Council of Elrond

Please, can someone explain to me the second effect of Ruse on a company consist of a single explorer character who faces an Assassin? I.e. I'm a FW player and I move my single character's (Kili) company from Ettenmoors to Cameth Brin. My opponent plays Assassin in that company. I play Ruse on response:

Ruse
Resource: Short-event

Diplomat only. Scout only. Playable on an untapped diplomat in a covert company facing an attack. Tap the diplomat. The attack is canceled.
Alternatively, playable on a scout facing an attack. No strikes of the attack may be assigned to the scout.

Assassin
Hazard: Creature

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 one character (not the defending character) in the defending character's company for each attack canceled.

Is Assassin fizzled? Or only the first Assassin attack is fizzled (and Kili must face the other two attacks)?

All attacks fizzle.

The later attacks can only be assigned to the same target as the first attack. With no possible targets for the first attack, the other attacks also cannot be assigned.

See, e.g.:

CoE #25 wrote:Say I have a one character company and my opponent plays Slayer or Assassin. I play More Sense than You so the strike of the first attack cannot be assigned to that character. What about the other (two) attack(s)? Will they take place?

*** The attacks will not take place. The Assassin has no legal targets and is discarded.

Aside: there is a proposal to "clarify"(errata) the ability of Ruse to be played by a solo non-diplomat scout, which many believe to be the intent of the card.

I would say that all three attacks will formally occur, but no character will be assigned a strike.
Both players will be able to wastefully declare modifiers, cancelers etc.

Many thanks to both of you. That has been noted.

Each time I understand less and less this game

Scenario is comparable to the situation when Carrion Feeders is resolved and there are no wounded characters in target company.
It is incorrect to say that the attack or the creature is fizzled. Just no one faces a strike.

How are you thinking of fizzle? My point is that the attacks cannot be resolved as either defeated or successful. Just because no strikes were assigned does not allow the attack to be defeated.

I agree with Konrad. And this is similar to how the ICE Netrep explained Assassin and "cannot be assigned a strike" effects.

Attacks that fizzle (declared but not resolved) do not count as being faced. A single character company playing Ruse to not be assigned a strike from Assassin is considered to have faced the attack. It's just that the strike is not assigned nor resolved.

Ruse cannot be played on a fizzled attack because Ruse requires an attack.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:43 pm Attacks that fizzle (declared but not resolved) do not count as being faced.

Ambiguity in the word "resolved". Some attacks never begin to be resolved (e.g., creature cannot be keyed as declared); these do not count as being faced. Alternatively, attacks can begin to be resolved but made impossible to finish being resolved (as with Ruse on single character company). On what basis are you calling only the first fizzling?

But I think we are all on the same page other than the use of the borrowed word "fizzle".

I mean "cards creating attacks that fizzle (declared but not resolved) do not count as being faced."

As for what "fizzle" means, I have only ever seen an ICE NetRep use that term to refer to a card or effect that has been declared but cannot resolve due to its conditions being negated in the interim. From what I can tell, "fizzle" in other games also refers to a card that has been played but fails to resolve.

I haven't seen the ICE NetRep use "fizzle" to refer to an attack where strikes cannot be assigned. Unlike resolution of events, attacks are created and stay in place without timing issues. While attacks and strikes are also "resolved," there is no timing issue to cause a fizzle. An attack having strikes that cannot be assigned still resolves since all of its assigned strikes are resolved (since there are no assigned strikes).

That line of reasoning leads one to similarly conclude that the attack is defeated (erroneously as far as CoE is concerned).

MELE wrote:Clarification: All of an attack’s strikes must be assigned to the characters in the defending company or as modifications to the strikes assigned. The attacker may not choose to not apply strikes.

This is impossible in this situation. The attack cannot finish being resolved, which implies why the attack is not defeated.

Theo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:14 am That line of reasoning leads one to similarly conclude that the attack is defeated (erroneously as far as CoE is concerned).

No it doesn't... There is no suggestion that the statement "'fizzle' refers to failing to meet conditions at resolution" leads to the conclusion that strikes that are not resolved can be counted as defeated.

The rule is that all assigned strikes must be defeated for the attack to be defeated. With no assigned strikes, the attack (if resolved) would be defeated, regardless of whether unassigned strikes were resolved or not.

An account in bank may be closed only if all money at the account will be withdrawn and whole debt at the account will be paid.
Zero balance at the account does not mean that the account will be/is considered closed.

But the account can be closed while you still owe funds, when the process for closing it occurs.

[edit: fix typo]

"X is required for Y" is not the same as "X is equal to Y", or "X causes Y".