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: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

The CRF states:
"Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does."

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.

I believe the intent of the original ruling was to prevent Rebuild the Town from being played before the automatic-attacks were faced, There are a couple other resources, e.g., Lord and Usurper, that should also continue to not be playable.

Otherwise, this ruling:
  1. does not make linguistic sense. Removing would be an action taken on an automatic-attack, so would definitively affect it;
  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. further incentivizes players to have sages sitting in Havens to resolve their site phase first and be available for this type of removal, which doesn't seem like a desirable impact on the metagame.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm 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.

I believe the intent of the original ruling was to prevent Rebuild the Town from being played before the automatic-attacks were faced, There are a couple other resources, e.g., Lord and Usurper, that should also continue to not be playable.
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. 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. The only resources that can be played before the automatic attack has been faced are resources playable during the strike sequence (anything that affects the prowess of the attack or the character, including using Marvels Told to remove an event with a negative modifier) and resources that cancel the attack. Though Marvels Told cannot be used during the strike sequence to remove The Moon is Dead or other effects that also affect strikes because "Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack may not be played after strikes are assigned."
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm does not make linguistic sense. Removing would be an action taken on an automatic-attack, so would definitively affect it;
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. 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. Also, see the notes on the LoRE 2nd edition below.
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm [*] 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).
I think this is the entire point. Any removal should be played during the M/H phase when the hazard player can respond. Whether these cards should be revealable on guard is a different question.
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm Currently, the CRF ruling makes the revealing of these card on-guard dramatically different from them being played during the movement/hazard phase;
It is definitely a strength of the on-guard mechanic. These attacks can still be cancelled. But I think there is an argument here that the resource player should be able to respond using Marvels in this situation, just as the hazard player should be able to respond to Marvels.

My understanding from the LoRE 2nd edition gamma rules is that they were even more restrictive at the end of the M/H phase and the beginning of the site phase to both the resource and the hazard player. Marvels Told could only be played during the Sage's M/H phase or Site phase and it could not be played during the strike sequence while facing the automatic attack since it did not have the "engagement" keyword or the "strike" keyword. But also, the hazard player could not reveal cards on-guard as there is no guard rule anymore. However, the hazard player could play "engagement" keyword or "strike" keyword cards anytime there was an attack, even outside the M/H phase (and not using any hazard limit). But those cards were not hazards that added automatic attack, just ones that modified prowess, etc. Cards like Fell Winter and Balrog of Moria that added automatic attacks were not engagement cards. Though The Moon is Dead was an engagement card, though it seemed like it was an engagement card since it gave +1 strike and so would have to be played before strikes were assigned, not so that it could be played during the site phase to duplicate the undead automatic attacks.
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm further incentivizes players to have sages sitting in Havens to resolve their site phase first and be available for this type of removal, which doesn't seem like a desirable impact on the metagame.
I agree and I don't think this was addressed in the LoRE 2nd edition rules.

--------

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.

But this also goes the other way. The resource player should be able to respond to cards that the hazard player wants to reveal on guard.

It is clear from the rulings that until the automatic attack is faced, the resource player can only play resources that cancel the attack or affect the attributes of the attack.

If this seems too much then maybe it is the on-guard rules that need a second look. Should Balrog of Moria and Incite Denizens be revealable on guard? The rulings indicate that they can. And Doubled Vigilance was even given a special clarification to allow it to be revealed on guard. It does seem a bit unfair to the resource player but it also seems as if it was intended. Though the LoRE rules did cut back on this.

----------

As for the proposal ("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.), I disagree. The intent is clear that playing a resource to removing an automatic attack should be done in the Movement/hazard phase when the hazard player can respond.

If hazards that add an automatic attack are thought to be too overbearing, it is the on-guard rules that should be clarified. Balrog of Moria on guard was an example in older versions of the CRF before it was revamped. Incite on guard was ruled and discussed a few times even late in the games life. Though I dont think the on-guard rules were reassessed after the site phase restrictions were made clear. If the site phase rules for resources were clarified, the site phase rules for hazards should have be clarified consistently.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm I believe the intent of the original ruling was to prevent Rebuild the Town from being played before the automatic-attacks were faced, There are a couple other resources, e.g., Lord and Usurper, that should also continue to not be playable.
No, if the restriction is put on company, not on player. Rebuild the Town, Great Ruse are not company's activities.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm Though Marvels Told cannot be used during the strike sequence to remove The Moon is Dead or other effects that also affect strikes because "Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack may not be played after strikes are assigned."
Not true. If the results of actions activated by passive condition are applied, they are not retired when a card that caused it leaves play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:02 am
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm Though Marvels Told cannot be used during the strike sequence to remove The Moon is Dead or other effects that also affect strikes because "Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack may not be played after strikes are assigned."
Not true. If the results of actions activated by passive condition are applied, they are not retired when a card that caused it leaves play.
I don't see how your comment applies to what I wrote. My comment is about effects that change the number of strikes of an attack, not about actions activated by passive conditions.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:09 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:02 am
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm Though Marvels Told cannot be used during the strike sequence to remove The Moon is Dead or other effects that also affect strikes because "Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack may not be played after strikes are assigned."
Not true. If the results of actions activated by passive condition are applied, they are not retired when a card that caused it leaves play.
I don't see how your comment applies to what I wrote. My comment is about effects that change the number of strikes of an attack, not about actions activated by passive conditions.
- This child has no musical ear.
- But the child has to play, not to hear.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:09 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:02 am
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm Though Marvels Told cannot be used during the strike sequence to remove The Moon is Dead or other effects that also affect strikes because "Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack may not be played after strikes are assigned."
Not true. If the results of actions activated by passive condition are applied, they are not retired when a card that caused it leaves play.
I don't see how your comment applies to what I wrote. My comment is about effects that change the number of strikes of an attack, not about actions activated by passive conditions.
Some non-agent Men attack have 15 prowess at one strike. Rank upon Rank is in play.
When it is faced the action "+1 to prowess, +1 strikes" is declared. It resolves and now the attack has 2 strikes of 16 prowess each.
Even if Rank upon Rank will leave active play, this will not return the attack to the state: 1 strike, 15 prowess.
Moreover another copy of Rank upon Rank can potentially be played and the attack finally can have 3 strikes of 17 prowess each.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

All non-agent Man attacks receive +1 prowess and +1 strikes. If Doors of Night is in play, all Giant attacks also receive these bonuses. Discard this card when such an affected attack (automatic, hazard creature, or otherwise) is defeated. Cannot be duplicated
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:41 pm Some non-agent Men attack have 15 prowess at one strike. Rank upon Rank is in play.
When it is faced the action "+1 to prowess, +1 strikes" is declared. It resolves and now the attack has 2 strikes of 16 prowess each.
Even if Rank upon Rank will leave active play, this will not return the attack to the state: 1 strike, 15 prowess.
Moreover another copy of Rank upon Rank can potentially be played and the attack finally can have 3 strikes of 17 prowess each.
If Rank Upon Rank leaves play, the +1 to prowess and strikes absolutely leaves play.
Events.PNG
Events.PNG (46.85 KiB) Viewed 1439 times
--------------------

Same thing for The Moon is Dead. The effects only last as long as the card is in play.
The second automatic-attack goes away if the Moon is Dead is discarded
before the attack is faced.
--------------------

Back to Rank Upon Rank, why would the hazard player need to play a second Rank Upon Rank if the effect of the discarded one still worked?
From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: Assassins and Rank upon Rank
Date: 1997/07/16
Message-ID: <ichabod-1607971538540001@dialin108.cstone.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 257243010
References: <33cdb249.4073677@news>
Organization: Church of the SubGenius
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc

In article <33cdb249.4073677@news>, Umagaur...@resurrection.com
(Umagaur the Pale) wrote:

>Hello everybody,
>
>I think I have solved this problem, but I'm not quite sure:
>
>A character is being attacked by an assassin while Rank upon Rank is
>out. He defeats the assassin's 13 prowess, so Rank upon Rank is
>discarded. Can the the hazard player play a new Rank upon Rank before
>the second attack resolves?

He could play it before the strike is assigned for the second attack.

------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
"It is for discipline that the Lord scourges his worshippers."
-Judith 8:17 <<<0>>> Praise "Bob"
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:45 am If Rank Upon Rank leaves play, the +1 to prowess and strikes absolutely leaves play.
This is so obvious like obvious is that if Long Winter + Doors of Night leaves play the sites with [-me_wi-] [-me_wi-] tapped in result of action from Long Winter should become untapped. Or that companies returned by action from Snowstorm are returned on their path when Snowstorm is discarded.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Rank upon Rank itself does not increase a prowess or number of strikes. The action declared when an attack of appropriate type is faced does so.

@Vastor
Thanks for providing text of Rank upon Rank.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm 3.further incentivizes players to have sages sitting in Havens to resolve their site phase first and be available for this type of removal, which doesn't seem like a desirable impact on the metagame.
CRF. Errata (Cards), Marvels Told wrote:May be played during the site phase by a character in another company, as if he were
in the company resolving their site phase.
CRF. Errata (Cards), Voices of Malice wrote:May be played during the site phase by a character in another company, as if he were
in the company resolving their site phase.
So it rather favorizes Palantir of Osgiliath and Ancient Secrets. Bonus for Marvels Told, Voices of Malice is such that sage in company that did not resolved yet its site phase may use them; sage is treated as member of company that faces AA for purpose of playing them.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:17 am
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:45 am If Rank Upon Rank leaves play, the +1 to prowess and strikes absolutely leaves play.
This is so obvious like obvious is that if Long Winter + Doors of Night leaves play the sites with [-me_wi-] [-me_wi-] tapped in result of action from Long Winter should become untapped. Or that companies returned by action from Snowstorm are returned on their path when Snowstorm is discarded.
Well, is there a difference between an effect that "leaves play" without the player having to touch any other cards in the game and the player trying to "reverse" a previously completed action by taking a completely new action of moving a card?

Long Winter's effect moves a site from untapped to tapped. Snowstorm moves a site from being in play back to the location deck (or to the discard pile). The effects of these cards are not on-going effects that are in play that can simply leave play. Trying to reverse the effects would require a new movement of the card (from tapped back to untapped, or from the location deck back to play) which is an entirely new effect. That's not the same as "leaves play."

Long Winter and Snowstorm require the player to touch a card to affect the game state (the location/position of all cards) while Rank Upon Rank does not require touching any cards directly, it just affects how cards with non-agent man attacks are handled by the players as they take other actions in the game. Rank Upon Rank's effect can leave play. The effects of Long Winter and Snowstorm and the effects that cause site cards to be moved in certain conditions. The end result of that movement is not "in play" (it is just part of the game state) and so it cannot "leave play."
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

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. :)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:14 pm Well, is there a difference between an effect that "leaves play" without the player having to touch any other cards in the game and the player trying to "reverse" a previously completed action by taking a completely new action of moving a card?
Between...
What you are comparing?
Effect to player?
If so, yes, there is a difference.

If an effect is the on-going effect, then the effect is not result of action caused by passive condition or other condition (e.g. condition of cc from Greed).
Result of Something Has Slipped lasts by some period whether the card is in play or leaved play in meantime.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”