Council of Elrond

THE WILL OF SAURON ‐ Permanent‐event (R)
Playable only if Doors of Night is in play. All hazard long‐events remain in play until this card is discarded. Discard this card when Doors of Night leaves play, or when any play deck is exhausted. When this card is discarded, all hazard long‐events are discarded. Cannot be duplicated.

It is unclear whether the discard clause triggers when the Doors of Night card leaves play or when the Doors of Night effect leaves play.

I don't think anyone would argue that The Will of Sauron is playable if the Peril Returned card is in play (creating the DoN effect), even if the Doors of Night card is not in play. It is thus logical to me that this would also apply to the discard trigger (would look for effect leaving play, not the card).

I propose we put this issue up to a vote and let the community decide: any reference on a card which states that if "Doors of Night leaves play" will trigger if the DoN effect leaves play OR if the DoN card is removed from play.

Discussion topic can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3175

Since WIll of Sauron keeps Peril Returned in play, and vice versa, it is indeed an important decision. Twilight can effectively not remove Will of Sauron anymore, which makes it much more usable in a game.

This would be a very unusual situation, to have an effect with a Name attribute. ... spilling my leaning.

Thorsten the Traveller wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:24 pm Since WIll of Sauron keeps Peril Returned in play, and vice versa, it is indeed an important decision. Twilight can effectively not remove Will of Sauron anymore, which makes it much more usable in a game.

Indeed it is an important decision. This conundrum recently came up in a game I played with a friend.

Theo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:49 pm This would be a very unusual situation, to have an effect with a Name attribute. ... spilling my leaning.

Well everyone is entitled to his vote!

So would you make the argument that if Peril Returned is in play (and Gates of Morning is not), that you cannot legally play The Will of Sauron? (Assume the Doors of Night card is not in play)

If yes, then Peril Returned makes little sense as a card.

If no, then you are supporting the idea of the unusual situation (an effect with a Name attribute).

the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:37 pm So would you make the argument that if Peril Returned is in play (and Gates of Morning is not), that you cannot legally play The Will of Sauron? (Assume the Doors of Night card is not in play)

If yes, then Peril Returned makes little sense as a card.

If no, then you are supporting the idea of the unusual situation (an effect with a Name attribute).

No. I am arguing (as I believe Bandobras Took did previously) that Peril Returned's effect: "Doors of Night is considered to be in play," is referring to a card by name. But that doesn't mean that Peril Returned leaving play means that Doors of Night leaves play. Doors of Night simply stops being considered to be in play.

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:45 pmNo. I am arguing (as I believe Bandobras Took did previously) that Peril Returned's effect: "Doors of Night is considered to be in play," is referring to a card by name. But that doesn't mean that Peril Returned leaving play means that Doors of Night leaves play. Doors of Night simply stops being considered to be in play.

If Peril Returned is stating that the Doors of Night card is considered to be in play (rather than simply the DoN effect), as you suggest, then it would not be possible to actually play a copy of the Doors of Night card while Peril Returned is in play. This is because it would create the "hologram effect" which rezwits mentions in the reference thread linked in my original post above.

In that thread, Bandobras said the following:

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:10 am I think he's saying that if Doors of Night is considered to be in play, that is sufficient for " Cannot be duplicated."

However, (and this is weird) Peril Returned merely states that Doors of Night is considered to be in play. The text of Doors of Night is not in play through Peril Returned (i.e. when Peril Returned is played, it does not copy the actual card text of Doors of Night).

Therefore, there is no "Cannot be duplicated" to worry about.

I believe you cannot really make both this Bandobras argument and the argument that Peril refers only to the DoN card rather than effect. What would be the point?

So I ask this question: IF Peril Returned is suggesting that the DoN card is considered to be in play (rather than simply the DoN effect), then how can you argue that the full text of DoN card is also not in play, including the "cannot be duplicated" statement (ie. hologram effect). IF the argument is made that Peril Returned is referring to the DoN card rather than the effect, and you are also suggesting the entire card and text of DoN is not duplicated, then what is the point? So you are only getting the effect of DoN with Peril and not the entire card? Then why bother interpreting it as referring to the card at all?

(To reiterate my opinion from an earlier post, I do indeed believe you are only getting the effect of DoN with Peril and not the card, which means there is no "cannot be duplicated" to worry about. However, I feel it is a contradiction to argue that Peril refers to the card but doesn't duplicate the card in its entirety.)

I'm unclear on what we're calling the Doors of Night effect. Is this what we're calling Peril Returned causing Doors to be considered to be in play?

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 5:25 pm I'm unclear on what we're calling the Doors of Night effect. Is this what we're calling Peril Returned causing Doors to be considered to be in play?

According to my interpretation, yes. Peril Returned is causing a Doors of Night effect (or environment) to be in play, not the actual card Doors of Night. Thematically speaking, this would mean it is night-time throughout the land and thus there are scarier creatures abroad.

Going back to my OP of this thread - Will of Sauron states:

Discard this card when Doors of Night leaves play

... thus it is necessary to define if Will of Sauron is discarded when the DoN card leaves play or when the DoN effect leaves play.

If Will of Sauron is only checking for the card DoN to leave play (rather than the environment effect), then you could play Peril Returned, play Will of Sauron, and Will of Sauron would never have the DoN discard trigger since no DoN card is in play.

It is much more logical thematically (IMO) for Will of Sauron to be checking for the effect/environment to leave play rather than a specific card which creates said effect.

I believe that Will of Sauron is looking for the actual card to leave play.

I don't think it's too odious, since Marvels/Voices will get rid of Will of Sauron anyway.

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 5:46 pm I don't think it's too odious, since Marvels/Voices will get rid of Will of Sauron anyway.

One does not have infinite Marvel’s Told in hand.

Or perhaps one does not have an untapped sage available.

Or perhaps one has an untapped sage, but he bears too much corruption to risk the playing of Marvel’s Told.

Scenario:

In play are the following hazard cards:

- Will of Sauron
- Doors of Night
- Peril Returned
- Snowstorm
- Long Winter

The resource player has a Twilight in hand and is unable to do anything on his turn with the cold winter conditions outside at night.

The interpretation of the DoN effect vs card is critical here. If WoS looks for the DoN card, the resource player need only play Twilight on the DoN card and he clears the board and may continue with his turn normally.
If, however, WoS looks for DoN effect to leave play, then the resource player will be unable to make any progress on this turn.

If we're going to use "perhaps" as the basis of the argument, then it's far more often that I don't have an untapped Ranger than I don't have Marvels. Or Palantir of Osgiliath. (Side note: I would completely in favor of scrapping River entirely and starting over. That card is disastrous for the game.)

And yes, one Twilight should be sufficient to take out all of that. Will of Sauron, as stated in the thread, checks to see whether Doors leaves play. Not whether it's in play. The fact that Doors can leave play while remaining in play (as also happens with playing Doors in response to Twilight played on Doors) doesn't change that.

River is not relevant to the discussion. If you feel that River is broken and needs erratum, then please submit a proposal. =D

“Perhaps” in regards to Marvel’s Told is relevant, since you mentioned it, because it pertains to the discussion regarding Will of Sauron and Doors of Night. I was simply pointing out that it’s an over-simplification to suggest this scenario is no big deal because Marvel’s Told can cancel WoS.

It is my opinion that ICE intended for Will of Sauron to be discarded when the “Doors of Night effect” leaves play. This is both logical and thematic.

It is illogical to remove WoS simply because a specific card leaves play (even though the effect that card creates remains). Now I fully agree that a strict reading of the card can be interpreted this way, I’m just saying that is being very technical and doesn’t at all “make sense.”

For some players, the adventure and the game making some degree of sense is important, and for those players - abandoning a more technical, robotic approach to the game is preferred.

Either way, this topic needs a clarification, and thus the reason for the submission.

My reasoning:

Peril Returned is in play and Gates of Morning, The Will of Sauron are not.
Are there a conditions to play The Will of Sauron in M/H phase?
If so: Doors of Night that is condition of WoS is not physical card "Doors of Night" but presence of Doors of Night in play (it does not matter how it is achieved: by presence in play a physical card "Doors of Night", or by Peril Returned without Gates of Morning, or multiple Peril Returned with Gates of Morning).

Now one Peril Returned, The Will of Sauron are in play. Gates of Morning comes into play.
Doors of Night is now not considered to be in play.
Does it cause a discarding The Will of Sauron?
If so: there is no entity called Doors of Night that exits a play (goes to discard pile, hand, out of play, out of game, elsewhere).
Doors of Night ceased to be in play not going anywhere.

Now Peril Returned, Doors of Night card, The Will of Sauron are in play.
Doors of Night card is discarded.
Does it cause a discarding The Will of Sauron?
If so: the reason is different that that in previous paragraph. Doors of Night is still considered to be in play, but there is entity (card) Doors of Night that leaves play.

"Yes" for both second and third paragraphs cannot be consistently maintained.
If someone will answer "yes" for question in third paragraph then he must answer "no" for the same question in second paragraph.
In such case it opens possibility for The Will of Sauron persisting in play even with presence of Gates of Morning in play.
(because "cease to be in play" and "leaves play" are not synonymous, and along with discarding the Peril Returned, Doors of Night ceased to be in play not leaving play)

@ Konrad - well said, I agree.

Another example... assume Gates of Morning is not in play. You could use Peril Returned to play Will of Sauron. Peril Returned could later be discarded (Marvel's Told, etc.) and Will of Sauron would continue to remain in play without any Doors of Night effect in play at all. This is assuming you believe Will of Sauron to be referencing the Doors of Night card and not the effect. This would be an odd scenario indeed.

IMO it is clear that Will of Sauron is "supposed" to be dependent on Doors of Night existing.

I agree that the current situation is bizarre, but Peril Returned provides a non-environment option to have Doors in play. That's always going to be bizarre. I don't believe an alteration in Peril Returned's state affects Will of Sauron because the play clause and the discard clause check for separate things. I also believe that's okay for the game in terms of hazard strategies and resource counters.