Council of Elrond

Shelob wrote:Unique. Spider. May be played as a hazard creature (with one strike) or as a permanent‐event. As a creature, may be played at any
site in Imlad Morgul or Gorgoroth. If Doors of Night is in play, Shelob may be played as a permanent‐event that gives +1 prowess and +1 strikes to all Spider and Animal attacks. She may opt to attack from a permanent‐event state and receive these bonuses, but her attack counts as one against the hazard limit. Discard when Shelob attacks or when Doors of Night leaves play.

When Shelob opts to attack from a permanent-event state and the opponent plays Marvels Told in response, what happens to the attack?

Scott Frazer's opinion (1/6/96 and 1/9/96) was that it becomes a creature. Presuming this becoming is at declaration, Marvels Told would not be possible.

The card itself doesn't explicitly say it becomes a creature (unlike, e.g., Nazgul becoming events), so without Scott's opinion appearing in a CRF or something of similar stature, I would expect the CoE stance to be that the attack declaration could be fizzled by Marvel's Told (similar to Ahunt attacks).[revised opinion below]

Theo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:10 am Scott Frazer's opinion (1/6/96 and 1/9/96) was that it becomes a creature. Presuming this becoming is at declaration, Marvels Told would not be possible.

Scott didn't say that Shelob would actually become a creature when attacking as a permanent-event (just "essentially," which is true since it's just an attack). And these Q/As weren't with respect to permanent-event discarding effects (discarding Shelob with Doors wasn't even practical at the time without Marvels).

Anyway, while Shelob's attack must use the same keyability as the creature, the attack doesn't need to be from a creature for the game mechanics to work and the card doesn't say it "becomes a creature" like how the Nazgul events change card types. Other METW permanent-events create attacks (Traitor and Siege) and METW already makes the distinction between "hazard creature attacks" and others. If Shelob did become a creature, it would say something more than "attack from a permanent-event state," which indicates that it is the permanent-event doing the attacking.

[update below]

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:59 am Given that, Marvels Told would get rid of Shelob's "attack from a permanent-event state." Whether Marvels were played in response to the attack's declaration or after the attack has been created, since the attack is an effect and a discarded Shelob would cease to have an effect on play.

Discard when Shelob attacks or when Doors of Night leaves play.

Given that, the declaration of attack fizzles itself, or the Shelob attacking in such way cannot be eliminated.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:32 am

Discard when Shelob attacks or when Doors of Night leaves play.

Given that, the declaration of attack fizzles itself, or the Shelob attacking in such way cannot be eliminated.

A card cannot "fizzle" itself. The rules changed. Many early cards didn't.

An action may fizzle.
It is unclear what exactly happens when Shelob opts to attack from a permanent‐event state.
Does she become creature, remains a permanent‐event?

Shelob's case is a case without precedence. (M)anything may be said about intentions of creators.
Shelob is good candidate for errata.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:59 am Scott didn't say that Shelob would actually become a creature when attacking as a permanent-event (just "essentially," which is true since it's just an attack).

Perhaps you only looked at the 1/6/96 correspondence. This wording is more definitive than "essentially", to me (underline mine):

ICE NetRep (Scott) 1/9/96 wrote:>1. if Shelob is played as a permant event and OPTs to attack ... where does this attack take place? My common sense says: Only at the regions and sites in the regions listed where she may be used as a creature. ... But the card doesn't say so explicitly... it just says... 'she may opt to attack and receive these bonuses...'

She becomes the Shelob Creature and may attack as per the instructions on her card.

Ah, OK. But Shelob states "Discard when Shelob attacks". This effect prevents the player from "opting" to attack again and again from a permanent-event state. There's no need for this statement if Shelob just became a creature.
Scott is making this statement less than 30 days after people had their hands on these cards. Plenty of players didn't even know how to use region movement at that point in time. So telling these new players "she becomes the Shelob creature" when that works 99% the same in METW is not really convincing me that the Designers wrote the card to have Shelob "become the Shelob creature" given the other discrepancies.

But thinking more about it, at the very least "Discard when Shelob attacks" is a cost of opting to attack. And the Designers changed the rules so that costs could not be prevented. So now I'm thinking that this cost could not be prevented by Marvels Told, whether Shelob becomes a creature or stays as a permanent-event.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:32 am Given that, the declaration of attack fizzles itself, or the Shelob attacking in such way cannot be eliminated.

Paying a cost doesn't fizzle a card. And Shelob being in the discard pile wouldn't prevent "the card is played in the defender's MP pile" if Shelob were defeated.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:40 pm Ah, OK. But Shelob states "Discard when Shelob attacks". This effect prevents the player from "opting" to attack again and again from a permanent-event state. There's no need for this statement if Shelob just became a creature.

Makes a sense, but "Discard after attack of Shelob" would make more of sense.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:40 pm Paying a cost doesn't fizzle a card. And Shelob being in the discard pile wouldn't prevent "the card is played in the defender's MP pile" if Shelob were defeated.

OK. But if it actually would be discarded at declaration of attack, then Marvels Told on Shelob in response would be impossible.

I would think "when Shelob attacks" would to be triggered by the resolution of the declaration of the attack. Up until that resolution, Marvels Told would be possible (and fizzle the declared attack).

Theo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:15 pm I would think "when Shelob attacks" would to be triggered by the resolution of the declaration of the attack. Up until that resolution, Marvels Told would be possible (and fizzle the declared attack).

But Barrow-wight and Crebain already use the expression "after the attack" such that their effects don't happen until after the attack. Shelob could have used this same expression but doesn't.

"Discard when Shelob attacks" a restriction to the player invoking the action of "opts to attack." Therefore, discarding is a cost of attacking and so discarding is an active condition, which must be satisfied at declaration. Obviously this card was written before the rules on active conditions, so it does not use the wording format we are used to from later cards. But that does not mean that discarding Shelob is not a cost--an active condition--of attacking.

In rare cases the timing of the cost is specified to be different. Like "Discard the Nazgûl when this card is brought into play." But that is not the case here.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:03 pm "Discard when Shelob attacks" a restriction to the player invoking the action of "opts to attack." Therefore, discarding is a cost of attacking and so discarding is an active condition, which must be satisfied at declaration.

I do not read these notions in that text. "restriction"?? I read a passive condition triggering off of the occurrence of a combat action resolving.

However, on closer scrutiny I find that the verb tense in the following seems to suggest that declaration of an action is encompassed within resolving ("playing") that action:

MELE wrote:Declaring an Action: Stating an action is being played, though the actual effects of the action are not implemented until both players have had the chance to respond with the declaration of other actions.

I think this yields the answer, but my desire for cohesive language fumbles with the notion that "attacking" (as a verb) could exist upon declaration of an attack while at the same time no "attack" (as a noun) yet exists.

Anyway, I'm on board with the Shelob discard happening on declaration of attack, thus there being no target for Marvels Told. Awesome question, kober!

Thank you, guys, for the clarification.

CRF wrote:Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.

Taking Annotation 6 into consideration, there's no doubt that MT wouldn't have a target upon its resolution if the order of declarations was the following:
1) Shelob permanent-event,
2) Marvels Told,
3) Discard Shelob to attack.

But, what if the order was:
1) Shelob permanent-event,
2) Discard Shelob to attack,
3) Marvels Told?

In such a case, MT wouldn't have target upon both declaration and resolution - is that a legal play?

CRF wrote:You may not play a card which has no effect on the game.

kober wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:06 pm 1) Shelob permanent-event,
2) Marvels Told,
3) Discard Shelob to attack.

kober wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:27 am 1) Shelob permanent-event,
2) Discard Shelob to attack,
3) Marvels Told?

if you mean "in one chain of effects" then neither is valid because player cannot declare attack in response.