Allies using Resources

[rezwits]

I totally wanted to clear something with Allies, lastly.

I read in a [CRF] that in combat,
A player with an Assassin (ambushers, etc) can pick,
as a target, an Ally (not Goldberry, can't be attacked, etc).

If this is the case, then I should be able to:

A. Tap an Ally to cancel one of the Attacks
OR
B. Tap an Ally to give +1 Prowess Support

Correct?

Thanks for the final info...

[Konrad Klar]

Annotation 18: When a defending player chooses to resolve a strike against a
particular character, the only actions that may be taken by either player until the strike
dice-roll is made are the following: playing hazard cards that affect the strike, the
attacker may decide to use any or all of his remaining -1 modifications due to strikes
in excess of the company's size, a target untapped character may take a -3
modification so that he will not automatically tap, and the defending character may
play resource cards that affect the strike. An action that has the condition that a target
character tap, but which otherwise has an effect not outlined here, may not be
declared at this point.
This is true even if the recipient of the strike would be the target character tapping and
thus receive -1 to his prowess.

Underline mine.

Underlined text indicates that affecting wounded/tapped/untapped state generally counts as a valid action in strike sequence, so Well-Preserved on ally facing strike would be OK.

I feel a need to correct myself.

Allies count as characters for the purposes of combat, including performing actions in
combat that characters do (getting assigned strikes, tapping for +1 to prowess) and for
the play of cards that directly affect the attack.

Unless the ally facing a strike is shadow-magic using ally (unlikely), the ally is not enacting the action that is playing the Well-Preserved.
So no, Well-Preserved on ally facing strike is not OK.
The same applies to e.g. And Forth He Hastened. Nobody is enacting a play of the card.
In both cases a target is merely recipient of the effect that directly affect attack/strike (healing/untapping). It is not the same as playing a card that directly affect the strike/attack.

[rezwits]

Allies count as characters for the purposes of combat, including performing actions in
combat that characters do (getting assigned strikes, tapping for +1 to prowess) and for
the play of cards that directly affect the attack.

Thank you Konrad...

I just wasn't sure when the "Period" for when they start counting as a character began...

Laters...

[rezwits]

OK but I got this clear, but in playing sense, this is insane again.

Because Ambushers, are the BEST Ally wreckers?

I mean I am trying to work on a Black Horse Deck, and it's just like Ambushers kill the Horses, DEAD. DEAD. DEAD.

Over an over there is like no way to defeat an Ambusher well enough. I mean cancel the attack sure...

My thing is I am trying to discern if the TIMING of when "combat begins"

Like when you announce an Ambusher, don't you have to declare who the "characters are" in the announcement of the Ambusher??

It's like Ambusher targeting Character A and Character B.

Then I can decide wether to cancel the attack or not?

BUT combat has NOT started, right?

Therefore not a Character YET.

When a creature has "attacker chooses defending character" ability, Attacker can also choose alleis for the target, right?
*** As long as the ally is not restricted from participating in the
combat, yes.
--------
I read that but in our "NEW RULE STATE" with errata and URDs we have come further than this NO?

I mean everything has almost been completely re-written, I guess my main question is:

Do you have to PICK the "Defending Character(s)" when you announce a Hazard Creature with this "Effect"?

Because if you have to announce b4, then they are not characters and therefore can't be targets.

JUST SAYING (my gosh) The Ally Killers... Getcha Goldenberries while you can... HA stupid

[Konrad Klar]

Combat begins when action that creates an attack or an strike resolves, not when the action is declared.

When Ambusher is declared, an attacker does not choose defending characters yet.
When Ambusher resolves there is time for declaration of other actions. They may be (but are not limited to) actions that cancel the attack, change a number of strikes.
Then attacker chooses defending characters; at this point it is too late to cancel the attack.

[rezwits]

Alright thanks...

[rezwits]

Unless there is an effect which allows a
player to assign the strikes of the attack

So can Sojourn in Shadows save my Black Horse(s) from an Assassin, Ambusher, or Slayers?

PLEASE?

Thanks again!!

[Konrad Klar]

An ally may perform an actions that character may do during combat (not otherwise forbidden for ally). An ally may also receive all bonuses that character receives specifically for purpose of combat.

Sojourn in Shadows is not performed by ally*, and can be played only on character.


*) unless it is shadow-magic using ally.

[rezwits]

Ok see this is where the confusion comes in to play.

Because we say, Allies are NOT CHARACTERS until combat begins.

Once combat begins they are NOW officially available to be assigned a strike, by an Ambusher.

But you are saying my RW cannot cast Sojourn in Shadows, and target the Ally? This makes no sense.

The Ambusher can target the Ally for a strike, but I can't cast Sojourn in Shadows (via my Shadow-magic RW not by the Ally) and target the Ally?

Seems strange to me, because:
COMBAT AS THE RESULT OF CREATURES
To resolve combat as the result of creature attacks:
1. Determine the number of attacks the company
will face (listed on the hazard creature card). The defender may play cards to cancel the attack at this point. If all of a creature’s attacks are canceled, discard the creature. The attacker and defender may play cards to modify
the attack.
If any attacks are not cancelled, repeat the
following process for all attacks of the creature:
2. Unless there is an effect which allows a
player to assign the strikes of the attack:

Right there I have an effect. Sojourn in Shadows

» Combat. Note that allies are not considered characters during combat, but only for combat purposes.

Allies count as characters for the purposes of combat, including performing actions in combat that characters do (getting assigned strikes, tapping for +1 to prowess) and for the play of cards that directly affect the attack [CRF].

Is Sojourn in Shadows NOT a combat purpose, and does it no directly affect the attack? and play of cards is a broad phrase.

Is this some card I cast during my organization or something weird again?

This is not like Well Preserved, because that would not really be allowed on an Ally to be cast during combat, because you can only do "Combat Related" events.

Like I CAN'T play Gates of Morning during combat, while strike are being assigned. I CAN'T do a Test of Fire, during combat because it's NOT a Combat Purpose.

As far as I have been reading, unless this is ONLY related to CvCC, you can only do mainly Combat Related, or things for the Purpose of Combat, during combat.

I am under the impression it's pretty similar.

Combat stuff only during Combat. And I would believe Sojourn in Shadows, is a combat purpose. Hmm...

[rezwits]

But my God, if this just gets ruled this way whatever, I'll just use Gold Chains in the Wind, whatever...

All I am trying to do is give PURPOSE to cards in my card boxes.

Card after card, just keeps getting ruled out as a NULL CARD. It's freaking sad and ridiculous...

I try to use a card and it's like, NOPE won't work because of this and this, and then it's like FINE I'll just have to keep using this card over and over.

But why are certain cards EVEN PRINTED, if rules lawyers just can't live with NEW and INVENTIVE combos?

GEEZUS

So, do any of these hazards affect Allies?:

Weariness of the Heart (-1 prowess, not corruption)
Black Breath
Dragon's Blood
Pierced by Many Wounds
Wraith-lord (Nazgûl on Fell-beast against LONE character with an Ally, lowers the body of Ally?)

Thanks again...just checking if Hazards can target Allies

The MELE rulebook say:
Allies ... An ally does not count as a character for any purposes other than combat and the use of certain skills ... Allies are not affected by corruption.

Why would they put Allies are not affected by corruption?

Because mainly the sole reason, they said Allies are not characters is because of this:
THE HAZARD LIMIT
During your opponent's movement/hazard phase, the number of hazard cards that you may play on one of your opponent's companies is that company's hazard limit. The hazard limit is equal to two or the company's size, whichever is greater. A company's size is equal to the number of characters in it. For THIS PURPOSE, allies do not count as characters.

Ally: A resource that playable at an untapped site during the site phase that taps the site. Allies represent non-character personalities (e.g., War-wolf and Stinker) and require no influence check and no influence to control. An ally is considered a character only for the purposes of combat (facing strikes, tapping to support, ETC.).

It's all there in BLACK and WHITE or should I say BLACK and BLUE...

[rezwits]

Here I made a diagram:



I don't understand why this is so convoluted.

Laters...

[Konrad Klar]

Because we say, Allies are NOT CHARACTERS until combat begins.

Once combat begins they are NOW officially available to be assigned a strike, by an Ambusher.

But you are saying my RW cannot cast Sojourn in Shadows, and target the Ally? This makes no sense.

Cos I am not "we".

Ally is not performing a playing the Sojourn in Shadows. And the card can be played on character.
Likewise no one is performing And Forth He Hastened and this card can be played on character.

BTW. Why the More Sense than You mentions both character and ally (unlike Sojourn in Shadows). Is it only redundancy?

Is Sojourn in Shadows NOT a combat purpose, and does it no directly affect the attack? and play of cards is a broad phrase.

Ultimately a player is playing a cards. If someone says that some sage is playing Marvels Told or some scout is playing Trickery, actually a player plays Marvels Told and particular sage is enacting (performing) the Marvels Told, a player plays Trickery and particular scout is enacting the Trickery.

Otherwise a phrase "played by character/sage/scout/ally" does not make a sense.

Like I CAN'T play Gates of Morning during combat, while strike are being assigned. I CAN'T do a Test of Fire, during combat because it's NOT a Combat Purpose.

Generally you can play a cards and perform other action unrelated to combat during combat. You are more restricted during resolving a strike sequence, or if combat occurs in middle of resolving chain of effects, or if your company defends In CvCC.

[Bandobras Took]

Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable before strikes are assigned on a character facing an attack in a shadow-magic using character's company. Target character cannot be assigned a strike from the attack. Unless he is a Ringwraith, the shadow-magic using character makes a corruption check modified by -4.

I'm going to disagree with Konrad. Assigning Strikes is a purpose of combat. Allies that can be assigned strikes count as characters for such. This card directly modifies strike assignment. I believe it's valid to use Sojourn to make an ally not have to face strikes.

Ally: A resource that is playable at an untapped site during the site phase that taps the site. Allies represent non-character personalities (e.g., War-wolf and Stinker) and require no influence check and no influence to control. An ally is considered a character only for the purposes of combat (facing strikes, tapping to support, etc.).

[Konrad Klar]

Assigning Strikes is a purpose of combat.

Right. But making unable to be assigned a strike is not the same as assigning a strike.
Similarly a making an entity priority target of a strike of an attack (as it does One Foe to Breed a War) is not the same as assigning a strike.
I do not believe that One Foe to Breed a War can be played on an ally (facing an attack, or not) and I believe that mentioning both an ally and a character is not redundancy in text of the More Sense than You.

[Bandobras Took]

What about Many Foes He Fought? Do you deem this usable with a Warrior Ally?

If defender chooses a warrior to be the target of a strike from an attack, that character may choose to face any number of the strikes from that attack.

It is not played on anything; it merely creates an effect that will apply if there is a valid warrior.