Abductor

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Olorin
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon

Does the ability of an Abductor to force the discard of any character wounded by Abductor supersede the character being eliminated by a body check?

Let me try to be more clear.
Each non‐Wizard defending character wounded by the Abductor is discarded.
I am just trying to confirm what I believe this means. I believe that this means a character wounded by the Abductor gets discarded in place of a body check, or do they get discarded if they survive the body check? Is "wounded by X" defined as "failed against a strike from X but survived the body check" or just failed against the strike? Discarding the character short circuits transferring an item to an untapped character, are there any other pro/con/just quirky ramifications of this mechanic? I'm thinking of Despair of the Heart, for one. The character has to be wounded to be discarded, so I believe an Abductor can trigger the corruption check. What else?

Thanks all,
Olorin
wild1
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:50 am

As far as needing to do a body check on a failed strike from an Abductor:
CoE #9:
Can a non-wizard character be eliminated by Abductor?
*** No. Strike Sequence: Annotation 19 - "Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body). However, if the strike calls for any special actions to follow it (e.g., a chracter wounded by William maybe required to discard his items), these special actions are resolved before the body check." Thus, once a non-wizard character is wounded by an Abductor, they are discarded without a body check.
I would assume that being wounded by the strike from an Abductor would trigger a cc from Despair of the Heart. Not sure of any other quirkiness...

Edited for typo.
wild1
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:50 am

wild1 wrote: I would assume that being wounded by the strike from an Abductor would trigger a cc from Despair of the Heart. Not sure of any other quirkiness...
I guess the thread "Abductor and items" from the meccg.net/dforum might count for quirkiness. Wim said there that if a character is discarded because of a failed strike against an Abductor, all their items are discarded. His quote:
Items and other non-follower cards he controls are discarded, as is the default. [The rule that allows you to transfer one item to each non-wounded character is specific to dying of a body check. Some cards, such as Call of Home, have their own rules printed on them.]
Plus, from the same thread, it would appear that a Wizard could be targeted for an attack from an Abductor; however, since the special action outlined on Abductor wouldn't affect them, the Wizard would follow the normal strike process and face a body check on a failed strike.
Bruce
Ex Council Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Rome, Italy

I think the Abductor's text has to be interpreted that the non-wizard character gets discarded if he survives the body check. Normally, if the character cannot be wounded as a consequence of the strike (and for this reason no body check is rolled), it is explicitly mentioned by the creature's text. Compare Pickpocket or Thief: those creature cards speak of "successful strikes". No body check is rolled just because the character is not wounded by Pickpocket or Thief. Rolling a body check is normally sinonymous of the character being wounded by a strike.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

MELE Rules, Combat wrote:Resolving Strikes
Strikes are resolved one at a time as decided by the defending player. When you choose a strike to resolve, determine all of the factors affecting the strike before the roll is made (see "The Strike Sequence" on page 33). To resolve a strike, the defender makes a roll (2D6) and adds his modified prowess:
· If this result is greater than the strike's prowess, the strike fails. Such a strike is defeated if its body attribute is "-" or if it has a body attribute and fails a body check.
· If this result is equal to the strike's prowess, the strike was ineffectual (i.e., the strike is avoided but not defeated).
· Otherwise, the strike was successful (i.e., the character was defeated). If the attack was a "detainment" attack, an untapped target is tapped. Otherwise, the target character is wounded and must make a body check.
A body check happens as a result of being wounded by a strike. It is not necessarily synonymous with it. Abductor interrupts the process. There are cards which wound characters, but the characters to not have to make a body check as a result of being wounded (e.g. Where There's A Whip -- there is no extra body check if a character is wounded as a result of this card).

Furthermore, from the MELE Glossary:
Wounded: The state of a character by placing the top of his card towards you. A character in play who is not tapped or untapped is wounded. A character becomes wounded when a strike against him is successful. You cannot declare an action that requires a character to tap if the character is wounded.
Nothing is mentioned here about a body check at all. Abductor's text applies when the character becomes wounded, and it happens before the body check.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
Bruce
Ex Council Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Rome, Italy

I think I finally found the answer :)
CRF wrote:Annotation 19: Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body). However, if the strike calls for any special actions to follow it (e.g., a character wounded by William may be required to discard his items), these special actions are resolved before the body check. The body check is the first declared action in a nested chain of effects that immediately follows the strike dice-roll and special actions resulting from the strike. Other actions may be declared in response to a body check, in the same chain of effects, but these are limited to those actions that directly affect the body check dice-roll. E.G., Tookish Blood could not be declared in response to the body check caused by Giant Spiders wounding a Hobbit. No action may be declared in response to a special action resulting from a strike unless the special action is a dice-rolling action, i.e., a special action is generally considered synonymous with the strike dice-roll. If the special action is a dice-rolling action, an action may be declared in response to it if the action directly affects the dice-roll.
This means that the non-wizard wounded by the abductor gets discarded without rolling any body check

Actually, being wounded and rolling for bc are not synonimous, while a successful strike and the character being wounded are
CRF wrote:Annotation 21: A successful strike against a character is synonymous with that character being wounded; i.e., inverting a character card on the playing surface is not a separate action from the successful strike.
That's where my memory mixed up things... :?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bruce is right.

However.
CRF, Turn Sequence, Combat, Strike Sequence wrote:Annotation 20: If more than one special action is to follow a strike, the defending
player decides the order they are resolved.
So if defending player has a special wish, he may choose the special action (cc) from Despair of the Heart to be resolved before special action from Abductor.
If defending character wounded by Abductor is prevented from being discarded (and/or is Wizard, or Ringwraith) he must make the body check.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

As far as the original question of the thread, one historical confusion might have been because Scott (first ICE NetRep) initially ruled that one item could be passed as though the character were being eliminated, and Ichabod (second ICE NetRep) referenced this ruling initially before making his own (that discarded all items), later included in CRF 4.

---
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:29 pm If defending character wounded by Abductor is prevented from being discarded (and/or is Wizard, or Ringwraith) he must make the body check.
I would agree. However, we have:
CRF 15 wrote:Abductor
Does not affect Ringwraiths.
Perhaps this was intended to mean that the discarding does not affect Ringwraiths, but the actual wording means that Ringwraiths cannot be tapped or wounded as well, or rather I would say they are not eligible to be assigned a strike in the first place.

-----

Musings:

This wording appeared suddenly in CRF 13, preceded three months earlier by:
ICE Rules Digest 85 wrote: >What happens when a Ringwraith is wounded by an Abductor?

You roll a body check.
We do not know whether CRF 13 was meant to paraphrase this or correct it; all we have are the literal CRF words.

Even earlier, we have (underline mine):
ICE NetRep (Ichabod) 97/11/6 wrote: >4) Can an Abductor kill a character, or is missing the strike synonymous with being discarded without a body check?

Abductors never kill characters, they just discard them.
If this ever appeared in a CRF, it might have also called into question Konrad's conclusion that Wizards and any character that cannot be discarded must roll a body check. Or perhaps, they were supposed to roll the body check but ignore failure, perhaps to see whether Ringwraiths were returned to hand? No matter; it never saw CRF release.

(And even earlier, we have:
ICE NetRep (Scott) 96/2/1 wrote: >Abductor:
>Is a body check rolled when Abductor wounds a non-wiz character ?

Yes, the Abductor is capable of killing.
Although this must be excused as it preceded Annotation 19.)
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

Wizards and Ringwraiths roll a body check when wounded by Abductor. So do characters prevented from being discarded. Special actions of a strike are distinct from the body check (Annotation 19). The body check can happen without the special action.

First, note that the earlier rulings from Scott came before the Rules Annotations in the METW Companion and the rulings on Abductor weren't updated until later. Recognize that the Rules Annotations weren't written in a vacuum--they were written to describe specific issues.

Second, the "does not affect Ringwraiths" statement in the CRF refers to the special action of the Abductor's strike. That is, "each non-Wizard (and non-Ringwraith) defending character wounded by the Abductor is discarded." A non-Wizard non-Ringwraith character wounded by Abductor would be discarded before they could roll a body-check. A Wizard or Ringwraith wounded by Abductor is not discarded before they make the body-check, they still make the body check. A character that is prevented from being discarded by the special action of the strike still makes the body check.
ICE wrote:Q: also believe a wizard injured by an Abductor is a wizard kill. Basically, once you,ve revealed your wizard he can not be discarded <except with Sac of Form> or it,s a wizard kill...

A: Wizards are not discarded by Abductor. Besides, discarding a Wizard in and of itself does not count as a Wizard kill. Discarding due to
a corruption check does.
----------
Q: What happens when a Ringwraith is wounded by an Abductor?

A: You roll a body check.
----------
Q: A further question about Abductors: say a character fails to defeat or make ineffectual a strike by an Abductor, is he discarded immediately or does he make a body check and only become discarded if he is not eliminated? This may throw some light on the above question concerning Ringwraiths. In digest 85, Ichabod said that a Ringwraith wounded by an Abductor rolls a body check. Can that Ringwraith be discarded?

Non-Ringwraith characters are discarded immediately. The Ringwraith is not discarded. (Annotation 19)
Annotation 19 describes the differences between a special action of a strike and a body-check. Just because wounding a Wizard/RW character doesn't cause the special action doesn't mean that the Wizard/RW doesn't have to make a body check as normal. The special action does not replace the body check.

----------
Theo wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:20 pm Even earlier, we have (underline mine):
ICE NetRep (Ichabod) 97/11/6 wrote: >4) Can an Abductor kill a character, or is missing the strike synonymous with being discarded without a body check?

Abductors never kill characters, they just discard them.
If this ever appeared in a CRF, it might have also called into question Konrad's conclusion that Wizards and any character that cannot be discarded must roll a body check. Or perhaps, they were supposed to roll the body check but ignore failure, perhaps to see whether Ringwraiths were returned to hand? No matter; it never saw CRF release.
You're taking this ruling out of context even though you actually have reviewed most of the context. The answer clearly doesn't consider Wizards or characters that are prevented from being discarded. It's specifically responding to a question about a character that would be discarded. And the missing background of this question is that it was previously ruled characters could be eliminated by Abductor. The statement "Abductors never kill characters" references this background and if you knew the background then the Netrep's response makes sense. And... you just described the background... but then...

The CRF clarification on Abductor only changes how the Abductor card is played. It does not change the rules on special actions of a strike.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Reasonable readers may note that I did provide the context for Ichabod's 97/11/6 ruling.

Unfortunately, wishful thinking cannot create anything that truly isn't there within the CRF text.
Last edited by Theo on Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

I know you provided the context and the background. So why didn't you incorporate them into your understanding of the CRF ruling?
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

One can have the literal rules texts and believe an addition that isn't there, but that doesn't make it there.
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

You are misinterpreting the CRF again. The statement "If it isn't there" ONLY applies to the cards and the rules.

CRF: "The main thing to remember, when making rulings based on the rules and the cards, is that if it isn't there, then it isn't there."

The CRF is not the rules. The cards are rules are taken literally. There is no background or context besides the other rules.

The CRF rulings are not taken literally, they have a context. The ruling on Abductor is not to be taken literally. This is a common problem that leads to many misunderstandings.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

As for the question now in your edited response, as I voiced above: we do not know whether CRF 13 was meant to paraphrase or correct what came before, all we have are the literal CRF words.
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

Theo wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:28 pm As for the question now in your edited response, as I voiced above: we do not know whether CRF 13 was meant to paraphrase or correct what came before, all we have are the literal CRF words.
Except that we have all of the rulings as background and context. And we have the actual Annotation 19 and nothing about the Abductor CRF entry overrules Annotation 19.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”