Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2818
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:17 am

Correct.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by Theo » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:25 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:23 pm
So (in your opinion) it is impossible to reveal the Fool of Froth and Rage placed as on-guard when a company enters The Under-grottos, because at the point no AA at this site is Spider or Animal attack?
Full of Froth and Rage does not have any targets, so it can be revealed (when affecting an automatic-attack), "before the automatic-attack is resolved." Playing a creature as the second automatic-attack must also be done before the automatic-attack is resolved. So one could play a Spider or Animal creature, instantiating the type of the attack, and then reveal Full of Froth and Rage which would modify it.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2519
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:01 am

Do you say that before facing each individual AA on-guard card may be revealed?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by Theo » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:33 pm

I realized I was conflating multiple definitions of "resolve", as well as "before". To your point, I wasn't remembering that here "before an" actually implies "before any", and furthermore "before any begin to resolve" (last chance is resource player declaring their intent to begin resolving).

I''m in agreement regarding impossibility of revealing on-guard Full of Froth and Rage at The Under-grottos.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by rezwits » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:58 pm

I agree with Konrad's 1st and initial clarification, but if need be, I can go with the 2nd one, for such things as in the case of Morgul Rats...

i.e. IF what makes them playable, such as Doors or some other "scenario", then they ARE normally playable, but without said scenario, they aren't playable... so therefore they AREN'T playable... this seems clear already, but go for MORE clarity...

Laters...
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by rezwits » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:26 pm

ABSOLUTE FOOD FOR THOUGHT in the meanhwile:

Corsairs of Umbar
Men. Five strikes. May also be played keyed to Andrast, Anfalas, Belfalas, Cardolan, Enedhwaith, Harondor, Lindon, Lebennin, and Old Pukel-land; and may also be played at Ruins & Lairs {R} and Shadow-holds {S} in these regions. May also be played at any site in Elven Shores, Eriadoran Coast, Andrast Coast, Bay of Belfalas, or mouths of the Anduin. "...with black sails bellying in the wind."-LotRV
EXTRACTION #1:
... May also be played keyed to (REGION LIST); and may also be played at Ruins & Lairs {R} and Shadow-holds {S} in these regions. ...
Adûnaphel
Unique. Nazgûl (7th). May be played as a hazard creature (with one strike) or as a permanent event. As a creature, may also be played keyed to Brown Lands, Dagorlad, Gorgoroth, and Western Mirkwood; and may also be played at sites in these regions. If played as a permanent-event, it will remain in play until tapped during the opponent's movement/hazard phase (tapping counts against the hazard limit). When tapped, Adûnaphel becomes a short-event and causes any one character to tap.
EXTRACTION #2:
... may also be played keyed to (REGION LIST); and may also be played at sites in these regions. ...
These two cards (among some others) have almost verbatim, the same TEXT FRAMEWORK.

In my eyes when ICE used the the term sites, they did this instead of putting Haven {H}, Free-hold {F}, Border-hold {B}, Ruins & Lairs {R}, Shadow-hold {S}, and Dark-hold {D}. They just simply put "sites" to save space, on card obviously.

To me, when ICE put Ruins & Lairs {R} and Shadow-holds {S} this is just a constrained subset of the main set sites

Like I said "FOOD FOR THOUGHT", for a later date...
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by Theo » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:51 am

Of additional importance:
CRF wrote:A creature "played at a site in" a region is the same as being "keyed to" the site by name.
The site keyability of cards like Adunaphel is thus based on name, whereas for cards like Corsairs of Umbar it is based on symbol. The automatic-attacks are never based on name, so Adunaphel should be clearly out.

However, I only just now realized that there are distinct automatic-attack phrases:
  1. "... normally keyed to Xs."
  2. "... normally keyed to a X."
  3. "... normally be playable keyed to a X."
For category (a):
(hero) The Under-courts, The Under-galleries, The Under-gates, The Under-leas, The Under-vaults

For category (b):
(hero) The Under-grottos
(minion) The Under-gates, The Under-grottos,The Under-leas, The Under-vaults
(balrog) The Under-courts, The Under-galleries, The Under-grottos, The Under-leas, The Under-vaults

For category (c):
(hero) Framsburg

This makes me believe there was an implication that category (a) would require generic keyability, "keyed to (all) Xs." Meanwhile, categories (b) and (c) only require limited keyability, as per Corsairs of Umbar, etc.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by rezwits » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:16 am

Theo wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:51 am
Of additional importance:
CRF wrote:A creature "played at a site in" a region is the same as being "keyed to" the site by name.
These two CRFs have purpose:
CRF wrote:A creature “played at” a site is the same as being “keyed to” the site.
CRF wrote:A creature “played at a site in” a region is the same as being “keyed to” the site by name.
But the one you are quoting, doesn't say:

UNDERLINE "What you are WISHING it said"
A creature "played at a site in" a region is the same as being "keyed to" the site by name, and the site doesn't have a site type anymore?!?.

Meaning:
When you play Adûnaphel at Bandit Lair, you are playing Adûnaphel keyed to Bandit Lair that IS normally a Ruins & Lairs {or} you can play Adûnaphel keyed to the region named Brown Lands.

This is because Keying to Brown Lands is NOT the same as Keying to a Shadow-land.
Region are NOT the same
MELE Rulebook wrote:Clarification: The player playing a hazard creature must specifically state the type of region or site that a creature is keyed to - it can affect the use of other cards.
For example, if a character with a Shadow-cloak faces a strike from a creature that has been played keyed to Shadow-land, he can tap the Shadow-cloak to cancel the strike. However, if such a strike is keyed to Border-land, he cannot use his cloak against it.
Note: A creature played keyed to a specific region by name is not keyed to the specific region's type. For example, if Thranduil's Folk is played keyed to the Grey Mountain Narrows (a Shadow-land region), a target character with a Shadow-cloak can not use it to cancel a strike - the attack is keyed to the region by name, not by type.
no where is this opposed for sites...
CRF wrote:A creature “played at a site in” a region is the same as being “keyed to” the site by name.
i.e. Keyed to by Name, guess what? the site is STILL a R&L or SH or whatever, it doesn't LOOSE what type it normally is...

I looked over the rule books and misc docs, and I did not find one instance, that says:

If you play something Keyed to Moria (Durin's Bane, Bûthrakaur the Green, Umagaur the Pale, etc, of which there are FEW), Moria is no longer a Shadow-hold. Moria is STILL a Shadow-hold!

MIND YOU, I am not saying if you play Bûthrakaur keyed to Moria, that a Shadow-cloak can cancel the Strike.

I only find rulings for Keying to REGION Symbol (Type) as NOT being the same as Keying to REGION Name.

Oh and BTW, I couldn't find, OTHER than the a... URD, that CRF, not in any of these documents:

1_Book_METW.pdf
2_Insert_METD.pdf
3_Insert_MEDM.pdf
4_Book_MELE.pdf
5_Insert_MEAS.pdf
6_Insert_MEWH.pdf
7_Insert_MEBA.pdf
8_Terms.pdf
9_Errata.pdf
A_1_Digests_(Ichabod).pdf
A_2_Digests_(Gnome).pdf
A_3_Digests_(Van).pdf
B_CoE.pdf
C_Tournament.pdf
D_URD_4_2.pdf (this was the ONLY source) 🤔
E_DC_General_Rules_1_0.pdf
F_DC_Lord-player_Rules_1_0.pdf

Meaning if YOU are LUCKY to Key to say Moria, no matter what type it gets changed to it CAN'T FIZZLE because it STAYS Moria.
So say you Key to Moria, and then bump it up with The Witch-king, it's now Keyed to Moria a Dark-hold, but this is not NORMALLY a Dark-hold.
n.b. I understand that Site Types can change.

There are two more things you need to wrap your head around:

A. Normally playable, or Normally be playable
B. And Long Dark Reach Rulings for Dragons

Have fun...
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:26 am

Maybe overly simply. but I think if an AA allows for creatures "normally keyable to a [-me_rl-]" that this would require the creature played as an AA to have a little ruined tower [-me_rl-] on the left hand side of the card. This would exclude cards that are keyable to ruins and layers in certain regions.

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by rezwits » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:43 am

Yeah, but that's too simple, I AGREE 99%, tho btw... but for completeness there are times due to Long Dark Reach (Normally) Rulings where they actually COULD be Normally Playable.

Like for instance, if in the cards text the card said:

If Doors of Night is in play, may be played at Ruins & Lairs.
(not IF the player travels there or whatever, oh no)

Just a BLANKET, IF DoN, then R&L is turned ON.

But here is the FURTHER reasoning.

All of the cards on his Wishlist, are NOT NORMALLY playable at R&L (unless).

They are only NORMALLY playable if SOME conditions are MET.
That's the whole lecture on Long Dark Reach & Normally playable. :P :P

Like for instance, IF I had a company the was moving from:

Rivendell to Ettenmoors, then Dunlending Raiders is NOW Normally Playable at R&L EVEN THO THERE IS NO REGION SYMBOL on the Upper Left Side.
A company has to make that condition active.

So, moving from Rivendell to Ettenmoors = Dunlending Raiders ARE Normally Playable at a R&L

If I am moving from Carn Dûm to Lossadan Cairn, are the Dunlending Rainders STILL Normally Playable at a R&L? no...

So, moving from Carn Dûm to Lossadan Cairn = Dunlending Raiders NOT Normally Playable at a R&L.

UGH
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:10 pm

If we just think thematically, how and why would the Dunledings be in Framsburg? Or the corsairs, or Pukel men, or Huorn? But surely there would be a chance of various Drakes, crebain, lesser spiders, and orcs at Framsburg.

I just think that creatures specifically limited to R&L in specific regions are not "normally" playable at R&L. These cards are specifically limited to certain regions.

As for the Dunlending hypothetical, I would say they have limited "playable" (vs general or normal playability). They are "playable" at R&L in Rhudaur, and thus, playable at Ettenmoors. However, they not "normally playable" at R&L because they have limitations/restrictions on playability.

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by rezwits » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:18 pm

yep 👍🏻
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by Theo » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:06 pm

Rez, how about you read this when you've cooled down a little.
rezwits wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:16 am
There are two more things you need to wrap your head around:

A. Normally playable, or Normally be playable
B. And Long Dark Reach Rulings for Dragons

Have fun...
As much as you would like to make this about attacking me or my character, or how I choose to interpret rules, I'd rather have a thoughtful conversation about what written language is available from which the community can draw understanding.

---

I wonder to what extent your comments are based on a possible misunderstanding of Long Dark Reach rulings.

My impression is that "normally" typically means "as allowed in the base rules and as written on the specific individual card." If we differ on that front, I can look into pulling up relevant quotes. But assuming that basis...

Note that cards written as:
"If Doors of Night is in play, may also be played keyed to ..."
actually have a conditional keyability. If Doors of Night is not in play, they are not normally keyable to whatever they list there.

In contrast, cards written as:
"Also playable at sites in ... regions"
does not have conditional keyability. They have limited keyability. You may convert this to conditional keyability ("If a site is in region X, then keyable to the site"), but you are creating the conditional, not the card. The card is always normally playable at those sites, that is, unconditionally.

---

I appreciate you pointing out that there is no similarly explicit clarifications about keying by name vs. by type for sites as there is for regions. I think there is sufficient justification for distinguishing them without needing such additional clarification, though. The basis would be such things as the four distinct criterion for being able to play creatures as laid out in MELE. Or also, this statement would be entirely meaningless:
MELE "Detainment" Attacks wrote:The parameters apply if the attack is keyed to the region symbol or site symbol (by type) or if keyed to a region or site by name which happens to be of appropriate type (i.e., has the appropriate symbol).
The heart of the matter may be that it is ambiguous when Framsburg says "normally be playable keyed to a Ruins & Lairs, Shadow‐holds, Wilderness, or Shadow‐land," whether they mean by symbol, by name that has the appropriate symbol, or both. I think this might be your point? My interpretation is only by symbol, as the simplest and most consistent with other uses I feel like I've seen.

---

To help encourage you to think about this beyond me, I'll share that I'm very much in favor of there being an errata made for thematic reasons. That does not change the CoE duty to also respect the legacy left by ICE, and to me that means both (a.) hypothesizing what mechanics may have been intended, as well as (b.) thoroughly understanding what mechanics were literally left in writing. I think both of these help shed light on the other.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by Theo » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:30 pm

Theo wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:06 pm
My impression is that "normally" typically means "as allowed in the base rules and as written on the specific individual card." If we differ on that front, I can look into pulling up relevant quotes. But assuming that basis...
Since I have new evidence to believe that we are not on the same basis here,
CRF wrote:Normal means as written on the card, not considering other card's effects. Note that this definition only applies to effects refering to card texts.
But then we get CoE notions that imply that "normally" might suggest a broader context that includes the base rules in some situations:
CoE #26 wrote:A More Evil Hour states: "Tap this card when an opponent plays a card normally giving him three or more marshalling points."

Let's say Fallen-Pallando plays, uh, Emerald of the Mariner. I assume this does not trigger AMEH, because hero resources don't normally give FW's 3+ MPs. Would it ALSO not trigger if he has Legacy of Smiths in play when he does this? Again, I assume not, because LoS doesn't change whether he "normally" gets full points, he just gets full points while it's in play.

*** Non-stage cards do not normally give more than 1 MP to Fallen-wizards, regardless of other cards in play.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)

Post by rezwits » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:23 am

Theo wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:06 pm
Rez, how about you read this when you've cooled down a little.
rezwits wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:16 am
There are two more things you need to wrap your head around:

A. Normally playable, or Normally be playable
B. And Long Dark Reach Rulings for Dragons

Have fun...
As much as you would like to make this about attacking me or my character, or how I choose to interpret rules, I'd rather have a thoughtful conversation about what written language is available from which the community can draw understanding.

---
Theo, I am cooled down, I just don't have time to go over everything back and forth, so I decided I had to do a FULL write up before I headed off to greener pastures i.e. WORK.

I am not attacking your character dawg, I just believe there is more to this than a card having a R&L symbol...
I understand the excitement of believing you have came up with something that may have been overlooked for 20 years, that's cool.
I just think you are really trying too hard to make this about that, like you struck oil or found a goldmine, I just think this maybe too much desire in that direction. Maybe you can get the "community" to vote your way, awesome. But this is not an attack on your character.

The only time I attacked your character, if you could call it that, would be when we played our very 1st game ONLINE, and after, I said something to the extent of: "OK Theo, you realize that in this game I have asked your stance on a ruling 12 times, and we went with what you said 10 times, and the 2 times I thought it was the other way, we still ended up going your way, IN-GAME, I bit the bullet all 12 times, 10 I was fine with 2 not so much but I still did. Not one time out of 12 did you agree with the way I thought the rules were. (I beleive in the end 1 out of the 2 that I fought I was right on and 3 out of the 10 I was right on), but I didn't care to go over them I just NOTCHED them in the brain...but IN-GAME I got 0 out of 12. So I was practically behind 3 turns, because pretty much getting a ruling IN-GAME not in your favor usually is BRUTAL! So it's just hard... but that was the only time I was "snarky" if you will, blatently at least, beside calling you a Lawyer, which in some circles is complimenting... so IDK

So when we started up our last game, on the 1st turn, you tried to play the Corsairs for Framsburg's AA, and I simply said you can't do that, and you said YES that's the way IT IS. And I said, "I have never had anyone play that." I thought it was not playable that way, you wouldn't take my stance on the rule, I said OK, I'll be a turn behind and just agree and play things out, that 1st turn "agreement" cost me the whole game practically and two hours down. So I just said to myself I can't take it anymore, I will go ahead and defend the way I feel about this "play of these cards." It's really difficult when you are playing a game, and I am the one agreeing, all the time, and not wanting to fight about "the way cards interact", I often agree cause I just want to keep the flow of the game alive (which is kinda bad), but if I can look stuff up I will. Sometimes I find out later I was right, sometimes I find out I was wrong.

---===---

And I am just trying to go step by step.

Like I said there is more to this than just an R&L symbol, IMO

If I did have any fustration, it would be that I tried to agree with you and see it your way, (which I already did once while we were playing), and then on the forum in discussion, and you just shot me down, and I was agreeing with you.

So I decided well, I'll just go with what I would vote when the ARV comes up and go back to the original discussion.

Sorry, like I said: I had my opinion, I wavered in your favor, you disagreed with my agreement on your terms, so I went back to my original stance, i.e. the way I will vote when ARV'd and how I feel the community feels.

I just can't go in circles day after day, it's really much more complicated I think, but there could be a quick STROKE that says "NOPE it's this" I haven't found that yet...

Back to work...
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”