Council of Elrond

RIDDLING TALK ‐ Short‐event (U)
Riddling attempt. Playable on a character whose company is facing an attack of the type listed below. Character makes a roll (or
draws a #) modified by: +2 for each sage and +1 for each Hobbit in his company. If the result is greater than: 8 against Dragons and
Drakes, 10 against Men and Giants, 12 against Slayers, Awakened Plants, Orcs, Spiders, and Trolls; then name a card and opponent
must reveal his hand. If the named card is in opponent’s hand, the creatureʹs card is discarded (all of its attacks are cancelled) and
the hazard limit against the character’s company is decreased by three.
Can you play it against an auto attack? It seems like you could, but then it says "the creature's card is discarded".

What happens if the creature is an assassin, and Forearmed is in play?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Based on later ICE rulings I'd say the Assassin's attack has no effect, the Assassin is discarded, and the attack is considered faced but not canceled.

Why does "cannot be canceled" not prevent the "cancelled" effect? The Dragons language here says that the attacks are canceled. But really, the attack just leaves play and has no effect (instead of being "canceled"). This is because an attack is an on-going effect and the on-going effects of a card leave play when that card leaves play. Back in The Dragons, More Sense Than You was first ruled to "cancel" an attack against a lone character when that character could not be assigned a strike. Later ICE realized that this use of the term "cancel" in the ruling conflicts with later cards stating that certain attacks "cannot be cancelled" (as here). And so later rulings (MSTY, Ruse) stated that the attack is not cancelled but has no effect, any creature card is discarded, and the attack is considered faced but not cancelled.

The situation with Riddling Talk is similar to MSTY but instead of the creature being discarded because it has no effect (with MSTY), the creature has no effect because it is discarded (Riddling).

There is no "cancel" action invoked.
Attack is discontinued as discontinued is when defender unexpectedly leaves play.

Based on precedent in other game aspects, and barring my knowledge of any rulings in this case otherwise, I'd say that anything that would cause a violation of a mandated policy is nullified (unless it explicitly makes exception to THAT policy). So Riddling Talk return to hand (+ cancel) should itself be canceled in this situation, because it's effect includes canceling the attack, which would violate policy.

I guess I'm thinking of precedents such as:
Any effects that would cause company composition violations are canceled. (MELE)
Corruption checks results that normally discard characters that can't be discarded are considered to not have failed. (CRF)

Theo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:18 am So Riddling Talk return to hand (+ cancel) should itself be canceled in this situation, because it's effect includes canceling the attack, which would violate policy.

As long it actually cancels attack - YES.
I think that it is like in case of Farmer Maggot. The attack is discontinued.
Proper solution would be an errata for Riddling Talk.

Thank you so much for your answers!

Farmer Maggot is a separate issue. CoE affirmed in Digests #19 and #58 that attack canceling on Farmer Maggot is a later effect that occurs after replacing the site card, and so can be independently (itself) canceled without canceling the movement. To me, the wording on Riddling Talk implies that the card manipulation and attack canceling actions are part of the same card effect. Better to take Farmer Maggot to another thread, I think.

For me an order is crucial.
Firstly a creature card is discarded, secondly attacks are "canceled".
"Canceled" before they have a chance of being faced.
For me this means "discontinued".
"Cancel" action is not invoked. Effects that prevents an invoking a "cancel" action are not applicable.