Council of Elrond

This may be a silly question, but...

Bearer may make a corruption check modified by -2 to cancel a strike.

A strike against whom? I guess the bearer. But other cards (e.g. Halfling Stealth) specify the target of the strike being cancelled.

Nice find. I can't find anything to suggest a limit on which strikes can be canceled. Frodo and some 1-minders with Fellowships can sit in Rivendell cancelling absolutely everything in Middle Earth until he gets Pilfered.

Thanks for the quick reply

I would think there are thematic reasons of cancelling a strike not on the bearer.
If in the same company, then the bearer can "use" to influence the attacker is some fashion (e.g. mentally, or invisibility).
If not in the same company, well you got me there. It is somewhat difficult to get the item into play and thus use it even with
the modifier. There is still the debate that help can be given in time to the use of this ability.

I am happy to modify the cards as you suggested.

Does canceling a strike from an attack count as direct affecting the attack?

If so:

CRF, Turn Sequence, Combat, Attack wrote:Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects, i.e., a
creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of
effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception. In order to cancel an attack or
to directly affect an attack, the character doing so must be in the company facing the
attack. Note that the region/site type a hazard creature was keyed to can be affected
otherwise. Cards only modify attacks if they say they specifically mention attacks.

Underline mine.

Hmm, it doesn't alter the number of strikes nor their prowess, nor any other properties of the attack, so one is inclined to say no.

If only CRF would have read "or a strike of the attack"...
It might be better to change the rule than individual cards, then again, sometimes it might not be.

Thorsten the Traveller wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:15 am It might be better to change the rule than individual cards, then again, sometimes it might not be.

And this is rather the second case.
Even if Annotation 15 would cover an affecting of strikes from attack, still there are strikes not from an attack (Cruel Caradhras, Dragon's Breath).

Should becoming invisible help you escape an avalanche? Perhaps the ring should only be able to cancel strikes from an attack.

---

Thorsten the Traveller wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:15 am Hmm, it doesn't alter the number of strikes nor their prowess, nor any other properties of the attack, so one is inclined to say no.

How is canceling a strike of an attack not affecting the attack? If you stub your toe, do you say, "Whew, at least that doesn't affect me, it only affects my toe!"?? More mechanistically, canceling a strike makes an attack undefeatable, so it has direct implications on the resolution of the attack as well.

I think Theo has the right of it. And attack consists of one or more strikes according to the rules. Affecting a strike is affecting a portion of the attack.

While a strike can exist without an attack, I do not think an attack can exist without strikes.

Nice find.