Regiment of Black Crows and an Ahunt manifestation

[panotxa]

Hi!

I’d like to know, when using the Regiment of Black Crows ability to cancel the attack of an Ahunt manifestation, if the Ahunt stays on table or gets back to opponents hand.

I presume is the first one, but this game is full of surprises

Thanks,

Toni

[Konrad Klar]

Against the Shadow: Regiment of Black Crows
C3 Resource: Ally

Playable at a tapped or untapped non-Under-deeps Ruins and Lairs . May not be attacked. Discard this ally if controlling character is wounded. this ally to cancel a hazard creature attack not keyed to a site and to put the creature's card back into its player's hand. Cannot be duplicated on a given company.

I think that neither.
"to cancel a hazard creature attack not keyed to a site and to put the creature's card back into its player's hand."
are joint actions, i.e. they are not consecutive. If they would be consecutive then after canceling a creature would be discarded and put action could not be performed.

Therefore if an action "cancel" cannot be performed then "put" cannot be performed and vice versa.
Otherwise it would be possible to force to put into hand Slayer even if Forewarned is Forearmed would be in play.
Because in case of Ahunts there is not a creature's card that would be put into hand, the cancel action cannot be performed too.

[panotxa]

Digest 55 states:

H) There is nothing stopping one from using Regiment of Black Crows on ones own Dragon Ahunt.

So, for me, it’s clear that you can cancel the ahunt attack

[CDavis7M]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation with no basis in the rules. There is no need to make things up.

Here's what actually happens according to the rules and the ICE rulings: The Ahunt Dragon's attack is cancelled and the Ahunt long-event card is put in its owner's hand, which per the CRF entry on "Discard," would remove the attack from play even if the attack could not be cancelled (e.g., if the cancellation action of RoBC was negated by Prowess of Age).

----------

"to cancel a hazard creature attack not keyed to a site and to put the creature's card back into its player's hand."
are joint actions, i.e. they are not consecutive. If they would be consecutive then after canceling a creature would be discarded and put action could not be performed.

There is no such thing as a "joint action" in the rules of MECCG nor is there anything in the game that requires actions to be joint. There are a few sets of actions listed in the CRF as being "synonymous" or "simultaneous" but these are not the same as the "joint actions" that you made up because your "joint actions" require both actions to happen for either of the actions to happen. The "synonymous" or "simultaneous" actions in the CRF do not generally have this requirement.

You say that the cancel attack action and the put in hand action "are joint actions, i.e. they are not consecutive." Not only is there no basis in the rules for this conclusion as mentioned above, but the rules of the game directly contradict your made up "joint actions" theory. Specifically, the rules on "ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY" and Annotation 24 contradict your "joint action" theory:

• ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY: If the play of a card requires other actions (e.g., corruption checks), the actions are resolved in the order in which they appear on the card.
• Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.
• Action: Any activity in the game (card play, a corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses, etc.).

Cancelling the attack is one action and putting a card into a player's hand is another action. The rules state that these actions are performed in order, not "jointly" as you assert. What is worse is your deception in presenting your "joint actions" theory without also presenting the rules that contradict it.

According to the rules, there is nothing preventing the cancel action from happening if the "put" action cannot be performed.

----------

"to cancel a hazard creature attack not keyed to a site and to put the creature's card back into its player's hand."
are joint actions, i.e. they are not consecutive. If they would be consecutive then after canceling a creature would be discarded and put action could not be performed.

More misinformation with no basis in the rules. First, Regiment of Black Crows does not "cancel a creature" it cancels a hazard creature attack. The attack is separate and distinct from the creature card that created the attack. Second, your argument assumes that the action of cancelling a hazards creature attack includes discarding the creature card, but there is nothing in the rules to support this. The only conclusion that the rules support is that non-defeated creature cards are discarded after resolution of the attack. This is because cards are discarded when they no longer have an effect on play. Cancelling the attack resolves the attack. The action of cancelling the attack causes the attack to resolve, which then causes the creature to be discarded.

The card literally says "cancel a hazard creature attack not keyed to a site and to put the creature's card back into its player's hand." Both of these actions happen because the card says so. Even if you think that the rules would cause problems with these actions, it is fundamental to the game that the rules do not cause a card to fail itself. This should be obvious.

----------

Therefore if an action "cancel" cannot be performed then "put" cannot be performed and vice versa.

There's no basis in the rules for this statement as discussed above.

----------

Otherwise it would be possible to force to put into hand Slayer even if Forewarned is Forearmed would be in play.

Yes, that certainly is possible. Just because the cancel action cannot be performed does not mean that the "put the creature's card back into its player's hand" cannot be performed.

Also, your position here seems to contradict your position on Farmer Maggot:

Sometimes an attack is canceled just because it cannot be continued, not because action "cancel" was invoked.
This may happen if defender is removed from play (due to failed cc, for example) in middle of resolving attack.
It would be difficult (if not nonsense) to demand continuing of such attack only because it cannot be canceled (go back to play and fight! This attack cannot be canceled... ).
Attacks that cannot be canceled are immune to action "cancel", not immune to inability of proceding the attack.

According to your position above, even if the Slayer attack cannot be cancelled, the attack may not be continued if the Slayer creature card is put in its player's hand.

----------

Because in case of Ahunts there is not a creature's card that would be put into hand, the cancel action cannot be performed too.

Again, there is no such thing as "joint actions." Furthermore, ICE has clarified what happens with Ahunt long-events.

I recognize that the Ahunt Long-event card is a long-event and not a creature card. As such, the long-event is an invalid target for an action operating on a creature card. However, the ICE Designers clarified what happens with Ahunt long-events when the effect calls for a "creature card." The ICE Designer's clarification on Foes Shall Fall would also apply to Regiment of Black Crows such that RoBC would return the Ahunt long-event to it's owner's hand despite the fact that it is a long-event.

From: Ichabod
Subject: [METW] Clarifications/Reversals 2/4/97
Date: 1997/02/04

Okay guys, here's the latest list of Ichabod's Screw-ups:

1) Ahunt cards are supposed to stay with Foes Shall Fall. This leads
to the following clarification on Foes Shall Fall and Bring Our Curses
Home:

Bring Our Curses Home/Foes Shall Fall (clarification)--These cards can be
played on a character facing an attack from a Dragon Ahunt manifestation (but
not At Home manifestation). In this case, place the Ahunt card, though a
long-event, with the character as you would a normal creature card. The Ahunt
card attacks when the company moves into the appropriate regions given.

From: Craig Ichabod O'Brien
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 111
Date: 1998/07/22

>5) If RoBC is tapped to cancel the first Slayer attack (keyed to
>Borderlands) is the second attack also automatically cancelled (or
>nullified) by the fact that the Slayer's card is sent back to the hazard
>player's hand?

Yes.

>6) What effect does tapping RoBC have on an Ahunt dragon attack? Is the
>Ahunt long-event sent back to hand?

Yes.

[CDavis7M]

Digest 55 states:

H) There is nothing stopping one from using Regiment of Black Crows on ones own Dragon Ahunt.

So, for me, it’s clear that you can cancel the ahunt attack

It would be helpful to state that you are discussing the COE Digest 55 since there is also the ICE Digest 55.

Also, I would not necessarily rely on the COE's rulings since they are riddled with incorrect rulings and inconsistencies based on failure to read the rules or ICE's rulings: viewtopic.php?f=68&t=4170

And the particular set of rulings from CoE Digest 55 that you brought up is also wrong on several things and full of misinformation:

There was a gigantic discussion about the interaction of Bring Our
Curses Home and Ride Against the Enemy. The following rulings resulted
from that discussion:
First of all, Bring Our Curses Home may not be played on an attack
created by Ride Against the Enemy due to the following CRF entry: CRF,
Card Errata and Rulings, Ride Against the Enemy: Hazards have no effect
on the attack, and any resource effects that benefit the attack are
cancelled.

This ruling is wrong and it misunderstands the CRF entry. Bring Our Curses Home CAN be played on an attack creature by Ride Against the Enemy because Ride Against the Enemy creatures a hazard creature attack. It's true that there is no creature card associated with the hazard creature attack created by Ride Against the Enemy and so there is no possibility of creating additional attacks. Still, Bring our Curses Home will give 3 corruption points.

To understand the CRF entry, first recognize that Ride Against the Enemy states "Other cards have no effect on this attack." This indicates that the attack cannot be cancelled. The CRF entry clarifies that the attack can actually be cancelled but that "Hazards have no effect on the attack, and any resource effects that benefit the attack are cancelled. The attack may still be cancelled." This is all the CRF entry on Ride Against the Enemy is doing. Nothing more.

Bring Our Curses Home DOES NOT affect the attack. There is literally no effect on the entire card that modifies the attack. The attack is merely used as an active condition for playing BOCH and as a passive condition for effects of BOCH. But the attack is not affected by the effects of BOCH.

From: Craig Ichabod O'Brien
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 81
Date: 1998/05/10

>Ride Against the Enemy

>The important line is "Other cards have no effect on this attack." This
>is obviously intended to stop creature pumpers affecting this attack.
>Does this however also prevent a card from cancelling this attack?

It means that hazards have no effect on the attack, and resources which
benefit the attack are canceled. (CRF, Card Rulings, Ride Against the
Enemy)

----------

B) You cannot target the card with an in play BOCH as it is "off to the
side" and if it is a long event it won't follow the normal discard after
two turns rule either.

This is misleading. The CoE Netrep doesn't understand what "targeting" is. The issue is not "targeting" it is "affecting." The rules on the long-event phase do not specifically "target" the long-events for discard. This is because "targeting" necessarily requires choosing a specific entity while the rules on long-event apply to all long-events of a specific class without choosing.

(MELE p. 91) Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the "target" of the action... Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target.
(MELE p. 92) Long-event Phase. First, remove all of your resource long-events in play. Then, you may play new resource long-event cards. Finally, remove all of your opponent's hazard long-events.

Again, the rules on discarding long-event apply to all long-events of a specific class without choosing, so they do not "target". However, the rules on "off to the side" cards do not only cover "targeting," they also cover "affecting" such cards:

(MEDM p. 1 and MEBA p.4) Any card placed off to the side absolutely cannot be targeted or otherwise affected by the game except by cards that specifically affect cards placed "off to the side."

If targeting was the only issue, the rules on long-events would actually discard the Ahunt long-event placed with BOCH. However, the rules on long-events absolutely cannot "affect" the card placed with BOCH. This is why the Ahunt long-event would not be discarded.

----------

C) From the METD insert, Manifestations of Dragons: If at any time an
attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated or if the
manifestation is otherwise removed from the game: 1) All existing
manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from the game. 2)
No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played. ..
So if a dragon manifestation is killed and BOCH has a manifestation of
that dragon off to the side, the Dragon on BOCH goes out of play.

This is wrong. I don't know how the CoE Netrep can read the rules on "Off to the Side" and then somehow end up with this wrong conclusion.

(MEDM p. 1 and MEBA p.4) Any card placed off to the side absolutely cannot be targeted or otherwise affected by the game except by cards that specifically affect cards placed "off to the side."

The dragon on BOCH absolutely cannot be affected by the game, including The Dragons rules on manifestations.

The Dragons rules do state "No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played." However, the long-event on BOCH is not being "played" when the attack is created by BOCH.

This is a bit weird but it follows the rules.

---------

D) There are some cards (resources) that will discard a creature
currently attacking or put it back into its owners hand. Examples are
Regiment of Black Crows and Riddling Talk. When successfully played,
such cards remove the creature from BOCH.

Again, Any card placed off to the side absolutely cannot be targeted or otherwise affected by the game except by cards that specifically affect cards placed "off to the side."

Regiment of Black Crows and Riddling Talk do not specifically affect cards placed "off to the side." Therefore, they absolutely cannot affect the creature placed with BOCH.

---------

E) A long ago Brian issued this ruling: Great Secrets Buried There is
discarded if there is no item on it, to avoid cheezy plays and added
confusion due to more exceptions. This is based upon the rule for
capturing host cards. It is extended to affect all host cards that
cannot have other cards played upon them. -- Ruled by Brian in CoE
Rulings/Clarifications 11
This also applies to BOCH when the creature placed off to the side with
it is removed from play.

There is no need to make this new ruling because the rules absolutely do not allow the creature with BOCH to be removed from play by cards that do not specifically affect cards placed "off to the side."

I know that Brian especially made a bunch of wrong rulings long ago so let's check CoE Digest 11... well on my way I noticed several wrong rulings in CoE 11. I don't understand how so many of these CoE rulings are wrong. Well, I understand why they wrong -- it's because they didn't bother to refer to the rules or read the ICE rulings -- but I don't understand why they didn't read and refer to those rules and rulings.

COE Digest 11 alone includes numerous wrong rulings: like the incorrect ruling on Shadow of Mordor (the hazard limit effect only lasts until the card is discarded per the rules on Permanent-events), the incorrect ruling on Spider of Morlat (the effect is to "face" an attack, not "create" an attack and so you can't force the company to face multiple attacks), the incorrect ruling on Hoarmurath (Hoarmurath is unique, this should be obvious), the incorrect ruling on Winds of Wrath (the CRF states Chance of Being Lost will change your site path and the same applies to Winds of Wrath), the incorrect ruling on Dragon's Hunger (the creature must necessarily resolve before Dragon's hunger can even be played), the incorrect ruling on skill cards (you can play multiple skill cards when facing an attack, just not at Step 4 of the Strike Sequence), the incorrect ruling on Nature's Revenge (Hidden Haven cancels attacks on your company "at this site" and not "at this wizardhaven" and so it will cancel the attack of Nature's Revenge)... Wow...

Anyway the ruling on GSBT is also misleading but ends up at the right result so whatever. Not the worst ruling.

---------

I) A character played with Ride Against the Enemy is not able to be
taken as a trophy. CRF under Keyword Trophy: Characters may not be taken
as trophies.

It's not just that, but the character in Ride Against the Enemy is not even attacking the company. Ride Against the Enemy merely creates "a single-strike hazard creature with the attributes of the revealed character, except the prowess is increased by 7."

[Konrad Klar]

According to your position above, even if the Slayer attack cannot be cancelled, the attack may not be continued if the Slayer creature card is put in its player's hand.

Yes.
But the Slayer creature card cannot be put in hand for other reason.
"Cancel" caused by tapping of Regiment of Black Crows is invoked action, not discontinuation of attack caused by absence of Slayer card.
Similarly Ready to His Will cancels Slayer AND (not THEN) makes it ally. Attack is no discontinued for a reason that Slayer is no longer attack card.

[CDavis7M]

According to your position above, even if the Slayer attack cannot be cancelled, the attack may not be continued if the Slayer creature card is put in its player's hand.

But the Slayer creature card cannot be put in hand for other reason.

Even if Slayer's attack cannot be cancelled, tapping Regiment of Black Crows will put the Slayer card into it's owners hand. When the Slayer card leaves play, it immediately ceases to have an effect on the game and so the Slayer's attack immediately ceases.

[Konrad Klar]

Even if Slayer's attack cannot be cancelled, tapping Regiment of Black Crows will put the Slayer card into it's owners hand. When the Slayer card leaves play, it immediately ceases to have an effect on the game and so the Slayer's attack immediately ceases.

Granted.
This is consistent.

Otherwise it would be possible to force to put into hand Slayer even if Forewarned is Forearmed would be in play.

[Konrad Klar]

If the text of the card would be:

"Playable at a tapped or untapped non-Under-deeps Ruins and Lairs . May not be attacked. Discard this ally if controlling character is wounded. this ally to cancel a hazard creature attack not keyed to a site (if from creature, put the creature's card back into its player's hand). Cannot be duplicated on a given company."

then the card would be tapped to cancel hazard creature attack not from creature.

Currently, for reasons explained above, it cannot.

[CDavis7M]

From: Ichabod
Subject: [METW] Clarifications/Reversals 2/4/97
Date: 1997/02/04

1) Ahunt cards are supposed to stay with Foes Shall Fall. This leads
to the following clarification on Foes Shall Fall and Bring Our Curses
Home:

Bring Our Curses Home/Foes Shall Fall (clarification)--These cards can be
played on a character facing an attack from a Dragon Ahunt manifestation (but
not At Home manifestation). In this case, place the Ahunt card, though a
long-event, with the character as you would a normal creature card. The Ahunt
card attacks when the company moves into the appropriate regions given.

From: Craig Ichabod O'Brien
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 111
Date: 1998/07/22

>5) If RoBC is tapped to cancel the first Slayer attack (keyed to
>Borderlands) is the second attack also automatically cancelled (or
>nullified) by the fact that the Slayer's card is sent back to the hazard
>player's hand?

Yes.

>6) What effect does tapping RoBC have on an Ahunt dragon attack? Is the
>Ahunt long-event sent back to hand?

Yes.

The Designers of the game decided that the Ahunt Dragon cards should work as if they were a hazard creature for the purposes of cards usable with a hazard creature attack and operable on a creature card.

And so Regiment of Black Crows works on an Ahunt Dragon long-event as if it were a creature card.