists. Whether Leadership is used (or forfeited) for another purpose or made ineffective, it still exists and it's still not available for use.

I do respect your position, but it seems to me that invalidated leadership is no longer actual leadership. I'd personally love to hear from the designers on this particular issue. Is that possible? I went to Ares' website but there was no clear way to submit rules inquiries...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Sandston
VA
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've spoken to Roberto Di Meglio, and he has confirmed my ruling.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Krieghund wrote:
I've spoken to Roberto Di Meglio, and he has confirmed my ruling.

Cool. Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Krieghund wrote:
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "negate" is "to cause to be ineffective or invalid". That which is ineffective or invalid still exists. Whether Leadership is used (or forfeited) for another purpose or made ineffective, it still exists and it's still not available for use.

Follow up question about this: what about a card that requires X or more Nazgul leadership to play? Is the qualification met if there is X Nazgul leadership in the army but it is being negated by White Rider? It would seem consistent with the ruling (though not at all intuitive) that the answer should be yes, since, according to the ruling, negated leadership still exists; it just can't be forfeit for any purpose or used for rerolls. So, can a card like "They Are Terrible" be played, even though it would have no effect because the Nazgul leadership is negated and can't be forfeit? Could it be played for a Witch King draw at the end of the combat round?

If yes, does this mean that Foul Stench WILL have its effect if the amount of Nazgul leadership being negated is more than the FP leadership? Since it simply requires the existence of more Nazgul leadership than there is FP leadership but does not require that anything be done with that leadership?

It seems to me that, intuitively, the answer to both questions would be no, but this would be in conflict with the official ruling that negated leadership still exists. Thematically, I could see an argument for Foul Stench working even if Nazgul leadership is being negated: they are still there and they still smell bad even if they can't make themselves useful otherwise.

So, anyhow, I submit that the answers to both questions must be yes in order to stay consistent with this ruling, even though it seems intuitively that the answer should be no.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Sandston
VA
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A card that requires Leadership to play also requires that Leadership to be useable, so no.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Krieghund wrote:
A card that requires Leadership to play also requires that Leadership to be useable, so no.

I will accept that answer because I agree that these cards should not be playable in this situation, and I'm sure that is the designers' intent. However, I still hold that this does contradict the ruling in question. The leadership is either there or it isn't. The card requires the leadership to be there in order to play it, and this ruling says that it is there, even if it's being negated. The bit about it having to be "useable" seems like a convenient device to answer the question (and it also makes sense), but the cards themselves, and the rules, make no mention of this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |