Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by the JabberwocK »

Okay, so you are looking to overturn the previous NetRep rulings then. Thanks for clarifying.

So a hypothetical vote then would be essentially:

Should BOCH be allowed to be played on an Ahunt Dragon manifestation:
- Yes
- No

(You are in favor of it not being playable at all with Ahunts)

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

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Theo »

I am looking to correct the previous CoE rulings. But that is not the vote I am proposing. I'm not sure how this was so confusing... :? See underlined portion:

"Bring Our Curses Home: If used on a hazard creature attack created by an event card, this will place the event card off to the side. However, Bring Our Curses Home will only cause additional attacks when the created attack in particular (not the event card) is playable."

I'd frame the vote more as:

"Is the creature attack created by Ahunts playable (for the purpose of BOCH)?"
- Yes; it should be considered playable whenever the condition that triggered its creation is satisfied. (CoE ruling)
- No; as a creature attack created by an effect, it is never itself "play"able. (literal interpretations)
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
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by the JabberwocK »

Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:58 am
I'm not sure how this was so confusing... :?
Apologies. I'm trying to absorb 100 proposals at the same time, so sometimes I forget something I read, mis-read something, or don't understand in the moment what is being suggested. Please bear with me. I will ask direct questions when needed to save time, and I appreciate patience by yourself and others when this happens and I am asking about something that has already been mentioned.

I understand your position now, thanks.

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

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by CDavis7M »

The CoE was mistaken.

Bring Our Curses Home CAN be played on a character facing an attack from an Ahunt Dragon, but the Ahunt dragon will never be placed with Bring Our Curses Home, nor will the Ahunt be placed off to the side, and the company can never face attacks from the Ahunt, because there is no creature for the attack to be from.

An Ahunt long-event cannot satisfy the active conditions of the action of "place creature's card with this card."

Still, Bring Our Curses Home can be played on a character facing an Ahunt attack and it will give the character 3 corruption points.

This can happen because a card may be played if its active conditions are met, as long as it has an effect on the game. If the active conditions of at least 1 effect is met or if the card has some effect on that game without any other specific action, then the card is playable.

So, what to do about the CoE Netrep? I agree with disowning those rulings.

-----

But what about the proposal?
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:58 am
Bring Our Curses Home wrote:Target character's company faces an attack from creature at the start of each movement/hazard phase if creature is playable.
The creature is an attack generated by a passive condition. The creature, then, is NEVER played/playable. The Netrep clearly confused this point, as shown below.
A creature is not an attack. A creature is a card that creates an attack. An attack is an action.

The attack from the creature is the triggerable action from a passive condition. A passive condition is an action. Here, the action that is the passive condition is the action of the company moving. The company moving is an action. And the movement-action of the company satisfies the passive conditions (for triggering the triggerable attack-action) if the creature is playable based on the movement (e.g., the regions, or site path, etc). If the creature is playable from the movement action, then the passive condition is satisfied and the attack-action is triggered and it will be declared in the next chain of effect.
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:58 am
"Is the creature attack created by Ahunts playable (for the purpose of BOCH)?"
- Yes; it should be considered playable whenever the condition that triggered its creation is satisfied. (CoE ruling)
- No; as a creature attack created by an effect, it is never itself "play"able. (literal interpretations)
There is no possibility of Bring Our Curses Home enabling hazard-creature attacks from Ahunts because Ahunt long-events cannot be placed with Bring Our Curses Home as discussed above. So, neither the YES or the NO vote make sense since the premise is incorrect.

If we wanted to make an Ahunt be able to be placed with Bring Our Curses, it would need much more work.

If we want to clarify, we could say:
May be played on a character facing an attack from an Ahunt dragon manifestation but the Ahunt long-event will not be placed herewith because it is but a creature card.

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

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by CDavis7M »

Update: There are some Digests on Ahunts and cards that are playable on hazard creature attacks and then refer to the "creature's card" like Foes Shall Fall, Regiment of Black Crows, that should apply to related cards (Curses,etc).

They seem to mostly say that the Ahunt would be able to be placed/returned/etc despite not being a creature (against what I was thinking). Nothing definitive about the attack though, which is where the card language really starts to deviate from how Ahunts work.

Here's the relevant Digests that I found:
ICE Digest 73 wrote: From: Chris Finley <cfi...@ior.com>
>Dragons Ahunt are now considered Hazard Creature attacks? The Last thing
>I remember was that they were attacks created by a long event.
As stated on the card, the attack is considered a hazard creature attack.


The card is not considered a hazard creature, and is not played as a
hazard creature, but the attack is considered a hazard creature attack
.
Easy enough.
ICE Digest 83 wrote:From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>
>>From: "Isaac S. Demme" <thrr-...@geocities.com>
>
>>>Can Foes Shall Fall be played on an attack from an ahunt dragon?

>
>>Yes.
>
>Does this mean that the dragon ahunt long-event ends when *Foes Shall Fall*
>is played and becomes only a hazard creature applying only according to
>Foes Shall Fall? If not, then what?


The Ahunt stays with Foes Shall Fall until the conditions of FSF
are met
.
Oh really? Even though it's the Ahunt is not a creature card? And well, how to determine the "creature's playability" for a long-event?
ICE Digest 109 wrote:From: Jean-Luc Bevierre <org...@yahoo.com>
>So a "a hazard creature attack" is different of a "creature hazard",
>isn't it?


To be specific, a hazard creature attack is different from a creature
hazard card. Stealth prevents the play of cards.
ICE Digest 111 wrote:>6) What effect does tapping RoBC have on an Ahunt dragon attack? Is the
>Ahunt long-event sent back to hand?


Yes.
So, Ahunts aren't creature cards for Stealth but they are for Foes Shall Fall and Regiment of Black Crows?

-----------

Ok, we know Ahunts are long-events, and not hazard creatures, but they create hazard creature attacks. So they can still be played if Stealth is in effect, but then they count as a creature card for Foes Shall Fall and Regiment of Black Crows?

The Digests never addressed the issue of Ahunt attack playability for Foes Shall Fall, and didn't address Bring Our Curses Home at all. I think that the placement question is easy to gloss over. I wish someone specifically asked about the attack playability. Which is what this proposal is about.

As neat as I think it is to let these cards (Riddling Talk, Foes Shall Fall, Bring Our Curses Home, and Regiment of Black Crows) be played on a non-creature "hazard creature attack" (or any "attack" for Riddling Talk) to get some subset of effects, they probably weren't intended to be used this way and this "feature" should probably just be removed if anything, and not enhanced.

As for intent -- there is no specific antecedent for the term "creature" in the text of these card to determine what the "creature's card" is. But still, the only thing that "the creature" could possibly be referencing is the previously written "a hazard creature attack" presumably of a hazard creature.

If Ahunt's were intended to be usable to attack, Bring Our Cureses Home and Foes Shall Fall would have been worded differently in several ways.

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

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by CDavis7M »

The phrase "place creature's card" in Foes Shall Fall and Bring Our Curses Home does not work with Ahunts because they are Long-event cards and not a "creature card", even though the Ahunt attack is "(considered a hazard creature attack)."

But I stumbled upon an ICE ruling. ICE recognized this issue but apparently they intended these cards to work with Ahunts and they issued this ruling:
Ichabod 1997/04/02 wrote:1) Ahunt cards are supposed to stay with Foes Shall Fall. This leads to the following clarification on Foes Shall Fall and Bring Our Curses Home:

Bring Our Curses Home/Foes Shall Fall (clarification)--These cards can be played on a character facing an attack from a Dragon Ahunt manifestation (but not At Home manifestation). In this case, place the Ahunt card, though a long-event, with the character as you would a normal creature card. The Ahunt card attacks when the company moves into the appropriate regions given.

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

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Konrad Klar »

Consider Ichabod 1997/04/02 as invalid or change the:
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:42 pm
The phrase "place creature's card" in Foes Shall Fall and Bring Our Curses Home does not work with Ahunts because they are Long-event cards and not a "creature card", even though the Ahunt attack is "(considered a hazard creature attack)."
to be compliant with Ichabod 1997/04/02.

If it matters, I think that:
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:42 pm
The phrase "place creature's card" in Foes Shall Fall and Bring Our Curses Home does not work with Ahunts because they are Long-event cards and not a "creature card", even though the Ahunt attack is "(considered a hazard creature attack)."
is sensible.
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: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by CDavis7M »

But that's the reason for the clarification. It would be the correct way to play without the clarification changing the meaning.

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

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Konrad Klar »

Clarifications should not been labiryntifactions.
This is not their purpose.
As a player you have a freedom of creating the infinitely complex situations.
But if you need some clarifications, then you need back to roots.

Shortly:
Ichabod 1997/04/02 is offence to logic.
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: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by CDavis7M »

That is not the ICE definition of "clarification." Their definition of clarification is overbroad because their definition of errata is so narrow.

ICE clarifications include changes. This clarification is a change. There is no logic required. The clarification and explanation make it clear that this is a change.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”