Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm
I propose that this be changed to:
"Making a site lose all of its automatic-attacks does not directly affect an automatic-attack. Removing a particular automatic-attack or canceling it does.
I believe the intent of the original ruling was to prevent Rebuild the Town from being played before the automatic-attacks were faced, There are a couple other resources, e.g., Lord and Usurper, that should also continue to not be playable.
As for the "intent," Ichabod has spoken on this ruling many times and it is not just limited to Rebuild the Town but was intended to apply broadly to all sorts of resources. The idea being that if the resource player is going to play a resource before facing the automatic attack then the hazard player should be able to respond. The only resources that can be played before the automatic attack has been faced are resources playable during the strike sequence (anything that affects the prowess of the attack or the character, including using Marvels Told to remove an event with a negative modifier) and resources that cancel the attack. Though Marvels Told cannot be used during the strike sequence to remove The Moon is Dead or other effects that also affect strikes because "
Any effect that would change the number of strikes for an attack may not be played after strikes are assigned."
Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm
does not make linguistic sense. Removing would be an action taken on an automatic-attack, so would definitively affect it;
Removing an automatic attack affects the site card as automatic attacks are attributes of site cards. So it does not affect an "attack." This attribute of a site card is not an "attack" until it "attacks" the company. One discrepancy is that this concept goes the other way for revealing on-guard events that add automatic attacks -- they modify the site's attributes, not the attack already given, yet have been ruled to be revealable on-guard as cards that modify [the site's] automatic attack. To me this is a better point for clarification. Also, see the notes on the LoRE 2nd edition below.
Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm
[*] causes removal cards requiring the company (e.g., Marvel's Told) to not be usable on hazard events that create additional automatic-attacks (e.g., At Home manifestations, most spawn events, The Black Enemy's Wrath, Fell Winter, Nature's Revenge).
I think this is the entire point. Any removal should be played during the M/H phase when the hazard player can respond. Whether these cards should be revealable on guard is a different question.
Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm
Currently, the CRF ruling makes the revealing of these card on-guard dramatically different from them being played during the movement/hazard phase;
It is definitely a strength of the on-guard mechanic. These attacks can still be cancelled. But I think there is an argument here that the resource player should be able to respond using Marvels in this situation, just as the hazard player should be able to respond to Marvels.
My understanding from the LoRE 2nd edition gamma rules is that they were even more restrictive at the end of the M/H phase and the beginning of the site phase to both the resource and the hazard player. Marvels Told could only be played during the Sage's M/H phase or Site phase and it could not be played during the strike sequence while facing the automatic attack since it did not have the "engagement" keyword or the "strike" keyword. But also, the hazard player could not reveal cards on-guard as there is no guard rule anymore. However, the hazard player could play "engagement" keyword or "strike" keyword cards anytime there was an attack, even outside the M/H phase (and not using any hazard limit). But those cards were not hazards that added automatic attack, just ones that modified prowess, etc. Cards like Fell Winter and Balrog of Moria that added automatic attacks were not engagement cards. Though The Moon is Dead was an engagement card, though it seemed like it was an engagement card since it gave +1 strike and so would have to be played before strikes were assigned, not so that it could be played during the site phase to duplicate the undead automatic attacks.
Theo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 pm
further incentivizes players to have sages sitting in Havens to resolve their site phase first and be available for this type of removal, which doesn't seem like a desirable impact on the metagame.
I agree and I don't think this was addressed in the LoRE 2nd edition rules.
--------
If we back up, the entire discussion revolves around players wanting to play cards without their opponent having the opportunity to respond effectively. The resource player wants to play Marvels Told in the site phase so that they are free from Many Sorrows and Call of Home (well, there is also the possibility that they only just drew the card). The hazard player should be able to respond.
But this also goes the other way. The resource player should be able to respond to cards that the hazard player wants to reveal on guard.
It is clear from the rulings that until the automatic attack is faced, the resource player can only play resources that cancel the attack or affect the attributes of the attack.
If this seems too much then maybe it is the on-guard rules that need a second look. Should Balrog of Moria and Incite Denizens be revealable on guard? The rulings indicate that they can. And Doubled Vigilance was even given a special clarification to allow it to be revealed on guard. It does seem a bit unfair to the resource player but it also seems as if it was intended. Though the LoRE rules did cut back on this.
----------
As for the proposal ("Making a site lose all of its automatic-attacks does not directly affect an automatic-attack. Removing a particular automatic-attack or canceling it does.), I disagree. The intent is clear that playing a resource to removing an automatic attack should be done in the Movement/hazard phase when the hazard player can respond.
If hazards that add an automatic attack are thought to be too overbearing, it is the on-guard rules that should be clarified. Balrog of Moria on guard was an example in older versions of the CRF before it was revamped. Incite on guard was ruled and discussed a few times even late in the games life. Though I dont think the on-guard rules were reassessed after the site phase restrictions were made clear. If the site phase rules for resources were clarified, the site phase rules for hazards should have be clarified consistently.