ARV: removing an automatic-attack

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

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:14 pm It's not my fabricated story. It's the Designer's.
You are welcome to provide any relevant quotes from the Designers to support your conclusions.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:14 pm Also, the hazard player does have the "right" to protect their automatic-attack hazards. They play them on-guard.
What is the hazard player's protection against Withdrawn to Mordor during another company's earlier site phase? Not playing their automatic-attack hazards at all? Shucks, still prone to The Riddle Game. Maybe not putting them in their deck at all? Ok, I admit I'll have to think more about that one.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:14 pm
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:13 am * The resource player can already muck with the hazard player's cards during the site phase before facing the auto by using another company. The hazard player has no "right" to protect anything during that phase.
True in MECCG as it was. But it's also true that this was not intended and not desired by the Designers and they no longer allowed doing this in the revised rules.
You mentioned seeing Marvel's Told changed (no actual quotes)... is this your derivation for concluding the Designers intent? One card being changed in a set of unfinished rules for a different edition of the game? Surely there must be more.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:14 pm You want the resource player to be able to remove a particular automatic-attack even though the Designers specifically
said NO.
You already agreed that this was already allowed in the game, so I'm not sure what you are referencing with the NO.

If you still haven't gotten it from or since the original post, the proposal is to allow the resource player to additionally use the company currently resolving it's site phase to play resource cards that remove a particular automatic-attack (essentially an automatic-attack created by a hazard card). This indeed breaks from the existing rulings; hence why it needs to be a proposal.

Are you trying to bully another person out of "Any community member may create a thread in this forum suggesting a desired rule erratum or clarification?"
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 Oct 04, 2022 3:37 am Are you trying to bully another person out of "Any community member may create a thread in this forum suggesting a desired rule erratum or clarification?"
No, that's you:
Theo wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:11 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:08 pm My understanding from the LoRE 2nd edition gamma rules...
Please take conversation about a different version of the game elsewhere.
As if the Designer's own changes to this game are not relevant to proposed changes to this game...
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”