Canceling attack vs canceling strike (especially in CVCC)

[zarathustra]

David and I had a small exchange on this topic via PM:

Regarding your thought that one cannot play Wizard's Flame while facing a strike in CVCC, I'm afraid I disagree. Canceling an attack does not cancel all the strikes. So the analogy fails. But iff you reduce the prowess of a strike, and that happens to reduce the prowess of other strikes at the same time, there's no problem, as far as I can tell.

Cancelling an attack doesn't cancel the strikes? Why do you say that? I really am curious about this.

I have two other arguments. First if the defender can play cards that affect the attack, then so can the attacker. So then he can save up all of his booster cards and play them after strikes are assigned and there is no cancellation possible. I don't think this is right. Second I think that allowing cards to be played that affect the strike mean exactly that and no more. Cards that affect the strike, singular. I don't read affecting the attack as affecting the strike and vice versa. I'm not sure that your reading of it that way is justified.

Basically, I had argued that it is possible for the defender in CVCC to play, for instance, Wizard's Flame, because it affects the prowess of a strike. The fact that it also affects the prowess of other strikes is to my mind a happy side-effect. As I read the rule on CVCC, it allows the defender to do things during the strike sequence that directly affect prowess/body (among other things). If the effect also spreads to the rest of the company, no problem.

I pointed out what I take to be true -- that canceling an attack does not cancel all strikes. David disagrees. I'm not entirely sure I understand why, so I figured I'd bring the question here.

[miguel]

Basically, I had argued that it is possible for the defender in CVCC to play, for instance, Wizard's Flame, because it affects the prowess of a strike. The fact that it also affects the prowess of other strikes is to my mind a happy side-effect.

I agree.

First if the defender can play cards that affect the attack, then so can the attacker.

Only the defender may play cards that affect the attack as a whole (regardless of when they are played).

I pointed out what I take to be true -- that canceling an attack does not cancel all strikes. David disagrees. I'm not entirely sure I understand why, so I figured I'd bring the question here.

Hmm. How (when) is this relevant?

[Wacho]

Actually my question is more in the context of general play rather than CvCC specific. My contention is that during the strike phase it is too late to play cards that affect the attack. As I see it combat flows in this order:
1. Creature played
2. Opportunity to cancel or affect attack
3. Strikes Assigned
4. Strikes resolved one at a time, during which you can play cards that affect the strike.

The rules say during the strike phase you may play cards that affect the strike. I believe this limits you to cards that say they affect a strike (singular) such as risky blow. Basically I read the rules as being specific, and that cards must directly affect a strike to be played.

If this is not true then I don't see why you couldn't play concealment during the strike phase [which is generally accepted as a no no] as cancelling the attack at this stage would cancel the strike. Mark says that cancelling the attack doesn't cancel the strikes. I don't follow his logic here, so if this could be further explained that would be helpful.

Finally if the resource player can wait to play his cards that affect the attack phase, then so can the hazard player. That way he can save up all of his boosters until after strikes are assigned, when according to current interpretation you are no longer allowed to cancel an attack. So a company facing an unehanced lesser spiders and decides to face the attack instead of cancelling with concealment can be suprised by Full of Froth and Rage and have to face 4@9 rather than 4@7 with no chance to cancel. This would also give Prowess of Age a lot more flexibility as you wouldn't have to gamble when playing it to boost prowess, you can hold the card until the defender decides to cancel or strikes are assigned and then boost the attack.

I don't think this is how things should be played.
This would give hazard players a lot more flexibility than they currently have and make things more dangerous, and there isn't really any advantage to the resource player to balance this out, as it usually isn't advantageous for the resource player to hold on to his attack affecting resources.

[Konrad Klar]

If this is not true then I don't see why you couldn't play concealment during the strike phase [which is generally accepted as a no no] as cancelling the attack at this stage would cancel the strike.

Situation is similar to on-guards:

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

So hazard revealed at this point must be hazard that can modify the automatic-attack. This does not mean that hazard that can modify the automatic-attack cannot have any other effects, thus Balrog of Moria may be revealed as on-guard.

However canceling of attack during strike sequence is explicitly forbidden:

Annotation 13: An attack may not be canceled once its strikes have been assigned. A strike may not be canceled once the dice-roll for the strike has been made.

An action that has the condition that a target character tap, but which otherwise has an effect not outlined here, may not be declared at this point.

This is true even if the recipient of the strike would be the target character tapping and thus receive -1 to his prowess.

So it is anticipated that action taken in strike sequence may have side effects. Only some of these actions are forbidden.

[zarathustra]

OK, so I take it this is dealt with and done.

For a final example: David, on your interpretation, it would not be possible to play The Evenstar on an elf character during his strike phase if GoM was in play. This is because Evenstar would boost the prowess of all other elves for the rest of the turn. Surely that can't be right!

Done. Locked.

[Wacho]

Sorry I'm not quite satisfied. As far as Annotation 13 goes, point taken. Attack cancellation cards are explicitly prevented from being played after strikes are assigned. I do think this is part of the structure I mentioned before rather than being something different, but no matter.

I'm certainly not saying that you can't play cards that have additional effects, I'm not sure why you have that idea. Of course you could reveal Balrog of Moria on guard (at the appropriate sites of course) because it specifically says it affects those auto-attacks. The fact it does other things is irrelevant. I don't think you could reveal Doors of Night on guard even if you had Minions Stir in Play because Doors of Night doesn't affect auto-attacks.

My point is that once the attack has been generated and strikes assigned it is to late to affect "the attack". In fact one could say there is no more attack, there are only strikes remaining at this point. If the ruling is that you can still affect the attack then the hazard player can also still affect the attack and that leads to the type of plays I mentioned before and a huge advantage to the hazard player. Is this really the way you believe it should be played?

[Konrad Klar]

I'm certainly not saying that you can't play cards that have additional effects, I'm not sure why you have that idea. Of course you could reveal Balrog of Moria on guard (at the appropriate sites of course) because it specifically says it affects those auto-attacks. The fact it does other things is irrelevant. I don't think you could reveal Doors of Night on guard even if you had Minions Stir in Play because Doors of Night doesn't affect auto-attacks.

Tapping is particular action, that may indirectly affect strike (cards that has the condition that a target character tap have usually other effects - not involved with strike - hence this idea). This action is forbidden. Actions that can untap or wound character and have addiitional side effects are not forbidden.

My point is that once the attack has been generated and strikes assigned it is to late to affect "the attack". In fact one could say there is no more attack, there are only strikes remaining at this point. If the ruling is that you can still affect the attack then the hazard player can also still affect the attack and that leads to the type of plays I mentioned before and a huge advantage to the hazard player. Is this really the way you believe it should be played?

I don't know rule that allows affecting attack after strikes are assigned. From other hand I don't know rule that forbid it.

Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack may not be played after strikes are assigned. This includes cards that have other additional effects, and cards that only indirectly change the number of strikes.

Why "Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack" and not simply "Any effect that would affect the attack"?

Yes. I believe that actions (otherwise allowed) that affect attack may be taken after strikes are assigned.

[Wacho]

Ok. I knew I wasn't hallucinating. I found these ruling in Digest #41:

Re: Prowess of Age
I would like to know how the timing works this card. The idea is that I
would like to cancel a card (like Concealment) that cancels my dragon
attack, but if none are played, then I would like to use this card to
give +1 prowess (or more) to the attack.
Is there a way for the Hazard Opponent to wait until the attack can NOT
be canceled, but before strikes are assigned?
*** No. According to the CRF and past NetRep rulings, there is time
before each attack and each strike to do things that are otherwise
legal. This applies to each player, so there's no time where an
attack-affecting hazard could be played that an attack-affecting
resource cannot be played in response.

Here's the 2nd one:

so what about reducing the prowess of the whole attack (for example
black arrow). it would be logical (at least in my logic), that such an
effect must also take place before strikes are assigned. but i couldn´t
find anything in the crf.
*** An effect that states that it reduces the prowess of an attack must
be played before the strikes are assigned.

[miguel]

Nice work Dave. I think the main reason for our broader interpretation has been the limitation on what you can play against automatic-attacks and some discussion we had about that on the old board. With these rulings it's getting really bad (no Old Thrush for KutM decks etc.). Meh.

Regardless, I really like the logic behind these rulings you found. This kind of play seems intuitive, which makes it easy for everyone to understand. Rather than change these rulings, I'd like to get some change-proposal going about the CRF entries causing so much trouble. That should happen here.

[Konrad Klar]

I'm certainly not saying that you can't play cards that have additional effects, I'm not sure why you have that idea. Of course you could reveal Balrog of Moria on guard (at the appropriate sites of course) because it specifically says it affects those auto-attacks. The fact it does other things is irrelevant. I don't think you could reveal Doors of Night on guard even if you had Minions Stir in Play because Doors of Night doesn't affect auto-attacks.

I'll return to this question once again.
Please note that many actions allowed in strike sequence are not specific to strike sequence and do not affect strike directly. Some of them are strike sequence only, like e.g. the Risky Blow, but using the Potion of Prowess or untapping character only indirectly affects strike, modifying prowess of character. That actions may be taken also outside strike sequence and outside attack. That modifications also have effect lasting after the attack.
So if modyfing prowess of the character (not prowess against strike), that only indirectly affects strike, is allowed, why modyfing prowess of the attack could not be allowed?

[zarathustra]

I'm with Konrad here. First, because there's no basis for the (admittedly intuitive) rulings in Digest 41. Second, because the potential for abuse is not as great as y'all seem to think.

Targets and cancels any effect (declared earlier in the same chain of effects) that would cancel an attack from a unique Dragon manifestation.
Alternatively, gives a prowess bonus to a Dragon or Drake attack (must be played before its strikes are assigned) dictated by the number of Prowess of Age cards played on the attack: +1 prowess if 1 played; +4 if 2 played; +9 if 3 played.

So you see (a) that there is absolutely no potential for abuse of PoA and (b) that there is no reason for the parenthetical comment if such an action by the hazard player is not normally allowable.

Both the resource player and the hazard player may take actions during the strike sequence that directly affect the prowess of the strike -- even if such actions also have other effects.

[miguel]

Aye.

*off to build a KutM deck*

[zarathustra]

Both the resource player and the hazard player may take actions during the strike sequence that directly affect the prowess of the strike -- even if such actions also have other effects, except those otherwise forbidden (e.g. changing the number of strikes, altering strike assignment).

[Konrad Klar]

Yes.

Although "except these otherwise forbidden by rules" instead "except increasing the number of strikes or altering strike assignment" would be sufficient.
Detail.

[zarathustra]

Updated.