I've had this game for two weeks now and am enjoying it very much.  I've got some questions regarding gameplay however:

1.) If "Driven by Shadow" comes up as a shadow card, can I use its shadow effect to discard the "Caught in a Web" Treachery card attached to one of my heroes?  I have so far assumed this is a legal move but am not 100% sure.

2.) If a Location leaves the staging area by having a number of progress tokens placed on it (i.e., using Northern Tracker or Snowbourn Scout) equal to the amount of quest points on the Location, is it considered explored?  If I discard "Mountains of Mirkwood" in this way, does its response trigger?  Again, I have so far assumed this is a yes.

3.) In the "Hunt for Gollum" scenario, can I claim an Objective the same turn/phase that I advance from Stage 2B to the next card without the reset occuring?  I.e., can I just leave the Objective(s) in the staging area until the very moment I finish 2B, or do I need to claim it the turn before?  Further, what if the Objective is guarded by the current Active Location, and this Location is explored and Stage 2B finished in the same quest -- can I still claim it and proceed?

newdarkages said:

1. Yes, but only if you are defending with the hero to whom Caught in a Web is attached (since Driven by Shadow says, "Choose and discard 1 attachment from the defending character."). Note, though, that if the attack is undefended, you CANNOT discard Caught in a Web, since that part of Driven by Shadow's shadow effect only discards attachments you control.

2. Yes. A location is "explored" whenever is has progress tokens on it equal to its quest point value. All relevant responses/effects trigger at that time.

3. Basically, yes. Signs of Gollum can only be claimed at a very specific time. Per p. 5 of the FAQ, players have "quested successfully" after staging, as soon as you determine that the total willpower exceeds the threat in the staging area (i.e. before placing progress tokens). At this point--and ONLY this point--you can claim Signs of Gollum if it is unguarded. THEN you place progress tokens. So, in the scenario you presented, you cannot technically "wait" to claim the objective until the very moment you finish Stage 2B; however, in the instant that you tally your willpower and recognize you will be placing enough progress to finish the stage, you CAN claim the objective BEFORE placing progress. 

This timing answers the second part of your question. Basically, if the objective becomes unguarded after progress tokens have been placed, you won't be able to claim it until the next turn (since it was guarded at the moment when you "quested successfully"). If that were the only Signs of Gollum in play, you would immediately reset the quest deck.

Hope that helps 

Thank you, and yes, very helpful.  I will try to check out those FAQ's pretty soon, but really quick, here's something that came up last night:

We were playing Passage Through Mirkwood.  During the Combat phase, Player A destroyed an enemy with Legolas, and per Legolas' Response, 2 progress tokens were placed on Stage 2B.  We drew "Don't Leave the Path" for the next quest card, and picked out a Forest Spider and Ungoliant's Spawn, placing them in the staging area.  Player B was playing with Dunhere, who was readied.  Player A was the first player.  Could Dunhere then attack the enemies that were just added to the staging area?  I don't see why not.

newdarkages said:

Sure. You flip quest cards immediately after placing the requisite amount of progress tokens on them, even if it happens during the combat phase. When you flip to "Don't Leave the Path," its "when revealed" effect triggers immediately. By the time Player B's attack step rolls around, there will be two new targets in the staging area. So, in your example, Player B could indeed attack either spider with Dunhere. In fact, this would work even if Dunhere were under the control of Player A (since Player A can make other attacks besides the one with Legolas). If Dunhere were ready after the sequence of triggers, he could legally attack either spider.

 Cool, thank you.

starhawk77 said:

Agreed with 2. and 3.

I'm not sure if your answer to 1. is correct. Sure, technically it's true that the card text only says that one ttachment from the defending character has to be discarded. However the text in the bracket implies that Driven by Shadow is directed at player controlled cards: "If this attack is undefended, discard all attachments you control."

I don't think that the game designers ever intended to help a player with this shadow effect by making it possible to remove Caught in a Web, but the card reads as if it was possible. I guess there should be an errata for Driven by Shadow that includes the words "controlled by a player" in the first sentence.

It's a literal reading of the card text. Admittedly, straight interpretations of card wording can be problematic in this game (I'm looking at you, Stand and Fight...), so I can see where you are coming from. But there are other attachment discarding effects that specifically mention player "control," while Driven by Shadow does not. I suppose you could read the second part of the effect as implication that the first part couldn't discard Caught in a Web, but that would be you adding meaning to the text beyond the actual words (again, not necessarily the wrong idea in this game). 

In general, I think it's usually best to abide by the literal wording on the card unless it leads to a blatantly nonsensical outcome. Otherwise, you're trying to read Nate's/Lukas's mind(s). There are plenty of encounter cards that can occasionally prove somewhat beneficial, so I don't think the players managing to acquire some advantage from Driven by Shadow is that far-fetched. Some clarification here would be welcome, but I don't know that Driven by Shadow would receive errata, since FFG has been pretty consistent about specifying control in other instances. Seems to me like the effect would have said, "Discard one attachment you control from the defending character" if that had been the intent.

1) - No, not in any way is this legal. Treachery cards that are played as "condition attachments" are NOT attachments. Yes, it is pathetic that they are called attachments but they are so get used to it. When a card is like Caught in the Web is attached to hero the the only way currently to remove it is to cast Miner of the Iron Hills. "Response: After Miner of the Iron Hills enters play, choose and discard 1 Condition attachment from play. " The card Driven by Shadow ONLY effects player cast attachemtns like songs or armour or weapons.... treachery cards turn into "condition attachments" and remain un affected.

 I would tend to agree with booored...it would also be more in keeping with the spirit of a treachery card, which is never meant to really help.

Honestly, I think the text on the card speaks for itself.  I see no reason why the defending character can't have the treachery attachment discarded.  The undefended condition sounds like a way to protect characters that additional players have in play and to increase the penalty for being undefended even further.  The initial effect says nothing about it being an attachment you control.

Also, Treachery cards that become attachments ARE attachments for ALL purposes once their lasting effect(that makes itself an attachment) is in place.  It is now an attachment that you do not control. 

There are Treachery Cards that exist that actually help you more than hurt you sometimes.  The ones that say "Return an exhausted Ally to your hand." for example is tremendous in combination with Allys that have put into play abilities.

The_Fallen_Arises said:

But sometimes they can help you.  Canceling cards like those isn't the only way to fight against them.

See Pursued by the Shadow in combination with Gandalf or Snowbourn Scout.  Gandalf being available for his put into play effects again can be huge.

All attachments count as "attachments".

Discard an attachment.............encounter card or player card.

Discard an attachment you control........only player cards.

yes the rules (or at least faq) are clear about this- you only control player attatchments

Bomb said:

Well...can't argue with that...I stand corrected, and rally to your position. If we abide by the letter of the rules, that's how it should work.

no... the effect dose not affect condition attachments. End of story. There is no argument about this and it has been confirmed by Nate I am sure of it, though it has been so long I forget when. As has been said you do not control condition attachments, you can not discard them

muemakan said:

Forgot to mention objective cards.

So it would be:

Discard an attachment.............encounter card or player card.

Discard an attachment you control........player cards and objectives.