Council of Elrond

When a creature can be played 'following' an attack (by another creature), must that creature be immediately played, or may it be played during any time that (movement/hazard) phase, or that turn? Or perhaps as the first creature played after that attack (but with room still for other chains of events)?

e.g. Wolf-riders writes: May be played following any Orc attack not keyed to a site.

It is enough if an Orc attack not keyed to site (that includes also AA, attack from event etc.) was ever faced by anyone/anything in the game.

There are no constraints like e.g. in text of Orc-Lieutenant, nor rule that would limit how deep in past a reference to bygone occurrences can check.

Let me bring in another hazard from that set.

Wild Fell Beast

...Unless this attack is cancelled, all untapped characters in defending company are tapped following attack...

Goblin-Faces

...Following the attack, the attacker looks...

Wisp of Pale Sheen
some unique trolls
Imprisoned and Mocked

But,
Incite Defenders has

...This attack is faced immediately following its original...

My own logic seems not to adjust well to Middle-Earth. But I would venture to say "following" means directly after with nothing in between.
The numeral five does not follow after two, but follows four.
Lost in the Emyn Muil too.

CRF, Errata (Cards), Morgul-horse wrote:To bring a Nazgűl permanent-event back into your hand, Morgul- horse must be
declared after tapping the Nazgűl is declared and before it resolves. The alternative
effect of this card can be played and resolved before any Nazgűl is played with it. A
Nazgűl must be played as the first declared action in the chain of effects following the
resolution of the alternative effect of Morgul-horse.
If a Nazgűl is not played immediately following the resolution of this card, this card is
returned to its player's hand. This card cannot be played for no effect just to discard it.

CRF, Errata (Cards), Morgul-knife wrote:The corruption is received immediately following the attack.

CRF, Rulings by Term, Corruption wrote:A card causing the corruption check may modify the standard effects of a failed check
(e.g. The Precious), but this timing would not be changed. Certain cards, e.g., Traitor,
which do not cause a corruption check, but specify an action that results from the
passive condition of a failed check, take effect as the first declared action in a chain of
effects immediately following the chain of effects that contains the corruption check.

Underlines mine.

If "following" means directly after with nothing in between, then what "immediately following" does mean?

Maybe nothing special, "immediately" is redundant.

Assuming that you are right: what if directly after facing an "Orc attack not keyed to site" a resource player (who has the option of declaring the first action in a chain of effects) will declare something, use of Healing Herbs for example? Will the chance of playing the Wolf-riders be gone? Question valid also for cards that can only be played "immediately following".

dirhaval wrote:My own logic seems not to adjust well to Middle-Earth. But I would venture to say "following" means directly after with nothing in between.
The numeral five does not follow after two, but follows four.
Lost in the Emyn Muil too.

In English, five does follow two when counting. The key is that bolded word, "directly."

All the people walking in a line are following the leader, even if only one person is directly behind the leader.

As far as the original question, the traditional interpretation, stated nowhere in the cards or the rules, is that it applies to the movement/hazard phase of the company in question. This is the likely intent.

As Konrad has so eloquently observed, what the cards actually say is something else entirely.

Bandobras wrote: the traditional interpretation, stated nowhere in the cards or the rules, is that it applies to the movement/hazard phase of the company in question. This is the likely intent.

Hmm apparently I'm not in the loop anymore about such interpretations .
Anyway one would assume this issue is deserving of a ruling.
It could be the likely intent, as cards like Umagaur the Pale and Dwarven Travelers clearly state the following creature can be played until end of turn. Or it might be an oversight (as so often).

nb. about semantical discussion regarding the extent of following, I would add there are different orders or dimensions of following, otherwise all of us (more or less) would be followers of Abraham and thus be Jewish

On the other hand, Abraham couldn't possibly have been a follower of the Law of Moses.