Many Foes He Fought - revisited

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Some supporting evidence that needing to face a strike does not (in general) imply being assigned a strike:
CRF wrote:A Noble Hound does not face the attack instead of the character that played Lucky Search, because the strike is never assigned.
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:33 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:30 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:52 pm You should be playing Hazards affecting the attack's prowess during the Strike Sequence. Though hazards affecting the strikes have to be played before.
An attack may be targeted as soon it is in play.
A beginner's mistake.
I'll ask you to remove this pointless rudeness from this thread.
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:52 pm You should be playing Hazards affecting the attack's prowess during the Strike Sequence. Though hazards affecting the strikes have to be played before.
[reworded]The first sentence seems vacuous and ; the second seems incompatible with the literal rules/rulings. "Should" only suggests polite etiquette, not a restriction on play. Like "you should cut your opponent's deck after they shuffle" doesn't mean that you'd be at risk of disqualification if you don't.

"should" -> "can" [compared to the context of your statement, which seemed to suggest "should" -> "can only"]
MELE wrote:You and your opponent must play any cards that modify the number of strikes before you assign strikes.
[If "can only",] cards that affect both the attack's prowess and the number of strikes are unplayable during the attack. Darkness Wielded would be entirely unplayable (for its first effect).

[updated to clarify critique]
Last edited by Theo on Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:14 am, 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

The ICE Netrep has already ruled on Many Foes He Fought. It cannot be used in the manner suggested by the original post: "the defending player may choose for any defending character to become the character that will face that strike (regardless of strike assignment)".

Plus, having a character that is not the target of the strike somehow face the strike makes no sense under the rules on attacks and the strike sequence.
ICE Netrep - 2/11/97 wrote:I have several questions related to creature hazards which target all characters in a company (e.g. Crebain, Silent Watcher, etc). These cards state that each character in the company faces one strike. ... If such a creature attacks a company with a warrior who plays 'Many Foes He Fought', can the warrior take multiple strikes intended for other characters?

Many Foes He Fought, and any other effect allowing a character to take more than one strike from an attack, has no effect on an attack that gives one strike to each character.

------ "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" ------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
Founder "Team Ichabod" Undefeated on the Pro-Tour
-----Self Proclaimed Most Mediocre Player in the World-----
Last edited by CDavis7M on Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:27 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:33 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:30 pm
An attack may be targeted as soon it is in play.
A beginner's mistake.
I'll ask you to remove this pointless rudeness from this thread.
No appreciation for a play-tip? That's fine.
Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:35 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:52 pm You should be playing Hazards affecting the attack's prowess during the Strike Sequence. Though hazards affecting the strikes have to be played before.
This seems terribly sloppy / wrong.
I'll ask you to remove this pointless rudeness from this thread.
Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:35 pm "should" -> "can"
Nope. "Should" here means should. Of course you "can"... but you "should."
Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:35 pm Otherwise cards that affect both the attack's prowess and the number of strikes are unplayable during the attack.
Cards that affect the strikes must be played before the strikes are assigned. (otherwise the strikes could have been previously assigned or used as -1 modifiers).
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:55 pm
Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:35 pm
I'll ask you to remove this pointless rudeness from this thread.
Your sense of equivalence is outside of my realm of understanding. Your post contributes nothing other than to ridicule a community member whose voice you know has long been valued in the community. I critique a particular idea and explain my reasoning. But I have tried above to further clarify my intent with words that may be harder to take personally.
Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:35 pm "should" -> "can"
Nope. "Should" here means should. Of course you "can"... but you "should."

"Should" gives no restrictions to rules mechanics, only to play etiquette. Since you insist on "should", I conclude that your statement is vacuous in discussing the rules mechanics.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:55 pm
Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:35 pm Otherwise cards that affect both the attack's prowess and the number of strikes are unplayable during the attack.
Cards that affect the strikes must be played before the strikes are assigned. (otherwise the strikes could have been previously assigned or used as -1 modifiers).
Again, I think you mean affect the number of strikes? Halfling Stealth can affect an attack's strikes but literally has no valid strike target before strikes are assigned (or faced if no assignment occurs).
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

A play tip contributes nothing?

I guess not by someone who interprets "strikes" as "a strike".

No comments on your proposal?

Say, if Boromir could face strikes assigned to other characters using Many Foes He Fought, then how could those assigned strikes be cancelled if Boromir were eliminated by his own assigned strike instead of the original target just facing the strike? Just more supporting evidence that needing to face a strike does require being assigned a strike.

Plus, ICE ruled on it.

But you know, feel free to play how you want in your own play group and sure, post on the alternative game format section too. 👍
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:02 pm The Dragon must be available as a target for Deftness of Agility. The rules often use wording of non-player entities taking actions, but I agree that it is a bit ridiculous. Special effect is not leveraged "when" applicable, but "if" applicable; the assigning itself happens when assigning normally happens.
The Dragon must be available as a target for Deftness of Agility, but a warrior does not must be available as a target Many Foes He Fought?
Does the "if" make such a difference?

Or "if" just add additional condition that you must choose warrior?
Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:02 pm Not sure what this was meant to communicate. Assigning all strikes per normal combat rules would satisfy the CRF requirement, and then before a strike is resolved the character facing that strike may be changed.
That you cannot postpone the decision how many strikes to assign to the warrior.
2) Must a warrior so chosen decide the number of strikes they will face immediately when they are chosen, or can they delay each strike choice up until the strike is faced by another?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:22 pm Some supporting evidence that needing to face a strike does not (in general) imply being assigned a strike:
CRF wrote:A Noble Hound does not face the attack instead of the character that played Lucky Search, because the strike is never assigned.
With enough amount of sloppy wording one can prove anything.
Strike form attack from Lucky Search is never assigned by player. It is auto-assigned just like strike from next attack of Assassin (if character has survived previous attack).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Your sense of equivalence is outside of my realm of understanding. Your post contributes nothing other than to ridicule a community member whose voice you know has long been valued in the community. I critique a particular idea and explain my reasoning. But I have tried above to further clarify my intent with words that may be harder to take personally.
hmm, @Theo, even though Konrad seems a good guy on here (helping noobs), his understanding of how the game is played or even knowledge of card text (like unlimited or challenge deck versions) as well as knowledge of play guides etc. is very limited...

that is one reason his aim to correct everything is overboarding (and as I can verify by top players more often rediculed)

in this game no on can know it all, but trying to correct everything (solely based on his understanding of the situation, but not how the game often plays out) is also not an option (without reprinting it all)

I value Konrad for his fast and quick monetoring of the forum and answering easy questions, but his errata request I can hardly stomach at all ;(

yours Vastor aka Nicolai - dream card nut
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Vastor Peredhil wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:44 am in this game no on can know it all, but trying to correct everything (solely based on his understanding of the situation, but not how the game often plays out) is also not an option (without reprinting it all)
It will not change.
An error is just an error. One can live with it, other may stretch a logic to explain that it is not an error.
I will say that an error is just an error, and that it should be corrected.
I am not creating my proposals on anyone's request. And yes. I believe that people were playing Freeze the Flesh before errata to the card and were happy without the errata.
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

@Vastor your words speak only of your conceit, and as such have no bearing on rules as a formal logic.

If the problems with the rules have historically been no barrier to you and those you claim to represent, I am at a loss to conceive of why any errata to said rules would be of any greater hindrance. You can continue as you were, equally claiming to represent "how the game is played".
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:49 am Strike form attack from Lucky Search is never assigned by player. It is auto-assigned just like strike from next attack of Assassin (if character has survived previous attack).
On what basis is the underlined portion based?

Attacks that say "each character in the company faces one strike" do not even have any "given strikes" existing to assign!
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:43 pm Attacks that say "each character in the company faces one strike" do not even have any "given strikes" existing to assign!
On what basis is it based?
And what then
Lidless Eye wrote:Note: Ignore effects that modify the number of strikes for an attack that states that "every character in the target
company faces one strike" (unless an effect reduces the number of strikes to a specific number, e.g., Veils of Shadow).
would mean?
Theo wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:43 pm On what basis is the underlined portion based?
That was almost arbitrary decision.

I have a choice:
- to believe that some strike is never assigned to a character that will face it anyway.
E.g. because the strike is already assigned to him by some effect.
Then I must confess that I do not know, when to declare actions that change a number of strikes or otherwise may be declared only before strikes are assigned.
- or I have to believe the a strike will not be assigned at all, but it will be faced anyway.
Then I must resign from respecting the rule: "All strikes of an attack must be assigned before any are resolved.". But I have greater freedom of declaring actions that may be declared only before strikes are assigned.
- to acknowledge that word of ICE is not saint. Author made an error. " strike [from Lucky Search's attack] is never assigned" by player, because it has been decided earlier which character will be facing it.
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

Ah good, thanks for the Combat - General CRF quote. I was mentally miscontextualizing it as meaning only that no assigned strike could be resolved until all assigned strikes were assigned, but it is indeed more general.
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:22 am
Theo wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:43 pm Attacks that say "each character in the company faces one strike" do not even have any "given strikes" existing to assign!
On what basis is it based?
It was that such attacks do not give a quantified pool of strikes from which to draw an individual "given strike". But rereading some of the text concerned, I'll revise this opinion to be that it seems more consistent: to consider there to be an unquantified pool of strikes from which individual "given strikes" are implicitly drawn and assigned to characters to face.

Previously I was concerned that effects that allow characters to face strikes assigned to others would prevent the resolution of the attack (requirement that "each character in the company faces one strike"). If such strikes still need to be assigned, and "All strikes of an attack must be assigned before any are resolved"-CRF, we could reach an impossible state where all assigned strikes were faced but not every character in the company has faced a strike.

My resolution for this given the change above is that effects that allow characters to face strikes assigned to others CANNOT allow characters to face strikes assigned to others when such an assignment was required by an effect stipulating that the character needs to face the strike. That is, if an effect states that character A MUST face a strike, this cannot be overcome by an effect that allows one to CHOOSE for the strike to be faced by character B.
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:22 am Then I must confess that I do not know, when to declare actions that change a number of strikes or otherwise may be declared only before strikes are assigned.
Even if there are no long events to remove or play during a long event phase does not mean that the phase does not happen.
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:22 am - to acknowledge that word of ICE is not saint. Author made an error. " strike [from Lucky Search's attack] is never assigned" by player, because it has been decided earlier which character will be facing it.
Indeed this seems the only way to resolve the Lucky Search entry given the Combat - General CRF entry.
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/
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”