FEAR! FIRE! FOES!

[Konrad Klar]

Playable on a Free-hold or Border-hold . An additional automatic-attack is created at the site this turn: 5 strikes with 8 prowess (detainment, no attack type). Alternatively, playable on a detainment automatic-attack a minion company is facing. The attack becomes normal (not detainment) and has -1 prowess. The Brandybucks were blowing the Horn-call of Buckland...-LotRI

Alternative effect of the card targets a target not existing in M/H phase. An automatic-attack is not faced in M/H phase.
Nothing in text of the card overcomes a conditions of revealing On Guard cards.

I propose the following erratum:

Playable on a Free-hold or Border-hold . An additional automatic-attack is created at the site this turn: 5 strikes with 8 prowess (detainment, no attack type). Alternatively, if placed on-guard it may be revealed when a minion company is facing a detainment automatic-attack. The attack becomes normal (not detainment) and has -1 prowess. The Brandybucks were blowing the Horn-call of Buckland...-LotRI

[Bandobras Took]

Makes sense to me.

[the JabberwocK]

Great suggestion Konrad!

I remember scratching my head awhile back when I was looking at this card, but I got busy and forgot to come back to it.

[Shapeshifter]

I propose the following erratum:

Playable on a Free-hold or Border-hold . An additional automatic-attack is created at the site this turn: 5 strikes with 8 prowess (detainment, no attack type). Alternatively, if placed on-guard it may be revealed when a minion company is facing a detainment automatic-attack. The attack becomes normal (not detainment) and has -1 prowess. The Brandybucks were blowing the Horn-call of Buckland...-LotRI

How about this one?

Playable on a Free-hold or Border-hold . An additional automatic-attack is created at the site this turn: 5 strikes with 8 prowess (detainment, no attack type). Alternatively, playable on a detainment automatic-attack. Against a minion company the attack becomes normal (not detainment) and has -1 prowess. The Brandybucks were blowing the Horn-call of Buckland...-LotRI

This way it can still be played during the m/h-phase.

[Konrad Klar]

This way it can still be played during the m/h-phase.

And this changes a meaning. I think that originally the card was planned it the way that it could not be played in M/H phase for its second effect.
For its second effect it is playable on target that exists only in site phase. There are such cards (e.g. Searching Eye) but they contain clause in their text "as on-guard" or similar*. Only purpose of erratum proposed by me is fixing the text of the card by adding such clause.

*) Searching Eye says "If this card is played as on-guard, it can be revealed..." that is another candidate for errata; a card may be placed as on-guard, not played as on-guard.

[Theo]

Wouldn't Fear! Fire! Foes! already be revealable on-guard?

Nothing in text of the card overcomes a conditions of revealing On Guard cards.

One of the allowances for on guard cards is that they can be revealed when:

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.

This allowance has no other qualifiers (unlike the The company plays a card that potentially taps the site).

[the JabberwocK]

@ Theo -

So far as I know, I believe the rule you quoted is still subject to the over-arching On-Guard rule which states that any revealed On-Guard card must have been legally playable during the M/H phase... which Fear Fire Foes alternative use is not. The notable exception to this being if a card specifically states that it may be revealed On-Guard.

[Konrad Klar]

Rules Erratum: An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been
played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must
have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.

It is not limited to On Guard cards revealed in response to playing a card that potentially taps the site.

Which types of On Guard cards may be revealed and when is just another restriction, that must be obeyed in addition to restriction quoted above and others.

P.S. I have previewed my post just after the Jabberwock posted his reply.

[Theo]

Ah, so this is getting back to our same debate about what encapsulates a target.

My opinion: it could be argued that an [automatic-attack] is the target (including) for the purposes of checking whether the same target existed, and [detainment] and [a minion company is facing] are conditions of validity of that "target" when the card is revealed.

My sense of Konrad's: the only interpretation is [a detainment automatic-attack a minion company is facing] is the target (including) for the purposes of checking whether the same target existed.

But I like the proposed change too.

[Konrad Klar]

My sense of Konrad's: the only interpretation is [a detainment automatic-attack a minion company is facing] is the target for the purposes of checking whether the same target existed.

I do not understand what means "a target for the purposes".
Something is a target of an action/card, or is not a target of the action/card.

[Theo]

I was trying to tie it directly back to the immediate discussion. "...the target, including for the purposes...". Inserted above

[Thorsten the Traveller]

So the issue remains whether the alternative effect was indeed meant to be only an on-guard surprise, or not.

In my opinion Konrad is correct here, and this not only reflects the theme of the card better but also the common praxis, as it is in fact the way the card is mostly played (though strictly speaking incorrectly).

[Thorsten the Traveller]

However, the question is also, why add limitations if they are not strictly needed? So I prefer the erratum proposal to follow Shapeshifter's suggestion.

@ Konrad. Would it really need that on-guard clause though? Searching Eye does not affect the automatic-attack, this one does.

[Konrad Klar]

However, the question is also, why add limitations if they are not strictly needed? So I prefer the erratum proposal to follow Shapeshifter's suggestion.

This is a question for creators, not for correctors.
My proposal is not aimed to add a features, or a limitations.
I want to add fix, and I do not want to change anything else.

If the card was not intended to be played for 2nd effect in M/H phase I do not want to add such feature.

@ Konrad. Would it really need that on-guard clause though? Searching Eye does not affect the automatic-attack, this one does.

Both Searching Eye (revealed as On Guard) and FEAR! FIRE! FOES! (2nd effect) have target that does not exist in M/H phase.
Affecting an automatic-attack does not give a card a special privileges. If Cave-Drake is played as automatic-attack at hero Framsburg it does not allow to reveal Prowess of Might placed On Guard.
The automatic-attack did exist in M/H phase but until playing a Cave-Drake it was not a Dragon attack.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Both Searching Eye (revealed as On Guard) and FEAR! FIRE! FOES! (2nd effect) have target that does not exist in M/H phase.

It does not have a target during m/h hazard phase in the existing version, but I assumed we agreed that was due to sloppy wording, not on purpose.
In Shapeshifter's version it does have a target. The AA exists at the site, whether it's detainment or not (or existent vs. a particular company).

Affecting an automatic-attack does not give a card a special privileges.

According to rules, if it modifies the automatic-attack (and FFF does), special privilege is that you can reveal it as on-guard card. Or are you implying that because Framsburg's AA is not specified during M/H phase, no AA is specified during M/H phase? That would make a whole class of cards unuseable.