Page 1 of 2
Pierced by many assassins
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:19 am
by Manuel
Assassin
Men. Three attacks (of one strike each) all against the same character. Attacker chooses defending character. One or two of these attacks may be canceled by tapping one character (not the defending character) in the defender's company for each attack canceled
Rank upon Rank
hazard
Permanent-event
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.
Pierced by Many Wounds
hazard
Short-event
Playable on an attack with more strikes than defending characters before strikes are assigned; does not count against the hazard limit. The first excess strike assigned to each character gives a -4 modification to his prowess instead of -1. Cannot be duplicated on a given attack.
Ok, so here's a combo I have seen played several times that has caused some confussion in some games...
Is this combo legal?
- Assassin against a character
-> pumped by Rank upon rank it gets two strikes, but assassin says only one character can take strikes from an assassin
-> there are more strikes than defenders, so Pierced by Many Wounds converts that -1 in -4
I have heard some good reasons why it's not legal by Mikko, but anyway it would be interesting to decide it over here and include it on the next digest.
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:44 am
by miguel
MELE Rulesbook: The Starter Rules: Combat: Attacks and Strikes wrote:Unless the attack states otherwise, the defender chooses which untapped characters will be the targets of given strikes. Then, the attacker chooses which other defending characters not yet assigned a strike will be the target of any remaining unassigned strikes.
Emphasis is mine. This quote shows that prior to strike assignment, all characters in the company facing the attack are considered defending characters (even those who eventually will not face a strike). So a combo of Assassin+Rank+Pierced would only work against a 1-character company, otherwise there are too many characters for Pierced by Many Wounds to be playable.
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:37 am
by zarathustra
I don't see how the quotation is relevant.
Unless the attack states otherwise, the defender chooses which untapped characters will be the targets of given strikes. Then, the attacker chooses which other defending characters not yet assigned a strike will be the target of any remaining unassigned strikes.
But the attack
does state otherwise. Hence, the attack has first prerogative. If Rank is in play, the attack indeed
does have more strikes than defending characters, since 2 > 1.
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:39 am
by miguel
I was referring to the term defending characters. Who assigns what is not of relevance.
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:46 am
by miguel
LE Rules: Using MELE with METW: Combat: Company vs. Company Combat: Strike Sequence wrote:5. An untapped defending character that is not (and has not been) himself the target of a strike from the same attack may tap to support a defending character. The defending character's prowess is modified by +1 for each supporting character.
So it seems defending characters are all characters in the defending company, even after strike assignment.
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:52 am
by zarathustra
So if I have 3 characters and a regiment of black crows, and I face Itangast Ahunt, my opponent cannot play Pierced by many Wounds? :/
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:01 am
by miguel
It would seem so, yes.
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:24 pm
by zarathustra
Proposed Ruling wrote:All characters in a company facing an attack are considered defending characters, even if not all of them will face a strike. Therefore, the use of Pierced by Many Wounds with an Assassin affected by Rank Upon Rank (or Hoarmurath of Dir) is illegal unless there is only 1 character in the company facing the attack.
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:01 pm
by miguel
Aye.
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:59 pm
by Konrad Klar
"is illegal unless there is only 1 character in the company facing the attack."
should be changed to
"is illegal unless there is less characters in company that strikes from attack."
In some cases attack from Assassin may be additionally boosted by Hoarmurath.
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:40 pm
by zarathustra
Good point.
Well, if someone asks, I'll clarify further. As it stands, the ruling only deals with an assassin with +1 strike, not the general case of +n.
Published in Digest 117. Done (for now). Locked.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:42 pm
by Wacho
I think we have made an error with this ruling. Here's another quote from page 28 of the LE rulebook:
If an attack has more strikes than the company has characters the attacker may allocate the extra strikes as -1 modifiers...
Clearly this quote and the quote mentioned by miguel don't take into the account cards such as assassin. So either our ruling is wrong, or you can't give -1 modifiers to a character with assassin as long as there aren't more strikes than characters in the company.
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:05 am
by miguel
CRF: Card errata and rulings: Assassin wrote:If an attack from Assassin is given more than one strike, each additional strike becomes an excess strike (-1 prowess modification) against the attacked character. An Assassin can never assign strikes to more than one character.
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:47 am
by Wacho
My point was that the quote I mentioned and the other quote about defending characters are similar in that neither take into account cards like assassin. So I think it isn't really proper to take that quote and apply it to the Assassin/Pierced by Many Wounds scenario.
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:53 am
by miguel
miguel wrote:So it seems defending characters are all characters in the defending company, even after strike assignment.
You need to show that this definition of
defending characters is wrong. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with this ruling.