farmer maggot

[marcos]

what happens if an assassin's attack is canceled by farmer maggot?
i suppose that even with the site cards being changed by another one due to farmer maggot's ability, if assassin is being resolved, the target character has to face the rest of the attacks...

Am I right?

[Bandobras Took]

Unique. If one of your companies faces an attack while at a site in The Shire, Arthedain, or Cardolan, you may immediately replace its site card with another site card in The Shire, Arthedain, or Cardolan (from your location deck). If your company takes this option, the attack is canceled and this card is discarded.

I think that's correct. The text of Farmer Maggot only cancels one attack.

However, it the keyability of the assassin's attacks checked before each attack?

*Edit* Found my own answer.

Creature Cards
You may use a creature card to directly attack one of your opponent’s companies. Such an attack can occur only if one of the following criteria is met:
• The company is at a specific site at which the creature’s card text says it can be played.
• The company’s site of origin or new site is in a region where the creature’s card text says it can be played.
• One of the site symbols on the creature’s card matches the site that the company moved to (i.e., the new site) or stayed at (i.e., if the company did not move).
• At least one of the region symbols on the creature’s card matches one of the region types the company moved through this turn (see below). If the creature’s card has two region symbols of the same type (i.e., a deep Wilderness creature), then the company must have moved through at least two regions of that same type.

It seems that before any attack from a creature card, it checks for one of those conditions. Therefore the site would be checked before each of the assassin's attacks and the other two would fizzle because they do not fill one of the four bullet points.

[Konrad Klar]

However, it the keyability of the assassin's attacks checked before each attack?

I don't think so. You can fizzle creature changing site type, path, reducing HL etc. before creature is resolved, not after.
If last wounded character in company is eliminated/discarded while facing attack (before strikes are assigned) from Morgul Rats and Doors of Night is not in play it is not reason for not resolving this attack.
I don't think that keyability should be treated differently than other playability conditions (HL, company status - covert/overt/hero etc.).

[Bandobras Took]

Obviously after an attack resolves, it goes through no matter what.

But the Assassin creature card creates three attacks, and the rule I quoted indicates that keyability is checked before each attack.

[Ringbearer]

So, to make things clear:

Assassin attacks at Bree
Respond by Farmer Maggot

Option A > Reveal Old Forest: Assassin remains keyable so attacks go trough.

Option B >Reveal Tharbad: R/L, so rest of the attacks fizzle.

[Konrad Klar]

How about removing Doors of Night before facing of second, third attack of Nameless Thing keyed to surface site or ? Second, third attack fizzle?

[marcos]

i think yes...

[Konrad Klar]

I'm adherent of strict reading rules if the rules seem to be written precisely.

I fear that:

You may use a creature card to directly attack one of your opponent’s companies. Such an attack can occur only if one of the following criteria is met:

in context of Creature Cards is not such case.

Other examples of similar wording:

Clarification: A special item with the keyword, Ring, at the beginning of its text does not tap the character or the site when played.

Strict reading would lead to conclusion that site and character are both tapped at the same time - at declaration - in case of items other than special ring items.

Similarly:

If the site is untapped, a character in the company may attempt to play an item, ally, or faction that is "playable" at that site. Tap the character and the site. Certain resource cards other than items, allies, and factions are playable during the site phase and state the conditions under which they may be played. Such a card only requires an untapped site if it states that the site taps when played. If a tapped site should become untapped, an additional resource may be played that taps the site. Anytime a resource card is played that taps the site, one additional character may tap to play a minor item.

Again "when played" refer to the main effect rather than to requirements that must be fulfiled at declaration.

Strict reading of such rough explanations leads to illogical results. At least in second and third example it is clearly visible (I hope).

I don't see reasons for treating keyability differently than other playability conditions.

[Bandobras Took]

I think the rule I quoted is sufficiently clear. An attack from a creature card can only occur if one of the following is met: etc.

This quite clearly suggests that before an attack from a creature card is created, the conditions in the rules are checked.

For example, the rules on influencing an opponent's cards state:

This may only take place if the influencing character and the target of the influence are at the same site.

This similarly indicates that if you are going to make the influence attempt, you must first check to see if you are at the same site.

Both of the rules you quoted don't contain the same wording.

However,

Certain resource cards may only be played if specific required conditions exist.

has the same wording, and implies the same thing -- whenever you want the action to occur, you must first check for the required conditions.

In the case of a creature card with multiple attacks, I don't think there's any other way to read the rules than that keyability is checked before each attack.

It is further worth noting that

An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects.

This means that the three attacks of the assassin declare and resolve one at a time. They do not resolve within the same chain of effects. This further supports the idea that keyability is checked before each attack.

[Konrad Klar]

An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects.

Another example of rough wording. Strict reading it would lead to conclusion that attacks from two or more Ahunt manifestation may not take place. Second and next declared dragon attacks would fizzle, much like second and third copy of triggered Icy Touch.

Fortunately, this rule have more precise form in CRF:

# Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects; i.e., a creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception.
# [crf.html#new @] Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15. [CoE] [crf.html#non-rev %]

Text after "i.e." explains precisely what rough phrase "An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects" means .

[Bandobras Took]

Nevertheless, a strict reading of

Clarification: A special item with the keyword, Ring, at the beginning of its text does not tap the character or the site when played.

only refers to special items with the keyword Ring. You cannot apply the rule to any other case.

A strict reading of

Such a card only requires an untapped site if it states that the site taps when played.

refers to resource events that tap the site when played (e.g. To Satisfy the Questioner). Such events will require an untapped site before they can be played. There is no contradiction or difficulty.

The rule is clear and simply stated -- there's no wiggle room. Before an attack from a creature card can occur, the keyability conditions must be met. If a card such as Assassin or Nameless Thing creates 3 attacks, then before any given attack can occur, it must be keyable.

An attack created by a creature card can only occur if the conditions are met. The rule is specific in referencing an attack created by a creature card. The conditions are likewise specific. This does not seem to be an example of a poorly written rule.

[marcos]

What Bandobras Took is saying seems pretty clear to me and make all sense

[Konrad Klar]

[quote="Bandobras Took in "maker's map and secrets of their forgering" thread"]After a long debate about To Satisfy the Questioner on meccg.net, Miguel found this from the MELE Rules:

Certain resource cards other than items, allies, and factions are playable during the site phase and state the conditions under which they may be played. Such a card only requires an untapped site if it states that the site taps when played.

By rule, cards which tap a site require an untapped site.

That's a lot better than trying to say tapping a site is an active condition. [/quote]

A strict reading of

Such a card only requires an untapped site if it states that the site taps when played.

refers to resource events that tap the site when played (e.g. To Satisfy the Questioner). Such events will require an untapped site before they can be played. There is no contradiction or difficulty.

So now it have other meaning? It says that if tapping foo (in this particular case site) is requirement of playing card, foo must be untapped before playing of card?
I'm slightly confused.

[Bandobras Took]

The other side was arguing that tapping a site was an active condition.

I was saying it was an effect of the card.

The rule which states that a resource event which taps a site requires an untapped site is necessary because, as I argued in that thread, a resource event would otherwise not require an untapped site, but would merely tap it if it were not already tapped.

[Konrad Klar]

OK. So what exactly means "when played"?
When declared (act of playing)? When resolved? May it be readed identically and strictly in each case where LE rulesbook refer to the "when played", "may (not) be played"?

More important question: if for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15 any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack, phrase Such an attack can occur only if one of the following criteria is met may be aplicated solely to the attack from creature, or rather it is referring to the creature cards?