Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by the Jabberwock » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:09 pm

Can the ability of this card be used if the hero company possessing it is facing a CvCC from a minion company containing a mix of only Orcs and Trolls?

Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone

Post by Vastor Peredhil » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:25 pm

sure if Dark quarrels can be used

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:16 am

Thanks, that was largely the logic we used to decide to allow it in our game.

What about resource events that give boosts to prowess but don't directly affect a strike?

From Wacho's CVCC Tutorial:
Any card or action that directly affects the strike may be played in step 5a/5f. This can include things that untap a character, cancel a strike, modify prowess or body, etc.
So a card like Praise to Elbereth would be legal to be played by the defender and is considered to be directly affecting the strike? (Even though it would give a boost to characters from both companies).

Basically, you can dump resource cards from your hand if they can in any way affect the strike, the attack, or change one or more characters prowess and/or body values?

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:58 pm

The rules for the strike sequence have lousy wording in all cases.

Technically, it's impossible to play resources that affect the target of the strike, whether that strike comes from a hazard creature/event or an attacking character.

However, as this is manifestly silly, it's safe to read the strike sequence rules as "play resource cards that affect the strike or its target (up to one card that requires skill).

Funnily enough, Praise to Elbereth could be playable either way, since it would affect the strikes of the attacking characters by modifying their prowess.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Theo » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:55 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:58 pm
Technically, it's impossible to play resources that affect the target of the strike, whether that strike comes from a hazard creature/event or an attacking character.
Why do you say that?
MELE p29 wrote:Strike Modifications
There are a number of standard modifications to the prowess of each target character facing a strike:
  • ...
  • The target's prowess may also be modified due to the play of certain resource and hazard cards. Only one resource card requiring skill may be played against a given strike.
In CvCC:
MELE p83 wrote:The defending player may play resource cards that affect the strike (up to one card that requires skill).
Note: Even though it is not his turn, the defending player may play resource cards that affect the resolution of strikes.
My position is that modifying the prowess of the target of the strike is affecting the resolution of the strike because it changes the odds for the strike succeeding/failing, which are included under the Resolving Strikes section.
Last edited by Theo on Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Theo » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:57 pm

the Jabberwock wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:16 am
Basically, you can dump resource cards from your hand if they can in any way affect the strike, the attack, or change one or more characters prowess and/or body values?
Yes, other than the one skill card per strike per player limit.
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.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:14 am

MELE Rules wrote:THE STRIKE SEQUENCE
The "strike sequence" is the time from when a player declares that one of his characters will resolve a strike until the strike die roll is made and any associated body checks are made.
Strikes are resolved one at a time as decided by the defending player (i.e., he chooses a strike to resolve, the strike is resolved, he chooses the next strike to resolve, the strike is resolved, etc.).
All of the factors affecting the strike must be decided before making the roll (2D6). Cards that do not affect the strike may not be played during the strike sequence. Address these factors in the following order:
1. The attacker may play hazard cards that affect the strike (these count toward the hazard limit against this company).
2. The attacker may decide to use any or all of his remaining (if any) -1 modifiers due to unallocated strikes (i.e., strikes in excess of the company's size).
3. A target untapped character may take a -3 modification so that he will not automatically tap following the strike sequence.
4. The defending player may play resource cards that affect the strike (up to one card that requires skill).
The target's prowess may also be modified due to the play of certain resource and hazard cards; it's just that the only resources the defender is allowed to play are ones that affect the strike, not ones that do not affect the strike.

As I said, it's lousy wording. They *meant* resources that affect the strike and/or the target of the strike. They just forgot to word it that way when describing the strike sequence.

The phrase "resolution of strikes" gives a little more wiggle room, but that's unfortunately only for CvCC; there's no similar note for the standard strike sequence. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Theo » Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:02 am

Ah, I see. My interpretation, which I believe is consistent (and would appreciate any realized gaps), is that resolution of the strike is part of the strike, so anything that affects resolution is affecting the strike and can be played/used. A strike isn't just a prowess and a target, but a concept which includes an assignment process and a resolution process.
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.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:16 am

You are conflating "strike" and "strike sequence."
MELE Glossary wrote:Strike: The portion of an attack that affects an individual character. Each attack has one or more strikes, each of which an individual character must face in a strike sequence. If an attack has more strikes than a defending company has characters, every character faces one strike and the excess strikes are converted to -1 modifiers.
Strike Sequence: The time from when you declare one of your characters will resolve a strike until the strike dice roll is made and associated body checks are made. No actions may be declared except those that directly affect the strike as listed on page 33. Between strike sequences of an attack, players can declare more general effects (except declaring an attack and changing the current attack's number of strikes).
Note that the strike affects an individual character. Such a character is part of the strike sequence, but is not part of the strike which is affecting that character.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Theo » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:41 pm

I don't see the conflation. Which part is at odds with a strike encapsulating its resolution? A strike sequence is the normal process for that resolution.

Actually, "A strike is a portion of an attack that affects an individual character." Without the resolution included in a strike, how does it affect a character?
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.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:52 pm

The strike sequence includes the resolution of a strike. It is what allows the strike to interact with the character. The strike itself does not.

In general terms, the strike tells you what the thing is.
The strike sequence tells you how to use it.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Theo » Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:02 pm

That is presuming a strike sequence is not a part of a strike, no? What indicates this?

Is a strike sequence not a part of an attack that affects a character? "Strike: The portion of an attack that affects an individual character."
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.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:24 pm

A strike is part of a strike sequence. A strike sequence is not part of a strike.

An attack is part of combat. Combat is not part of an attack.

The fact that the two are related does not mean they are interchangeable, nor can the relation be reversed.

The strike sequence is not a part of an attack at all. An attack is
Attack: An action against a company that lists a number of strikes and prowess. Most attacks are either hazard creature attacks or automatic-attacks, though certain cards cause attacks which are neither of these. Most attacks are further described with a creature type though they do not have to be. An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects.
An attack lists strikes, not strike sequences. Should combat get as far as assigning strikes, a strike sequence is then used to resolve strikes. Just as influence checks are used to resolve an attempt to bring a faction into play. But it would be foolish to say that factions are therefore part of influence checks.

Movement is not a site path. A corruption check is not a corruption point. An influence check is not a faction. Playing a character is not a character. Combat is not an attack. A strike sequence is not a strike.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Theo » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:54 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:24 pm
Movement is not a site path. A corruption check is not a corruption point. An influence check is not a faction. Playing a character is not a character. Combat is not an attack. A strike sequence is not a strike.
I don't understand the purpose of these; in general I agree that phrase A being different from phrase B implies concept A is usually different from concept B.

---
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:24 pm
A strike is part of a strike sequence. A strike sequence is not part of a strike.
I don't agree with these. I don't believe that something can (exclusively) be a part of another thing if the something exists external to the other thing. Strikes are assigned prior to the strike sequence resolving them. I don't think this is pre-emptive assignment in preparation for the strikes existing within the strike sequence or anything like that. Further support in favor of strikes existing external to strike sequences: excess strikes are resolved as -1 penalties, with no separate strike sequence to resolve them.

In the other direction, a strike sequence can't exist without a strike. It seems appropriate in my mind to then associate the strike sequence as a part of the strike. If I go to a bank to make a deposit, then that deposit is a part of going to the bank. If I have no other ways to make a deposit, then it seems reasonable to me to say that generally "making a deposit" is (as far as my limited world is concerned) a part of generally "going to a bank".
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:24 pm
An attack lists strikes, not strike sequences. Should combat get as far as assigning strikes, a strike sequence is then used to resolve strikes. Just as influence checks are used to resolve an attempt to bring a faction into play. But it would be foolish to say that factions are therefore part of influence checks.
But the equivalent of what I'm voicing is that: an influence check is a part of an attempt to bring a faction into play (normally). Would you not agree with this? But the comparison breaks down because "influence checks" aren't exclusively a part of an attempt to bring a faction into play because they also exist in other contexts. A strike sequence can't exist without a strike, but a strike can exist without a strike sequence (by being converted into a -1 penalty.

---
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:24 pm
An attack is part of combat. Combat is not part of an attack.
Since you went to the glossary (which might be more of a term summary?), how about:
MELE p86 wrote:Combat: the resolution of an attack. This involves strikes being assigned and strike sequences being performed. Combat specifically encompasses the time from the resolution of an attack action until the final strike sequences is completed. During combat, no attack may be actively declared.
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.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Dwarven Light-Stone - CvCC

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:04 pm

All of the examples are meant to highlight that a process is not the same thing as an object.

My foot is part of walking to the door. Walking to the door uses my foot, but is not part of my foot.

Of course an influence check is part of bringing a faction into play. But it is not part of a faction.
My position is that modifying the prowess of the target of the strike is affecting the resolution of the strike because it changes the odds for the strike succeeding/failing, which are included under the Resolving Strikes section.
a strike can exist without a strike sequence (by being converted into a -1 penalty.)
The strike sequence (process) is the resolution of the strike (object). They are clearly not the same thing, as you have demonstrated, since strikes can exist without a strike sequence.

Therefore altering the target of a strike's prowess is not affecting the strike. It is a modification that would be relevant during the strike sequence if such were allowed by rule rather than (technically) disallowed.

Likewise, combat is the resolution of the attack. They are not the same thing, because attacks can exist without combat (any site's automatic-attack).

Boosting the prowess of all members of a company (e.g. The Dwarves Are Upon You) does not affect the attack. It is an action that may be taken during combat, and thus will affect the resolution of the attack (process), not the attack itself (object).
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”