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: 1288
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: 1288
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: 1288
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: 2474
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: 3819
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: 3819
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: 3819
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: 3819
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.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”