Legolas

The card text says "After Legolas participates...". It does it mean that ability is triggered when you attack an enemy with Legolas AND another character, does it? Or does it mean any attack?

Should be any attack. Probably worded that way instead of "after Legolas attacks and destroys" Otherwise, one might assume he would have to do it alone.

I wish his stats were 2 Will 3 Attack 1 Def 3 HP. He would be better for solo play then.

I feel his progress adding ability is worth way more than 1 more will power.

Not if you get a run of locations.

I'm pretty happy that he's one of the Tactics heroes that don't feel like his WP is wasted. The 2 WP heroes that don't usually quest feel like you're just paying extra threat at the start of the game for nothing.

Can his reaction be triggered when he defends from an enemy attack (and an event destroys the enemy)?

His response says that he must participate in an attack, so the event must read that "attack an eligilbe enemy". Things like Spear of the Citadel wouldn't work, they simply remove the attacker on the defense, no actual attack on Legolas side took place.

His response says that he must participate in an attack, so the event must read that "attack an eligilbe enemy". Things like Spear of the Citadel wouldn't work, they simply remove the attacker on the defense, no actual attack on Legolas side took place.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following you...

I searched and there are no cards with a text that refers to "X participates in a defense" so I thought the concept "attack" could refear to both enemies attacks and allies attacks. The card Dori makes me think this could be correct as that card reads "After another hero is declared as a defender, exhaust Dori to add his Defense to the defending her's defense for this attack." That card still refers the action to be an attack even though what allies are doing is defending. So there is not a correlation between "attack" (aka fight) and attacking (aka your part in the attack).

If so, could cards like Swift Strike fullfill the "destroys an enemy" part of Legolas text while he is defending so he could trigger his reaction? As I read it, to be restricted to when he attacks, there should be some kind of reference to Legolas part on the attack like "After Legolas participates as an attacker in an attack that destroys an enemy". Am I missreading it?

I think the confusion I have is that the game refers to a fight or challange as an attack, no matter which side is the one attacking and defending. Legolas text doesn't specify his part on said attack, so it makes me believe it could work when he defends too.

Is there any rule about this somewhere? Thanks!

don't mind me I'm going to look something up and can't just delete this post...

Xchan, I don't see any ambiguity. I will break down Legolas' Response action so it may become clearer.

First, Legolas must participate in an attack. When he is defending, he is declared as a defender, no attack happens on his side.

Second, that attack must destroy an enemy. Enemy is a card type as defined by the rulebook belonging to the encounter deck. It has to be destroyed, which is by bringing its' health value to 0 or lower. After above conditions are fulfiled, the Reponse triggers.

Now you are right - both the player and the Enemies can attack. However, those participating in the attack are the ones that are declared as attackers, and the other side participates as defenders. Also the key point that answers your question is the word 'that'. It is the attack that should destroy the enemy, and not any other effect. Still, there are cards that instruct you to make an attack, like Quick Strike and Hands Upon the Bow (ironically those work really well with Legolas) and those cards will trigger his Response if he destroys an enemy with those effect.

There are indeed strange choice of words on some of the cards and here it is a thin line, but it seems natural that when the game instructs you that an enemy is making an attack, Legolas does not participate in that attack as it is aimed towards a player.

First, Legolas must participate in an attack. When he is defending, he is declared as a defender, no attack happens on his side.

Thanks for your answer, but it still doesn't solve it for me. You are assuming that the word "attack" on Legolas texts means his action on a fight and not the word "fight". The action Legolas has to do is participate, not attack. That is clearly written on his card text. I also know that I can declare a defender in an "attack", because the word attack means fight/combat in this game (see Dori's example below).

That means that I'm participating in an attack even when I'm defending. Dori's wording confirms that. "After another hero is declared as a defender, exhaust Dori to add his Defense to the defending her's defense for this attack." The game refers to any fight as an attack, no matter if what my allies are doing is defending. This makes me believe that I can participate in an attack either as an attacker or as a defender, because the word attack means fight or combat, not the action my allies are doing.

Another example that sustains my confusion are the wordings on Arod and Blade of Gondolin:

Arod: "After attached character participates in an attack that destroys an enemy, exhaust Arod to place 1 progress on a location."

Blade of Gondolin: "After attached hero attacks and destroys an enemy, place 1 progress token on the current quest."

The wording is different in both cards, although they essentially do the same for you. However, with my interpretation, Arod can be used both while my hero is attacking or defending, while the blade only works when the hero is attacking.

That goes to my second question. Can an event that deals damage to an enemy to the point of killing it fullfill Legolas "destroys an enemy" part of his text while he is attacking that enemy? Since the wording says he needs to participate I would guess yes, but what would happen if the wording was like the blade's? Can the event fullfill the "attacks and destroys" part or is the hero not considered the one who destroys the enemy hence the blade can't be triggered?

Thanks in advance. I'm not triying to be a ****, btw. I just want to see some rules reference that makes this confusion clear, so I can be sure I'm missunderstanding them (because that's how the community is interpreting them).

Maybe since English is not my mother language I'm careful to understand each wording implication, as I tend to believe there's a reason for each word (and there's a reason why the blade and Arod are worded differently; if it's not because of the first reason, maybe it's because of the second).

Maybe since English is not my mother language I'm careful to understand each wording implication, as I tend to believe there's a reason for each word (and there's a reason why the blade and Arod are worded differently; if it's not because of the first reason, maybe it's because of the second).

It's taking me a while to come up with a good semantic reason why his ability should only work on the offensive.  For some time there I was thinking you might be correct in that Legolas can be "participating in an attack" as the defender and still get to use his ability.   However, I've finally come up with a reason why it doesn't work:

In your scenario of Legolas defending an attack and then you play any event to kill that enemy (before resolving the enemy's attack) - Legolas is indeed participating in an attack while that enemy is destroyed.  However, it isn't the actual attack that kills it.  It is an event card.  So the real key here is that the "attack that destroys an enemy" has to be valid.  In this case, an unrelated event killed it.  The emphasis is the attack is what needs to kill the enemy, and Legolas needs to participate in it.  So he has to be the aggressor in order to trigger his ability.

 

Thanks in advance. I'm not triying to be a ****, btw. I just want to see some rules reference that makes this confusion clear, so I can be sure I'm missunderstanding them (because that's how the community is interpreting them).

Have no worries about it - these forums are for informative purposes after all. Feel free to ask whatever confuses you.

I am no authority on the subject and derive my interpretation based on the way many games word their rules and the way rulings are made for them. There are times that we have seen the answer to a particular question answered by the designers somewhere, but forget to quote etc.

With the above said here is what I think - it is not the first or the last time similar effects has been worded differently. Many things lead to this - enourmous card pool, complex game framework and so on. It is tedious enough trying to balance a card and compare it to a thousand already printed cards, so that may be the cause for the different wording.

Now I assume we both agree with the wording on the Blade and the requirement for the hero to attack for the response action to trigger. As far as Legolas and his horse are concerned, I can agree that your interpretation may be indeed right, that the defending character is participating in the attack (although it makes little sense from linguistic point of view). However, there is still a requirement on both Legolas and Arod that it must be the attack that destroys the enemy.

The above is impossible as far as I know, because the attack is declared between an attacker, using his attack value, and the defender, against his defense value and his Health. An attack initiated by one of the sides will always cause harmful effects to the target of the attack. Unless there is a way for an enemy to target another enemy they will always target a player.

In short, such attack will always hurt the player unless other effect redirects it to an enemy.

In order for Legolas/Arod response to trigger, you have to damage the attacker while he is attacking, which can only happen via another card effect. And this is the important part - it is not the attack that will cause the enemy to be destroyed, but another card effect. This is why I stressed the importance of the word "that" in both cards text - the attack that destroys means that the attack should be the cause for destruction, so card effects on the defense won't trigger those card's responses.

It should be the same if you use any effect that deals direct damage to the enemy during Legolas' attack - the enemy was killed during the attack action, but not by the attack itself. It is the way I understand it. Hope somebody jumps in with an official answer to that.

Thank you guys again, but I'm still not convinced. I think I need some kind of official word about it to ease my mind.

I understand your reasoning, but I see a big flaw on it and it all comes down to the designers using the word "attack" to describe 2 game states, which I think is sloppy wording.

The word "Attack" when used as a noun describes each of the individual combats that happens during the combat phase, initiated by either the enemies or allies. All combats start by declaring the attacker who is the character that will deal the damage (is the one attacking). This can be substituted by combat.

While the word "Attack" used as a verb refers to the action by the active character of the combat, the one initiation the combat (declared as the attacker) and dealing the damage. This could be substituted by strike.

Ex. 1 (Baleful Shade): "When Baleful Shade attacks (strikes), the defending player discards the top card of his deck. If the discarded card is an ally, Baleful Shade gets +2 [Attack] for this attack (combat)."

Ex. 2 (Bilbo's Magic Ring): "After Bilbo Baggins exhausts to defend an attack (combat), exhaust Bilbo's Magic Ring and raise your threat by 3 to cancel all damage from this attack (combat)."

Ex. 3: (Brutal Uruk): "After Brutal Uruk attacks (strikes) and destroys a character, that character's controller turns all hidden cards in his play area faceup. Deal a shadow card to each enemy turned faceup by this effect and resolve their attacks (combats) as normal.

I checked all the cards and this is true for every instance of said words, meaning when the word is a noun, it refers to a combat, no matter which side of the combat are the allies; but when it's a verb it refers to the action the character is doing during the combat phase (initiating an attack and hence being the one who will deal the damage).

I don't know if you agree with me so far, but if that is the case, then we can proceed to Legolas text (and lots of other heroes and enemies similar wordings).

Legolas card says: "After Legolas participates in an attack (a combat) that destroys an enemy, place 2 progress tokens on the current quest." The word attack is used here as a noun while the verb is participate. So the word should be substituted by the word combat not strike, and refers to each individual combats that happen to the combat phase.

By that interpretation, Legolas powers could trigger during any combat where he participates, no matter if he is the attacker or the defender and even if the damage dealt to the enemy comes from an event and not him. The questions I have to answer are: 

- Is Legolas participating in the combat (attack)? Yes, he is the defender.

- Is that combat (attack) the one that destroys the enemy? Yes, during that combat, the enemy was destroyed (by an event). I explain this further below.

Hence, I fullfilled both requirement so the response could be triggered. 

In your interpretation, you equate the noun attack to the verb (ignoring the real verb, which is participate), forcing Legolas to be exclusivelly the attacker. I however, can't do that, because there's no other cards that sustain that interpretation (there are cards using the noun attack that refer to defenders and not attackers, so Legolaes shouldn't be exclusivelly an attacker). Also, there's another wording already in the game that does exactly that (forcing the character to be the attacker), which is the "attacks and destroys" wording that has been mentioned before. What would be the reason to have both wordings if they work exaclty the same? If this was a case of weird wording, it would be an insolated card, but there are plenty of cards with both wordings, which makes me think there's a reason behind it besides the "weird" wording.

What we need to usolve this is some kind of official wording/glossary that definds both attack as a noun and attack as a verb as separate entities. All the cards point to what I'm saying could be the right interpretation of said words (so far, I haven't found a card were I couldn't substitute the words without changing the card functionallity), but the community interpretation of them (which is sustained by years of experience) says otherwise. Is there a way to get such official definitions (I guess the FFG forums would be the best way, eitgh?)?

Then, there's the word destroy, which is the other word that causes us confusion. When the destroy part refers clearly to a character (as in " when X attacks and destroys Y"), the official FAQ states that the character X needs to destroy Y by dealing enough damage to it with attack strength (which can be altered by events).

However, there are instance when the destroy part refers to the attack (combat) itself and not the attacker (Legolas being one). This means that to fullfill the requirement the opposing character needs to be destroyed, no matter how, which means events could that deal damage should fullfill it. If this is not true, cards with shadow effects like "Shadow: If this attack destroys a character, ....."  could never be fullfilled as the cards are not the ones attacking hence can't be the ones comparing their strenght. Someone else destroys the character for them (during said attack/combat).

Am I wrong here too?

Thanks in advance again. I think I will bring this question to the FFG forums and see what they have to say about it.

- Is that combat (attack) the one that destroys the enemy? Yes, during that combat, the enemy was destroyed (by an event). I explain this further below.

I completely disagree.  The "combat" or "attack" is the Attack Strength vs Defense Strength contest.  Nothing more.  Events used during said combat phase may alter those values, but unless it is this fundamental concept of "combat" or "attack" that is destroying the enemy - then it is not fulfilling Legolas' requirements.  He was indeed particiapting in "an attack" or "combat" when the enemy was killed, but it was not that combat that killed him.   

 - If this is not true, cards with shadow effects like "Shadow: If this attack destroys a character, ....."  could never be fullfilled as the cards are not the ones attacking 

"this attack" can be used to describe whatever attack is currently resolving - as you pointed out with similar text like Dori.  The Shadow effect is clearly talking about the attack the enemy is making that was dealt that shadow card.  I'm not sure how this ability could be in question at all.

There is a Rules thing you can submit to ask Caleb directly on the FFG forums: 

https://www.fantasyf.../contact/rules/

Just wanted to add that the primary source for your concern is that you put the words 'attack' and 'combat' as synonyms, and they are not. One is part of the other - combat consists of attacking, defending, evading, maneuvering, even retreat, so I think you can't put them next to each other as equals.

That said, the rulebook says you have a combat phase in which you resolve individual attacks against a single target. An attack is the simple process of comparing several numbers as slothgodfather above described really well, and any additional effects triggered by cards are not part of the attack, as they are part of the combat, i.e. sit in the same category as the attack (part of the combat).

Still, do ask the designer of the game so he can answer exactly what bothers you and then you can share the knowledge with us. Happy playing!

An attack is the simple process of comparing several numbers as slothgodfather above described really well, and any additional effects triggered by cards are not part of the attack, as they are part of the combat, i.e. sit in the same category as the attack (part of the combat).

No, that's not what the rulebook says. The rule book says that there's a combat phase that cosists of enemies attacks and allies attacks. 

The rulebook also says that an enemy attack as the process of 4 steps:
1- Choose an enemy (or declare an attacker)
2- Declare a defender
3- Resolve shadow effects

4- Determine combat damage

As I see it, everything I play during those four steps should be (and is) considered part of the attack. A response to the step two, like Swift Strike should be considered part of the attack, like reactions to the 3rd step (like the shadow effects I mentioned before) are.

Also, I'm not the one equating combat to attack. The rulebook is. The rulebook says that during an attack I can attack or defend (and I guess evade, maneuver, retreat, etc. I only have the core rules and those don't appear in it). I would love for them to have called it combat instead, so this discussion would have not taken place, but that's not the case here.

What I don't understand is why you simplify the 4 steps (and everything that is played during them) to only the last one, which is when you compare several numbers to determine the winner and the damage dealt. This step is never refered to as an "attack" in the rulebook as far as I know. It's a part of one, sure, but not the only part.

Ok, so now that we know exactly the 4 steps of an enemy attack - pick enemy, declaration, shadow, damage, I will again stress the usage of the word 'that'. If an attack is a combination of the above 4 steps, and you use an effect, let's say, Swift Strike, which one caused the destruction of the enemy? Is it one of the 4 steps (the attack) or is it the damage from the event? Also it is not Legolas who dealt the killing blow, it was the event (which does not specify who exactly on the board dealt the damage, so it is the player).

No, that's not what the rulebook says. The rule book says that there's a combat phase that cosists of enemies attacks and allies attacks. 
 

Exactly - combat consists of several attacks. As a machine consists of many parts and they are not equal, so combat is not equal to an attack. A single engine is not enough to take you to the next town, you will need the rest of the car too. So is here - if combat = attack, then I can select only one enemy to make one attack and call it done. Attack is over, so combat phase is over, right? Cool. The other 5 goblins/orcs/Morghul scum will wait (I am looking at you, The Seventh Level).

We were just trying to point with that reference that the attack is the flow of the damage from one side to the other (and you wouldn't know what damage went if there was no attack and defense values, which are taken from the declarations). Any other flow is not part of that attack. We are simplifing it because there is nothing complex about it at all. Let's imagine that the Encounter deck is empty and no shadow cards will be given. So, it will be simply Attack - Defense = Damage (if >0), which is step 4. Now, why is it enough? Because, without step 1 and 2 you wouldn't know the values of the left side of the equation, therefore those steps are used only to define those values and their target.

Also, I do not understand why anything that happens outside of the predefined attack frame steps should be called part of the attack. I can play Ravens of the Mountain during an attack - how is that part of the attack?

Also, if I accidently squash a fly as I sleep, is it my sleep that killed the fly? Nope, it was my hand swinging around during sleep, which is an event, a weird one, but an event. No progress tokens for me. There are levels of inclusion which you might be omitting - everything is part of something else in this life, but the cause of something is always the smallest possible action/entity that caused it. When you look at the rules, think about them as boxes laid inside boxes - you will find the answer in the last possible box, and all those before are just to contain the rest. The event is part of the attack, which is part of the game. If we follow that logic, it was the game that destroyed the enemy (which is also not entirely incorrect). The game was developed by FFG, so FFG destroyed the enemy? But LotR is created by Tolkien, so it must be him who is responsible for that orc demise! See where that logic lead us?

I do acknowledge that you are right about attack participation - defenders can be considered participating in an attack by the ways it is defined, which makes no logic sense considering basic language usage, but the way I see it, doesn't break the game, at least for now.

Hopefully I managed to point what is causing your confusion about Legolas' text.

The rulebook also says that an enemy attack as the process of 4 steps:

1- Choose an enemy (or declare an attacker)
2- Declare a defender
3- Resolve shadow effects

4- Determine combat damage

 

As I see it, everything I play during those four steps should be (and is) considered part of the attack. A response to the step two, like Swift Strike should be considered part of the attack, like reactions to the 3rd step (like the shadow effects I mentioned before) are.

 

Did step 1, 2, 3 or 4 kill the enemy?  No.  An independent event - that you could have played completely outside of this small window - is what killed the enemy. Being killed "during" an attack is entirely different language and meaning than being killed "by" an attack. 

But at this point, we should just wait for an official response from your post on their forums.