Bow of Alatar

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:11 am The phrase has meaning if Bow of Alatar does not allow for reassigning (already assigned) strike, but only changes of order of assigning strikes.
Then it sets a priority of Bow of Alatar's effect below "always" or "in all cases" effects and above attackʹs normal capabilities and normal rules of assigning strikes (that take care about untapped, tapped, wounded status).
No disagreements there based on the premise, which seems to imply that "to allow him to face a strike from an attack" is synonymous with "to allow him to be assigned a strike from the attack".

But tell me, how do you explain Many Foes He Fought using two different phrases for what are synonymous?
If defender chooses a warrior to be the target of a strike from an attack, that character may choose to face any number of the strikes from that attack.
Why wouldn't the card use at least self-consistent language, unless "choosing to be the target of a strike" and "choosing to face a strike" were meant to be different concepts?
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:56 am "Facing" the strike clearly involves both assignment and resolution of the strike.

...

Did you read the example or my post? All of the strikes were already assigned.
MELE wrote:Nevido Smôd faces the next strike
I'll try again to articulate. How could Nevido Smod ("face"-MELE, implying:) have "both assignment and resolution of"-CD "the next strike"-MELE at a point that occurs after "all of the strikes were already assigned"-CD? Wouldn't such an interpretation of "facing" as encapsulating both assignment and resolution contradict MELE/CRF rules?
CRF wrote:All strikes of an attack must be assigned before any are resolved.
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

Theo wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:19 am But tell me, how do you explain Many Foes He Fought using two different phrases for what are synonymous?
If defender chooses a warrior to be the target of a strike from an attack, that character may choose to face any number of the strikes from that attack.
Why wouldn't the card use at least self-consistent language, unless "choosing to be the target of a strike" and "choosing to face a strike" were meant to be different concepts?
Is not it a purpose of synonyms to be used interchangeably to describe the same concept?
Synonyms here are "is assigned a strike", "is chosen to face a strike", and "is chosen to be a target of a strike".

What Many Foes He Fought does in your opinion?
I think that if you choose a warrior to be assigned a strike from an attack, then you can assign him any number of the strikes from that attack.
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

Of course, a life will be easier if synonymous would not be used in the game.
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

Theo wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:14 am I'll try again to articulate. How could Nevido Smod ("face"-MELE, implying:) have "both assignment and resolution of"-CD "the next strike"-MELE at a point that occurs after "all of the strikes were already assigned"-CD? Wouldn't such an interpretation of "facing" as encapsulating both assignment and resolution contradict MELE/CRF rules?
A character "resolving" a strike necessarily includes that character having been "assigned" the strike. While "Facing" a strike involves both "assignment" and "resolution" of the strike, I never suggested that assignment and resolution happen at the same time. The rules are clear on this.

All uses of "facing" a strike in the rulesbook, the examples, and the card text does not allow for the possibility of one character resolving a strike assigned to a different character.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:31 am Is not it a purpose of synonyms to be used interchangeably to describe the same concept?
Synonyms here are "is assigned a strike", "is chosen to face a strike", and "is chosen to be a target of a strike".
My impression is that the typical reasons for using a synonym are to avoid being boring or to stress/reinforce a point. I don't think dullness is a risk on short card texts, and the form taken on Many Foes He Fought is not stressing/reinforcing a point since the occurrence is within a new idea.
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:31 am What Many Foes He Fought does in your opinion?
I think that if you choose a warrior to be assigned a strike from an attack, then you can assign him any number of the strikes from that attack.
I'll switch to another thread.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Screenshot_20200210-225847-01.jpeg
Screenshot_20200210-225847-01.jpeg (208.88 KiB) Viewed 4615 times
A character may "face" a strike assigned to them. There is nothing more than that.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:44 am My impression is that the typical reasons for using a synonym are to avoid being boring or to stress/reinforce a point. I don't think dullness is a risk on short card texts, and the form taken on Many Foes He Fought is not stressing/reinforcing a point since the occurrence is within a new idea.
Sometimes an author is bored, not reader.
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:33 am Of course, a life will be easier if synonymous would not be used in the game.
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

CRF, Rulings by Term, Hand Size wrote:Effects which increase your hand size or allow you to hold one more card in your
hand mean that you draw up to your new hand size or discard down to it at the
appropriate points during the game.
Effects which increase hand size are cumulative.
Bold mine.

(barfing in corner)
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:08 am
CRF, Rulings by Term, Hand Size wrote:Effects which increase your hand size or allow you to hold one more card in your
hand mean that you draw up to your new hand size or discard down to it at the
appropriate points during the game.
Effects which increase hand size are cumulative.
Bold mine.

(barfing in corner)
The author was likely barfing at the question that required such an answer. Questions invoking such a response are still common.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:04 pm The author was likely barfing at the question that required such an answer.
Possibly.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:04 pm Questions invoking such a response are still common.
Before I found the respective CRF entry I was pondering whether the effects that allow me to hold one more card in my hand also allow/force me to draw cards to a increased hand size, or only allow/force me to not to discard cards at points of game when a hand size is reconciled.
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

Here is the card you should play instead if you want to steal a strike already assigned to another character:

Image
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Using a fan-made card to reconsider your opinion?
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/
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”