Bow of Alatar

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by CDavis7M »

A wizard in the company facing Neeker Breeker would still face the strike but the special action of the strike "Does not effect Wizards."

But yes, "reassignment" seems to be a misnomer.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Konrad Klar »

The Wizards: Neeker-breekers
Hazard: Creature

Animals. Each character in the company faces one strike. His prowess against such a strike is equal to his mind attribute. Any character that would normally be wounded is only tapped instead-no body checks are made. "There were thousands of them, and they squeaked all round, neek-breek, breek-neek, unceasingly all the night, until the hobbits were nearly frantic."-LotR
CRF, Card (Errata), Neeker-breekers wrote:Card Erratum: Add "Does not effect Wizards."
What a special action?

And what about Carrion Feeders and unwounded Alatar?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:26 am
Since your interpretation is that the target of the strike is not the character that faces the strike then this case is closed.
The target of the strike is normally the character that faces the strike.

An analogy for those not so close-minded:

Say that I want food [food = fight a character]. I leave my home to get food [attack]. I choose where to go [target] to acquire the food [face]. As I'm driving to location X [before facing character X] someone throws the same amount of food into my car through the car window [overruling default facing rules]. My choice of where to acquire the food [target] has not changed, even though acquiring it elsewhere first [facing] removes the need (or if there's no extra room in the car, possibility) of completing the originally planned acquisition.

Pretty intuitive, no?

The rules/rulings imply that specifying that a character face a as-of-yet-unassigned strike does mandate that strike bring assigned to the character when the time comes to assign strikes. Verbosity is lacking.
Last edited by Theo on Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
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
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:24 pm
What a special action?

And what about Carrion Feeders and unwounded Alatar?
"action" -> "effect" and I'd agree.

I'd think Alatar facing overrules default Carrion Feeder restriction. Alatar would need to face a strike, as would each wounded character.
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: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Konrad Klar »

If you are appealing to intuition.
regardless of the attackʹs normal capabilities and his status.

What the attackʹs normal capabilities and Alatar's status (wounded, tapped, untapped) have to do with effect that allegedly does not overcome rules that govern an order of assigning strikes, but that actually reassigns (already assigned) strike?

It is like stating "playing of this item does not tap a site" in text of item that could be played only with moving company. Or stating it in text of Special Item Ring, that may be played both in moving company and with company at site (but itself is not played at site).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by CDavis7M »

The argument for using Bow of Alatar relies on the possibility of resolving a strike against a character that was not assigned the strike. The rulesbook and examples do not contemplate such a possibility nor do they allow such a possibility. Facing/resolving a strike against a character necessarily requires assignment of the strike to that character. This is clear from the examples in the rulesbook that use the expression "face a strike."

In the combat example on page 32 of the MELE rulesbook, Lagduf is the only character and so obvious the single strike of Huorn is assigned to Lagduf. The targets of the Slayer's attacks and strikes are also clearly Lagduf. Lagduf was assigned the strikes.

In the combat example on page 34, the company includes Br6in, Threlin, Dogrib, Jerrek, and Nevido. Orc-raiders are canceled before strikes are not assigned. Then for the Orc-warband attack, the strikes are assigned. "There are 5 strikes and 5 characters, so each character will face one strike (no decisions on strike allocation can be made)." These characters were assigned strikes. The against the Elf Lord, the player is a voice actor and "Nevido Smod announces he is taking the strike." The strike is assigned.

There is no possibility of facing a strike without being assigned the strike. Therefore, there is no possibility of using Bow of Alatar to "face a strike" if strikes have already been assigned. The rules state what options a player is allowed to take. The rules don't allow the possibility of a character "facing" a strike without having been assigned that strike. Bow of Alatar does not overcome this.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:07 am
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:24 pm
What a special action?
"action" -> "effect" and I'd agree.
The expression "special action" of a strike is the term used in the Annotations to the Rules on the Strike Sequence. The term "special effects" was only used in the CRF Ruling on detainment attacks and seems to be referred to:
Image

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:37 am
What the attackʹs normal capabilities and Alatar's status (wounded, tapped, untapped) have to do with effect that allegedly does not overcome rules that govern an order of assigning strikes, but that actually reassigns (already assigned) strike?

It is like stating "playing of this item does not tap a site" in text of item that could be played only with moving company. Or stating it in text of Special Item Ring, that may be played both in moving company and with company at site (but itself is not played at site).
Occasionally cards include additional text to clarify what mechanics they don't use. Consider:
Lucky Search errata: "this does not exhaust the play deck."
Noble Hound: "does not protect other characters from being taken prisoner".
Crown of Flowers: "Crown of Flowers does not affect the interpretation of any card except the resource played with it."
The Reek: "Does not affect Wizards or Ringwraiths."
All of these were unnecessary statements. I hope that you are not concerned that e.g. Luck Search wording implies that Long Dark Reach can count its reshuffling as the play deck being exhausted.
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
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:25 pm
The rulesbook and examples do not contemplate such a possibility nor do they allow such a possibility.
The same could be said of any number of allowances made by cards.

The rules say that item effects can be used by characters. That seems to be sufficient most of the time. The rules say nothing about each item effect needing to be pre-defined by the rulebooks. As far as I know, there is nothing in the rules about being able to take a spell, ritual or light enchantment from your discard pile to your hand (or anything from your discard, for that matter). Yet I haven't heard of anyone saying that Wizard's Staff must then be reinterpreted to mean something else.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by CDavis7M »

This isn't about a game-play allowance beyond the rules. It's about what "facing a strike" means.

"Facing a strike" involves both assignment and resolution of the strike according to the use of this expression in the rules. Bow of Alatar doesn't say "resolve a strike".

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:13 am
All of these were unnecessary statements. I hope that you are not concerned that e.g. Luck Search wording implies that Long Dark Reach can count its reshuffling as the play deck being exhausted.
So
regardless of the attackʹs normal capabilities and his status
is meaningless?
With or without the phrase Bow of Alatar would work in the same way?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:42 am
This isn't about a game-play allowance beyond the rules. It's about what "facing a strike" means.

"Facing a strike" involves both assignment and resolution of the strike according to the use of this expression in the rules. Bow of Alatar doesn't say "resolve a strike".
To what text are you are referring? "Nevido Smôd faces the next strike.." At this point in time another character has already faced a strike, which would have been impossible under the normal rules unless all strikes had already been assigned.
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
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:52 am
So
regardless of the attackʹs normal capabilities and his status
is meaningless?
With or without the phrase Bow of Alatar would work in the same way?
Yes, it seems to just be clarifying; hopefully it is a helpful reminder to not get confused, just as the earlier examples.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:52 am
To what text are you are referring? "Nevido Smôd faces the next strike.." At this point in time another character has already faced a strike, which would have been impossible under the normal rules unless all strikes had already been assigned.
Did you read the example or my post? All of the strikes were already assigned.
There are 5 strikes and 5 characters, so each character will face one strike (no decisions on strike allocation can be made).
"Facing" the strike clearly involves both assignment and resolution of the strike.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Bow of Alatar

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:56 am
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:52 am
So
regardless of the attackʹs normal capabilities and his status
is meaningless?
With or without the phrase Bow of Alatar would work in the same way?
Yes, it seems to just be clarifying; hopefully it is a helpful reminder to not get confused, just as the earlier examples.
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).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”