How about making 2 proposals out of it? First: Clarification The prowess modification is cumulative if multiple copies of this card are played with an attack. Second: Erratum: Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) recei...

Coming back to the point I made earlier I have the impression (or hope :) ) most of the users debating this submission can agree on: A character facing a strike from a subsequent creature must tap/may not opt to remain untapped/is tapped if untapped after the strike. The situation in case of Sable S...

... If a second or third card is in play, also the second or third character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receive 2 corruption points. ... I would not believe anyone misunderstanding how you want it to resolve, but I don't think this would ...

2) "Block" can be played on an untapped character and he remains untapped after the strike's resolved. "Block" cannot be played on an untapped character. Playing "Block" is the attempt to avoid being tapped if untapped after the strike is resolved. I think this might b...

I think it's a bit tricky that we have to different effects on the card: +1 prowess AND corruption Only the last effect has the restrictions for corruption cards / effects. Right, any suggestion concerning the submission proposal? == Here's a new try. Would you be ok to combine both proposals into ...

OK, I'm trying to sum up, please have a look: 1) A character may not choose the option of taking a -3 modification and stay untapped (think we've all agreed on this so far) 2) "Block" can be played on an untapped character and he remains untapped after the strike's resolved. 3) An untapped...

Konrad, as you said you wanted to stick to your last proposal, which I think is this one: "Playable on a moving company facing a non-unique hazard creature if Gates of Morning is in play. All attacks of the creature are canceled and all attacks of the next non-unique hazard creature the company...

Hi, I do not see the point." There are no other restrictions on characters based on their mind." This does not say anything about company restrictions that still have to be fulfilled. Only mind restrictions are deactivated once the character is in play. Cheers Heiner Exactly. This phrase ...

I've slightly changed the proposal (underlined) so that it is somewhat similar to the phrasing of the Alatar erratum. My language above was modeled on the original rules on characters being tapped, which to me is a better basis. But to each their own! OK, that is convincing. Better adapt the phrasi...

I think the original proposal passed through months of opportunity for scrutiny so it seems the safest way to mitigate issues we might not realize on short notice. If removing "use" language was an important objective, I just think it needs to be done explicitly or risk repeating the same...

Plus that there is only one bonus to Undead attack prowess. My interpretation of the (unfinished?) CRF ruling was that it only referred to the corruption part. Otherwise, it would be equivalent to "multiple copies of the card in play are treated as if there was only 1 copy" or even "...

"The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1. Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card can otherwise be played) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character; this count as playing a Corruption card on him). If after the attack I...

I felt the word "use" was technically imprecise. My intention was to make all possible meanings of "use" clear by saying that such characters may not be brought into play as characters, but may be kept/held in play (used?) as characters once in play as characters of a company or...

But what about other cards that let the defender assign multiple strikes to one character? Should an untapped character be forced to face the strike? It would be nice to address these related issues here. As far as I understand the submission, FBiFF does not make any ruling on whom strikes do have ...

OK. I've slightly changed the proposal (underlined) so that it is somewhat similar to the phrasing of the Alatar erratum. Would you be ok with this, too? "Playable on a moving company facing a non-unique hazard creature if Gates of Morning is in play. All attacks of the creature are canceled an...