Source
r/lotrlcg•
cornerbash

Treasure and Bond of Friendship Contract

Rules/Gameplay Question

Started a new Hobbit campaign with the Bond of Friendship campaign. Finished the first quest earning the treasures and now trying to interpret how they work in regards to the deck size.

Bond of Friendship: “Your deck must be exactly 50 player cards…”

Over Hill and Under Hill rule book (p.2): “Treasure cards added to a deck do not count towards that deck’s 50 card minimum.”

Which text wins here? Are treasure part of the exact count of 50, or do they allow going beyond 50 in this case?

Posted Jul 1, 2022, 11:13 PM UTC

74
willoughbys_warbling•

Treasure cards are not player cards in the usual sense. If the rule says they don't count as part of your 50, then I'd say having them in your Bond of Friendship deck as cards past 50 limit it sets is fine. Especially since Bond says player cards specifically and the cards in question are treasures. I don't remember the language used in the rule docs to describe treasure cards, but I'd check to see if they are referred to as player cards. It would be murkier if they are.

My 2 cents.

2
cornerbashOP•

They are referred to as player cards in the rules. From the OHaUH rulebook (p.2), "Treasure is a new type of player card..."

3
willoughbys_warbling•

Womp womp. So murky then. Short of a ruling by FFG, I guess it is up to you/your play group since the rules are in conflict.

2
Dalighieri1321•

If you interpret the cards with strict (perhaps overly strict) literalism, I think you wouldn't be allowed to include Treasure cards in a Bond of Friendship deck. If you had a deck with 49 cards plus 1 Treasure card, it wouldn't be legal, per the line in the OHUH rulebook. And if you had a deck with 50 cards plus 1 Treasure card, it wouldn't be legal, per the text of the contract. I don't think the two rules (the one from the contract, the other from the OHUH rulebook) contradict each other. To say that a Treasure card doesn't count towards a deck's 50-card minimum is not the same as saying that a Treasure card doesn't count towards a deck's total card count. And since the two rules don't contradict each other, both rules would still apply.

All that said, personally I wouldn't interpret it so literally. I'd treat the Treasure cards as if they didn't contribute to the deck's card count. OHUH came out well before contracts, and if you asked Caleb for a ruling, he might well say the same.

2