New to the game and have some questions.

[Theo]

I hope no one minds me posting my questions here, just to keep the forum organized.

I know of no forum rules here, although---speaking only for myself---I prefer new threads for new question topics. I think it is a bit easier to search later for references or to see whether the question (or an interfering one) has been asked before.

And at some point (probably eight pages is enough), one is no longer considered "new to the game."

[CDavis7M]

Thanks for the response Konrad.

Also, Theo, I thought it was better to keep these simple beginner questions together instead of flooding the forum with new threads. Mostly because "everyone" already knows the answers.

Whereas the other rules questions from long time players involve detailed and niche interactions between specific cards that are debatable.

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

[Bandobras Took]

Whereas the other rules questions from long time players involve detailed and niche interactions between specific cards that are debatable.

Either that, or we just like arguing.

Or both . . .

[Konrad Klar]

Some addendum.

(4) Healing Herbs (minor item) at Bree during the same site phase AFTER Rangers of the North have been influenced successfully at Bree. (METW rules "If a resource that taps a site is successfully played at a site, one additional character may tap to play a minor item. Such a minor item may be played even if the site does not specifically state that a minor item is playable at the site.")?

It is possible under conditions that Mistress Lobelia is in company at minion version of Bree, where minor items are normally playable.
Whether she uses its ability after Rangers of the North have been influenced successfully at Bree is irrelevant. To play an "additional" minor item Rangers of the North must be successfully played and site must taps a site. This means the Double-Dealing must be on Bree and Rangers of the North are not played after successful attempt against the opponent's Rangers of the North (that does not tap site), that BTW would be impossible for FW player in such scenario, because an alignment of revealed resource must math an alignment of a site and Double-Dealing does not overcome this restriction.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

1. How does it work with Allies and playing items? For instance, if I travel to the White Towers with Tom Bombadil, if I have entered the site to play The Palantir of Elostrion, may I tap Tom Bombadil to do so and later use the item, since he is a sage? Or must I play the item with a character, and later give it to Tom? Or can he not have it at all? Sorry if that question is worded funny.

2. This may be a dumb question: Provided I have two diplomats at the same site, if my opponent travels to that site and attempts to influence away one of MY characters, am I right to think that I can play Old Friendship or New Friendship to help me with my influence roll? For some reason I've been under the impression that I can use Old Friendship or New Friendship to help try to influence my opponent's character away, but I never recognized before that it could work the other way.

3. Say I control a sage, like Elrond, who has 2 corruption points from an item, such as Wormsbane, and 2 additional corruption points from a corruption card like Lure of the Senses, for a total of 4 corruption points. If I choose to tap Elrond to play Marvel's Told to discard Lure of the Senses, how does the proceeding corruption check initiated by Marvel's Told work (modified by -2)? Is Lure of the Senses cancelled, dropping Elrond's corruption points down to 2 (modified by -2 roll) for a needed 5 or better, or does the Lure of the Senses stick until after the corruption check occurs, keeping his corruption points at 4 (modified by -2 roll), making the required roll 7 or greater?

[Theo]

1) Allies can't control/use items. Allies are only characters for the purposes of combat and skill-requiring events.

2) You can't play resources during your opponent's resource turn. (Company vs. company combat has the only general exceptions: canceling such an attack, or affecting a strike resolution therein.) Some cards also specify otherwise: Wizard's Laughter for example.

3) Instructions on a card resolve in the order they are printed, one at a time. So Marvels Told will remove a Lure before a character that was bearing it has to make their check.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

If my opponent plays Marvel's Told to tap Elrond and force the discard of an hazard event, but I play Many Sorrows Befall as a response to cancel Marvel's Told, does this result in Elrond being tapped or untapped? I would think that Many Sorrows Befall cancelling the effect of Marvel's Told would also cancel the tapping action--as in, the sage only taps once the card is allowed to resolve. Am I right?

By the way, I'd buy y'all a round of beers if I could for all the help the many of you have provided. Thanks.

[Konrad Klar]

If my opponent plays Marvel's Told to tap Elrond and force the discard of an hazard event, but I play Many Sorrows Befall as a response to cancel Marvel's Told, does this result in Elrond being tapped or untapped? I would think that Many Sorrows Befall cancelling the effect of Marvel's Told would also cancel the tapping action--as in, the sage only taps once the card is allowed to resolve. Am I right?

You are wrong.

Marvel Told is not played to tap sage and to discard an hazard event.
Sage taps at declaration of Marvels Told. Marvels Told, when resolves, causes a discarding an target hazard event, and corruption check of target sage (the same sage taps at declaration).

Many Sorrows Befall cancels an effects, but not conditions of short-event. Tapping a sage is one of conditions of Marvel Told (other is presence of targets).

[Theo]

But you wouldn't know this from the wording on the card alone, just by poring over the tomes of rules (particularly the ones about Active Conditions).

[Konrad Klar]

A children use grammatical cases in their talks, long before they will learn that something like "grammatical cases" exist.

Some activities are done in order to play a card, some activities are done by the card.
If it is not clear whether X taps to play a card Y, or in result of Y (that forces X to tap), then a lecture of Active Conditions will no help.

[Theo]

But Marvel's Told is not worded "Tap a sage to play this card to force the discard," but just "Tap a sage to force the discard..." as an apparent effect of the card. Effects aren't implemented until the card is played, so following the literal grammar and book rules Marvel's Told is indeed played to tap a sage to force the discard. Tapping would only be required to force the discard. Only by CRF Active Condition rules can one discern that the tapping is required to even play the card.

Just trying to improve underlying understanding rather than only give literal answers that may seem bewilderingly outside of the apparent text at first (through tenth) glance.

[Konrad Klar]

But Marvel's Told is not worded "Tap a sage to play this card to force the discard," but just "Tap a sage to force the discard..." as an apparent effect of the card.

Right. Sage does not tap to play the card. Sage taps when the card is played; at the same moment.

Effects aren't implemented until the card is played, so following the literal grammar and book rules Marvel's Told is indeed played to tap a sage to force the discard.

Actions created by card are not executed. until the card will resolve.

Only by CRF Active Condition rules can one discern that the tapping is required to even play the card.

Someone could notice than some cards are "playable on untapped X, tap X, make Y", some other say "Tap X to Y" and take into consideration a possible functional differences between the phrases.

[Bandobras Took]

Actually, by most standards of the language I know, you play Marvels Told to get rid of a permanent event. Tapping a Sage and making corruption checks are just side effects of the goal, not goals unto themselves.

[Konrad Klar]

Which is not objective.

Goal of player may be a tapping of sage, or discarding hazard event, or making corruption check, or releasing a card from hand, or any combination of those.

Objective is a distinction between effects/results of a card, and conditions of the card (that may include a performing of some activity, like tapping, or discarding a card from hand, or from play, or something less usual).

[the JabberwocK]

I agree with Theo.

A simple reading of the card text of Marvel's Told (and other similar cards) does not make it clear that the tapping of the character and the discarding of hazard are not near-simultaneous actions/effects.