CoE 112: On-Guards adding auto attacks

[Bandobras Took]

Cards which create additional automatic-attacks can be revealed on-guard, provided the site already has an automatic-attack.

a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack

Creating an automatic attack does not modify/affect the automatic attack any more than removing it (Rebuild the Town) does. Is there a basis for this ruling of which I am unaware?

[Konrad Klar]

BTW. Playing Rebuild the Town is not a company's activity.

[Bandobras Took]

I'm not contesting that; I'm saying that adding an automatic-attack is not affecting it any more than removing it is. Therefore, cards which only create automatic-attacks cannot be revealed on guard because they do not modify the automatic-attack, which is the requirement.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Automatic-attack as a concrete attack, then not, but automatic-attack in the conceptual sense (a set of any possible attacks at the site), then yes. Creating an automatic-attack is in that sense modifying the automatic-attack.

[Bandobras Took]

But if that is the case, then surely removing such an attack also counts as modifying it, and Rebuild the Town can be played when facing an automatic attack to bypass it?

[Konrad Klar]

But if that is the case, then surely removing such an attack also counts as modifying it, and Rebuild the Town can be played when facing an automatic attack to bypass it?

And it is a reason for which I was mentioning that playing Rebuild the Town is not a company's activity.

A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all
automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack.
Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does.

Underline mine.

It does not prevent from playing cards that are not company's activity, regardles whether they removes automatic-attack or no.

[Bandobras Took]

That's a separate issue of interpretation. According to the current accepted rules regarding Rebuild the Town's effect on automatic-attacks, it should be equally impossible to reveal an on-guard card whose only effect is to create an automatic attack, correct?

P.S. Of course, I see your point. A Border-Hold with No Strangers and Nature's Revenge on it might be a valid target for Rebuild the Town even if no company is there.

[Konrad Klar]

According to the current accepted rules regarding Rebuild the Town's effect on automatic-attacks, it should be equally impossible to reveal an on-guard card whose only effect is to create an automatic attack, correct?

No.
If even there is ruling that says so, it is as questionable as questionable is CoE 112.
CoE 112 is not saint for you, CoE 14 was not saint for Chad Martin, why CoE 105 would be saint for me (or for anyone)?

I am overturning this ruling in CoE digest 14:
---
"9. When a card such as River or Lost in Free Domains is played which
states that "it [the company] may do nothing at the site during its site
phase," does this mean the player can't even play permanent events like,
say, Gates of Morning? The rationale for the question was that the
company isn't doing it: it's not a card that uses a character's skill or
something a character is attempting to play. However, (and I didn't
remember this reasoning during the game) I don't think even perm events
like Gates would be allowed because nothing can be played in the site
phase unless the company enters the site, and the company can't do this
because it "may do nothing." But this wouldn't prevent the player from
playing said events during the end of turn phase, right?
*** The "company" may do nothing during the site phase. Nothing stops
the player from playing cards that don't require the company in any way
such as Gates of Morning but you can always play that during the end of
turn phase so it's moot."
---
*** This is incorrect. If a company is forced to do nothing during a
site phase, the site phase for that company is wholly skipped. There is
no opportunity to play anything.

[Konrad Klar]

According to the current accepted rules regarding Rebuild the Town's effect on automatic-attacks, it should be equally impossible to reveal an on-guard card whose only effect is to create an automatic attack, correct?

Other (less controversial) example would be playing Marvels Told on hazard pemanent-event that creates an automatic-attack. It would remove AA and it is a company's activity.

[miguel]

Automatic-attack as a concrete attack, then not, but automatic-attack in the conceptual sense (a set of any possible attacks at the site), then yes. Creating an automatic-attack is in that sense modifying the automatic-attack.

Very well put.

[Bandobras Took]

It's very well put, but the problem is that the exact same logic is used to justify removing automatic-attacks as affecting automatic-attacks, thus:

Automatic-attack as a concrete attack, then not, but automatic-attack in the conceptual sense (a set of any possible attacks at the site), then yes. Removing an automatic-attack is in that sense modifying the automatic-attack.

The problem is that ICE made it absolutely clear that this logic does not apply to their definition of affecting an automatic-attack.

Or to look at another implication, if we accept creating something as equivalent to modifying something, then:

These MPs can not be modified by a hero or minion resource event (e.g. Rumor of the One, Tribute Garnered, Sentinels of Númenor, etc.).

Would mean that non-stage resource events are not worth MPs to Fallen Wizards, as they are modifying the MPs by creating them.

[miguel]

Ben, it is not the NetRep's job to justify rulings, it never has been. I will make an exception for you this time, but please don't expect such in the future.

Below is part of a framework (inside my head) of how things are supposed to click in the world of MeCCG. This is not official, but the Digest ruling in question is.

Reducing / adding to the number of automatic-attacks is considered to affect the automatic-attack. Completely removing the automatic-attack is not considered reducing it.

Either that makes sense to you or it doesn't, in any case I can help no further.