The target of the card is the character, not the spider attack (although obnoxiously the card has an implicit "facing a strike from a spider attack"). The "character facing a spider attack" is the same character. Maybe this discussion should be moved to a card-specific thread.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:54 am3. Even if in M/H phase a target character was facing a Spider attack it was not the same Spider attack as faced in site phase.
In other words: in M/H phase it was not possible to play Flies and Spiders on any character facing a Spider attack in site phase.
The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 2135
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
I'm not quoting from anywhere. By definition a taking prisoner does not require a combat; indeed. And a hypothetical Hazard Host may cause taking a prisoner outside of combat.Theo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:12 pmWhere are you quoting from?
Taking a prisoner is not a result of combat, it is the result of a card effect. The definition of Hazard Hosts in MEDM mentions nothing about combat being required. While particular Hazard Hosts may happen to require combat in order to trigger their prisoner-taking effect, they are separate concepts, and prisoner-taking is not combat nor a component of it.
All Hazard Hosts I know cause a taking prisoner in result of successful strike against a character.
The Hazard Hosts do not work separately; they change a result of successful strike(s) from associated attack to "take a prisoner".
That what happened to a character in result of successful strike counts as in result of combat. Does not?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Underline is mine. This doesn't seem right.URD wrote:Roused: A type of Dragon Manifestation. If an attack from this manifestation is defeated, the Dragon's Lair loses its normal automatic attack. If an attack from this manifestation is defeated, no player receives its Marshalling Points. (MELE, 42)
MELE wrote:MARSHALLING POINTS
A Wizard player does not receive kill marshalling points for defeating a creature with an * next to its marshalling points or for defeating a detainment attack.
If a hero company defeats an attack by a Ringwraith's Dragon faction, the hero receives its marshalling points as kill marshalling points.
Dragon automatic-attacks are not considered manifestations of any unique Dragon.
If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the automatic- attack at the associated site is removed, and that site therefore loses its hoard status.
If you defeat the attack from a Dragon manifestation, you get kill marshalling points from the manifestation as if you had defeated a creature.
You're right; the rule referenced on page 42 is bulleted and therefore only applies to RWs (and Balrog).
So to clarify....
If a hero company defeats an attack which was created from a recruited minion dragon faction, then the minion player loses those faction points and the hero player gains those points?
If a minion company defeats an attack which was created from a recruited dragon faction, then that company's player does not receive any kill points BUT the player who recruited the faction still loses his faction points?