Dark Knowledge

This card is so good in the basic game......

This card is a huge disappointing. It would have been great if it had worked on engaged enemies too, but since it only works when they are attacking, the chances of having a second shadow dealt during an attack are so slim that the card becomes too situational to be useful... 

It's not about second shadows. It's about knowing what shadow effect, if any, the attacker has before you pick the defender.

It's not about second shadows. It's about knowing what shadow effect, if any, the attacker has before you pick the defender.

But how can you do that? The shadow card was not "just dealt" between step one (choose an enemy/declare an attacker) and step two declare a defender, it was dealt before the enemy initiated step one, so it was not the attacker when it received the shadow card so the "just dealt" part can't be fullfilled by that shadow card.

This is a response, so it can only be triggered "in response to (i.e. immediately after) a specified game occurrence" (from the rules). The occurance that the card is refearing to is the "shadow card that was just dealt to an enemy attacking you", which like I said, it doesn't happen between step 1 and 2 but before the attackers are declared.

So in other words, I can't response to the first shadow effect being dealt (aka use the response "inmediately after" the action it describes) because the enemy is not "attacking" me then (hence I can't fullfill the "to an enemy attacking you" part, which is there to describe what kind of enemy needs to be the one being dealt a shadow card). Once it initiates an attack, the shadow card is already dealt (the action is fully resolved) and the response window in which I could trigger this is already closed.

Am I (again) missing something here? The wording seems clear to me....

The action is a Response - meaning you can trigger it immediately when the prerequisite occurs. In this case, the condition is "shadow card... just dealt".

As per the rulebook: Responses are always optional, and can be triggered by their controller in response to (i.e. immediately after) a specified game occurrence.

So, you take a card from the encounter deck, drop it on an enemy and then the condition is met: there is a shadow card on an enemy that is participating in an attack against you. I think we led that discussion under Legolas (Hero). Attacking enemy means taking part in the Combat phase against the player. Don't equalize every verb in the game to the real world.

EDIT: Additionally, I think that the words "attacking you" can be omitted without any consequences for the extent of the effect of Dark Knowledge. The moment a Shadow card hits the table, the response trigger is met.

I see what you were thinking xchan, but I think Valdemart is right here. At least, that is how I have always read the card. "Look at one shadow card that was just dealt" (emphasis mine) would seem to imply that you could trigger the card on an enemy Engaged with you that was just dealt a shadow card. 

I do think the wording could be clearer but this was a Core card where a lot of the wording is a little all over the place. But ultimately, this would be an almost dead card in the Core set if it worked the way you describe because I think there's only maybe one encounter card in Core that deals additional Shadow Cards. 

The action is a Response - meaning you can trigger it immediately when the prerequisite occurs. In this case, the condition is "shadow card... just dealt".

 

As per the rulebook: Responses are always optional, and can be triggered by their controller in response to (i.e. immediately after) a specified game occurrence.

 

So, you take a card from the encounter deck, drop it on an enemy and then the condition is met: there is a shadow card on an enemy that is participating in an attack against you.

No, there's a card on a shadow card has been dealt to an enemy ENGAGED with me, not attacking me. As far as I know, those are different concepts, so I can't trigger the response after the shadow card is dealt because I can't fullfill the second restriction, which is that said enemy has to be attacking me. I can't simply ignore it....

(Aslo, during Legolas discusion Caleb said that participating in an attack and attack is the same, so until the enemy attacks -initiates step one-, he is not participating in an attack).

I think we led that discussion under Legolas (Hero). Attacking enemy means taking part in the Combat phase against the player. Don't equalize every verb in the game to the real world.

 

 

Can you quote the rules for that? During Legolas discusion we established that an enemy attack was a series of 4 steps for an enemy, which are (quoting the rules):

Step 1: Choose an enemy: The first player chooses which attack (among the enemies to which he is engaged) to resolve first.

Step 2: Declare defenders.

Step 3: Resolve shadow effects.

Step 4: Determine combat damage.

There's no shadow deal during any of those steps (aka attack) except the ones dealt by additional actions,which would be a second shadow card, not the first one as that shadow card is dealt during the combat phase, but outside an enemy attack.

Additionally, I think that the words "attacking you" can be omitted without any consequences for the extent of the effect of Dark Knowledge. The moment a Shadow card hits the table, the response trigger is met.

  

So we are just ignoring half of the text in the card because we want to? Like I said, this card would be great if its text would say "an enemy engaged with you" instead of "an enemy attacking you", as that would allow me to trigger the response when the shadow cards are dealt before any attack initiates; but that's not what the card text says....

I do think the wording could be clearer but this was a Core card where a lot of the wording is a little all over the place. But ultimately, this would be an almost dead card in the Core set if it worked the way you describe because I think there's only maybe one encounter card in Core that deals additional Shadow Cards. 

Well, that's why I said I was disappointed by the card, as the situations I could use it were just not useful at all (when the second shadows are dealt is usually too late to change defenders, so there's no point in knowing what the shadow card will do, as you can't act upon it).

If the card had the text "an enemy engaged with you" (which is what looks like to be what people thinks it does), then, this card has it's uses.

I get it's an old card, but it just seems odd that they hadn't errated the text until now (like they did with lots of other cards) if the text was not accurate. Right now, what the text says (following the rules), is that I can only look to shadow cards dealt on enemies during their attack, which is useless on the core environment.

From the rulebook, in the "Phase 6: Combat" section (emphasis mine):

 

In the combat phase, enemies attack first. All enemies that are engaged with the players attack each round, and the players resolve those attacks one at a time.

 

At the beginning of the combat phase, the players deal 1 shadow card to each engaged enemy. Deal the top card of the encounter deck, face down, to each engaged enemy. When dealing cards to a single player’s enemies, always deal to the enemy with the highest

engagement cost first. Cards should first be dealt to the enemies attacking the first player, and then proceed around the board until all enemies have 1 card.

Note how the core rulebook uses the terms "engaged" and "attacking" interchangeably here in the context of dealing shadow cards. First it talks about dealing a shadow card to the enemies engaged with a player, then it tells you in which order to deal the cards to the enemies attacking each player (start with the first player, then go to player two, etc.)

Since the rulebook uses the term "enemies attacking the first player" in describing the "deal one shadow card to each enemy" step, I think it's entirely justifiable to read Dark Knowledge as referring to that step.

Therefore, Dark Knowledge can be used on enemies that received a single shadow card, as long as you use its response promptly: as soon as you have dealt the card you want to look at, use Dark Knowledge's response. If you wait until you start resolving enemy attacks, you have passed up your opportunity to use its response.

From the rulebook, in the "Phase 6: Combat" section (emphasis mine):

 

 

Note how the core rulebook uses the terms "engaged" and "attacking" interchangeably here in the context of dealing shadow cards. First it talks about dealing a shadow card to the enemies engaged with a player, then it tells you in which order to deal the cards to the enemies attacking each player (start with the first player, then go to player two, etc.)

 

Since the rulebook uses the term "enemies attacking the first player" in describing the "deal one shadow card to each enemy" step, I think it's entirely justifiable to read Dark Knowledge as referring to that step.

Therefore, Dark Knowledge can be used on enemies that received a single shadow card, as long as you use its response promptly: as soon as you have dealt the card you want to look at, use Dark Knowledge's response. If you wait until you start resolving enemy attacks, you have passed up your opportunity to use its response.

Oh, I see. So basically, engaged equals attacking during the deal a shadow card part of the combat phase?

Don't be too harsh on the core cardpool - their text was sufficient, but not perfect. What rmunn said is a valid interpretation that we all assume is true, even if it makes little semantic sense.

Please send this question to Caleb and I am sure we will see an errata of Dark Knowledge to read "to an enemy engaged with you". And also, if you happen to slightly increase the power of a card I don't think anyone will mind - it is a cooperative game after all. I do understand you want to see clear card text, we all do, but sometimes you should just "play as you feel it". Imagine if this game was released in the 80s.

Don't get me wrong - I also don't like when a card is written off the top of their heads and we have to scour the internet to find out "what the author meant". But there are myriad of games with awful rulebooks where your only option is to judge by yourself. For me this card was such case - I read it, see that it says when a shadow card is dealt to someone, I do it. Now that you brought it up, it should be fixed. I am with you on the "text is wrong" about this one.

Welcome back Xchan.  I'd say please post any further questions in the forums since these walls of text really clutter up the card and isn't very helpful.