Farmer Maggot vs. Assassin

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Farmer Maggot vs. Assassin

Post by miguel » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:56 am

Konrad Klar wrote:Sometimes an attack is canceled just because it cannot be continued, not because action "cancel" was invoked.
This may happen if defender is removed from play (due to failed cc, for example) in middle of resolving attack.
When the target of attack/strike/whatever is removed, it will naturally fizzle. This is different from the matter at hand.

An attack that has been declared targets the company. According to the dragon ahunt analogy I posted, it doesn't matter if the card that created the attack is removed from play. In fact, it wouldn't even matter if you were able to change the site path once the dragon ahunt's attack has been declared, that attack would still need to be resolved because it's sticking to the company now. Similarly it shouldn't matter if you change the site while facing an automatic-attack.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Farmer Maggot vs. Assassin

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:31 pm

1)
a) In case of Dragon Ahunt there is no site where attack has been initiated.
b) Such attack is trigerred by moving in certain regions but it is not keyed to these regions.
2) Statement that attack from Dragon Ahunt continues even if the Dragon Ahunt is discarded is based on...?
On what?
miguel wrote:In fact, it wouldn't even matter if you were able to change the site path once the dragon ahunt's attack has been declared, that attack would still need to be resolved because it's sticking to the company now.
Unless by "attack has been declared" you mean "action form Dragon Ahunt has been resolved and now attack is declared against company", it is not tue.
If Chance of Being Lost was played in response to action from Ahunt, removing appropriate region from company's site path or if Doors of Night was removed moving out company's site path from range of regions affected by Ahunt, the action (attack) from Ahunt will be canceled according to:
Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific
passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the
chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive
condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in
its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled.
Note that actions in the strike
sequence follow a different set of rules.
Underline mine.
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: Farmer Maggot vs. Assassin

Post by miguel » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:53 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:1)
a) In case of Dragon Ahunt there is no site where attack has been initiated.
b) Such attack is trigerred by moving in certain regions but it is not keyed to these regions.
2) Statement that attack from Dragon Ahunt continues even if the Dragon Ahunt is discarded is based on...?
On what?
1)
a) I don't see how that's really relevant. Think of dragon at home then if that helps.
b) Similarly if you key a creature to [-me_wi-] and the attack is succesfully created, it does no good for the defending company to change the region afterwards (before strike assignment).
2) See below.
CoE Digest #28 wrote:Is forcing the discard of the card that created the attack considered canceling the attack for annotation 13? E.g. If I am attacked by a
Dragon Ahunt or At Home, could I wait until after the strikes are assigned to Marvels Told it? If so, could I also play MT during the strike sequence, as discarding the Ahunt affects the strike (i.e.. it causes the strike to disappear)?

*** The answer to all your questions is no. Once the chain of effects that creates the attack is fully resolved, creating the attack, the event has done its job, so to speak. Hitting it with a Marvels Told will not affect the current attack.
Konrad Klar wrote:Unless by "attack has been declared" you mean
What I mean is that the attack exists. It was declared and the declaration resolved, thus creating the attack.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Farmer Maggot vs. Assassin

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:31 pm

*** The answer to all your questions is no. Once the chain of effects that creates the attack is fully resolved, creating the attack, the event has done its job, so to speak. Hitting it with a Marvels Told will not affect the current attack.
First it says "No, MT cannot be played", then "MT has no effect".
Or I don't understand something.
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: Farmer Maggot vs. Assassin

Post by miguel » Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:55 am

Well you can play MT, just not for the effect desired (causing strikes to disappear). Anyway, I bolded the real point from this ruling. :)
CoE Digest #28 wrote:Is forcing the discard of the card that created the attack considered canceling the attack for annotation 13? E.g. If I am attacked by a
Dragon Ahunt or At Home, could I wait until after the strikes are assigned to Marvels Told it? If so, could I also play MT during the strike sequence, as discarding the Ahunt affects the strike (i.e.. it causes the strike to disappear)?

*** The answer to all your questions is no. Once the chain of effects that creates the attack is fully resolved, creating the attack, the event has done its job, so to speak. Hitting it with a Marvels Told will not affect the current attack.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Farmer Maggot vs. Assassin

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Thanks. I asked for justification of your statement and I got it. :)

[collateral]
Now I can only believe in validity of that justification or not.
I have some doubts.
It is an authoritative statement.
It is a messy.
"Once the chain of effects that creates the attack is fully resolved, creating the attack, the event has done its job, so to speak."
We can have series of declared attacks from Ahunts in one coe.
1. Agburanar Ahunt.
2. Bairanax Ahunt.
3. Daelomin Ahunt.
At the moment when company is facing attack from Daelomin Ahunt, coe that created that attack is not fully resolved.
So what? "...the event has done its job, so to speak." cannot be applied here?
[/collateral]

Unfortunately AFAIK there are no other cards/situations that would evidently prove or disprove of validity of CoE#28.
Ready to His Will and Memories of Old Torture both removes attacker (creature) and cancel attacks.
And it again is not obvious what exactly happens here.
a) "cancel" and "creature becomes an ally" are separate actions.
b) "cancel" is post-effect of absence the creature in play.

One thing seems to be obvious (for me) - "cancel" and "creature becomes an ally" are simultaneous. Otherwise after "All attacks of creature are cancelled" creature card would be discarded thus target of "the creature becomes an ally" would be not available.

Possibly the interpretation of one situation will have impact on interpretation of other situations of that class.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”