SoF vs Assassin

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Hi,

I couldn't really find anything about SoF vs Assassin, but let's say:

I have a sole Saruman on his way to Minas Tirith.
My Opp. plays Assassin, targeting Saruman.

In response play Sacrifice of Form.

I would regard this as the Attack being defeated by Saruman following the logic of Forewarned is Forearmed. Which is played:

IF the attacks are reduced, defeating only a single attack will suffice, i.e. the first attack by SoF.

Let me know... thanks!!
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

rezwits wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:50 am My Opp. plays Assassin, targeting Saruman.

In response play Sacrifice of Form.
You cannot play Sacrifice of Form in response to Assassin.
You can play it when Assassin will resolve.

If there is no Forewarned is Forearmed in play, a number of attacks is not reduced.
Remaining two will not be faced. Assassin will not be defeated.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Yeah that's overkill and "FORUM" redundant.

I usually speak with LESS WORDS, LESS confusion.

Some things are OBVIOUS...

Thanks for the ruling...

p.s. I already said, he CHOSE Saruman as the target, meaning resolution was implied...

n.b. PLEASE NOTE ALL of this BELOW, is just UNEEDED RHETORIC,
which leads to OFF TOPIC CONVERSATION(S) that VEER FROM THE MAIN POINT

That's like me going, Assassin doesn't resolve until:

My opponent (the hazard player) announces "Assassin"
My oppenent asks: "Cancel?"

Then I respond: "No." or "Not cancelling."
Then he says "Assassin resolves."

Then I ask, "Choose defending character."
Then he says, "Saruman"

Then I ask anything else? Such as "FURY of the IRON Crown?"
Then he says, "No"

Then I announce "Sacrifice of Form"

resolve blah blah freakin' blah...

ridiculous...
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Attack from creature cannot be canceled, until creature will resolve.
Action "cancel attack" cannot be declared in response, i.e. in the same chain of effects in which the creature has been declared.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Exactly OFF TOPIC AGAIN...

Errors left in&out intentionally in prior post, i.e. not throwing in exceptional cases such as HL reduced, etc... ON and ON and ON...

It's like when someone posts a question in this FORUM, why does that POST become OFF topic every-time?

Gee I wonder...

It's like:

1st Post, question posed.
2nd Post, diarrhea response
3rd Post, answered.
4th and consecutive posts, a complete rewrite of the rules is considered? why?
5th more ridiculous nonsense to confuse people and leave some going what is this person talking about?
this behavior has been repeated over 100 times on this forum, every time
a post of a simple question is made, what ifs and etc and just blathering...
6th posts to ad nauseam till the Nth post...(which are usually ignored)

What a waste...

In most forums of the past, OFF-TOPIC responses or responses that CHANGE the original post
intention would be consider a banning for a week, and in repeated violations, account revoked.

I would love dearly such a consideration...

Stay ON TOPIC PLEASE.

People don't need to post EVERY exception or quote the
complete steps of the Hazard Phase for instance.
Or even the entire Turn Sequence.

Simple questions should be left simple, this is also known in some instances as Trolling.

As in the simple question:

Q. What happens if a Wizard uses Sacrifice of Form against an Assassin?
A. The first attack is defeated and then the wizard is discarded
with the completion of SoF's card text. The other two attacks fizzle.

IN/OUT done. No off-topic, No thread-hijacking, No trolling even.

Laters...
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If you do not want me replying to posts in thread you have started, just write "Konrad Klar, do not reply here".
I will respect it.

Otherwise, someone's sloppy wording does not oblige me to replying in the same fashion.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

rezwits wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:58 am Exactly OFF TOPIC AGAIN...

Errors left in&out intentionally in prior post, i.e. not throwing in exceptional cases such as HL reduced, etc... ON and ON and ON...

It's like when someone posts a question in this FORUM, why does that POST become OFF topic every-time?
Ignoring the fact that this question is off the topic of the thread, it's because the rules are, frankly, an incoherent mess. When the way a question is phrased reveals an incorrect understanding of the rules, correcting the misunderstanding is not only natural, but expected.

Konrad's response was completely relevant to your question (how do Sacrifice of Form and Assassin interact).

You don't have to like the rules of the game or its mechanics, but you can hardly complain when somebody explains how they work on a forum specifically devoted to rules questions. Using incorrect terminology is sloppy, and can confuse others who might browse this thread.
ridiculous...
Undoubtedly, but with hard work, your posts can become less so.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Hmm. If I'm understanding, the question is: can we treat "fizzled" (unresolvable/canceled by lack of cards to Target) attacks the same as a "reduced" attack (a la Forewarned). Where reduced attacks don't count as successful/ineffective/unsuccessful. Compared to a canceled attack (by an event) that would not count as successful for kill points.

I don't know the answer, but my feeling is that a fizzled attack is closer to a canceled attack or an ineffective strike and farther from a reduced attack.

So, I would not give kill points from an assassin to Saruman that played SoF.



Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Exactly.

Which makes sense. I just wasn't sure if:

A. There was some special SoF ruling.
B. If not, what category do the remaining attacks fall under.

But reading some other CRFs I would say Fizzled.
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Let's play nice guys. :)

rezwits wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:58 am In most forums of the past, OFF-TOPIC responses or responses that CHANGE the original post
intention would be consider a banning for a week, and in repeated violations, account revoked.

I would love dearly such a consideration...
Konrad is a valued contributor to this forum and he will have to do something much more egregious than this before I would consider a temp ban. Furthermore, he did nothing wrong. Konrad is very technical and uses very precise language both when reading a question and answering it. This is a clash of styles between you and him, not a wrong-doing.

Speaking just for myself, I like the precision he uses because although he typically clarifies something I already knew and simply worded imprecisely, there is occasion where his use of language makes me realize something I had forgotten or didn't know, or it might reinforce something I knew but needed to be refreshed.

I understand rez, that you may find it an annoyance, whereas I might find it useful. That's certainly your prerogative, but I feel you should take a bit of the emotion out of it. Just skip over the part you don't find useful and focus on the answer you are looking for. In any event, he did answer your question, and has given you a solution for the future if you would prefer him not to reply to your questions.

Side note: Some forums out there today or forums from the past are very large with hundreds of different users posting and most people don't know each other. Our forum is active, but small, and most of us are either friends or at least friendly with one another through our love for MECCG. I would consider a trolling offense to be something deliberate in nature to cause distraction, frustration and annoyance. Something that is completely off-topic and unrelated to the topic being posted in or our forums as a whole. See this topic for example, where I permanently banned this user: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 137&t=3054
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

I too value Konrad's responses.

I just don't feel like picking apart a question is appropriate.

Due to the structure of the rules I easily showed how I could be more thorough than his 1st response.

But I was trying to illustrate why? Why argue over these things each time a question is posed?

I feel this is NOT CONSTRUCTIVE, but actually detrimental.

If he wants to be complete then by all means be 100% complete, and see it all the way through.

I just feel his efforts for trying to be complete would be better suited in the errata section or ARV section, where people can actually slice and dice the wordings.

I am going to try to answer questions for people from now on, and try to illustrate, that this thread should be more of a Q & A section for the Rules.

Rather not of picking apart a questions and to show how to read the context,
and be clear. Instead of, like I was trying to illustrate, "going off the rails."

So, in summary I just feel the "Rules Questions" thread/forum is better suited for answers instead of regurgitations of all the steps and posturing knowledge of other things.
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
Hombarus
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:11 pm

Am I missing something or this is really a simple solution.

Saruman plays Sacrifice of form. The first attack is defeated. Saruman goes astray and the other 2 attacks are irrelevant as there is no-one to attack. assassin gets discarded and Saruman too, SoF goes on the side.
What have you guys done to [-me_eye-] I used to love?!
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If Saruman was target of a strike from 1st attack of Assassin, then yes: Sacrifice of Form remains in play (along with all items placed off to the side with the card), remaining attacks of Assassin are not faced; Assassin card is discarded.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”