Automatic attack restrictions

[zarathustra]

CRF wrote: "The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence."


This really really really blows. When was it added to the CRF?

on the other hand, what is this silly phrase "or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence" supposed to mean, exactly? The rules for the strike sequence have the same bloody clause about "would be otherwise playable" -- so the reader just gets sent in circles!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, did some more reading. This is perhaps the worst rule in the game.

You cannot play Sojourn in Shadows or Ruse when facing an auto-attack, which means that a lone ringwraith in heralded lord mode just became even weaker. It's now virtually impossible to play such a deck (akhorahil is useless as a dragon influencer now, and the witch king cannot sneak into Shelob's Lair to play the last child...). Ugh.

If ever a rule needed overturning, it would be this one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIKKO:

I agree, something needs to be done here. I suppose we could expand the types of cards that are playable instead of actually overturning the rule (though the end result might be pretty much the same)?

The same wording also appears in CRF:Timing:
Quote:
Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.
(amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation 18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).

Note that Annotation 24 is about cards with multiple actions, so it might not affect Tidings of Bold Spies (as Jaded pointed out here), but it would affect cards like Long Dark Reach, which just adds to the confusion...

If we come up with something good for the automatic-attack entry, I feel we should apply it to Annotation 24 as well.

[tharasix]

I'm pretty sure that's ICE-era. If we change it, this will have to be CoE-approved.

[Konrad Klar]

Hounds of Sauron probably comes from new ICE-era.

Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable during the site phase by a shadow-magic using character in lieu of declaring an attack against a hero company. The hero company faces an attack of Wolves-4 strikes with 8 prowess. Alternatively, playable on a non-automatic-attack against a shadow-magic-using character. The number of strikes of the attack is reduced to one. Unless he is a Ringwraith, the shadow-magic user makes a corruption check modified by -4.

Otherwise "playable on a non-automatic-attack" is simply duplication of general rule.

[Manuel]

Although it seems a bit drastic change to remove or change what ICE had done, I'm completely in favour of doing something with this one. As Mark says, it creates a lot of confussion between players (and let's face it, we didn't know of the existence of this rule until some months ago)

Definately expanding the type of cards which are playable seems a better idea than removing the entire annotation, or a part of it. However, if we work in that direction, we would have to compile a list of which cards are not playable against an automatic attack according to annotation 18, and of these cards, which cards "should" be playable.

[miguel]

Otherwise "playable on a non-automatic-attack" is simply duplication of general rule.

Hounds of Sauron is afaik the only card which has this problem. Knowing how poor the wordings can be at times, I wouldn't put too much value on Hounds of Sauron vs. rules.

After the initial shock of having to enforce this rule, I've gotten very used to it now. Yes, the automatic-attacks (and non-creature cards which create attacks) are dangerous, but that's how they are supposed to be. Granted, they can cause some confusion with beginning players, but nobody said this is an easy game...

Also, with the recent ruling narrowing down what the defender may do in CvCC from previous understanding, I think it's best to just get used to a combat-oriented Middle-earth.

[miguel]

I think it's best to just get used to a combat-oriented Middle-earth.

I'm starting to get soft, I don't wanna fight no more.

An interesting point was brought forth here. How would we want to change the CRF entries mentioned in this thread? Just add "cards that affect the attack"? Should the hazard player also be able to play cards affecting the attack in the case of Annotation 24? Imho that would make sense, since currently this is all ok for cards creating attacks but not multiple actions, because Annotation 24 wouldn't apply then (e.g. Tidings of Bold Spies vs. Long Dark Reach).

[Wacho]

Well, the auto-attack restrictions weren't in CRF 6. I think that this and Annotation 24 are definitely linked. I think these should read you may only play cards/initiate effects that cancel the attack, affect the attack, cancel a strike, or are playable during the strike phase. But we'll probably need to make an official errata. Most people I believe will support this because this is how we play it anyway, and how it has been interpreted until now. As it stands you can't even use Black Arrow on auto-attacks.

[Konrad Klar]

I'm pretty sure that's ICE-era. If we change it, this will have to be CoE-approved.

Found in Balrog rules (Clarifications, Cards With Multiple Actions).

If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed. As an exception, in one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of
the strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence.

Underline mine.

Currently this (ancient) procedure is changed to:

[crf.html#new @] Between an attacks declaration and the assigning of the strikes there is time for multiple chains of effect. Thus you could for example make two attempts to cancel the attack or your opponent could use Hoarmurath for an extra strike, recycle him and add another strike. [CoE] [crf.html#non-rev %]

Should not be automatic-attack restrictions treated as "back number" and changed in similar way? Would not be it more consistent than treating it as ICE's intention of reinforcement of automatic-attacks?

[Manuel]

As it stands you can't even use Black Arrow on auto-attacks.

I don't know, but if there's a distinction between "play cards" and "take actions", using a Black Arrow on a auto-attack would be perfectly legal, since using Black Arrow wouldn't be "playing a card" but "taking an action"

[miguel]

Should not be automatic-attack restrictions treated as "back number" and changed in similar way? Would not be it more consistent than treating it as ICE's intention of reinforcement of automatic-attacks?

Sorry I don't understand... What exactly are you suggesting?

[Konrad Klar]

Phrase "that cancel the attack, cancel one of the strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence." was ICE's failed try of making definition of card affecting attack. Failed because such definition is rough and some cards affecting attack does not fit within it.

Similarly quoted Balrog's clarification is rough try of regulation of situation where attack or strike appears in middle of resolving chain of effects and player should have chance of responding.

Both rules seems (for me) as intermediate solutions of some problems, not as rules in its final form. Especially clarification from Balrog is totally useless (does not allow to play Searching Eye in response to Coancelment for example), but restriction on AA can be unchanged and players can live with it, even if both rules does not reflect ICE's intentions how some things should work.

[Wacho]

Is there any further development on this subject? As it stands now it seems that we are in limbo on what cards can be played when facing an auto-attack, etc.

Ideally I would like to see cards that modify attacks be allowed to be used when facing auto-attacks. It's likely this would require an official errata which the NetRep team is not authorized for, but we could make a recommendation to the COE. In any case there is a lot of confusion over this rule, I think at the very least we ought to issue a clarification of what cards are usable.