This hypothesis seems off to me. If the corruption checks themselves needed to occur when Corpse-candle resolved, is the implication that there would be no chain of effects in which to cancel the attack (the corruption checks had already been declared when Corpse-candle was declared)? Or should the wording actually have been something like: the corruption checks are the first actions declared in a new chain of effects when Corpse-candle resolves?CDavis7M wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:29 am Corpse-candle states: "If this attack is not canceled, every character in the company makes a corruption check before defending characters are selected." There is no condition for triggering this effect later. So this effect (making Corruption Checks) is implemented when Corpse-candle resolves. The effect is still conditioned upon "If this attack is not canceled" - but this is a condition for implementing the effect and not a condition for triggering the effect (there is no passive condition established). So the effect is implemented at resolution (which happens to be before defending characters are selected). The phrase "before defending characters are selected" is more of a restriction on assigning strikes than it is a timing requirement for making the CCs.
===
I had an alternative interpretation: that the "before defending characters are selected" gave a deadline by which the checks needed to be made, but no other timing requirement. Under this interpretation, unlike the one above, it seems clear that the resource player could, for example, plan to cancel with A Nice Place to Hide, but it gets canceled with Many Sorrows Befall, so now the resource plays and resolves a Dark Tryst to draw into another A Nice Place to Hide to cancel the attack.
What I'm wondering is what "If this attack is not canceled" implies about which players decide when to do the checks. Because there are rare instances when the hazard player can also choose to cancel an attack, which might also occur after several chains of effect, might both players need to approve? That is, does the phrase "if this attack is not canceled" create a requirement that needs to be established prior to resolving the check actions, or might it simply be a weird way of phrasing a built-in option for canceling the check effect? In the second sense, as the checks are mandated for the resource player, perhaps that player alone has control over when to resolve the checks.
The most probable interpretation to me might have been that the checks had to be the last actions prior to assigning characters, but I was surprised by this ruling:
===ICE NetRep Scott Frazer 1996/3/27 wrote:>Can you cancel a corpse-candle attack after you've made the corruption checks?
Yes, as long as you haven't assigned the strikes yet.
Regardless of the above, I also wondered whether all of the checks need to occur in the same chain, or whether the resource player can resolve a few at a time and then play some other cards (potentially cancelling the attack) depending on the outcomes before they would need to resolve the rest to begin strike assignment.
Thoughts?