Revealing on-guards and defining second AA in under-deeps

[Konrad Klar]

The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. If the on-guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack, it may be revealed before the automatic-attack is resolved. If it is a hazard creature, it will attack after the automatic-attack is resolved.

Attempt of strict reading and applying this rule encounter some difficulties
There is no problem in situation when site has only one automatic-attack. Then entering a site by company is synonymous with decision of face automatic-attack.
However this mental leap* (The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack.) cannot be applied directly to next AA. Company (nor its controlling player) cannot decide whether to face or not to face next AA. This decision was taken before and now company is forced to face AA.

In such situations we have following possibilities of interpretation:
a) Scaling by "all" - The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. is readed as "The company decides to enter a site and to face all the site's automatic-attacks". Hazard creature keyed to the company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack may be revealed only before first AA.
b) Scaling be "each" - The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. is readed as "When company faces each of the site's automatic-attacks". Hazard creature keyed to the company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack may be revealed before of AA.

If "a" is true then next question is moment of defining the second AA in under-deeps. Some of hazards that can modify the automatic-attack affects only attacks of certain type. E.g The Moon is Dead affects only attacks of Undead. Assuming that second AA is defined just before it is faced, then there are no conditions for revealing The Moon is Dead if first AA is other type than Undead.

Summing up, we have three options:
a1) The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. is readed as "The company decides to enter a site and to face all the site's automatic-attacks". Second AA is defined just before it is faced. Hazard that can modify the automatic-attack of certain type cannot be revealed if type of first AA and type of attack that hazard is affecting does not math, event if second AA will be ultimately appropriate type. Creature revealed as on-guard will attack after resolving last of AAs.
a2) The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. is readed as "The company decides to enter a site and to face all the site's automatic-attacks". Second AA is defined at the same time. Hazard that can modify the automatic-attack of certain type can be revealed if any of AA is appropriate type. Creature revealed as on-guard will attack after resolving last of AAs.
b) The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. is readed as "When company faces any of the site's automatic-attacks". Hazard that can modify the automatic-attack and creature may be revealed before each of AAs. Creature revealed as on-guard will attack after resolving each of AAs and before resolving of next AA.
In this variant moment of defining second AA (when company enters a site, or just before resolving second AA) does not affect timing of revealing on-guards.

*) I'm not quite sure if "mental leap" is equivalent of polish "skrót myślowy" (literally "shortcut in thinking").

[Wacho]

I think a2

[zarathustra]

I like a2), but I'm a little worried by this:

Company composition and overt/covert status is checked before each automatic attack.

It seems to push in the direction of a3). Any thoughts?...

[Manuel]

For me, a2 is also the way to go. It would be the simpliest one in a game, and the more rulings lover.

I think it can live with the fact that overt/covert stuff gets checked before each auto attack. Right now, I can't think of a situation where it would be trouble to interpret. I might be wrong though.

Let's say a minion company with 1 Orc and 1 Man decides to enter Dunnish Clan Hold, where Incite Defenders has been played (it creates a 2nd auto attack, similar to the 1st) Since the company is overt, the attack is not detainment. The orc dies and the man survives; now, when they have to face the 2nd AA, the overt/covert thing is checked again, and since there are no orcs in the company now, it attacks as detainment.

Although Incite Defenders say the 2nd AA duplicates exactly the 1st AA, including all modifications, I assume you would have to check overt/covert stuff before each of the attacks, according to the CRF. Is this correct?

As I said, I can't think of a situation where this may cause trouble.

[Konrad Klar]

Only card I know, that may make problem is Fear!Fire!Foes!. It is playable on detainment AA that minion company is facing. Before such AA is actually faced its status detainment/normal is not known.
From other hand, this card (in second use) is exception per se. Card that does not have target in M/H phase cannot be normally revealed as on guard, unless it has phrase "may be revealed as on guard" in its text. Such text is not present in text of FFF, although its second effect is only usable if it is revealed as on guard.
Regardless of the issues in FFF text, question is whether card that make exception should be taken into account during creation of general ruling?

P.S.
@Mark: what is "a3"?

[zarathustra]

Sorry, I should have said b), not a3).

[miguel]

On-guard creatures should be faced only after all AA's. I have never seen a company face an AA, then an on-guard creature, then yet another AA, and I never want to. So option b) is out.

5. A question has arisen regarding what cards may be played on attacks and what cards may be played on automatic-attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we distinguish between (a) attacks (whether due to creatures or automatic-attacks or whatever else) and (b) automatic-attacks which are not being faced. The latter may exist when the former do not. For example, a company traveling to the Lonely Mountain is not currently facing the automatic-attack at the site, even though the automatic-attack is part of the text of a card that is currently in play. Our ruling is as follows:
(I) Resources that are playable on
* attacks (a) can be used on automatic-attacks only when a company is facing them, but are subject to restrictions as per the CRF.
* automatic-attacks (b) can be used on automatic-attacks at any time.

(II) Hazards that are playable on attacks (a) or automatic-attacks (b) can be used on automatic-attacks during the movement/hazard phase (or revealed as on-guards).

Normally to affect an attack that attack has to be declared first. This is not the case for hazards regarding automatic-attacks. You can reveal an on-guard affecting the 2nd AA when you decide to enter the site (1st AA gets declared). For under-deeps you simpy cannot reveal an on-guard affecting a certain creature type which you plan to play as the 2nd AA. The 2nd AA has no type at this point (nor any strikes or prowess for that matter). The under-deeps' 2nd AAs are a special case, and I don't think we should tear down a working system just to be able to play The Moon Is Dead on-guard.

IMO the company covert/overt status should be checked when an AA (or any other attack for that matter) is declared. So if the 1st AA changes the company's status, the 2nd AA will take it into account.

Konrad was pretty close with a2), but since Mark is in favor of a3)...

a3) "The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack." should be read as "The company decides to enter the site and to face all the site's automatic-attacks". All automatic-attacks already exist as written on the site card or modified prior to this point (digest #117), but each attack will be declared separately as soon as the previous one has been resolved. Hazards that can modify the automatic-attack of a certain type can be revealed when the company decides to enter the site if any of the automatic-attacks is of the appropriate type. Creatures revealed as on-guards will attack after resolving the last of the automatic-attacks.

[Konrad Klar]

The under-deeps' 2nd AAs are a special case, and I don't think we should tear down a working system just to be able to play The Moon Is Dead on-guard.

Which working system? I don't see any contradiction between a2 nad CoE Digest #117. Cards like Dragon's Desolation, or Passion of Wrath, if its target is second AA (Cave-Drake) in the under-deeps, cannot be revealed as on gurds in any case. That cards does not have a valid target during M/H phase (type of second AA was not defined during M/H phase). From other hand, cards like The Moon is Dead or Minions Stir does not have a target, so can be played during M/H regardless of type or existence of AA at new/current company's site. However they cannot be revealed as on-guard if any of AAs is not affected by them.

So which values (endangered by a2) are preserved by (more complicated) a3? Inability of revealing The Moon is Dead or Minions Stir as on-guard in certain cases? Defining of second AA when it is faced (but not at the moment of entering site by company)?

[miguel]

Which working system?

The way I play, of course.

From other hand, cards like The Moon is Dead or Minions Stir does not have a target, so can be played during M/H regardless of type or existence of AA at new/current company's site.

Well duh. I can play the ace of spades on-guard if I want to.

So which values (endangered by a2) are preserved by (more complicated) a3? Inability of revealing The Moon is Dead or Minions Stir as on-guard in certain cases? Defining of second AA when it is faced (but not at the moment of entering site by company)?

The 2nd AA exists as soon as the site card is face-up. That would be the main point. I also made a point of separating the declaration and existing of an (automatic-)attack.

[zarathustra]

I think Konrad meant to say that because Minions Stir does not target it can be revealed from on guard, not just placed on guard.


I think it's an open question whether the 2nd AA at an underdeeps site exists during the mh-phase. On the one hand, it's listed as an AA (kinda), but on the other hand, there's no actual attack specified. This queerness was the reason we ruled that Tidings of Bold Spies does not force the 2nd AA to be faced.

[Konrad Klar]

The 2nd AA exists as soon as the site card is face-up.

No contradiction between us here.

I also made a point of separating the declaration and existing of an (automatic-)attack.

I also think, that AA exists even if ultimately it will not be faced (thus will not be declared).
However I also see a point of separating a "declaration" from "defining". (First AA at hero Framsburg will not be faced/declared if company will be eliminated by attacks from Doubled Vigilance. It is not sufficient reason to saying that such attack should not be defined. Only reason for such regulation would be ruling that says that such AA [creature as AA] is not defined until faced).

[Konrad Klar]

I think Konrad meant to say that because Minions Stir does not target it can be revealed from on guard, not just placed on guard.


I think it's an open question whether the 2nd AA at an underdeeps site exists during the mh-phase. On the one hand, it's listed as an AA (kinda), but on the other hand, there's no actual attack specified. This queerness was the reason we ruled that Tidings of Bold Spies does not force the 2nd AA to be faced.

Maybe (or maybe not) it is off topic, but if assuming that second AA does not exist until defined, than Forewarned is Forearmed has no effect on hero under-deeps if second AA is not defined.*

*) Unless The Black Enemy's Wrath is in play, of course.

[Konrad Klar]

From third hand ( ):

Tidings of Bold Spies only copies attacks, not effects that allow certain creatures to become automatic-attacks.

So is second AA in the under-deeps actual attack, or rather only "effect that allow certain creatures to become automatic-attacks."

Or reformulating this question:
What is meaning of phrase "effects that allow certain creatures to become automatic-attacks."? Does it refer to the second AA in under-deeps or rather to the texts like:

Special: If the Witch-king of Angmar is in play as a permanent-event, it must be used as an additional automatic-attack (discard after use-ignore result of defeat).