Canceling attack vs canceling strike (especially in CVCC)

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:26 pm

Wacho wrote:Finally, I'd like to ask people who support a broad reading, if one or more strikes of an attack have been faced and then you decide to play Old Thrush or whatever, how can you make sense of that? Some of the strikes have been faced, and can not be modified. Are you supposed to go back and change the outcomes of those strikes? If not how can you say the attack can be modified, when part of the attack is not able to be changed? If the attack has body, how does it make sense for part of the attack to have one body, and part have another? It just does not seem logical.
Player has freedom of taking inefficient actions as long as they are legal.
Why he would play three copies of And Forth He Hastened if next played card is Narya (on Gandalf in the same company)?
This is waste but it is legal.

EDIT:
Although it is always player's business, why he is playing some cards, there are possible reasons for playing cards that boosts/decrease attack's parameters.
Hazard player may want to play hazard that boosts attack to rescue creature from elimination, if previous strikes has been unexpectedly defeated. He would oryginally planning to save boosting hazard for next creature.
Similarly resource player may want to play resource that decrease attack's prowess if he no longer can cancel individual strikes (due to losing some cards in hand as result of Khamul The Easterling effect, or Drowning Seas) or if event that boosts characters prowess is discarded between strike sequences.
Last edited by Konrad Klar on Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:16 pm

crf wrote:Cards only modify attacks if they say they specifically mention attacks.
David, I guess this rules out the reverse of this ruling being a possibility.

Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:45 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:Even if ICE's idea was that only cards playable during SS are cards that affects singular strike and nothing else, then rules are not ambiguous on this.
First - modifications to the target's prowess are effects that lasts outside resolving strike and outside resolving attack, so it affects something else.
Second, Strike Modifications does not say about target's body, so if someone want such interpretation that only resources playable during SS are that which makes effect mentioned in Strike Modifications, then he cannot use Miruvor in SS (for example, it would affect strike and would not affect attack as whole). Third, it is curious why rules forbids changing number of strikes and canceling attack afters strike assignation and does not forbid altering of attack at all.

Even if such idea (only cards playable during SS are cards that affects singular strike and nothing else) is cute, I cannot find enough justification for it.
This is rather a straw man argument, Konrad. I don't think anyone is saying you can't have a card that affects a strike and does something else. However, to affect a strike a card has to mention the strike. As far as your examples, Nayra, etc. can clearly be played because they affect the prowess of a character, which is allowed by the rules. While you are correct that affecting body is not mentioned, it may be this is an omission, or it may be that you aren't allowed to use body affecting resources, just like you aren't allowed to use cram in the middle of a strike. You might have to decide to use Miruvor earlier.

You also mentioned in another post that a player is allowed to be inefficent with the play of cards. That of course is true, however you are not allowed to play cards that cannot produce an effect. You can't play And Forth He Hastened on an untapped character.

This is a similar situation to trying to play an attack modifying resource after some of the strikes have been faced. You can no longer modify the whole attack. The card, by definition, is unplayable. The attack is no longer modifiable as a whole.

There is a clear process for the play and resolution of any card. Declaration then resolution and then effect. You only have a chance to cancel or modify something after declaration and before resolution. When an attack is declared you have the chance to cancel it, modify the prowess/body/strikes, etc. Once the attack resolves it's effects are generated. A number of strikes equal to the lesser number of the characters in the company or the amount of strikes of the attack is generated and you deal with those one at a time. You have passed the point where you can change the attack. This is similar to any other card play. Then you deal with strikes, a strike is declared you have the opportunity to modify, you resolve by rolling, and then the effects take place which include any body checks, etc.

As for why ICE specified that you can't change the # of strikes after strike assignment but said nothing about modifying prowess of attack I can only speculate. I imagine though that since such cards mention strikes they decided they needed to be specific about these cards, since you are allowed to modify strikes. However, while they mention strikes they actually modify the attack. This is why you cannot play them after the attack resoulution (which is indicated by assignment of strikes). If they had intended the attack to be modifiable after this point they would have said you can modify the prowess of a strike or the attack. They do not say this.

Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:48 pm

Jambo wrote:
crf wrote:Cards only modify attacks if they say they specifically mention attacks.
David, I guess this rules out the reverse of this ruling being a possibility.
I'm a little unclear what you are trying to say here. Which ruling are you referring to?

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:57 pm

Sorry David, I should have been clearer.

Remember when I said there could be an issue that if cards that modify an attack's prowess can be played during the strike sequence and be considered to 'affect a strike', that the converse could also be true - in that cards that modify a strike's prowess could be deemed to 'affect the attack'. Upshot being potential ramifications for revisiting the role of Cram in the pre-strike stage of CvCC. Well, this quote from the crf seems to prevent this.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:58 pm

Wacho wrote:As for why ICE specified that you can't change the # of strikes after strike assignment but said nothing about modifying prowess of attack I can only speculate.
And you would be very consistent creating new rules. I must agree.
All your statements comply with your theory. So I can only refer to the existing rules, searching for justification.

Partially resolved or no, attack still exists as a target (at least).
I did not foud new facts and conclusions in the meantime.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:06 pm

crf wrote:· Annotation 12: An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved.
There's the answer as to when an attack is no longer in existence.

Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho » Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:18 pm

Jambo wrote:
crf wrote:· Annotation 12: An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved.
There's the answer as to when an attack is no longer in existence.
Absolutely. But it says "An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded..."

An attack is not concluded until all of the strikes have been dealt with. All card play has this structure. Declaration, Resolution, and the Effect. Usually we combine the ideas of resolution and effect, but many cards have extended effects that happen in a chain of events. Attacks are similar to this.

Perhaps I'm using the term resolution slightly differently than typical. So ok, if we look at it in those terms there are only 2 stages. Declaration and Resolution, but resolution is an extended event. In any case you must cancel or modify before resolution.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:38 am

I was under the impression one could only cancel an attack which had resolved. There is no attack upon declaration, i.e. when the creature is first played, therefore, there's nothing to cancel. This is why one is also considered to have faced an attack even when it's been cancelled.

Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:00 pm

I'm not talking about the resolution of the card, I'm talking about the resolution of the attack. These are different things. They do have the same structure though. You play the creature card your opponent (and you) have a chance to respond, then the chain resolves, and finally the effects happen, which for a creature card generates an attack to which you have a chance to respond....

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:54 pm

Jambo wrote:I was under the impression one could only cancel an attack which had resolved. There is no attack upon declaration, i.e. when the creature is first played, therefore, there's nothing to cancel. This is why one is also considered to have faced an attack even when it's been cancelled.
Maybe word "resolved" in phrase "An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded..." is just redundant?
An attack cannot be concluded before it is resolved.

P.S. [OT]This one reminds me discussion about on-guards that are immediatelly declared and resolved prior coe in which were revealed.
Resolved but not concluded. There is time between resolution and completion of Weariness of The Heart for making corruption check.[/OT]
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: Canceling attack vs canceling strike (especially in CVCC

Post by miguel » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:19 am

Unstickied for now, in anticipation of related CoE errata.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Canceling attack vs canceling strike (especially in CVCC

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:51 pm

Some (I hope new) thoughts:
Wacho wrote:Cancelling an attack doesn't cancel the strikes? Why do you say that? I really am curious about this.
Technically both things preclude each other. It is not possible to cancel unassigned strike. It is not possible to cancel an attack when strikes are assigned.

Beside the Prowess of Age there are also Tribal Banner and Tribal Totem that are, by its text, explicitly forbidden after strike assignment.
Reasons for this may be:
a) (Again) redundant text, forbidding something already forbidden by rules (this would support Wacho's theory).
b) Without this text it could be possible to play these cards after resolution strikes assigned to strong character and before resolution of strike assigned to weak character, or even in response to body check. Both options are very tempting. (This explanation does not support Wacho's theory).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Canceling attack vs canceling strike (especially in CVCC

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:32 pm

Update:
According to Annotation 19 a body check occurs after succesfull or failed strike, so it is not part of strike.
This explains why effects that modify body are omitted in Annotation 18.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”