Page 1 of 2
Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:18 pm
by Bandobras Took
Cards Playable On Automatic-Attacks
Current Text Of Rule:
CRF, Automatic Attacks wrote:The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.
New Rule:
When facing an automatic attack, you may only play resources that state they are playable on an attack or strike or a character/company facing such. You may not play such a resource if it specifies it may not be played on automatic attacks.
Gameplay And Balance Reasons For The Change:
This will be a lot easier to remember, and will open up card flow to more than just those who use Chance Meeting/WHCtK to get around automatic-attacks. Reintroducing strike-assignment cards opens up active MP gathering for Ringwraiths through use of Sojourn in Shadows. As an added bonus, this rule will make much more intuitive sense to new players.
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:12 pm
by marcos
aye
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:27 pm
by Thorsten the Traveller
Agreed.
2 things:
- I'd like to hear some cons (other than it being against official rule).
- I don't think this will have important effects on game play, so I don't share those with big ilusions about it.
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:56 pm
by Shapeshifter
Aye.
To give the rules gurus (netrep team) a chance to comment on this let's either put this thing in the general/rules section or give them rights to post here. This will be the first task for the experts (see this
topic).
Do we have to vote on whom we shall invite?
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:59 pm
by Bandobras Took
Sauron is already commenting on CoE issues in the general forum.
I'd prefer to keep this thread strictly for the voting.
We could start a parallel thread in the General Forum.
By the way, I'll add my own "aye" to this.
http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... f=12&t=159
A previous NetRep team already suggested that the rule be given erratum, but nothing came of it due to the generally lethargic Erratum process.
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:08 am
by Jose-san
Definitely Aye!
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:11 pm
by Bandobras Took
We have 5 agreed; that would be enough for a revised erratum process such as the one I proposed elsewhere.
We need one more for the current erratum process, don't we (two thirds)?
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:35 pm
by Vastor Peredhil
Back from holiday . . .
getting to work
Aye to this one for sure
it was a fuck-up the way it was before
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:48 pm
by Bandobras Took
Either by old or new methods, then, this has the minimum number of required "aye" votes.
We need to either send it to the mailing list for ratification or figure out a new erratum process.
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:27 pm
by Frodo
I was always displeased with the way the cards playable on auto-attacks had been ruled, because it made it VERY DIFFICULT for players to remember, and not at all intuitive. So I would give my AYE to opening this revision up for debate.
However, it was my understanding that the rules people had good reasons for deciding this, and I want to hear what they were. Or maybe there only reasons were to keep tradition with a strict interpretation of cards? If the second, I don't mind breaking tradition.
--Frodo
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:32 pm
by Bandobras Took
Check the link eariler in the thread; the rules people ruled that way because the rules are explicit. Wacho even suggests it be sent to the CoE for errata.
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:02 pm
by miguel
Just for my peace of mind, at this point you are only voting for the erratum to be playtested, correct?
This is a big change and will have some ramifications.
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: Automatic-attacks wrote:The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.
I believe the above quote is very closely related to the amendment to Annotation 24 and a clarification found in the Balrog rules:
CRF: Rulings by Term: Timing wrote:# Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.
# (amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation 18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).
Balrog Rules: Specific Rules for MEBA: Cards with Multiple Actions (Clarification) wrote:...As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of the strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence.
So, if we change what you can play vs. automatic-attacks, IMO same should be extended to cards with multiple actions where (at least) one of the effects is an attack. I think Ben's new rule proposal could use a rewording, and I'll be happy to provide one later on, but in general I am for this change as well because it will make the game more intuitive and, even more importantly, fun.
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:31 pm
by Shapeshifter
miguel wrote:Just for my peace of mind, at this point you are only voting for the erratum to be playtested, correct?
Correct.
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:22 pm
by Bandobras Took
Playtesting, forsooth. There's no need according to the old or new charters. This has received the majority vote and Thorondor can send it to the mailing list whenever he wants to.
Playtesting? Most people already play this way. They aren't aware of the rule.
But if we must have playtesting, then fine.
Anybody until the end of the month can make decks and test. If anything turns out to be more powerful/broken than playing CM/WHCtK in the site phase, feel free to post it here.
If you don't care enough to playtest this in a month's time, then it obviously didn't matter much, did it?
Re: Erratum Proposal: Cards Playable On Automatic Attacks
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:57 pm
by Sauron
Bandobras Took wrote:Playtesting, forsooth. There's no need according to the old or new charters. This has received the majority vote and Thorondor can send it to the mailing list whenever he wants to.
Playtesting? Most people already play this way. They aren't aware of the rule.
But if we must have playtesting, then fine.
Anybody until the end of the month can make decks and test. If anything turns out to be more powerful/broken than playing CM/WHCtK in the site phase, feel free to post it here.
If you don't care enough to playtest this in a month's time, then it obviously didn't matter much, did it?
Besides Sojourn in Shadow can you think of any other cards this would allow to be played that can't currently be played? I'd need to think about this and see more examples before I could come up with an opinion on this one.