Items vs number of strikes

[jaded]

It is said that one cannot play a resource to reduce the number of strikes form AA if a resourcce does not specifically mention AA. What about items like Noldo Lantern?

[Konrad Klar]

Playing card is not the same as using effects of card in play.

[Manuel]

Playing card is not the same as using effects of card in play.

Then, could you discard a cram while facing an auto attack to untap an scout and play a concealment? The answer is no.

As far as I know, for the purposes of Annotation 18 playing cards is the same as using cards that are already on the table.

According to such annotation, reducing number of strikes is not playable against an auto attack, so that ability from Noldo Lantern could not be used :/ (why did ICE wrote that stupid annotation anyway?)

[jaded]

Annotation 18 is about facing strikes not attacks. Completly different thing.

[Konrad Klar]

A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack.
Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does.

Clarification: During the site phase, a company may decide not to enter its current site. In this case, the company does not face the automatic-attack, but it may not take any other actions or play cards during the site phase. The company remains at the site and it may decide to enter the site on a later turn.

So according to first quote, company cannot play any resources until they have faced all automatic-attacks.
According to second qoute company cannot take any actions if it decides to not enter its current site.

Ultimately company that have decided to enter site and does not have faced all automatic-attacks is still restricted in playing resources, but is no longer restricted in taking actions.

Finally:

Play of an ally, item, faction, or resource card which will normally tap the site must be
after the company resolves all automatic, agent and on-guard creature attacks.

[Konrad Klar]

Playing card is not the same as using effects of card in play.

Then, could you discard a cram while facing an auto attack to untap an scout and play a concealment? The answer is no.

I'd say "yes"

As far as I know, for the purposes of Annotation 18 playing cards is the same as using cards that are already on the table.

I don't know such rule. Anyway, maybe there is some ruling contradicting with:

Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play.

[Manuel]

Perhaps I mentioned the wrong number or the one I'm talking about simlpy isn't an annotation, sorry. However, this is the part of the CRF I'm refering to:

The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.

Noldo Lantern ability, discarding cram, etc, do not fit in these categories. I had always interpreted "play" like "take any action". Then again, if there's really a difference, I'm not sure why ICE would want to allow "taking actions" outside of these terms but prohibit "playing cards" that do exactly the same thing. :/

[Bandobras Took]

Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play.

That would seem to indifcate that initiating a resource effect does not equal playing a resource.

[Nerdmeetsyou]

does this mean I cannot play rebuilt the town, before I have entered the site?

what else is this card for then???

[Leon]

I see no reason why Noldo-Lantern can not be used versus an automatic attack. And I could really not see why people consider using such an effect the same as playing a card.

This is a different case from using Cram to play concealment, because the use of Cram does not directly affect the attack and Noldo Lantern does.

[Sfan]

does this mean I cannot play rebuilt the town, before I have entered the site?

what else is this card for then???

You are right. You can play 'Rebuilt the town' only after entering the site and facing the auto-attack.
What good is that card for? Enter 'Barrow-Downs' play 'Glamdring', play 'Rebuilt the town' and crap some 'Noble hounds', i.e. Or as Fallen-Wizard you can use this card in much better ways.

[Konrad Klar]

does this mean I cannot play rebuilt the town, before I have entered the site?

what else is this card for then???

You are right. You can play 'Rebuilt the town' only after entering the site and facing the auto-attack.
What good is that card for? Enter 'Barrow-Downs' play 'Glamdring', play 'Rebuilt the town' and crap some 'Noble hounds', i.e. Or as Fallen-Wizard you can use this card in much better ways.

This is another moot point. I think that difference between you (player) cannot take action and company cannot take action exists likewise difference between taking actions and playing resource exists.

Not all player's actions are company's actions and not all actions are playing resources.

[Konrad Klar]

I'm not sure why ICE would want to allow "taking actions" outside of these terms but prohibit "playing cards" that do exactly the same thing. :/

Otherwise company not restricted to playing only resources that directly affects attack, would be able to play any other resource that is not "ally, item, faction, or resource card which will normally tap the site", (e.g. Test of Form) before they have faced all automatic-attacks.

Why these resources are additionally restricted to resources that "cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence" - I don't know too.

Maybe reason is that ICE was trying to define which resources are resources that directly affects attack, but this definition is not perfect.

[Manuel]

And I could really not see why people consider using such an effect the same as playing a card.

According to what the CRF defines as playing a card, there's a difference (see b_took and Konrad's posts)

This is a different case from using Cram to play concealment, because the use of Cram does not directly affect the attack and Noldo Lantern does.

That's true, but it doesn't seem to matter since both actions dno not fit in these categories:

The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.

Londo Lantern affects the strike, yes, but it doesn't do any of these things. Then again, using its ability is not "playing" a card, but "taking an action", so it seems like it doesn't get affected by this rule.

There are other cards that couldn't be playable at all, though. For example, cards like Sojourn in Shadows or the strike reducing alternate ability of Dark Quarrels.

[Leon]

I would think that any card that reduces the number of strikes of an attack should be playable, but apperently that is not yet so in the rules. These are effects that still directly affect the attack.