Attack as a first declared action in chain of effects

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CRF, Turn Sequence, Combat, Attack wrote: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 wrote:@ Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15. [CoE] %
I propose the new text for Annotation 15:
Annotation 15: Any action that has potential of creating an immediately faced attack may not be declared by player in response to another action in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception. Cards that have potential of creating a multiple immediately faced attacks are allowed, as long they are not declared in response.
Comments:
An actions that have potential of creating an immediately faced attack do not only include a playing a cards. They may be also a declaring an agent attack.
Some of such actions are declared in result of mechanics of game. E.g. at least one attack of multiple Dragon Ahunts affecting the same company is declared in response to other attack. But not by player.
I have decided to leave a phrase "Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception." because I think that it may be relevant in case when more than one creature is revealed when a company enters a site.
Purpose of the last phrase is to include a cards like Smoke on the Wind.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

I'm not sure what the issue is. Agent attacks fall under the first CRF entry. The attack of ahunts are, as I understand it, actions created by passive conditions, and each would have to be their own chain of effects precisely because this rule does not allow them to be declared in response to one another.
If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition.
This does open up the problem of who gets to first respond to such a declared action, but that's another problem.

Also, Smoke on the Wind creates an attack, so has to be declared first in any chain of effects. I still don't quite see the issue.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Issue is just that:
Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a
chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are
declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple
required actions have been declared.
may lead to conflict with original Annotation 15.

If an attack must be first declared action in chain of effects (accordion to original Annotation 15) and at the same time more than one attack are required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, we have a dilemma:
- to break Annotation 15 and allow at least one of the attacks to be not first action in chain of effects, or
- to respect Annotation 15 and decide that all but one attacks cannot be declared.

Purpose of "by player" phrase is to remove the dilemma.
Bandobras Took wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:25 pm Also, Smoke on the Wind creates an attack, so has to be declared first in any chain of effects. I still don't quite see the issue.
While original Annotation 15 was expressed in terms of cards, version proposed by me is expressed in terms of actions.
As you probably know a declaring of card causes a declaration of all actions created by the card in order reverse than printed order.

Declaring of Smoke on the Wind causes a declaration of:
Check for presence of untapped character in company
Attack of Men 1s/10p
Attack of Men 5s/8p
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bandobras Took wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:25 pm The attack of ahunts are, as I understand it, actions created by passive conditions, and each would have to be their own chain of effects precisely because this rule does not allow them to be declared in response to one another.

I agree that: The attack of ahunts are actions created by (triggering of) passive conditions,
but
"and each would have to be their own chain of effects precisely because this rule does not allow them to be declared in response to one another"
is stretching of what current rules say.
What current rules say leads to conflict.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Ah, I see the conflict with Annotation 10. Carry on! :)
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Some correction.

Declaring of Smoke on the Wind causes a declaration of:

Discarding all factions playable at the site that player has in play
Check for presence of untapped character in company
Attack of Men 1s/10p
Attack of Men 5s/8p

I forgot about the last (first declared) action of Smoke on the Wind.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Just because the proposal is expressed mainly in terms of actions (not in terms of cards, like original Annotation 15), I think that some changes are needed:

"Annotation 15: Any action that has potential of creating an immediately faced attack may not be declared by player in response to another action in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception. Cards that have potential of creating a one or multiple immediately faced attacks (possibly along with other non-attack actions) are allowed, as long they are not declared in response."

Previous version did not take into account a cards that create a single attack, but the attack is not last printed (first declared) action created by the cards.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

I do not see Annotation 15 and Annotation 10 being in conflict. It seems to me that Annotation 10 spells out the exception to Annotation 11 Annotation 15.

i.e. This is not allowed to happen, but if it does happen, this is what you do about it...
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CRF, Rulings by Term, Cannot be Duplicated wrote:Annotation 11 (modified from its original version): Some cards cannot be duplicated
in limited cases -- generally on a specific target. Multiple copies of these cards or their
effects may be in play normally, so long as each applies to a different target. A card
that cannot be duplicated can be played when a copy is already in play only if the
copy in play is currently being targeted by an effect that will discard it.
Did you mean "that Annotation 10 spells out the exception to Annotation 15"?

For me "X must happen" and "X cannot happen" is conflict.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:04 pm Did you mean "that Annotation 10 spells out the exception to Annotation 15"?
Yes, sorry. I must have fat-fingered my phone and hit 1 instead of 5. :oops: Corrected above.

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:04 pm For me "X must happen" and "X cannot happen" is conflict.
Have you ever heard the saying "rules are meant to be broken"? Almost every rule is broken at some time or another. When Annotation 15 must be broken, Annotation 10 dictates what must happen in such a conflicting situation. The very existence of Annotation 10 is proof that some rules must be broken, else it would not exist.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Annotation 10 gives a player some freedom. He decides about order of what must happen.
Original Annotation 15 limits the freedom in such way that sometimes (if there is more than one attack to be declared) that he has impossible task.

Similarly if not CRF entry for Noble Hound a player would be in conflict. He should assign strikes to untapped characters in first place, he also should assign a strike to Noble Hound before assigning it to its controlling character (in situation when the character is untapped and Noble Hound is not).

Is the CRF entry for Noble unnecessary?
CRF wrote:Card Erratum: Add the sentence: "If Noble Hound is tapped or wounded, treat it as
though it were untapped for the purposes of assigning strikes."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Update: It seems like the CoE Ruling was made solely for Tidings of Bold Spies. People were annoyed by Tidings of Bold Spies (why?) and while the NetRep recognized Annotation 15 as being for creatures at first, but then they made that update to annotation 15. Presumably people were wondering if you could play Tidings in response to a declared resource that would lower the hazard limit, whereas you could not declare a creature??

Is that the same issue with cards initiating Agent attacks?

Thinking more on it, it does seem that Tidings and Agent attack cards would qualify for Annotation 15. But Ahunt dragons would not. They have their own timing rules with Annotation 9 and 10. This doesn't conflict with Annotation 15.

The proposal seems mostly unnecessary. Too many changes.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:41 pm
CRF wrote:@ Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15. [CoE] %
Purpose of the last phrase is to include a cards like Smoke on the Wind.
This quote is incorrect and misleading. The "any card that has the potential" statement is cited as being from the CRF but that statement is not from the CRF, it is from a CoE ruling. This is not a ruling from the ICE Netrep or Designers.

Also, there is no need for this proposed change if you actually read the rules.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:41 pm Some of such actions are declared in result of mechanics of game. E.g. at least one attack of multiple Dragon Ahunts affecting the same company is declared in response to other attack.
This is wrong. If there are multiple Ahunt Dragons that would attack, their attacks are NOT declared "in response" to another attack. This statement is confusing the rules on ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY with the rules on Passive Conditions. The only actions that the rules described as being declared "in response" are actions declared by your opponent or yourself in response to some other declared action (METW p. 48). Actions triggered by passive conditions are not declared "in response" to each other.

Furhermore, the triggering of multiple attacks from multiple Ahunt Dragons does not run afoul of Annotation 15 because multiple actions triggered by the same passive condition are ALL the "the first declared action in a chain of effects", per Annotation 9, as required by Annotation 15.
proposal wrote:Annotation 15: Any action that has potential of creating an immediately faced attack may not be declared by player in response to another action in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception. Cards that have potential of creating a multiple immediately faced attacks are allowed, as long they are not declared in response.
There is no need to change Annotation 15 to state "by player" because "by player" is inherent. Furthermore, the proposed change has idiomatic errors.
ActionsAndCardPlay.PNG
ActionsAndCardPlay.PNG (60.31 KiB) Viewed 3402 times
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”