Indirect changing number of strikes already assigned

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
Locked
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Indirect changing number of strikes already assigned

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue May 22, 2012 10:54 pm

CRF, Turn Sequence, Combat, Attack wrote:Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack may not be played
after strikes are assigned. This includes cards that have other additional effects, and
cards that only indirectly change the number of strikes.
Rank Upon Rank wrote:All non-agent Man attacks receive +1 prowess and +1 strikes. If Doors of Night is in play, all Giant attacks also receive these bonuses. Discard this card when such an affected attack (automatic, hazard creature, or otherwise) is defeated. Cannot be duplicated. ...rank upon rank...passing outwards in an endless stream.-LotRIV
Scenario:
There are a Giant attack with multiple strikes, and Gates of Morning, and Rank Upon Rank, and Daelomin At Home in play. Some strikes are resolved, some not and now is time between strike sequences.
Remaining Hazard Limit is 1.
Doors of Night would trigger passive condition for action "+1 to prowess, +1 strikes for Giant attack". This would indirectly change number of strikes, so playing a DoN is forbidden.
However a playing of Peril Returned is ok (with GoM it does not create an effect of DoN in play). Playing a Twilight on Gates of Morning is legal too.

Each card separately does not cause forbidden effect, but combo of them does so.

Possible solutions:
Analysing a chain of effects at declaration stage to determine its net effect and validity of next declaration.
At first glance it may work.
But it is not know how ultimately coe will resolve at least until least action is declared. Results of resolving checks may change picture too.
For example in response to Peril Returned a Deeper Shadow may be played that will reduce HL to 0 (Peril will not resolve). Now Twilight on GoM is OK. But now resource player declares Hundreds of Butterflies, that will increase HL to 2.
Forbid Hundreds of Butterflies?
Resource player may have another copy of Deeper Shadow at hand, that would make coe's net effect legal again. Hazard player would then discard Daelomin At Home etc. (still possible two copies of Many Turn And Doublings, or Marvels Told [on Rank Upon Rank], or Balance Between The Powers).

Second solution.
If a separate card will not cause an effect of direct or indirect changing a number of strikes when strikes are already assigned, it may be played (if it is otherwise legal).
However if it would create such effect due to different conditions in play at its resolution, it cannot resolve.

That is proposed ruling.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Indirect changing number of strikes already assigned

Post by miguel » Thu May 24, 2012 7:17 am

I actually think stuff affecting attacks might need to resolve before the attack starts resolving (strikes). This will be decided once we get the first errata official and revisit this thread http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... f=12&t=290

If that's how we decide, I think the bonus effect from Rank would not even trigger once the strikes are being resolved. Would this solve the whole problem, or are there other effects/cards we'd need to make a ruling for here?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Indirect changing number of strikes already assigned

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu May 24, 2012 1:35 pm

miguel wrote:If that's how we decide, I think the bonus effect from Rank would not even trigger once the strikes are being resolved.
If I understand you correctly such effects would be then simply ignored/canceled.
Of course it greatly simplifies a whole thing to the point where quoted "CRF, Turn Sequence, Combat, Attack " rule is no longer needed and invalid (as speaking about not existing situation).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Indirect changing number of strikes already assigned

Post by miguel » Thu May 24, 2012 2:03 pm

Yes. And the CRF quote is just a clarification anyway, not a rule, and as a clarification it can be read supporting what I proposed above (CRF entry is a specific case of 'affecting an attack'). But we'll revisit this subject just as soon as the erratum becomes official. :)

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”