FEAR! FIRE! FOES!

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Thorsten the Traveller wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:45 pm 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)
I think that purpose of the card (in 2nd effect) was affecting an automatic-attack faced by a minion company.
It is OK if a card overcomes a limitation imposed by rules as long it does it explicitly. Practice used in hazard cards that may be revealed On Guard is using a clause "if placed On Guard it may be revealed [under that or another conditions]".
Text of FEAR! FIRE! FOES! lacks of such clause.

Shapeshifter's version cures a headache by cutting a head. It changes a target in such way that the target exists in M/H phase, so such clause is no longer needed.
At first glance it only adds a features to the card (the card may be also played in M/H phase for 2nd effect, not only placed On Guard) not removing anything. But it is not true.
Company may face AA not only when it enters a site. It may face it again (e.g. in result of Troll-purse). Shapeshifter's version cannot be revealed under such condition. My version (that introduces a minimal changes) can.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:45 pm 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.
According to rules, if the company plays a card that potentially taps the site On Guard may be revealed.
And if that would be all on the topic, the rest of restrictions regarding a revealing On Guards would be meaningless (e.g. feel free to reveal Darkness Under Tree).
Hero Framsburg's AA has no type (race) until faced (and if opponent plays a creature as that AA). That actually makes a whole class of cards unusable as a cards that would affect the attack (and similar automatic-attacks). The class is: a hazard cards that target an attack of given type (race).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Shapeshifter
Ex Council Member
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

I would like to support my version with Rulings Digest #117. I put (what for me is) the important part in this digest in bold letters.
Rulings Digest #117 wrote:5. A question has arisen regarding what cards may be played on attacks and what cards may be played on automatic-attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we distinguish between (a) attacks (whether due to creatures or automatic-attacks or whatever else) and (b) automatic-attacks which are not being faced. The latter may exist when the former do not. For example, a company traveling to the Lonely Mountain is not currently facing the automatic-attack at the site, even though the automatic-attack is part of the text of a card that is currently in play. Our ruling is as follows:
(I) Resources that are playable on
* attacks (a) can be used on automatic-attacks only when a company is facing them, but are subject to restrictions as per the CRF.
* automatic-attacks (b) can be used on automatic-attacks at any time.

(II) Hazards that are playable on attacks (a) or automatic-attacks (b) can be used on automatic-attacks during the movement/hazard phase (or revealed as on-guards).

So, for example, it is possible to do any of the following:
- During the movement-hazard phase, play Not at Home to reduce the number of strikes of an automatic attack.
- During the movement-hazard phase, play Dragon's Desolation to increase the prowess of an automatic attack.
- During the movement-hazard phase, play Exile of Solitude on an automatic attack
- During the site phase while facing the automatic-attack, play Old Thrush to reduce the prowess/body of an automatic attack.
- During the site phase while the automatic-attack is being faced, reveal Dragon's Desolation on guard to increase the prowess of the attack.
- During the site phase while the automatic-attack is being faced, reveal Exile of Solitude on guard to attempt to capture a character.

However, it is not possible to do any of the following:
- During the movement-hazard phase, play Old Thrush to reduce the prowess/body of an automatic attack.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I did not say that a version you are proposing is invalid. I think that it is something more than a necessary errata.

However I do not know what Rulings Digest #117 hast to do with your proposal.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Shapeshifter
Ex Council Member
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

If I did not get you wrong you are arguing that FFF's 2nd effect was ment by ICE to be revealed as an on-guard card because the card text says (bolded text by me): "Alternatively, playable on a detainment automatic-attack a minion company is facing".
I myself do not see this as a reasoning for ICE's original intend. I see it simply as sloppy wording - nothing more. ICE could have ment but did not write:
"Alternatively, playable on a detainment automatic-attack a minion company might be facing later this turn" or something in that direction. We just do not know.

In short terms: I don't read into the original text of FFF's 2nd effect anything about limiting it to an on-guard effect.

Regarding RD#117: FFF's 2nd effect (i.e. the card) is playable on an automatic-attack, therefore it can be used on automatic-attacks during the movement/hazard phase or revealed as an on-guard card. This is what I aim to apply to my suggested interpretation.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Not that it is a justification in itself, but in current (tournament) practise people do play FFF and follow up with a Tidings of Bold Spies, a good combo especially with Whole Villages Roused or Awaken Defenders. But since combos are always tricky, the on-guard use is still more frequent. Moreover, the combo is used vs hero companies mostly and for its first ability.

We cannot ask creators, and the ROC must make a choice between sticking as close as possible to the current card text, or to the current way of playing (or the preferred way of playing, as determined by a vote). Even if we'd ask the creators, we might not get a clear answer, their processes were also hasty and in the distant past.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:08 pm
FEAR! FIRE! FOES! wrote:Playable on a Free-hold [-me_fh-] or Border-hold [-me_bh-]. 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.
There are many cards that override the on-guard rules. Usually these cards will mention "on-guard" if they can only be used on-guard. This card does not mention "on-guard" but the only way the alternative effect can be played is if revealed on-guard. So then clearly the card can be used on-guard.

The fact that the alternative effect of FEAR! FIRE! FOES! can never be played during the movement/hazard phase is surely sufficient to override the rule that "An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase."

That the alternative effect of FEAR! FIRE! FOES! targets an entity that would never exist during the movement/hazard clearly indicates that this card is usable on-guard and that you don't need to meet the requirement that "targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed."

But now the CoE Errata lets the card be used during the movement/hazard phase: "Alternatively, playable on a detainment automatic-attack.". That definitely goes against the Brandybucks being on-guard.
Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”