Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:30 pm
My apologies CDavis7M.
I will edit the post in question.
I will edit the post in question.
MECCG Discussion Forum
https://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/
https://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=3750
I think this might be debatable. I would agree if Block was "A warrior may opt to remain untapped against a strike without taking a -3 modification". Then it would be clear, Block cannot be played. But with its current wording, I fear new discussions may arise if Block is a character's attempt to stay untapped or if staying untapped is just the result of a card which is played on a character. I fear the debate if "opting not to tap" is only covering a character's sole attempt or if it encompasses also a player's attempt to play cards that prevent the character from tapping will become quite fussy. That's why I prefer a solution that avoids the "cannot opt to remain untapped" phrase.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:53 pm"Block" cannot be played on an untapped character. Playing "Block" is the attempt to avoid being tapped if untapped after the strike is resolved.Khamul the Easterling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:20 pm 2) "Block" can be played on an untapped character and he remains untapped after the strike's resolved.
What if a character didn't take the -3 modification, but were untapped before and "while" facing the strike. Informally, they tapped while facing the strike. But this is the confusion you/we were trying to avoid?Konrad Klar wrote:Normal result of successful strike from non-detainment attack is wounding a defending character.Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 4:33 am Sable Shield should not stop the tapping caused by Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees. Its CRF language has its own identical problems to FBiFF (no characters ever normally tap "while" facing a strike, they are tapped after the strike is resolved unless they choose to avoid being so tapped). But indeed, it should get its own fix.
For bearer of Sable Shield the result is instead dice-roll.
A defending character that was untapped while facing such strike will be automatically tapped only if the strike is not successful.
The "strike sequence" is the time from when a player declares that one of his characters will resolve a strike until the strike dice roll is made and any associated body checks are made.
If a strike against a character is successful, a body check must be resolved for the character before anything else happens.
Normally a character that is the target of a strike is tapped after the strike is resolved. However, a character may choose to take a -3 modification to his prowess to avoid being tapped.
prowess modification table wrote: Condition............... Mod. to Target's Prowess
Untapped character decides not to tap * ....... .............. -3
Normally, there is no issue when a player taps or decides to remain untapped (how the game seems to be played, at least everyone I've seen) vs formally choosing not to or choosing to take a -3 modification. But with Sable Shield it matters.strike sequence wrote:3) A target untapped character may take a -3 modification so that he will not automatically tap following the strike sequence.
Does this statement itself use the informal "tapping while facing a strike" language?A defending character that was untapped while facing such strike will be automatically tapped only if the strike is not successful.
Oh geez... The Warrior is tapped if they are wounded? Presumably the card means that the Warrior can still be wounded. The CRF says a little on this point regarding the strike sequence and wounding.Warrior only. Warrior does not tap against one strike (unless he is wounded by the strike).
Result of successful strike from non-detainment attack is a wounding a defending character.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:16 pm What if a character didn't take the -3 modification, but were untapped before and "while" facing the strike. Informally, they tapped while facing the strike. But this is the confusion you/we were trying to avoid?
When would the tapping of an untapped character that faced a strike occur? For example, the player decides to not choose the -3 modification to the untapped character. The character is wounded. Sable Shield comes into effect. The tapping depends on whether you take the "tap/modification language shortcut" or not.
From the descriptions of combat we know that this tapping does not occur if the character is wounded (it is a "use" tap, not a healing tap). This does not mean that an immunity to being wounded also implies an immunity to being normally tapped.MELE wrote:Normally a character that is the target of a strike is tapped after the strike is resolved. However, a character may choose to take a -3 modification to his prowess to avoid being tapped.
Did you omit the last sentence to make a context slightly wider?Normally a character that is the target of a strike is tapped after the strike is resolved. However, a character may choose to take a -3 modification to his prowess to avoid being tapped. If so, the character is not tapped after the strike is resolved (he may still be wounded).
According to the rules, the automatic tapping would occur after the wounding since the body check occurs at the end of resolution of the strike sequence and the automatic tapping occurs after the resolution of the strike sequence. So presumably a wounded character would be tapped.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:23 am I do not believe.
If you read it as general rule, not statement that makes a sense in narrow context, then:
- character that has been wounded by strike is tapped after the strike is resolved,
- wounded of tapped character may choose to take a -3 modification to his prowess to avoid being tapped.
You are using a word "normally" somehow carelessly.
Sigh...
I have admitted my error and suggested instead "cannot attempt to avoid being tapped if untapped" to cover Block etc.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:58 pm You suggested language using "cannot opt to remain untapped against the strike", referring to the formal procedures, but then also said "An untapped character bearing Sable Shield is untapped (if strike otherwise would wound him if he would not bear Sable Shield) after the strike's resolved" and "Block" cannot be played on an untapped character".
My apologies! Maybe my confusion resulted from the lack of consistency between "cannot attempt to avoid being tapped if untapped" and existing card language, and also a difference of opinion on Block etc. If the character "takes no modification/taps" when facing a strike, and so I think that Block should also prevent the tapping, and should prevent any tapping required by FBiFF.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:12 pm Sigh...
I have admitted my error and suggested instead "cannot attempt to avoid being tapped if untapped" to cover Block etc.
If there is a problem with reading someone's latest posts in thread then admitting errors and making corrections makes a little sense.
Yes, I agree with all of this. Still, the COMBAT rules will automatically tap after the body check.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:12 pm "Tap X" is not same as "X becomes tapped".
Therefore "Tap X" cannot be "healing tapping".
Some effects may try to perform "tap" on iXes that are unable to tap (tapped, wounded/inverted).
But I do not see a reason for which the action would set to be performed on characters that are expected to be in wounded state.
Some traces (ICE's CRF entry for Sable Shield) suggests that it is not case, but the wording of them leaves more to desire than wording of original text of Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees.
Theo pointed out this example early on. It appears to be copy-and-pasted from an METW example using Faramir against the Huorn.Optional Proposed Changes wrote:"must tap to face against any strike."
Are you referring to the poor Sable Shield CRF? "A bearer who did not tap while facing a strike will not tap if the strike is successful." Presumably, this meant to say "An untapped bearer that took the -3 modification to prowess while facing a non-detainment strike will not tap if the strike is successful."Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:12 pm BTW:
Where it is stated that after facing unsuccessful strike from detainment attack an untapped character does not automatically tap?
Underline mine.Annotation 18: When a defending player chooses to resolve a strike against a
particular character, the only actions that may be taken by either player until the strike
dice-roll is made are the following: playing hazard cards that affect the strike, the
attacker may decide to use any or all of his remaining -1 modifications due to strikes
in excess of the company's size, a target untapped character may take a -3
modification so that he will not automatically tap, and the defending character may
play resource cards that affect the strike. An action that has the condition that a target
character tap, but which otherwise has an effect not outlined here, may not be
declared at this point.
This is true even if the recipient of the strike would be the target character tapping and
thus receive -1 to his prowess.
But then why not have it as clarification to make a clear how to interpret the rule for this card?Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:11 am [...]
If however characters actually tap to face a strike, the premise is not valid and any proposed errata to Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees presented in this thread tries to correct what is already correct.