Council of Elrond

Does the scout that taps for Dark Numbers need to be assigned/face a strike from the attack in order to tap for Dark Numbers?

The text from Dark Numbers:

Stolen Knowledge. Playable on an untapped scout immediately after facing an Orc, Troll, or Man attack. Tap scout. Can be stored at a Haven. If not stored, discard to give +3 to an influence attempt against a faction by a character in the same company.

From the CRF, the only thing I could find about facing an attack was about a company:
CRF, Movement/Hazard Phase, Combat, Attack:

An attack is considered faced by a company if it successfully resolves in its chain of effects.

I'd assume that the scout could not be assigned a strike but still be considered as having faced the attack.

Thanks!

It is the example of compact style of ICE. Strictly speaking a company is facing an attack, not character.

So if:
"Playable on an untapped scout immediately after facing an Orc, Troll, or Man attack. "
means
"Playable on an untapped scout immediately after facing an Orc, Troll, or Man attack by his company." (and I rather do not see other possibilities),
you are right.

May I play cards (e.g. Halfling Strength) after the attack to untap a scout who then plays Dark Numbers?
May I use effects such as discarding Cram after the attack to untap a scout who then play it?

Hmm, I would think Dark Numbers would have to be (at least) the first player-declared action following the attack for it to be considered immediately following the attack. So using Halfling Strength or Cram would prevent Dark Numbers.

What I feel more hesitant about is whether other triggered chains of events occurring following the attack (i.e. Alatar's corruption check) would similarly prevent Dark Numbers from immediately following the attack. My preference would be to still allow Dark Numbers in the spirit of things, as long as it was the first player-declared action. But I guess a strict reading would not allow it.

I agree with Theo.

Nowhere that I am aware of does ICE give a clear definition of "immediately." However, common sense would indicate it means it must be done right away with haste, else what is the point of using the term immediately? They would simply say "after facing" instead of "immediately after facing."

Thus I think any "immediate" actions must be declared prior to any "non-immediate" actions, making Cram and Halfling Strength unplayable in this scenario.

As to Theo's point about competing immediate actions, I think Dark Numbers should still be allowed. I would argue that any number of immediate actions are legal, so long as all of them take place prior to any non-immediate actions being performed. Furthermore, I think that mandatory immediate actions which are already in play (e.g. Alatar's tap and corruption check) must be declared prior to any non-mandatory immediate actions which are not yet in play (e.g. Dark Numbers).

In analogy lets look at cards like Smoke ont the Wind or Burning Rick Cot and Tree: It seems it is commonly agreed upon the players that no action can be taken between the attacks caused by the card and the successful play of it.

the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:51 am As to Theo's point about competing immediate actions, I think Dark Numbers should still be allowed. I would argue that any number of immediate actions are legal, so long as all of them take place prior to any non-immediate actions being performed.

Opponent may declare non-immediate action in response to declaration of an immediate action, just to prevent declaration of other immediate actions.
E.g. he may play Doors of Night in response to declaration of cc made by Alatar to prevent a playing Dark Numbers.
Player taking his turn has right to make declaration before his opponent, so he may play Dark Numbers in response to declaration of cc made by Alatar, but still Doors of Night declared as next action in response would prevent declaration of second copy of Dark Numbers.
New Friendship played in response to declaration of cc made by Alatar would prevent declaration of any "immediate action" hazard (and resource too).

I propose following solution:
Immediate action, i.e. an action that must be declared by a player immediately after completion of some other action, may be declared as long as the player does not declare a non-immediate action starting a chain of effects. The player that had possibility to start a new chain of effects , but decided to pass or declare non-immediate action, loses a possibility of declaring an immediate action.

I like that.