Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees
Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:14 pm
MECCG Discussion Forum
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=3750
As far as I understand the submission, FBiFF does not make any ruling on whom strikes do have to be assigned. Just in case (by whatever effect) an untapped character is assigned a strike, he may not opt to remain untapped.
Sable Shield should not stop the tapping caused by Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees. Its CRF language has its own identical problems to FBiFF (no characters ever normally tap "while" facing a strike, they are tapped after the strike is resolved unless they choose to avoid being so tapped). But indeed, it should get its own fix.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:02 pm Untapped character may not opt to remain untapped against the strike but still can avoid being tapped after the strike is resolved.
This may happen e.g. if he bears Sable Shield and strike would wound him otherwise.
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!Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:14 pm I've slightly changed the proposal (underlined) so that it is somewhat similar to the phrasing of the Alatar erratum.
MELE wrote:Normally a character that is the target of a strike is tapped after the strike is resolved. However, a character that is the target of a strike may choose to take a -3 modification to his prowess to avoid being tapped. If so, the character is not tapped after the strike is resolved (he may still be wounded).
Normal result of successful strike from non-detainment attack is wounding a defending character.Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:33 am Sable Shield should not stop the tapping caused by Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees. Its CRF language has its own identical problems to FBiFF (no characters ever normally tap "while" facing a strike, they are tapped after the strike is resolved unless they choose to avoid being so tapped). But indeed, it should get its own fix.
OK, that is convincing. Better adapt the phrasing to the general rules than to the specific Alatar text.Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:33 amMy language above was modeled on the original rules on characters being tapped, which to me is a better basis. But to each their own!Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:14 pm I've slightly changed the proposal (underlined) so that it is somewhat similar to the phrasing of the Alatar erratum.
I'd only suggest to rephrase "cannot avoid being tapped if untapped after the strike" by "is tapped if untapped after the strike". To me, that has essentially the same meaning, but I prefer it from a language point of view (though non-native English speakerTheo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:30 am 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 faces this turn are also canceled. Any character in the company facing a strike from a subsequent hazard creature attack this turn cannot avoid being tapped if untapped after the strike is resolved. The company can do nothing during its site phase unless it contains a Wizard or you discard Eagle-mounts from your hand. Cannot be duplicated on a given turn.
I also prefer the language of second of those. The only point for the first one is just absolute clarity with respect to the original rules. Hypothetically, I could foresee the (remote) possibility that someone might believe that "is tapped if untapped after the strike" might not be referring to the default combat rule and instead believe that it should be treated as a stronger passive condition created by a short event with default "until end of turn" duration.Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:49 pm I'd only suggest to rephrase "cannot avoid being tapped if untapped after the strike" by "is tapped if untapped after the strike". To me, that has essentially the same meaning, but I prefer it from a language point of view (though non-native English speaker)
I object the "cannot opt to remain untapped" will still cause discussion like in combination with a card like Block:Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:02 pm "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 faces this turn are also canceled. Any untapped character in the company facing a strike from a subsequent hazard creature attack this turn cannot opt to remain untapped against the strike. The company can do nothing during its site phase unless it contains a Wizard or you discard Eagle-mounts from your hand. Cannot be duplicated on a given turn."
People might argue playing Block is not technically the same as opting to remain untapped. The character doesn't opt for anything, he just falls under the effects from a card. Consequently, a character on whom Block is played would not have to be tapped according to your proposal. (Not sure if you intended that)Block wrote:Warrior only. Warrior does not tap against one strike (unless he is wounded by the strike).
is stating that more clearly.is tapped if untapped after the strike
This was not intended by me.Khamul the Easterling wrote: People might argue playing Block is not technically the same as opting to remain untapped. The character doesn't opt for anything, he just falls under the effects from a card. Consequently, a character on whom Block is played would not have to be tapped according to your proposal. (Not sure if you intended that)
"Block" cannot be played on an untapped character. Playing "Block" is the attempt to avoid being tapped if untapped after the strike is resolved.Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:20 pm 2) "Block" can be played on an untapped character and he remains untapped after the strike's resolved.
An untapped character bearing Sable Shield is untapped (if strike otherwise would wound him if he would not bear Sable Shield) after the strike's resolved.Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:20 pm 3) An untapped character bearing Sable Shield is untapped (if not wounded) after the strike's resolved
After the strike is resoled, he is tapped.Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:20 pm 4) An untapped character bearing Enruned Shield may tap the shield. After the strike's resoled, he is still untapped.
This was not written by me.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:47 amThis was not intended by me.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:04 am People might argue playing Block is not technically the same as opting to remain untapped. The character doesn't opt for anything, he just falls under the effects from a card. Consequently, a character on whom Block is played would not have to be tapped according to your proposal. (Not sure if you intended that)