Council of Elrond

Somewhere I asked if Incite Denizens could be put OG, and the answer was: yes.

Then I saw CRF. It says : A hazard that affects the automatic-attack can be revealed when the company faces the automatic attack. Note that adding an automatic attack is not affecting it [CRF].

Incite Denizens effect is: Creates an additional automatic-attack...

So... what i am missing here?

What about At Home dragon manifestation? Can they be revealed OG?

I am still confused about all that.

Thanks.

I do not know the CRF entry you are referring.
Relevant part of Lidless Eye manual says:

[...]
· The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. If the on-guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the
company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack, it may be revealed before the automatic-attack is
resolved. If it is a hazard creature, it will attack after the automatic-attack is resolved.
[...]

Incite Denizens and Dragon At Home do not modify AA.
So no.

Sorry, I should have said: Then I saw URD(4.2), not CRF.

On page 54 of URD 4.2 first diamond: A hazard that affects the automatic-attack can be revealed when the company faces the automatic attack. Note that adding an automatic attack is not affecting it[CRF].

So it seems that the person who said to me that Incite Denizens was revealable as an OG card was mistaking on the rule.

LeNoirEpee wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:41 pm Sorry, I should have said: Then I saw URD(4.2), not CRF.

On page 54 of URD 4.2 first diamond: A hazard that affects the automatic-attack can be revealed when the company faces the automatic attack. Note that adding an automatic attack is not affecting it[CRF].

So it seems that the person who said to me that Incite Denizens was revealable as an OG card was mistaking on the rule.

The URD is not "the rule." It's a document made by a player. There are a lot of mistakes in the URD. Not only that, there are a few points where the URD author simply makes things up. Usually the made up parts are shown as an "editors note" or "controversial opinion" or whatever. But sometimes, like here, the author just made something up. Sometimes the author put something into the URD and then forgot but continued to argue that such rulings didn't exist on here. Hm.. Anyway, you'll find that the URD is full of errors and misinformation if you look more into it. Some of the fault is on the URD author, some on the old CoE Netreps. There must be over a hundred errors in it. I stopped counting. I wonder how people find the document... viewtopic.php?t=4170

Incite Denizens can be revealed on-guard. Balrog of Moria is another hazard that gives a site card an additional automatic attack rather than modifying an existing attack and it is the classic "on-guard" example in the old versions of the CRF before the CRF was condensed. Incite is also mentioned specifically in a ruling. I'll explain more below.

Related but not on point ruling: https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.t ... 1IjOu88koJ

From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: METW questions
Date: 1997/06/04

>If someone has played incite denizens as an "on-guard" card at Isengard
>does it modify the orc strikes from Windlord?

No, it is just an attack, not an auto-attack.

------ "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" ------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
Vegetarians Taste Better Praise "Bob"
--Self Proclaimed Most Mediocre Magic Player in the World--

Balrog of Moria on-guard description. Incite follows the same reasoning.

From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: [MECCG] CRF 5, General pt.1
Date: 1997/07/10
On-Guard Cards

An often confusing point is when and if certain hazards can be revealed as
on-guard cards. There are two cases when a face down card may be revealed,
and, thusly, affect an opponent's company: 1) when the company announces it
will face a site's automatic-attacks (before the automatic-attack is itself
faced), and 2) when the company plays a card keyed to the site.

For case #1, it is essential to realize that if the site has no
automatic-attacks (like all normally occuring Free-holds), you cannot
reveal an on-guard card according to this criterium. Additionally, an event
that modifies the prowess of a character may not be revealed--only hazards
that modify an automatic-attack itself can be. A creature revealed as an
on-guard card is not considered an automatic-attack--it is considered a
hazard creature attack.

. . .

Balrog of Moria could be revealed when a company chooses to face the
automatic-attacks at Moria (Balrog modifies Moria's automatic-attacks).
However, it could not be revealed in response to the play of an item at
Moria because Balrog in no way can affect the company for the rest of the
site phase (unless for some reason the company is fated to face the
automatic-attacks again).

----------

The CRF is the "Collected Rulings File" which was a document updated and released by ICE's appointed "NetRep" back in the day. You can see the CRF rulings on the site phase including the on-guard rulings here: https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.t ... u0I4GP-YUJ

On-Guard Cards
Rules Erratum: An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played
during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed
during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.

A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and
resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.

An on-guard card may be revealed when the company plays a resource that potentially taps
the site. The card must affect the company or a character in the company that site phase.
Note that this clarification is looser than the rule printed on p.61 of the Unlimited Rules
book

A successful ring test does not allow an on-guard card to be revealed.

You may reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction even if the
on-guard card only has an effect if the attempt is successful. You may also reveal a card in
response to such an attempt that affects the actual influence attempt.

Only declared or on-going cards and effects can be considered when determining the
validity of revealing an on-guard card. Potential effects that have not been triggered cannot
be considered.

A card cannot be revealed that:
Returns a company to its site of origin.
Taps a company's site.
Potentially removes a character from a company, besides combat or corruption checks.
Forces a company to do nothing during its site phase.
Directly taps a character in the company.

A card that potentially removes an ally from the company can be revealed, so long as it
otherwise is legal.

The on-guard card is not considered to be in any player's hand.

When an on-guard card is revealed, it immediately ceases to be considered an on-guard card.

Creatures may only be revealed on-guard if there is an automatic-attack at the site.

If two companies are at a Haven, on-guard cards played on one company can only be
revealed against that company, and can only affect that company (unless the hazard states it
affects all versions of the site).

See also Rulings By Term, Burglary Attempts.

----------

The most recent on-guard rule is in the Challenge Deck / Balrog rules summary. It is only slightly different from The Lidless Eye which I am showing here since Lidless Eye also includes the full site phase rules, which end up being relevant in this case:
The term "automatic-attack" is used both for (A) the (non-combat non-dice rolling) property of a site card and (2) for the "attack" (consisting of strike dice rolls in combat) that is created from the automatic-attack property of the site card.

The on-guard rules are referring to (1) the property of the site card, not (2) the actual attack that is created. You can tell because the on-guard rules refer to the decision making by the player and at the time the decision is made the player is deciding whether to "do nothing" or "follow this procedure." When the player decides to follow the procedure which involves entering the site and facing the automatic attack, the player is not yet facing the automatic attack. The decision happens before step 1 of the procedure. The attack is only created at step 2 of the procedure.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 2:58 pm Incite Denizens and Dragon At Home do not modify AA.
So no.

They do not modify the attack that is created based on the property of site cards labeled "automatic-attack" but they modify the site's automatic attack property. The on-guard rules care about the property of the site, not the attack that is created based on that property, as I explained above showing the rules, and as is consistent with ICE's rulings.

Incite and At Home Dragon's modify the site's automatic-attack's and can be revealed on guard.

Obstacle is not that some event adds AA, or creates additional effects/actions; it is not forbidden. Obstacle is that the event does not modify AA. Balrog of Moria both adds AA and modifies existing AAs, and creates additional effects.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 3:48 am The term "automatic-attack" is used both for (A) the (non-combat non-dice rolling) property of a site card and (2) for the "attack" (consisting of strike dice rolls in combat) that is created from the automatic-attack property of the site card.

CRF, Turn Sequence, Site Phase, General wrote:A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all
automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack.
Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does.

"If the on-guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the
company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack"

"Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does."

I do not know, how someone imagines a removing of "(A) the (non-combat non-dice rolling) property of a site card" that exists even for a site that has 0 of automatic-attacks. And why such removing would be forbidden.

Maybe automatic-attack means either property or attack created from the property. Depending on who asks and what he needs.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:34 am Obstacle is not that some event adds AA, or creates additional effects/actions; it is not forbidden. Obstacle is that the event does not modify AA. Balrog of Moria both adds AA and modifies existing AAs, and creates additional effects.

These cards modify the automatic-attack attributes of the site card, not the attack that is created based on those site attributes. The on-guard rules care about the site card, not about the attack itself. Though for the on-guard rules, the player must decide to face the auto attack. Because the decision requires the automatic attack the site needs an auto attack for an on-guard to be revealed in the first place. But if the site does have an auto attack, a card may be revealed (at Step 1) that modifies (adds) what automatic attacks the site has before those automatic attacks attack at Step 2.

In the on-guard rule itself it states "a hazard that can modify the automatic attack." The rules say "modify the automatic attack" meaning that this statement is a reference to a previous statement about an automatic attack. The only previous statement about "automatic attack" is "decides to face the site's automatic attack". The decision made with respect to the site card's automatic-attack (which are not yet attacking), so the "modification" is also with respect to the site card's automatic-attack (not to the attack itself). This is what the word "the" means -- it denotes one or more people/things already mentioned.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:34 am

CRF, Turn Sequence, Site Phase, General wrote:A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all
automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack.
Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does.

"If the on-guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the
company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack"

"Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does."

I do not know, how someone imagines a removing of "(A) the (non-combat non-dice rolling) property of a site card" that exists even for a site that has 0 of automatic-attacks. And why such removing would be forbidden.

Maybe automatic-attack means either property or attack created from the property. Depending on who asks and what he needs.

You're confusing two different principles of the game. The confusion is understandable because the term "automatic-attack" is used as shorthand for the "attack by the site's automatic-attack". The on-guard rule is talking about the automatic-attack property of the site card while the site phase rule is talking about modifications to the dice rolls of the attack by the automatic attack vs other effects which do not modify dice rolls.

Removing the automatic-attack from the site card at the beginning of the site phase is forbidden because the player is not allowed to do anything, except the rules allow the player to modify dice rolls. Dice rolls have an entire section of rules talking about how special they are. The player can modify dice rolls for combat or corruption. An attack is just 1 or more strike dice rolls and so the player can cancel the set of one or more dice rolls that make up the attack or they can modify the one or more dice rolls as a set, or individually. But they cannot play resources that modify site cards at the beginning of the site phase.

by the way, discussion about an At Home (and incite) adding automatic attacks https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.t ... jKf8LO50IJ

and Ichabod's discussion in the TD Player Guide. These are not the rules, but they have the same understanding of the rules that I have.