ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm As for the "intent," Ichabod has spoken on this ruling many times and it is not just limited to Rebuild the Town but was intended to apply broadly to all sorts of resources.
What resources? List? Quotes? Anything?
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm The idea being that if the resource player is going to play a resource before facing the automatic attack then the hazard player should be able to respond.
Huh? Automatic-attacks do not occur during the moment/hazard phase; the one phase where the hazard player can play stuff. Genuinely, from what is this deriving?
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm Removing an automatic attack affects the site card as automatic attacks are attributes of site cards. So it does not affect an "attack." This attribute of a site card is not an "attack" until it "attacks" the company.
This is precisely in line with this proposal. When it the automatic-attack occurs, if the created attack comes from a permanent event, the attack can be removed from the company by removing the permanent-event so that it ceases to have any affect on play.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm One discrepancy is that this concept goes the other way for revealing on-guard events that add automatic attacks -- they modify the site's attributes, not the attack already given, yet have been ruled to be revealable on-guard as cards that modify [the site's] automatic attack. To me this is a better point for clarification.
This is done by the hazard player in accordance with on-guard rules, and is independent from this proposal affecting hero resource play.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm I think this is the entire point. Any removal should be played during the M/H phase when the hazard player can respond.
Pure opinion? Or based on what? Again, automatic-attacks do not occur during the moment/hazard phase which is the only time the hazard player can normally respond, and even the on-guard rules require revealing before resource play affecting the attack and not in response, so why should the hazard player be entitled to any responses concerning automatic-attacks?
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm My understanding from the LoRE 2nd edition gamma rules...
Please take conversation about a different version of the game elsewhere.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm If we back up, the entire discussion revolves around players wanting to play cards without their opponent having the opportunity to respond effectively. The resource player wants to play Marvels Told in the site phase so that they are free from Many Sorrows and Call of Home (well, there is also the possibility that they only just drew the card). The hazard player should be able to respond.
The resource player can currently play Marvels Told during the site phase after facing automatic-attacks without the hazard player getting a chance to respond. So, again, where is this "should be able to respond" coming from?
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Theo »

@Konrad Klar, @CDavis7M
Please take conversation about Rank Upon Rank elsewhere, as it seems irrelevant for this thread.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:14 pm
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm 1. does not make linguistic sense. Removing would be an action taken on an automatic-attack, so would definitively affect it;
Your proposal is not free from the same issue. :)
Would you like to explain?

I was thinking of it as: "lose" affects the site, not an automatic attack. Maybe "being lost by the site" would become a property of the automatic-attack? That is still not an affect carried out by the players, though.

Whereas, I was thinking an event leaving play ceasing to have any effect on the game would count as removal because any effect that it had been having needs to be removed.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:11 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm The idea being that if the resource player is going to play a resource before facing the automatic attack then the hazard player should be able to respond.
Huh? Automatic-attacks do not occur during the moment/hazard phase; the one phase where the hazard player can play stuff. Genuinely, from what is this deriving?
Exactly. The hazard player can only play cards in the M/H phase and for this reason the resource player must play resources during the M/H phase as well. The resource player cannot simply wait for the phase to end and then play any resource they want without counter-play by the hazard player. This is the entire point of the ruling. You have to see the forest from the trees. This is a principle of the games design that arose from ICE's various discussions on this topic.
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:11 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm I think this is the entire point. Any removal should be played during the M/H phase when the hazard player can respond.
Pure opinion? Or based on what? Again, automatic-attacks do not occur during the moment/hazard phase which is the only time the hazard player can normally respond, and even the on-guard rules require revealing before resource play affecting the attack and not in response, so why should the hazard player be entitled to any responses concerning automatic-attacks?
Not my opinion. Not my game. I just play it. This is the opinion of the Designers and their design decision. Read the rulings, see the changes.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:33 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:14 pm
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm 1. does not make linguistic sense. Removing would be an action taken on an automatic-attack, so would definitively affect it;
Your proposal is not free from the same issue. :)
Would you like to explain?
[...]
I propose that this be changed to:
"Making a site lose all of its automatic-attacks does not directly affect an automatic-attack. Removing a particular automatic-attack or canceling it does.
X- one particular AA
Y - all AAs at site

If removing X definitively affects the X, then removing Y definitively affects the Y.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:15 pm Exactly. The hazard player can only play cards in the M/H phase and for this reason the resource player must play resources during the M/H phase as well.
No. Even not counting exceptions. The on-guards are placed in M/H phase but they are played during site phase. Not "as though they are played in M/H phase". Weariness of Heart placed on-guard, revealed and finally played during site phase may cause elimination of some character. The character was present in play during M/H phase and survived facing of AA during site phase.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Konrad Klar »

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 7:14 am
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:33 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:14 pm
Your proposal is not free from the same issue. :)
Would you like to explain?
[...]
I propose that this be changed to:
"Making a site lose all of its automatic-attacks does not directly affect an automatic-attack. Removing a particular automatic-attack or canceling it does.
X- one particular AA
Y - all AAs at site

If removing X definitively affects the X, then removing Y definitively affects the Y.
Why not simply state: "Removing of one particular AA is forbidden", or "Removing of all AAs at site is forbidden"?
If one or other is intention.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm
Otherwise, this ruling:
  1. [...]
  2. causes removal cards requiring the company (e.g., Marvel's Told) to not be usable on hazard events that create additional automatic-attacks (e.g., At Home manifestations, most spawn events, The Black Enemy's Wrath, Fell Winter, Nature's Revenge). Currently, the CRF ruling makes the revealing of these card on-guard dramatically different from them being played during the movement/hazard phase;
  3. [..]
(Maybe) for balance, when company enters a site, hazards that create an additional AA, but otherwise do not modify existing AA, cannot be revealed. Balrog of Moria does both. Revealing on-guard Ahunt manifestation of Dragon if At Home manifestation of the same Dragon creates an additional AA does not modify the AA, just removes it.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
dirhaval
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by dirhaval »

Good discussion here.

The idea of Rank Upon Rank no longer affecting an attack, if hazard is removed from play,
is it not the same as a Thief stealing an battle-gear item on its first successful strike on target,
then second strike of Thief via RUR or Hoarmurath of Dir is not hurt by that stolen item since
item bonus is activated upon resolution of strike?

With canceling an attack affecting the attack is the same as why many hero site cards
lack an automatic-attack? Bree should have a noisy sentry and thus a detainment attack,
but then would the designers cancel the attack if Doors of Night not in play? Thus,
that will bend the rules of no canceling an automatic-attack unless by card play?

One thing I consider with such interpretations is what sort of hazard count did
the designers feel the resource player would encounter and thus would
cancelling an automatic-attack be acceptable if too few hazards be faced?
Is that why On-guard was created? Is that why a character can tap to face two strikes?
to bypass the ruling an automatic-attack cannot be cancelled.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by CDavis7M »

The on-guard rules are not only on-topic but I think the critical piece to understanding the Designer's rulings on "removing" automatic attacks.

From a game design standpoint, the only reason to have an effect come into play later as a surprise is to create unknown information, which creates uncertainty in decision making. From this understanding, the entire point of the on-guard mechanic is to make the resource player decide whether to enter the site without complete information of what they will face. This then means that the hazard player can actually use automatic-attack boosting hazards and have them work. If the resource player knew about the boosted attack, they might decide not to face it -- where's the fun in that?

Again, the point of the on-guard mechanic is to force the resource player's company to actually be affected by the hazard.

This same design principle is why the resource player cannot just wait until the site phase to play resources--they must play them in the movement/hazard phase. The hazard player has the right (in this game design) for their cards to actually affect the resource player. More specifically, if there is a hazard in play (like Balrog of Moria), the hazard player has the right to protect that hazard (using Call of Home, Weariness of the Heart, etc) from resources (like Marvels Told) to ensure that it still works.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Theo »

Basically what I'm reading is that you're fabricating this story of game design and convincing yourself that it is The One.

Here's why:
* The resource player can already muck with the hazard player's automatic-attack modifiers before facing the auto by playing cards other than removal cards. The hazard player has no "right" to protect anything during that phase.
* The resource player can already muck with the hazard player's cards during the site phase before facing the auto by using another company. The hazard player has no "right" to protect anything during that phase.
* The resource player can already muck with any of the hazard player's on-guard cards during the site phase after facing the auto. The hazard player has no "right" to protect anything during that phase.
* There are other reasons to have an effect come into play later than just the resource player's decision about whether to enter the site. For example, this conversation is about resource play; the resource player needs to make decisions at the end of the movement/hazard phases about what cards to keep in hand. If I think the on-guard is a bluff, I might be more interested in discarding my Risky Blow than discarding my Thorough Search. You haven't provided any evidence of what ICE wrote about their reasons, and regardless of any simple explanations to appease the masses, we cannot know what they were thinking beyond what they made public.

But ok, I got it. You want the hazard player to be able to respond to the resource player removing automatic-attacks the hazard player created that turn with the company at that site prior to being able to play something at that site during the site phase. Opinion stated; let's move on.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 7:14 am
I propose that this be changed to:
"Making a site lose all of its automatic-attacks does not directly affect an automatic-attack. Removing a particular automatic-attack or canceling it does.
X- one particular AA
Y - all AAs at site

If removing X definitively affects the X, then removing Y definitively affects the Y.
I'm not understanding what you are trying to get at. You are comparing one apple to another, but "lose" and "remove" might be apples and pears. The subjects differ.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Konrad Klar »

1. does not make linguistic sense.
That was just about "linguistic sense". Independent from subject.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm Otherwise, this ruling:
[...]
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:13 am [...] Opinion stated; let's move on.
Still:

I do not understand why (in your opinion) Marvel Told on Dragon at Home during site phase and before facing all AAs should be OK.
Because The Cock Crows on Dragon at Home (not company's activity) is OK? I do not know whether you are considering a difference between player and company; nothing obvious at this times.
Because using Ancient Secrets against Dragon at Home (that may be activity of other company) is OK? I do not know whether (in your opinion) one company may take any action during other company's site phase.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: ARV: removing an automatic-attack

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:13 am Basically what I'm reading is that you're fabricating this story of game design and convincing yourself that it is The One.
It's not my fabricated story. It's the Designer's.
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:13 am * The resource player can already muck with the hazard player's automatic-attack modifiers before facing the auto by playing cards other than removal cards. The hazard player has no "right" to protect anything during that phase.
Exactly. The player can cancel the attack or modify prowess etc, but cannot remove the attack.

Also, the hazard player does have the "right" to protect their automatic-attack hazards. They play them on-guard.
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:13 am * The resource player can already muck with the hazard player's cards during the site phase before facing the auto by using another company. The hazard player has no "right" to protect anything during that phase.
True in MECCG as it was. But it's also true that this was not intended and not desired by the Designers and they no longer allowed doing this in the revised rules.
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:13 am But ok, I got it. You want the hazard player to be able to respond to the resource player removing automatic-attacks the hazard player created that turn with the company at that site prior to being able to play something at that site during the site phase. Opinion stated; let's move on.
I get it. You want the resource player to be able to remove a particular automatic-attack even though the Designers specifically
said NO.
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.

Let's move on.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”