Attack as first declared action

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
Locked
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Attack as first declared action

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:20 pm

CRF, Turn Sequence, Combat wrote:Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects, i.e., a
creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of
effects. [...]
with later addition:
@ Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15. [CoE] %
This rule is often being breaken, but not by players, but by game itself. E.g. when multiple Dragon Ahunt's actions are triggered at the same time (or in the same chain of effects). This leads me to conclusion that the rule is broken.

Proposed change:
Annotation 15: An attack may not be declared by players in response.
alternatively
@ Annotation 15 only applies to declaration made by players.
MODERATOR (Konrad Klar):
Moved from Rules Questions, where it was posted by mistake :oops: .
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by miguel » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:57 am

CRF: Rulings by Term: Passive Conditions wrote:Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
This could take care of the ahunts, no? Are there situations not covered by Annotation 10?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:26 pm

I think that Annotation 10 covers concurency of multiple actions pretending to be first declared.
These action may render to be illegally declared due to Annotation 15.
Sometimes action is illegaly declared for other reasons e.g. when target of action caused by passive condition leaves a play in the same chain of effect in which passive condition has been produced (a character is required to make cc due to Despair of Heart [caused by Rats! wounding other character]; next resolving Call of Home is returning the character to hand).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by miguel » Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:38 am

I think it's not unreasonable to just apply Annotation 10 to a situation with multiple ahunts triggering. It's essentially the same as your proposed change, but doesn't require us to actually alter the CRF via CoE rules proposal. I think Annotation 15 is just saying an attack can't be responded to with another attack which multiple ahunts aren't really doing anyway, they are added to the chain but not in response to one another (there is no time to respond until all triggered actions are placed in the chain). I don't think having multiple attacks in a chain makes any of them illegal, only responding to an attack with another one would be. (A bit of semantics I guess, but it seems to work.)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:33 pm

Declaration is just declaration, whether made by player or by game.
We would debate whether that made by game may be called "in response", or only that made by players.
But Annotation 15 says "An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects" and further says about consequence "i.e., a creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of effects". Not exhautsively, otherwise CoE addition would not be neccessary.

Leave it as is and literaly it would cause all but first declarations of attack in result of passive condition illegal.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by miguel » Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:36 am

Yeah I get what you're saying, but I think Annotation 10 gives us the leeway to actually have more than one attack in a chain of effects (due to ahunts and such), if we want to look at it so. If we don't want to look at it so, then of course it doesn't.
CRF wrote:Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects; i.e., a creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception.

Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15.
The part about a creature card (or any other card with potential to create an attack) is not an example of what cannot be done, it is a clarification. So what Anno 15 is really saying, is that you may not respond to any declared action by playing a card that has potential to create an attack.

And because Annotation 15 says "an attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects", if you have multiple passive conditions going off with some of them being attacks, then those attacks would have a different level of priority from the rest of the actions. But all the attacks are with the same level of priority, which is where Annotation 10 comes in.
CRF wrote:Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
So Annotation 10 works for all the actions that are required to be the first action. All attacks from ahunts are required to be the first action per Anno 15. Applying Annotation 10 to them would seem to make sense. If one wants to see it that way. ;)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 pm

So Annotation 10 works for all the actions that are required to be the first action. All attacks from ahunts are required to be the first action per Anno 15. Applying Annotation 10 to them would seem to make sense. If one wants to see it that way. ;)
Now wait for someone wondering whether action from Snowstorm can be declared before action from Scatha Ahunt (if both are triggered in the same time/the same chain of effects).
And then explain him that there is no problem.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:12 pm

In current form Annotation 15 is like:

"X cannot be done -> Y cannot be done"
where Y is subcategory of X.

"Someone cannot play characters -> he cannot play Hobbits"

is valid implication. But not only implication.
It does not mean that someone can play Men, or Elves.

P.S.

Things are worse, strictly speaking - "i.e." is not equal to "this means".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by miguel » Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:23 pm

Re: Scatha Ahunt + Snowstorm, I would say the attack has a higher level of priority (due to Annotation 15) than Snowstorm, so the dragon-attack needs to be declared first.

I have no problem with issuing a ruling about any of this stuff, and I believe we are in agreement on how things should play out. I just think we have enough to handle it via a ruling instead of a CoE Rules Erratum.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Attack as first declared action

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:27 pm

miguel wrote:Re: Scatha Ahunt + Snowstorm, I would say the attack has a higher level of priority (due to Annotation 15) than Snowstorm, so the dragon-attack needs to be declared first.
I must admit that until now I did not get your reasoning.

As I understand it now: Annotation 10 covers whole problem.
Right?

But I think that there is difference between actions that compete to be first declared, and action that must be declared as first.
If there is no difference, your statement "[..]I would say the attack has a higher level of priority (due to Annotation 15) than Snowstorm, so the dragon-attack needs to be declared first." is invalid. This is just antinomy.

I think that it is invalid, but for other reason.
Annotation 10 is working in context of Passive Conditions chapter and you are trying to use it to overcome limitation resulting from different rule.
It is like applying "Dark Minions, Agents, Resolving Combat With an Agent" stuff to agent characters during combat.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”