Tom Bombadil, Leaflock, Great Ship

[Manuel]

Hello folks,

I've some questions regarding these three cards.

1) I'd like to know if there's any evidence that ICE wanted these three cards to have similar effects.

On one hand, we have the latest printed version of Great Ship, that says:

"Tap a character to play this card during your organization phase on his company. Any character in the company this turn may tap to cancel a hazard that targets the company. This may be: a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card. The company's site path must have a Coastal Sea and no consecutive non-Coastal Seas regions to do this."

On the other hand, we have the latest CRF by ICE (15), where both Great Ship and Leaflock have this entry:

Allows the canceling of one creature or the canceling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.

Tom Bombadil doesn't have this entry in the CRF15, though. BUT, looking back at older versions of the CRF, I noticed that Tom Bombadil actually had this entry back in CRF11:

Tom Bombadil
Allows the canceling of one creature or the canceling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.

...Which is exactly the same as Great Ship and Leaflock. But I don't know why it was removed, and I thought that maybe someone around here knows what happened.

2) Assuming Tom Bombadil works the same way as Leaflock and Great Ship, there are a number of digests that are incorrect, mainly referring to agent activities. Here's one:

ICE RULES DIGEST #564
25-03-1999 NetRep: Van Norton Source
QUERY 1
From: Martin Toggweiler
Subject: [Van/Ick] Can Tom…?

Can Tom Bombadil tap to stop any Agent activities against an eligible company/character…

…attack?
Yes, if during the M/H phase.

…influence attempt?
Yes, if during the M/H phase.

…Baduila/Seek without Success?
Yes.

Pilfer Anything Unwatched?
Yes.

If we apply the same rule from Great Ship and Leaflock, Tom Bombadil wouldn't be able to cancel Baduila's returning effect because it's not a creature card nor a hazard event. Or Grimburgoth' attacking during the m/h phase.

3) Finally, could any of these three cards cancel an ahunt attack? I know ahunts are long-events are therefore don't have targets, but do the attacks caused by them have targets? And if so, can Tom Bombadil/Leaflock/Great Ship cancel them? And if the answer is yes, then the ahunt card would be discarded?

***

Thanks a lot for your input.

[Konrad Klar]

2.
Attack of agent is not a hazard. ICE RULES DIGEST #564 is incorrect.
A creature may be canceled along with its attack(s) and other effects that it creates, but attack/effects may not be canceled by Tom Bombadil and co. separately. And agents are not creatures and do not target a company. Their attacks and some their activities may target a company; both are not hazards.

3.
Ahunts themselves do not target anything. Their attacks target. Attack is not hazard.

EDIT: "Ahunts itself" > "Ahunts themselves"

[CDavis7M]

...Which is exactly the same as Great Ship and Leaflock. But I don't know why it was removed, and I thought that maybe someone around here knows what happened.

There is a much much longer history to these cards than just this. And Great Ship needed other clarifications beyond, probably why it was a candidate for the challenge decks.

The clarification was deleted because it was deletable. I can understand why this would be done. Many times the rulings are a cause of confusion and get taken out of context when the text itself should just be read instead. Which overtime I realized is that case for Tom, Leaf, and Niggle -- the original text is correct and clear enough (well, not enough enough I guess).

If we apply the same rule from Great Ship and Leaflock, Tom Bombadil wouldn't be able to cancel Baduila's returning effect because it's not a creature card nor a hazard event. Or Grimburgoth' attacking during the m/h phase.

I do not have the same understanding of Deck A's Great Ship and even if I did that is not the rationale I would apply. Though Baduila and Grim have different effects of course.

Going back to the point above. The clarification was deletable because these cards can "cancel the effects of one hazard that targets a company."

----------

Adding Deck A's Great Ship for reference

Deck A Great Ship.jpg (79.77 KiB) Viewed 1085 times

[CDavis7M]

Attack of agent is not a hazard.

Sure. It's true that an attack is not itself a hazard. But is that the main point?

And agents are not creatures and do not target a company. Their attacks and some their activities may target a company; both are not hazards.

Agents are not creatures and playing an agent does not target a company. But an agent is a hazard that can directly attack a company.

[Manuel]

These three cards and what they can and cannot cancel cause a lot of confusion between players. The ROC would like to establish a clear ruling with examples of how they work, and that's why I'm looking for help here.

The clarification was deletable because these cards can "cancel the effects of one hazard that targets a company."

Bringing the example of Baduila, to me that's clear enough. Baduila is a hazard, and its returning effect targets the company, so yes, it can be canceled. But then the next sentence in Great Ship's text tells a different story (or maybe not, see below):

This may be: a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card

This is narrower scope than "a hazard that targets the company". If it has to be a hazard event or a creature card, then it can't cancel Baduila, because Baduila is not an event nor a creature card. I wonder if the "this may be" part is a restriction of what type of hazards it can cancel, or if it's just giving out two examples, but that doesn't mean that Great Ship can only do that, and it can also cancel other hazards that target the company, even if they're not hazard events that specifically target the company or creature cards.

The clarification was deleted because it was deletable

Ok, but then, why did they delete this clarification from Tom, but didn't delete it from Leaflock? Which brings me back to the original question: did ICE want these three cards to have the same effect?

I do not have the same understanding of Deck A's Great Ship and even if I did that is not the rationale I would apply. Though Baduila and Grim have different effects of course.

I am interested in knowing your understanding of Deck A's Great Ship, and your rationale for this case. I'm trying to gather opinions of people who know the rules well, and the story of some decisions taken by ICE, and come out with something that can help the community.

Thanks a lot for your help!

[CDavis7M]

I'll have to look at this more later but:

Bringing the example of Baduila, to me that's clear enough. Baduila is a hazard, and its returning effect targets the company, so yes, it can be canceled.

I don't think that is really targeting the company. At least as far as what is said about targeting in MELE and in the Companion. And for Step 4 returning to origin effects specifically.

I understand the Great Ship effect entirely differently actually. Again, I think the original text holds true even for Great Ship as revised: "cancel the effects of one hazard that targets a company." I don't think the revised text works any different from this.

I don't think it matters that Baduila is not a creature or an event. And I don't think that matters for other hazards either. I think the primary concern is whether the hazard targets the company.

[Konrad Klar]

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑14 May 2023, 10:36
Attack of agent is not a hazard.
Sure. It's true that an attack is not itself a hazard. But is that the main point?

Yes.
Once in play the hazards that do not target a company may cause attacks, either actively i.e. player decides whether there will be attack (e.g. company enters a site and after facing eventual AAs player decides that agent at the site will attack) or passively (e.g. company moves to a site where ally with Come at Need is playable or during site phase there is revealed agent a site, company enters the site, and Ordered to Kill is in play).

But an agent is a hazard that can directly attack a company.

Whether the hazard is targeting/not targeting a company is one thing.
Whether the hazard causes an attack in result of decision of player or passively is other thing.

I am not sure what you mean by "can directly attack".

I don't think it matters that Baduila is not a creature or an event. And I don't think that matters for other hazards either. I think the primary concern is whether the hazard targets the company.

I agree. If there would be hazard other than creature or event that would target a company or entity associated with company then it would be affected by a card affecting hazards that target a company or entity associated with company.
Why someone has decided to narrow a scope to "a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card", I do not know. Maybe this is the same motivation as behind restricting Wizard's Laughter to opponent's site phase.
Foreseeing potential issues or lack of imagination.

Discarding of Badulia is condition for action "return a company to a site of origin". The action targets a company, Baduila itself does not.
Tapping the Gollum and presence of The One Ring at the same sate are conditions for action "discard Gollum and The One Ring". The action targets both Gollum and The One Ring, Gollum does not target The One Ring, The One Ring is not condition of Gollum.

EDIT: "I there would be hazard" > "If there would be hazard"

[CDavis7M]

I think these card effects are best interpreted in the context of the rules. There are a lot of rules that could be mentioned but have not been.

But if you guys had fun learning the history of Tom Bombadil I think the history on Lure of Nature is also fun, maybe with even more turns and doublings than these 3.

[Theo]

Nothing really new to add; perhaps just alternative language.

1) I am also of the opinion that the CRF entries and lack/removal and Great Ship reprinting was not meant to imply greater differences in the three cards' effects. They are all just clarifications. That is:

it's just giving out two examples, but that doesn't mean that Great Ship can only do that, and it can also cancel other hazards that target the company, even if they're not hazard events that specifically target the company or creature cards.

2) Following the above opinion, agents are still hazards and qualifying agent effects (declarations of targeting effects and actions) should still be cancelable by these three cards. This does not yet require us to consider whether they could cancel an attack where the declaration was already resolved, and similarly whether Leaflock could cancel an agent attack made during the site phase. That aspect relates to the Ahunt question...


3) I believe the declaration of the attack could definitely not be canceled. This has been Konrad's point; the declaration of the attack is not targeting. But what about canceling the attack once it has begun, like most cards that cancel attacks specifically? The immediately relevant questions in my mind would then be whether (a) an attack is considered to always target the company it is attacking, and (b) whether targeting by an effect of a hazard qualifies as targeting by the hazard itself. I would default to (b) being a yes with normal language use, unless I'm forgetting some clarification otherwise (may CDavis7M forgive my memory! but I think he agrees here based on viewtopic.php?p=41152#p41152). (a) is maybe trickier, since the language tends to be that attacks are "against" a company, or companies are "facing" attacks, rather than explicitly using the phrases "target" or "targeted by." But then consider that we can, perhaps, avoid needing to answer (a) by instead remembering that strikes definitely target entities they are assigned to (e.g., Many Foes He Fought, War-warg), and they can still be canceled by the three cards in question, all together. Canceling all strikes would typically be no worse a result for the resource player than canceling the attack. So maybe I will leave digging into (a) until another day.

[Theo]

Baduila is a hazard, and its returning effect targets the company, so yes, it can be canceled.

I don't think that is really targeting the company.

It says, "target company's new site." Do you read this "target" as something other than Baduila's effect explicitly targeting the company? Or were you perhaps simply trying to be cautiously precise about the "return" portion of the effect being a different component from the "discard" portion?

[Konrad Klar]

This has been Konrad's point; the declaration of the attack is not targeting.

Simply:
Declaration of X is not X, resolution of X is not X, discarding of X is not X etc.
X either targets some thing or does not target the thing.
A target of action is a particular object (entity, but I prefer "object"). It is specified at declaration of the action and may not be substituted by something identical/equivalent at resolution; that but not other ranger, that but not other site etc.

An agent does not target a company; agent does not require any particular company. Granted: some company must proceed its M/H phase, otherwise agent cannot be played, but the same may be said about Doors of Night. Doors of Night does not target anything.

Whatever involving an agent targets a company it is declared when the agent is already in play.

Canceling all strikes would typically be no worse a result for the resource player than canceling the attack. So maybe I will leave digging into (a) until another day.

Corpse Candle, Knights of the Prince are not typical.

[Theo]

An agent does not target a company; agent does not require any particular company.

An agent does require a particular company to attack.

Whatever involving an agent targets a company it is declared when the agent is already in play.

I agree with this intent (misleading CRF entry aside). What is the relevance? An in-play agent is still a hazard, still has effects, and those effects can target a company. Those are the requirements for these cards.

=====

Corpse Candle, Knights of the Prince are not typical.

Good list, and Chill Douser, although yours are more likely to matter. On-guard resolution will need more consideration than I have time for at the moment.

[Konrad Klar]

An agent does require a particular company to attack.

"return to its site of origin" requires particular company moving with Wilderness in its site path. Snowstorm itself does not require it.
Attack of agent is not an agent. Attack of creature is not a creature too. But a creature is played on company and its attack usually does not happen after moment when creature card is already in play and new chain of effect is proceeded.

About usually: what about Bring Our Curses Home? Can Leaflock cancel the attack from creature in separation from canceling Bring Our Curses Home?
Bring Our Curses Home targets a character as Lure of Nature targets a character and targets the character continuously, as long it is in play.
What targets a creature already placed off to the side?

Dark Minions: Bring Our Curses Home
Rarity: Rare, Precise: R3

Hazard: Permanent-event

Corruption. Playable on a non-Wizard character whose company is facing a hazard creature attack. Discard this card if no character is eliminated by the attack. If any character is eliminated, place creature's card with this card-creature is considered off to the side. Target character's company faces an attack from creature at the start of each movement/hazard phase if creature is playable. Discard associated creature's card if this card is discarded. Discard this card if associated creature is defeated.