New to the game and have some questions.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

If the Council takes place and I have twenty marshaling points, ten of which (half) come from factions (3+4+3=10), and my opponent has zero marshaling points from factions, how does the bonus process work in this case? Would I still receive double the marshaling points from the factions, even though no more than half of my points are allowed to come from one source type (eg.items, allies, factions)? Or do I get the bonus points anyway?

[Konrad Klar]

To calculate marshalling points at the Free Council, follow these steps:
• Total up the marshalling points for each category. The modifications from My
Precious, factions played on a leader, and eliminated characters apply now.
• If your opponent has no points in a category double your points in that category.
Doubling does not apply to the Miscellaneous or Kill categories.
• If one of your categories accounts for more than half of your positive marshalling
point total, reduce it so that it has the same number of points as the rest of your
positive categories combined.
• Subtract any points that are subtracted from your total, including points from
unique resources your opponent has duplicated in his hand.

So at step 2 your faction MPs will become 20, then at step 3 they will become 10.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

1. The erratum for Quiet Lands as written on meccg.net states: "Card Erratum: Replace "is reduced to half its original prowess (rounded up)." with "is reduced by half (rounded up)." However, the original card says nothing about reducing prowess; it reduces the number of strikes to half the original number rounded up." Sooo...what's going on with that?

Scenario: Gates of Morning is in play, and my company is facing three strikes from Scorba at Home at Zarak Dum. If I play Quiet Lands AND Dark Quarrels to reduce the number of strikes from Scorba at Home, how many strikes would my company face? Both cards state reduce the number of strikes from the applicable attack to "half the original number rounded up." One could easily read that as 3 is reduced to 1.5 rounded up to 2, and 2 is reduced to 1. BUT the cards says half the ORIGINAL number of strikes which is 3 in both cases. So wouldn't the resulting number of strikes be 2?

2. Can the card A Chance Meeting be used to bring Fram Framson into play at an applicable site that is (obviously) not Framsburg, or is Fram exempt from eligibility with that one?

[Konrad Klar]

1) Literally there is nothing to replace.
There is no evidence that "original" and "normal" are synonyms.
"Original" may be just redundant (and confusing) addition.
If so, effects of the cards may be cumulative.

2) If the proposal:
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 145&t=3626
will pass.

Currently A Chance Meeting does not address the restrictions imposed by text of Fram Framson (and Hobbits cards).

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

Konrad, I'm utterly confused by your first answer. I'll be clearer with my question. There is no question about the word "original," which is clearly understood, and the word "normal" does not come into play at any time. Not sure what you meant.

The original text on Quiet Lands says: "the number of strikes for one automatic attack at a or is reduced to half its original number (round up)."

An erratum to Quiet Lands says: "Replace "is reduced to half its original prowess (rounded up)." with "is reduced by half (rounded up)."

Those two things do not jive. The erratum implies a change in prowess, when the original text only changes the number of strikes. So, firstly, I would like to know if the nature of the card was changed to effect prowess instead of strikes, or if it was just a clerical error that mistakenly put the word "prowess" in place of "number."

--

Secondly, there is an important distinction to be made between the words "to" and "by," and that is very important because the text of the erratum converts the word "to" to "by."

If I reduce 3 TO half, rounded up, I first cut the number in half to 1.5, and then round up to 2. (essentially subtracting one strike). Or if I reduce 6 TO half, rounded up, I simply reduce it to 3.

However, if I reduce 3 BY "half (rounded up)," half of 3 is 1.5, rounds up to 2, so I would be reducing BY 2, resulting in 1 strike. (essentially subtracting 2). It is ambiguous as to whether the final result or the number subtracted is rounded up. So it could also be interpreted as reducing BY 1, resulting in 2 strikes. Or if I reduce 6 BY half (rounded up), I would be again simply reducing the number to 3 strikes (since 3 is half of 6).

HOWEVER, the cumulative effect between TO and BY is completely different when stacked, or at least can be perceived to be...

If I use Dark Quarrels to reduce the original number strikes from an attack (6 strikes) TO half its original number, rounded up (as prescribed by the card), I end up with 3 strikes. If I then play Quiet Lands on the same attack which the number of strikes has already been modified from 6 to 3, three interpretations arise:

TO: Quiet Lands identifies the original number of strikes (6), and reduces it to half its original number rounded up: 3 strikes. It is not subtracting more strikes, it is transforming it AGAIN from original to half: 3 strikes.

BY: Keeping in mind the word change for the erratum which is incomplete and does not clarify whether the word "original" is to be complete removed from the text, Quiet Lands would then either:
1: reduce the number of strikes (3, as modified from 6) by half the original number (an additional 3, since 3 is half of 6, the original number). So it would end up at 0 strikes.
or
2: reduce the number of strikes (3, as modified from 6) by half, rounded up...another ambiguity: shave off an additional 1 or 2 strikes depending on how you interpret what is rounded up.

This is all because of a poorly worded erratum, as there are also so many other poorly worded texts in this game to begin with. The card Dark Quarrels leaves no interpretation as to what gets "rounded up." The final result is rounded up. But the Quiet Lands erratum, taken at face value, is arguably rounding up the number subtracted, though I don't think that is the intended effect. And there seems to be a cavalier attitude on the texts like "to" and "by" are interchangeable and they are NOT. I'm sorry this post was so long. Can anyone make sense of it?

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

deleted

[Bandobras Took]

I think it's just sloppy wording. That would be a good one to nominate for a clarification.

[Theo]

Regardless of the mix up in the "change from" part, the "change to" part matches the Unlimited edition printing. The CRF contains many instances of redundant "updates" which could be derived simply from the most recent printing.

Reduction by half means half of whatever it is currently. There is no longer an "original" for the ambiguity of (1).

I do agree that the "reduced by half (rounded up)" could be parsed as either (reduced by (half rounded up)) or ((reduced by half) ([and then] rounded up)). The second would be more consistent with other roundings in this game, e.g. halving the hazard limit, as well as reduction to a minimum of 1 strike that appears on other cards.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

I almost felt like I was being annoying by asking, but it's kind of important if it comes up. So there is no more "original" in the text of Quiet Lands. That is good to know. I only have black bordered, limited edition cards, so I haven't seen the most recent printing.

[Konrad Klar]

So there is no more "original" in the text of Quiet Lands.

Right.

Konrad, I'm utterly confused by your first answer.

Sorry. My misunderstanding.

I think that "reducing BY half" always gives result 2 (for other than zero number of strikes).
So not quite feasible against attacks with 1 strike.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

Cards like Assassin, Slayer, or Nameless Thing create more than one attack against a company/character. In the case of Assassin, one specific character is targeted. A few questions:

1. When Assassin is played, are all three attacks and corresponding strikes considered to be assigned immediately? Or is one attack generated and resolved, then the next attack generated and resolved, and then the third likewise?

2. Assuming that the targeted character of the attack remains untapped, may the card More Sense Than You be played on either the first, second, or third attack to prevent the strike?

3. Similarly, may Sacrifice of Form, True Fana, or Staff Asunder be played on either the first, second, or third attacks, assuming that the prerequisite conditions for such card are met? Or would such cards somehow handle all three attacks and strikes, instead of just one out of the three?

[Theo]

1) The Assassin play resolving generates three attacks that resolve sequentially. But part of an attack resolution is assigning strikes, which Assassin does not change. Assassin essentially stipulates that only one character can be assigned strikes across all three attacks, but the assignment doesn't happen until each particular attack. Thus...

2) Yes, I see no reason this wouldn't be allowed.

3) Yes, these are definitely allowed. They affect only one attack. (Well, a Sacrificed Wizard would fizzle future strikes that needed to target him.)

[Theo]

2) Just reread that you had asked about all attacks. More Sense Than You cannot be played after the strike is assigned. So it could be played before assignment of first attack on a one-character company to fizzle all attacks, or it could be played after declaration (but again before assignment) of the second or third attack to fizzle the remaining strikes even in a larger company.

[Konrad Klar]

2) I would say that assignment in next attack of Slayer, Assassin cannot be changed. Target facing strike in 1st attack cannot avoid being assigned, unless absent.

[CDavis7M]

Sojourn is similar to More Sense:

>1) Assassin/Slayer can't assign strikes to more than one character
>(according to the Dark Minions player's guide). What happens
>if the second or third attack is targeted by Sojourn in Shadows?
>I assume the attack is "negated", but not canceled(important if
>Forewarned is Forearmed is in play).
The other attacks would have no effect, but not be considered
cancelled. Of course, if Forewarned is Forearmed is in play,
there is only one attack. And you must play Sojourn in the
Shadows before you know who is getting the attacks (before
strikes are assigned). So it would only negate the whole
attack if there was only one person in the company.