Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Konrad Klar »

My apologies CDavis7M.

I will edit the post in question.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Council Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Khamul the Easterling »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:53 pm
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.
"Block" cannot be played on an untapped character. Playing "Block" is the attempt to avoid being tapped if untapped after the strike is resolved.
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.

Anyway, I agree neither Block nor Enruned Shield protect a character from becoming eventually tapped after the strike. But that would also nicely fit with my proposal of "is tapped if untapped after the strike".

The only thing I see a conflict of rules is the use of Sable Shield. I agree that arguing closely in line with the general rules, a character is not tapped in the situation in question. An erratum of FBiFF of "is tapped if untapped after the strike" can be seen contradictory to that. I'd prefer it nevertheless, as it is a much clearer phrase than the "opting ..." alternative (and my intention is to foster errata that are easily understandable also for those players not having a Master's degree in Middle-earth rulings ;) ). The situation of a (FW) player with both Sable Shield and FBiFF is rare in my opinion, so essentially overturning the Sable Shield's card text in its strict form by an errratum is of less damage than leaving room for interpretation in numerous other situations.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad, I read your post and it seems reasonable but I had not read and considered all of the rules at one time. I was looking at the Strike Sequence, and these cards (FBiFF, block, sable shield), and the CRF on Sable Shield, CRF in the strike sequence, and on and on, and I'm not sure I agree.

Would you mind holding our hand through the strike sequence, to resolution of the strike and the consequences occuring after the strike is resolved, to explain your conclusions?

My explanation of resolving strikes is below.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by CDavis7M »

Bottom line, the informal language is ingrained in the game. "Tap to face a strike" is the same as "tap while facing a strike" is the same as "choose not to take the -3 modification."

I'd propose a clarification stating such. Or at most change "tap to face a strike" to "tap while facing a strike" even though it uses the informal language. That way, everything else works like normal. EZ PZ.

(anecdote, Faramir turns into Lagduf when facing Huorn, at least as far as tapping "to face a strike").

---------
Konrad Klar wrote:
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.
Normal result of successful strike from non-detainment attack is wounding a defending character.
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.
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.
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
strike sequence wrote:3) A target untapped character may take a -3 modification so that he will not automatically tap following the strike sequence.
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.
A defending character that was untapped while facing such strike will be automatically tapped only if the strike is not successful.
Does this statement itself use the informal "tapping while facing a strike" language?

In the sable shield example I gave above, I think the character would be tapped after everything if the untapped character did not choose the -3 modification, since the tapping would occur after the wounding and after the body check (which doesn't occur when the character bears Sable Shield). So even though the character is not wounded, they are tapped.

What about the normal situation where a character is wounded? Do they get to become tapped? Of course not. But the rules on strike resolution don't address this.

What about Block?
Warrior  only.  Warrior  does  not  tap  against  one  strike  (unless  he  is  wounded  by  the  strike).
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.

Putting aside that statement in parenthesis, presumably the warrior targeted by Block would not be tapped if they did not take the -3 modification, where as they normally would.

I think Block should be able to take effect on top of FBiFF. It is an additional card played and an additional effect to consider.

--------
(same as above)
But bottom line, the informal language is ingrained in the game. "Tap to face a strike" is the same as "tap while facing a strike" is the same as "choose not to take the -3 modification."

I'd propose a clarification stating such. Or at most change "tap to face a strike" to "tap while facing a strike" even though it uses the informal language. That way, everything else works like normal. EZ PZ.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Konrad Klar »

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.
Result of successful strike from non-detainment attack is a wounding a defending character.
Successful strike from non-detainment attack does not cause a tapping of defending character.
For bearer of Sable Shield his status untapped/tapped/wounded does not change if the strike would otherwise wound him.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Theo »

Maybe you did not read the quote.
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.
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.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Konrad Klar »

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.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Konrad Klar »

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).
Did you omit the last sentence to make a context slightly wider?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by CDavis7M »

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.
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.

Presumably, since tapping from wounded is "healing", the character is not automatically tapped/ "healed" from a wounded state just because they took no prowess modification.

Also, wounded and tapped characters have no choice in their prowess modification. They must take a -2 or -1 Modification, respectively.

-----

Normally, it doesn't matter whether you (A) take no prowess modification during the strike sequence and suffer automatic tapping afterwards or (B) choose to tap during the strike sequence to avoid the -3 modification.

However, you seem to be missing the 2 and it's confusing. 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".

If we are talking about the formal rules, then block could be played on an untapped character who took no prowess modification (block prevents the automatic tapping after the strike sequence). And also, an untapped character who took no prowess modification during the strike sequence would have their state changed after sable shield prevented their wounding, they would be automatically tapped as they took no modification.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:58 pm
Normally, it doesn't matter whether you (A) take no prowess modification during the strike sequence and suffer automatic tapping afterwards or (B) choose to tap during the strike sequence to avoid the -3 modification
You are using a word "normally" somehow carelessly.
Nevertheless:
If character is for any reason in tapped state at moment of performing dice-roll during strike sequence he suffers -1 penalty to prowess.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:58 pm
However, you seem to be missing the 2 and it's confusing.
Sigh...
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".
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.

Moot point (as I understand) is whether automatic "tap" action applies after strike regardless its result or only after not successful strike (both from non-detainment attack).

"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.

BTW:
Where it is stated that after facing unsuccessful strike from detainment attack an untapped character does not automatically tap?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by CDavis7M »

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.
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
"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.
Yes, I agree with all of this. Still, the COMBAT rules will automatically tap after the body check.

But despite the rules in COMBAT and specifically in the Strike Sequence for opting to take the -3 modification (vs "remaining untapped"), everyone, including the people that drafted the combat examples in the METW and MELE rulesbooks, the drafter of the CRF, and everyone that I have ever played with performs the tapping action, or indicates that the character will remain untapped, during the strike sequence, not after.

Given this, I suggest embracing the informality rather than fighting it (I would certainly not opt to remain untapped against it). I would go so far as to leave FBiFF as is, with just a clarification. If I was to change it, i would just change as follows.This language is familiar and used elsewhere.
Optional Proposed Changes wrote:"must tap to face against any strike."
Theo pointed out this example early on. It appears to be copy-and-pasted from an METW example using Faramir against the Huorn.
Image

--------
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?
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."

There are many statement that could be considered inconsistent if taken as a universal truth. They only make sense when read in context. I just read all of the relevant rules I can find, and it usually becomes clear which rules apply. This statement in the Sable Shield CRF doesn't mention detainment strikes, detainment strikes have their own special rules that appear to be are inconsistent with this statement, so the detainment rules override this statement in situations of detainment attacks.

Look at this MELE example for language commonly used (here and by players I know) when facing a strike. How about that clutch play by Dôgrib.

Image

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Konrad Klar »

In all that citations we have only characters that tap to strike or do not tap and take -3 penalty to prowess.
Nothing about automatic tapping after strike.

We can live with it and I should then withdrawn the proposal.
And everyone may ponder about a sense:
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.
Underline mine.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by CDavis7M »

What is confusing about the underlined portion? I see no problems with Annotation 18.

The strike sequence framework allows an untapped character to not take the prowess modification. And then, "Normally a character that is the target of a strike is tapped after the strike is resolved." There is nothing in Annotation 18 to indicate that it overrides this - if that is what you were implying.

What if someone were to take the rules out of context and argue that an untapped character not taking the -3 prowess modification falls under Annotation 18's statement - "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" ? Well, not taking an action is not necessarily an action itself.

Not everything is an action. The game includes many things that are not actions. And some actions that are defined to not be actions.


Still, since we are here and there is some confusion, it probably makes sense to at least provide a clarification to FBiFF, and refer to the Strike Sequence (e.g., Step (3)).

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Konrad Klar »

Something is invalid. Either the examples of combat where characters tap to face a strike and do not receive -1 to their prowess are invalid, or the underlined part of Annotation 18 is invalid.

The two things cannot be reconciled.

This thread has been started with premise that phrase "tap to face a strike" is imprecise.
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.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Sam.Gamdschie
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees

Post by Sam.Gamdschie »

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.
But then why not have it as clarification to make a clear how to interpret the rule for this card?
Co-founder of the Hamburg Scenarios and Former Slave of Lure's Price Ceremonies

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”