There's no reason to think that because one card has specific text saying how it works that some other completely different rule with different text and a different purpose works the same. If we are looking at Mount Slain and an under-deeps site, the text of these cards and their rules govern.
Different words have different meanings. Out of the Black Sky works one way, sites with creatures played as an automatic-attack work another way, and sites where a permanent-event are used as an automatic-attack work another way. "Used as an automatic attack" is not the same as "played as an automatic attack" (as in the rules on playing creatures as an AA). And the Nazgul-event-attack sites give instructions which would otherwise be handled by the rulings on playing creatures as an automatic attack.
Mount Slain has a condition of "Nazgul Creature." Not everything works.
Oh also, this does go back to Shelob, though Shelob works different.
Mount Slain
I'm trying to make sense to the wording of this under-deeps site cards, as "use" is not a strict term in the rules (it's used on certain cards as "be able of employ", more or less, as in the magic-users, or being able to use a palantir or the Armory). The "play a criature" as AA in the 2nd AA of the under-deep sites is pretty clear, as you have to move it from your hand to the table (Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play, as the rules state). You cannot "play" a Nazgûl permanent event alredy on the table as an AA, precisely because it's already on the table. Maybe because of that they printed "use" in the site insted of "play". Because you cannot play it, it is already in play.
I can absolutely infer that the card is telling me to use the attributes of the Nazgûl creature as AA, which are prowess, body, number of strikes, type of attack, race or whatever special abilities it may have. Maybe taking the Nazgûl permanent event to the hand to "play" it as an AA was not appropiate for the ICE guys, so they preffered the word "use", thus avoiding other possible problems with that mechanic.Or just because is dumb to do so.
Different words have different meanings... or maybe not if they are synonyms. Nevertheless, could you address me to the definition (in the rules, not in the dictionary) of the term "use"? Sometimes it's employed in "use a site", or "use the effects of the weapon" or "tap to use", but there is not a clear definition, as in "play". Thus, we have to infer what is the mechanic of "use" in this case.
And you cannot attack with a permanent event "per se" (Shelob apart, exclusive wording for her). Nazgul cards cannot attack as permanent events. They lack some of the attributes to do so.
Either way, is a creature played as an AA still a creature? Because if not, all this is useless (as I would infer again that a Nazgûl used as AA is the same as a creature played as AA). Or, to put it in other words, if a site with the text "(2nd) Opponent may play a Nazgûl hazard creature from his hand as an AA" existed, could you play Mount Slain on that strike?
I can absolutely infer that the card is telling me to use the attributes of the Nazgûl creature as AA, which are prowess, body, number of strikes, type of attack, race or whatever special abilities it may have. Maybe taking the Nazgûl permanent event to the hand to "play" it as an AA was not appropiate for the ICE guys, so they preffered the word "use", thus avoiding other possible problems with that mechanic.Or just because is dumb to do so.
Different words have different meanings... or maybe not if they are synonyms. Nevertheless, could you address me to the definition (in the rules, not in the dictionary) of the term "use"? Sometimes it's employed in "use a site", or "use the effects of the weapon" or "tap to use", but there is not a clear definition, as in "play". Thus, we have to infer what is the mechanic of "use" in this case.
And you cannot attack with a permanent event "per se" (Shelob apart, exclusive wording for her). Nazgul cards cannot attack as permanent events. They lack some of the attributes to do so.
Either way, is a creature played as an AA still a creature? Because if not, all this is useless (as I would infer again that a Nazgûl used as AA is the same as a creature played as AA). Or, to put it in other words, if a site with the text "(2nd) Opponent may play a Nazgûl hazard creature from his hand as an AA" existed, could you play Mount Slain on that strike?
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
This time "revealed", not "played".CRF, Rulings by Term, Under-deeps wrote:Creatures revealed as automatic-attacks do not count as creatures.
But if it would be treated like 2nd AA of The Under-leas, then no.
Type of an attack as a property different than race is not attribute of the attack. Automatic, agent, creature are not attributes.
BTW. Mount Slain says about Nazgûl creature, not about Nazgûl creature attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Well, somehow this was hidden in plain sight for me. Thanks a lot, Konrad, that solves the issue for me (as play a creature as AA, reveal a creature as AA or use a Nazgûl permanent event as AA looks pretty the same, at least for me).CRF, Rulings by Term, Under-deeps wrote:
Creatures revealed as automatic-attacks do not count as creatures.
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...
The definition of the word "use" in the dictionary IS the meaning of the term in the game. ICE did not define every term used in the game. Especially not when the plain meaning worked. The rules are long enough without copying the dictionary.
It's brilliant really. Especially since you can except for Tolkien fans to be excellent readers and familiar with a dictionary.
The same word has slightly different meanings in different contexts and the dictionary will provide separate lines with meanings for each context or use.
It's true that creatures directly attack (as stated in the rules) but it's also true that many permanent events create an attack. And it's true that a card used as an automatic attack is doing something different. And there is nothing in the rules restricting a permanent-event from attacking, but this is just something that it is not allowed to do normally.
A creature played as an automatic attack is still a creature CARD but it is not played as a creature, it is played as an automatic-attack.
The Nazgul cards are still a "creature or permanent-event" card regardless of how it was played or used. But a Nazgul played as a permanent-event is a permanent-event when it is in play. And when it is "used as an additional automatic-attack" then it is still a "creature or permanent-event" card, it is still in play as a permanent-event, and nothing says that it is played as a creature when used as an automatic attack.
Using a "creature of permanent-event" card played as permanent-event as an automatic attack is not the same as playing a permanent-event as an automatic attack (which I would agree with you, don't make sense for Nazgul).
This question is left as an exercise for the reader, because if someone plays their own Nazgul permanent event and tries to get 6MP for beating the prowess, they are going to have some 'splaining to do. Especially if their opponent says "if it isn't there..."
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Well, I didn't find it, so that's why I asked. Look-Shoot policy (look for a ruling, and shoot your question if nothing found).
Regardig gaiing some MP by beating your own Nazgûl and then playing some cards... well, ask your own copy of Bairanax at Home if his sleep is more often disturbed by your opponent than by you (to King under the Mountain and Returned Exiles, 10 MP for 2 cards not in the Uderdeeps, opposed to 6 MP using 3 cards un the sewers). Seems reasonable for me.
Thanks
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...
Oh, is this Mount Slain question really a question about the "Under-deeps" ?
check it out if you want to read someone else say what's been said.
I don't know the context but the chronology doesn't exclude Mount Slain.
No luck?
Of course, just an opinion. I think a creature revealed as an automatic-attack could potentially count as a creature for some purpose (clearly not a "hazard creature attack"). I'm not sure what question this statement was given in response to, but I'm guessing it was about hazard creature attacks (for Arrows Shorn of Ebony, etc).Rulings by Term, Under-deeps: Creatures revealed as automatic-attacks do not count as creatures.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
If attack created by event like Scorba Ahunt counts as hazard creature attack, I cannot exclude a possibility that some attack may belong to multiple categories.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Surely not if the card explicitly says so. And definitely not if it doesn't.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 10:29 am If attack created by event like Scorba Ahunt counts as hazard creature attack, I cannot exclude a possibility that some attack may belong to multiple categories.