Council of Elrond

This CoE Erratum Proposal will be in effect after ratifaction through a vote by the CoE forum community.
The vote will be registered through a Poll in this thread.
The Proposal will be accepted, if no more than one third (33%) of the electorate votes "nay", and if no more than half (50%) of the votes cast are "nay".
the voting period will be from 23-9-2012 till 15-10-2012


Original rules


Collected Rulings File (CRF): Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: Automatic-attacks:
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.

Balrog Rules: Specific Rules for MEBA: Cards with Multiple Actions (Clarification):
...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 the strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence.

CRF: Rulings by Term: Timing wrote:# 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).


New Rule

When facing an automatic-attack, you may play resources that directly affect the attack or would otherwise be playable during the strike sequence. The same applies for facing attacks created by cards with multiple actions.


Rationale

The original rules for facing automatic-attacks differ from facing other kinds of attacks (e.g. creatures, event cards with one action). Certain cards affecting attacks do not cancel an (automatic-) attack or strike and are not played during strike phase (see examples below). With the proposed rules amendment we want to achieve a more consistent, intuitive way of facing all attacks. It is less strict than the original rules and will open up new options and strategies for players, leading to a simpler and more varied and enjoyable gaming experience.

Our proposal is actually a modified version of what is already present in the CRF: A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack. However this passage has not been implemented due to the other, more strict automatic-attack rule. For consistency's sake we wish to extend this approach to facing attacks from cards with multiple actions as well.


Examples

Example 1:
A hero company decides to enter Dead Marshes with The Moon Is Dead in play. The player has Marvels Told in hand.
Before: Marvels Told may not be played at this point and the company must face boosted Undead automatic-attacks twice.
After: A sage taps to play Marvels Told on The Moon Is Dead, and the company proceeds to face only the normal automatic-attack.

Example 2:
Fallen-Gandalf is by himself at the Lonely Mountain. The player has Ruse and Wizard's Staff in hand.
Before: Ruse may only be used to cancel the automatic-attack, tapping Gandalf, so he cannot play the item.
After: Gandalf may use Ruse's scout only effect, so the strike cannot be assigned and Gandalf slips past the automatic-attack untapped to play Wizard’s Staff.

Example 3:
A minion company with a shadow-magic using character is at Edoras and plays Smoke on the Wind. They face the first attack, leaving only one character untapped. The second attack is 1 strike with 10 prowess and the player has Sojourn in Shadows in hand.
Before: The untapped character faces the strike and failing to stay untapped Smoke on the Wind's marshalling points are lost.
After: The shadow-magic using character may play Sojourn in Shadows on the untapped character, letting him avoid the strike and tap for Smoke on the Wind afterwards.

Congrats on finally making this move. I hope many more will follow, both for rules and card texts - just be carefull not to fix anything that ain't really broken

When I saw this mentioned in Wolfgang's newsletter, I expected something more significant. I forgot how deliberate and conservative the fan base is. Like Gimli describes working in the Glittering Caves of Aglarond: "With cautious skill, tap by tap - a small chip of rock and no more, perhaps, in a whole anxious day - so we would work..." Good job in displaying your cautious skill.

Thanks for the kudos guys.
To re-itterate: I will keep this thread clean of discussions/commentary about the proposal (use the other section for that).
But short statements such as these (whether positive or negative) are ok.

Eric, are you going to announce this poll in the Spanish forum?

can i post a link in the chilean facebook group?

sure, feel free to post links on relevant fora

Voting has ended.
Result:
yea: 30
nay: 1

CoE Official Erratum Proposal #1 has been accepted by the meccg community, and will be in effect as of today.

Surely this is a sign of the Apocalypse?

Great to see this (visibly) posted after four years. Any way to make the "issued" thread more visible?

Admin Control Panel states this section has limited access for guests, meaning they can see the section, so technically it should work.

How about sending a PM to all active (e.g. those with at least 5/10/50 posts) forum members when such a poll is up? Turnout would be better.

When the poll was held, an email was sent out to everybody on the mailing list, which includes the (active) people on this board. It was part of a newsletter however, perhaps people didn't read carefully or disregarded it therefore. However, those really interested in meccg would not have.

This Erratum overruled probably the 2nd most hated ICE ruling (after the disappearing Dragon Hoard, which eventually received errata). Well done. Probably the best thing done in 21 years. However, there is one issue. The Proposal mentions the CRF on Automatic Attacks but it fails to mention the CRF on the Site Phase. This is an issue because the CoE erratum wording reads similar to the wording of the ICE rule that it intended to change, which is confusing without the examples given here.

CRF - Turn Sequence Rulings - Site Phase wrote:A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack. Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does.

CoE Errata 1 wrote:When facing an automatic-attack, you may play resources that directly affect the attack or would otherwise be playable during the strike sequence. The same applies for facing attacks created by cards with multiple actions.

Under the ICE rules you could play resources that directly affect (e.g., target) the automatic attack even if they would not playable during the strike sequence due to changing the number of strikes (e.g., Quiet Lands, alternative Sated Beast, Not at Home, alternative Dark Quarrels, Adunaphel Unleashed, etc.). However, effects that remove or replace the automatic attack (e.g., Rebuild the Town or Vile Fumes) were not considered to "directly affect" the automatic attack. Other effects that did not "direct affect" the automatic attack in the ICE rulings include playing Marvels Told to discard an effect that boosts the strikes of the automatic attack (i.e., Marvels Told directly affects The Moon is Dead, it doesn't directly affect the attack itself). Another example of an effect that does not directly affect the attack is playing Gates of Morning to discard Doors of Night, there by reducing the bonuses applied by Minions Stir, and so on.

The Examples given here are playing Marvels Told on The Moon is Dead, playing Ruse against an automatic attack, and playing Sojourn in Shadows against an attack created within a card. None of these effects "directly affect the attack." Instead, these effect (indirectly) affect the attack or assignment of the attack's strikes. So presumably Erratum 1 means: "When facing an automatic-attack, you may play resources that directly affect the attack or assignment of the attack's strikes. The same applies for facing attacks created by cards with multiple actions."

I'm not suggesting changing the Erratum because it's obvious what it does from the examples. Just writing this here in case anyone is confused by the similar wording.

It is probably not defined what constitutes "directly affecting".

Does Minions Stir directly affect Orc automatic-attack?
AFAIK bonuses to prowess/strikes of Orc attack that it gives are applied as result of action caused by passive condition (facing of Orc/Troll attack).
So it does not affect AA more directly than Snowstorm affects a company moving through Wilderness.

If that what Minions Stir does not count as directly affecting an attack then directly the card may not be revealed as on-guard when Orc AA is faced.
Furthermore getting rid Minions Stir, before actions that it create will resolve, does not count as directly affecting AA.