Incite Denizens (clarification)

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, Errata (Cards) Incite Denizens wrote:When copying an attack put on the site by another card, Incite Denizens will not copy
any other effects of the card. When copying an attack put on the site by another card,
the Incite Denizens attack will disappear if the other card is discarded.
The texts wrongly assumes that an additional automatic-attack may be added only by permanent-event, or by long-event, and that it may disappear only in result of discarding such event.

There are other possibilities. An additional automatic-attack may be added in result of short-event, and may disappear in result of playing of other card (Dragon Ahunt, if At Home manifestation of the same Dragon is in play).

I propose the following clarification:

"When copying an attack put on the site by another card, Incite Denizens will not copy
any other effects of the card. When copying an attack put on the site by another card,
the Incite Denizens attack will disappear if an original attack disappeared."

EDIT: Corrected thread title: "(carification)" -> "(clarification)"
Last edited by Konrad Klar on Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I think the Dragon case still won't be handled because of the "When copying an attack put on the site by another card" part. Perhaps just:

"When copying an attack put on the site by another card, Incite Denizens will not copy
any other effects of the card. Remove the Incite Denizens attack if the attack it copied is removed."
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Right. Accepted.
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:41 pm
CRF, Errata (Cards) Incite Denizens wrote:When copying an attack put on the site by another card, Incite Denizens will not copy
any other effects of the card. When copying an attack put on the site by another card,
the Incite Denizens attack will disappear if the other card is discarded.
The texts wrongly assumes that an additional automatic-attack may be added only by permanent-event, or by long-event, and that it may disappear only in result of discarding such event.

There are other possibilities. An additional automatic-attack may be added in result of short-event, and may disappear in result of playing of other card (Dragon Ahunt, if At Home manifestation of the same Dragon is in play).

I propose the following clarification:

"When copying an attack put on the site by another card, Incite Denizens will not copy
any other effects of the card. When copying an attack put on the site by another card,
the Incite Denizens attack will disappear if an original attack disappeared."
EDIT: Corrected thread title: "(carification)" -> "(clarification)"
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

The ruling on Incite Denizens is merely a clarification of how the rules already work. When something is not in play, then it has no effect on the game unless there are special rules. This is fundamentally how all games work.

If the At Home Dragon attack is removed because the corresponding Ahunt is in play, then the duplicate of the At Home attack created by Incite Denizens is also removed because Incite Denizens specifically states "this is an exact duplicate (including all existing and eventual modifications to prowess, etc.)."

The proposal is not needed, it's not more helpful than the CRF, and it includes idiomatic errors.
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”