FW Orcs & Trolls vs. agents

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CRF wrote:Rules Erratum: Agent attacks against minions are always detainment.
I did not realize before, but this means that agent attacks are detainment even against Fallen Wizard Orcs and Trolls... seems not very thematic.

Am I missing any overruling for this?
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Attacks are faced by companies or (in case of attack from Hidden Knife) by agents.
They are not technically faced by individual characters.

Phrase: "Agent attacks against minions are always detainment." literally does not refer to any situation that may happen in game.
It may refer to agent attacks against minion companies or it may refer to agent attacks against companies controlled by minion players.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:28 am Attacks are faced by companies or (in case of attack from Hidden Knife) by agents.
They are not technically faced by individual characters.
I agree, but the key word is "technically." There is plenty of precedent that a character is considered to be facing an attack when his company does.
Diversion wrote:Playable on an unwounded character facing an attack. The attack is canceled and the character is wounded (no body check is required).
Gold Chains in the Wind wrote:Magic. Shadow‐magic. Playable on a shadow‐magic‐using character facing an attack before strikes are assigned. An ally with a prowess of 5 is created which leaves the game when the attack is finished. In all cases, the ally must face one of the attackʹs strikes. Unless he is a Ringwraith, character makes a corruption check modified by ‐4.
Ruse wrote:...
Alternatively, playable on a scout facing an attack. No strikes of the attack may be assigned to the scout.
etc, etc, etc. Unless you propose these cards are limited to attacks created by cards against particular characters (e.g. Stabbed Him in his Sleep)...

---
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:28 amIt may refer to agent attacks against minion companies or it may refer to agent attacks against companies controlled by minion players.
It may not. "Minions" are characters. Minions are not minion companies or minion players.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

When did FW Orcs and Trolls become minions?
MELE wrote:Minion: A character controlled by a Ringwraith player.
Oh, wait. We voted to make them minions.
Unless otherwise outlined below, Orc and Troll characters in play by a Fallen-wizard player are subject to the rules for Orc and Troll characters in play by a minion player
Yay! Yes, agent attacks against FW Orcs and Trolls have to be detainment now.
Attacks are faced by companies or (in case of attack from Hidden Knife) by agents.
They are not technically faced by individual characters.
Diversion wrote:Playable on an unwounded character facing an attack.
Lore of the Ages wrote:When facing an attack, bearer may tap
Gold Chains in the Wind wrote:Playable on a shadow-magic-using character facing an attack before strikes are assigned.
Ruse wrote:Playable on a Scout facing an attack.
Some Secret Art of Flame wrote:Playable on a sorcery-using character facing an attack.
Driven as by a Madness wrote:Playable on a spirit-magic-using character facing an attack.
It's safe to say that characters are, in fact, considered to be facing attacks when there is an attack against the character's company.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

At least for purposes of deck construction they were always considered minions? As defined by their border color and not being considered FW heroes:
MELE wrote:MELE characters are referred to as “minions” (or minion characters) and METW characters are referred to as “heroes” (or hero characters). Minion characters have a rusted purple background while hero characters have a blue stone background.
But yeah, CoE Erratum #31 seals the deal.

I had the thought that maybe the agents of Sauron are all racists, and they just assume any orc or troll they meet must be working for Sauron.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I think that "a character facing an attack" is compact form of "a character in company facing an attack".

Otherwise we would have an attacks against acompany that are detainment against some characters in the company and non-detainment against other characters in detainment company.
And that attack of Slayer or Assassin is not considered faced by other characters than these being assigned a strike.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

I believe that FW orcs/trolls were always minion characters. The exception is that non orc/troll minion characters are deemed hero characters when played by FW.
Characters – You may use both hero and minion characters... All of your non-Orc/-Troll characters are considered to be hero characters
Also, I'm fine with agent attacks against FW orcs and trolls being detainment as presumably they really are "minions" of the enemy.

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:40 amI think that "a character facing an attack" is compact form of "a character in company facing an attack".
Hmmm . . .
Men. Three attacks (of one strike each) all against the same character. Attacker chooses defending character. One or two of these attacks may be canceled by tapping one character (not the defending character) in the defender's company for each attack canceled.
Assassin does not talk about "defending company," but "defender's company" i.e. "company of the defender." That has interesting implications.
Each character in the company faces one strike (detainment against covert and hero companies).
Arthadan Rangers does not check the status of individual characters, but whether the company as a whole is covert/hero.
Agent attacks against minions are always detainment.
This does not check for the presence of companies at all. Compare:
Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack.
Where companies are specifically mentioned.

I think one of the conclusions is correct. The other characters aren't facing an attack from Assassin/Slayer. However, detainment guidelines specifically look at the status of companies, not characters -- except for the rule about agent attacks against minions.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bandobras Took wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:32 pm I think one of the conclusions is correct. The other characters aren't facing an attack from Assassin/Slayer.
No one is facing Slayer's attack before its strike will be assigned?
No one can enact Concealment?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Two attacks (of one strike each) against the same character.
Three attacks (of one strike each) all against the same character.
These seem to be special cases. Normally, attacks are against a company. Attacks of Slayer/Assassin are against a character. The character to be facing the attack would be determined when the attack resolves and must be faced.

Concealment does indeed cancel attacks against a company, which Assassin and Slayer are, by their own explicit text, not. So, no Concealment.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If you reject notion that:
"a character facing an attack" is compact form of "a character in company facing an attack".

then indeed.

Add Lucky Search and Stabbed Him in His Sleep to the picture.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Come to think of it, that's the way I've always played both those cards. You don't Lucky Search with Bilbo and then have Glorfindel take the strike from the attack.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:47 pm If you reject notion that:
"a character facing an attack" is compact form of "a character in company facing an attack".

then indeed.
I Think the notion is that a company facing an attack implies that each character in the company is facing an attack, but a character facing an attack does not necessarily imply that the company the character is in is facing an attack. Characters only inherit from their companies.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bandobras Took wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:35 pm Come to think of it, that's the way I've always played both those cards. You don't Lucky Search with Bilbo and then have Glorfindel take the strike from the attack.
Yes, I too. But more interesting me is question: could the attack from Lucky Search be affected by Wizard's Flame (if Wizard is in the company and the scout in question is not Wizard)?
Theo wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:08 am I Think the notion is that a company facing an attack implies that each character in the company is facing an attack, but a character facing an attack does not necessarily imply that the company the character is in is facing an attack. Characters only inherit from their companies.
Texts of mentioned cards could be more verbose.
They would state:
"attack against a company is created. Particular character will be assigned strike..."

Instead they state:
"particular character faces attack..."


It is what (in my opinion) happens during next attack of Slayer/Assassin and as I observed it is so practiced.
Assignation stage is not skipped; there is time for declaring actions that can be only declared before strikes are assigned (e.g. cancel attack, changing a number of strikes). But thereafter players have no choice how to assign a strikes. It has been already decided during first attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:02 amYes, I too. But more interesting me is question: could the attack from Lucky Search be affected by Wizard's Flame (if Wizard is in the company and the scout in question is not Wizard)?
The attack must be against a company. An attack against a character is not an attack against a company.
Texts of mentioned cards could be more verbose.
They would state:
"attack against a company is created. Particular character will be assigned strike..."

Instead they state:
"particular character faces attack..."
And therein lies the problem. We can't say a card says something it doesn't say. The fact that I thought Bane of the Ithil-Stone disallowed looking at an opponent's hand, and have played against numerous people that also thought so, doesn't mean that Bane actually does that. If the common reading of Assassin/Slayer contains an unwarranted assumption, it is the assumption that must be corrected, not the text.
Last edited by Bandobras Took on Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”