This might be just reading between the lines, but could Riddling Talk be played on an automatic-attack? There wouldn't be a "creature's card" to discard, if yes.Riddling Talk wrote:[...] Playable on a character whose company is facing an attack of the type listed below. Character makes a roll [...] then name a card and opponent must reveal his hand. If the named card is in opponent’s hand, the creatureʹs card is discarded (all of its attacks are cancelled) [...]
Riddling Talk
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
I think that only declared action caused by Riddling Talk is a dice roll.
What will happen (or will not happen) later depends on result of the roll, therefore any objects manipulated by eventual later actions are not targets. Creature card is not target, its attacks are not targets.
So answer is: yes, Riddling Talk may be played on character facing an automatic-attack.
I can repeat my opinion expressed in other threads.
It is very visible at example of A Lie in Your Eyes.
Therefore it cannot be said that tapping the character, tapping an ally, dice roll, or discarding the character are declared actions.
And because target of an action must be specified at declaration of the action, the character is not target of action "tap", nor action "discard", an ally is not target of action "tap". Character is still target of A Lie in Your Eyes, just because the card is played on it, but not because any action, potentially created by A Lie in Your Eyes may operate on it. Only declared action of A Lie in Your Eyes is choice.
What will happen (or will not happen) later depends on result of the roll, therefore any objects manipulated by eventual later actions are not targets. Creature card is not target, its attacks are not targets.
So answer is: yes, Riddling Talk may be played on character facing an automatic-attack.
I can repeat my opinion expressed in other threads.
It is very visible at example of A Lie in Your Eyes.
At declaration it is not know what an opponent will choose: tapping target character, tapping an ally the character controls (if available), or making a dice roll. Result of the roll in not known too.A Lie in Your Eyes wrote:Playable on an untapped non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character. Your opponent may either: tap the character, tap an ally the character controls, or choose for you to make a roll (draw a #). If the result is greater than the character's mind plus 6, the character is discarded (along with all cards he controls). 'That won't do... What did you see, and what did you say?'-LotRIII
Therefore it cannot be said that tapping the character, tapping an ally, dice roll, or discarding the character are declared actions.
And because target of an action must be specified at declaration of the action, the character is not target of action "tap", nor action "discard", an ally is not target of action "tap". Character is still target of A Lie in Your Eyes, just because the card is played on it, but not because any action, potentially created by A Lie in Your Eyes may operate on it. Only declared action of A Lie in Your Eyes is choice.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Some (disappointing) addition.
While I'm maintaining all I wrote in my previous post I must add that Riddling Talk is not able to cancel an automatic-attack.
"the creatureʹs card is discarded (all of its attacks are cancelled)" implies that attacks of creature may be potentially canceled (but not other attacks).
If the text would be instead "the attack is canceled and the creatureʹs card is discarded (all of its [remaining] attacks are cancelled)" then the automatic-attack could be canceled.
So only potential benefit of playing the card on character facing an automatic-attack is forcing an opponent to reveal his hand.
While I'm maintaining all I wrote in my previous post I must add that Riddling Talk is not able to cancel an automatic-attack.
"the creatureʹs card is discarded (all of its attacks are cancelled)" implies that attacks of creature may be potentially canceled (but not other attacks).
If the text would be instead "the attack is canceled and the creatureʹs card is discarded (all of its [remaining] attacks are cancelled)" then the automatic-attack could be canceled.
So only potential benefit of playing the card on character facing an automatic-attack is forcing an opponent to reveal his hand.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Hello,
How works Riddling Talk against a Dragon Ahunt attack ?
This attack is considered as a hazard creature attack.
So, this attack can be cancelled with a Riddling Talk ?
If it is cancelled, is the Dragon Ahunt card discarded?
How works Riddling Talk against a Dragon Ahunt attack ?
This attack is considered as a hazard creature attack.
So, this attack can be cancelled with a Riddling Talk ?
If it is cancelled, is the Dragon Ahunt card discarded?
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
"A hazard creature attack" is not he same as "attack from creature".
The attack cannot be canceled with a Riddling Talk. The Dragon Ahunt card is not discarded.
The attack cannot be canceled with a Riddling Talk. The Dragon Ahunt card is not discarded.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- the JabberwocK
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am
I must disagree.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:03 pm "A hazard creature attack" is not he same as "attack from creature".
The attack cannot be canceled with a Riddling Talk. The Dragon Ahunt card is not discarded.
RIDDLING TALK ‐ Short‐event (U)
Riddling attempt. Playable on a character whose company is facing an attack of the type listed below. Character makes a roll (or draws a #) modified by: +2 for each sage and +1 for each Hobbit in his company. If the result is greater than: 8 against Dragons and Drakes, 10 against Men and Giants, 12 against Slayers, Awakened Plants, Orcs, Spiders, and Trolls; then name a card and opponent must reveal his hand. If the named card is in opponent’s hand, the creatureʹs card is discarded (all of its attacks are cancelled) and the hazard limit against the character’s company is decreased by three.
"Playable on a character whose company is facing an attack of the type listed below."BAIRANAX AHUNT ‐ Long‐event (U)
[MP: 3]
Unique. Any company moving in Withered Heath, Gundabad, Anduin Vales, and/or Grey Mountain Narrows immediately faces one Dragon attack (considered a hazard creature attack) ‐ 3 strikes at 12/6 (attacker chooses defending characters).
If Doors of Night is in play, this attack also affects: Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, Southern Rhovanion, and Angmar.
Does the Dragon Ahunt qualify? Yes, it does.
"faces one Dragon attack (considered a hazard creature attack)"
What is the point of this statement? The attack is meant to be treated the same as an attack from a hazard creature.
"If the named card is in opponent’s hand, the creatureʹs card is discarded"
Since the attack is considered a hazard creature attack, that means there is a creature involved. As such, the creature has a card associated with it (which is discarded), even if the card itself is not a "hazard creature card."
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
(among others)the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:37 pm "faces one Dragon attack (considered a hazard creature attack)"
What is the point of this statement?
Bow of Dragon-horn may be used against such attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
CRF wrote:Automatic-attacks
A card that can cancel an attack can cancel an automatic-attack, and this counts as facing the automatic-attack.
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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
^ That is a good find. And definitely helpful in understanding the intention here.
I wonder if the confusing "discard" language arose because the writer/developer of this card was questioning "how can I write the card to refer to all of the attacks of a Slayer when this card is playable on 'an attack' ?"
I wonder if the confusing "discard" language arose because the writer/developer of this card was questioning "how can I write the card to refer to all of the attacks of a Slayer when this card is playable on 'an attack' ?"
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Author could write:
"If the named card is in opponent’s hand, the attack is cancelled (creatureʹs card is discarded and its remaining attacks are cancelled)"
But he wrote, what he wrote.
"If the named card is in opponent’s hand, the creatureʹs card is discarded (all of its attacks are cancelled)".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
The verdict is contentious.
Hopefully your play group can read the ideas discussed and come to a mutually acceptable, consistent decision for yourselves.
If this came up at e.g. Worlds... it would probably go to the loudest group present, regardless of thoughtful discussion. Speculating.
Hopefully your play group can read the ideas discussed and come to a mutually acceptable, consistent decision for yourselves.
If this came up at e.g. Worlds... it would probably go to the loudest group present, regardless of thoughtful discussion. Speculating.
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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/