Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:25 am

Sam.Gamdschie wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:05 am
But then why not have it as clarification to make a clear how to interpret the rule for this card?
Then (if the premise is not valid) it is better to not to touch the card at all.

Otherwise:
Is it better to make a clarification like "read X as Y" instead to make straight errata that replaces X with Y?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by CDavis7M » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:18 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:25 am
Otherwise:
Is it better to make a clarification like "read X as Y" instead to make straight errata that replaces X with Y?
In the case where the rules officially say Y, but then they use X in examples, and where X is used in the card and X is how everyone plays (speak up if not).

Then yes, better to clarify that X means Y, but not to replace it.

User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Council Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:13 pm

Coming back to the point I made earlier I have the impression (or hope :) ) most of the users debating this submission can agree on:

A character facing a strike from a subsequent creature must tap/may not opt to remain untapped/is tapped if untapped after the strike.

The situation in case of Sable Shield may be unclear. Keeping a state unclear is surely not the intent of the gaming community. So, in the interest of reaching an easy-to-understand agreement and to prevent ongoing discussions in the future, I'd fancy an erratum/clarification like this:
Any character in the company facing a strike from a subsequent hazard creature attack this turn is tapped if untapped after the strike has resolved.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by CDavis7M » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:10 pm

That statement seems to be preventing Block from cancelling the tapping action after the strike resolves. Was that intended?

I think Block should still prevent tapping when the character is under the effects of FBiFF.

Normally (without FBiFF) when the character will "tap to face a strike" (takes no modification to prowess) and you play Block on them, and they are not wounded, then the character is not tapped after the strike is resolved. They are not "tapped if untapped after the strike has resolved" because Block has prevented the character from tapping against this strike.

My read is that FBiFF ensures that an untapped character will "tap to face a strike" (takes no modification to prowess) but that Block can still be played to prevent the tapping after strike resolution.

This is different from Enruned Shield, where you would take the -3 modification (so the character does not tap) and then tap the Enruned Shield to make the strike ineffectual. But if you wanted to, you could tap the character against the strike (take no modification) and then tap the shield, and end up tapped after the strike resolves.

User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Council Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:31 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:10 pm
That statement seems to be preventing Block from cancelling the tapping action after the strike resolves. Was that intended?

I think Block should still prevent tapping when the character is under the effects of FBiFF.
Yes, it would essentially mean Block is without an effect. I took over Konrad's argument saying that playing Block is an attempt to stay untapped which is prevented by the card. Both perspectives can be argued in this case I think.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by CDavis7M » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:07 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:53 pm
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.
"Block" cannot be played on an untapped character. Playing "Block" is the attempt to avoid being tapped if untapped after the strike is resolved.
I think it's more accurate to say that Block cannot be played on an untapped character that took the -3 modification to remain untapped (as then Block would have no effect).

Block can only be played on an untapped character that takes no modification to prowess (informally, they "tap against the strike"). And block cancels the automatic tapping after the strike resolves.

An untapped character under the effects of FBiFF would be forced to not take the -3 modification (informally, they "tap against the strike"), but that fact does not then prevent block from cancelling the automatic tapping.

The effects of FBiFF and Block can both be implemented without conflicts between them.


By the way:
ICE Digest 115 wrote:>6) In the text of Fifteen Birds (I know everyone is sick of reading my
>posts about this card -- can you tell I want to use it?), does it imply
>that no other attack cancellers may be played on that company?


No. It means that if a character does face a strike, he must tap against
the strike
.

dirhaval
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by dirhaval » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:13 am

This card is quite the doozy.
I think others before have clarify what "tapping to face the strike" means.
I use my analysis to include the long text forcing ICE to find a short means to
say what they mean.

1. Card gives a great bonus, cancel up to two attacks, at cost of site phase
2. Card allows site phase to be saved
3. Card penalizes untapped characters, since low prowess characters may have Elven cloaks to cancel strikes
this card will hurt them by nullifying using Cloudless Day (Gates already in play). Why not use Cloudless Day
to assign Rain-drake strike to Frodo Elven Cloaked instead of 4 prowess untapped Erkenbrand? Both from MEDM.


A. "tapping to face the strike" I think means will not take -3 modification AND not tap, take -1 modificaton to prowess
One must tell opponent before roll right? Maybe that phrase was a legacy phrase early in MECCG?

B.My opinion is that -3 mod, Enruned Shield, or Block cannot be used to keep an untapped character untapped after strike
You can use Enruned Shield once the bearer is tapped. And no facing two strikes with first -3 modified either.

C. Hundreds of Butterflies are in the same set to untap


D. For the longest time I thought that you select one untapped character to face ALL remaining strikes from hazard creatures
for the rest of the turn sort like the last fella on an Eagle; poor fool will take the heat while others fly away.

E. "any" is used for the untapped character. How much is any?

F. So now, is it
F1. One untapped if available is the fool to take all remaining hazard creature strikes?
F2. Untapped characters must be first when facing strikes?
F3. "rephrase" to " must tap to face a strike ...."


G. Rumour of Wealth can lead a dragon on your doorstep after you raid a site.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”