Page 1 of 1

Come at Need

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:25 am
by Konrad Klar
Come at Need wrote:Playable if you have an ally in your hand. When this card is played, place one ally from your hand off to the side with it (the ally gives no marshalling points). The ally must be able to be attacked. If an opponent's company moves to a site where the ally is playable, it faces a single-strike attack (with no type) with the attributes of the ally, except the prowess is increased by 7. The attack is detainment if the ally and the company are both minion or both hero; and this card is discarded afterwards. If defeated, discard this card and place the ally in your opponent's marshalling point pile-he receives the ally's marshaling points as kill points. You may return the ally to your hand and discard this card during your organization phase.
Current text allows to play the card even if only ally that a player has in hand is ally not able to be attacked. If at resolution the player still does not have an ally able to be attacked, there is nothing to place off to the side with the card.

I propose the following erratum:

Playable if you have an ally able to be attacked in your hand. When this card is played, place one ally from your hand off to the side with it (the ally gives no marshalling points). The ally must be able to be attacked. If an opponent's company moves to a site where the ally is playable, it faces a single-strike attack (with no type) with the attributes of the ally, except the prowess is increased by 7. The attack is detainment if the ally and the company are both minion or both hero; and this card is discarded afterwards. If defeated, discard this card and place the ally in your opponent's marshalling point pile-he receives the ally's marshaling points as kill points. You may return the ally to your hand and discard this card during your organization phase.

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:38 am
by dirhaval
I see your point. However, I do see an advantage to allow the hazard to be played without an ally.
The owner may want the hazard to be "burned" on the table to be later discarded, then recycled by Mouth of Sauron when that desired ally is in hand.
Gollum comes to mind. But if a player is fast enough with his deck, then he can have the combo when desired.
However, I am happy to see the change accepted as you request.

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:36 am
by Konrad Klar
Now I realize that a having an ally able to be attacked in hand, does not cure completely the problem of ally-less Come at Need.
The ally in hand may be copy or (non-dragon) manifestation of unique card in play.
This is better than original but still only a mitigation of the problem.

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:07 pm
by Theo
That is a curious point. Although I don't see any immediate rules problems: the ally is set "off to the side", so is not in play to affect uniqueness rules. I wouldn't like the concept of Come at Need being used to block the play of unique entities.

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:43 pm
by Konrad Klar
Theo wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:07 pm
Although I don't see any immediate rules problems: the ally is set "off to the side", so is not in play to affect uniqueness rules.
That is entirely wrong.
A cards placed off to the side are in play for purposes of uniqueness (at least for the purposes, they are not affected by effects in play, but nowhere is stated that they are not in play for other purposes).
Theo wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:07 pm
I wouldn't like the concept of Come at Need being used to block the play of unique entities.
You may dislike the concept, but that is not argument.
Someone may play (if not place off to the side) Mistress Lobelia (or Gollum), just to prevent a playing Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (or My Precious).
Players are allowed to leverage any aspect of presence a card in play.

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:05 am
by Theo
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:43 pm
Theo wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:07 pm
Although I don't see any immediate rules problems: the ally is set "off to the side", so is not in play to affect uniqueness rules.
That is entirely wrong.
A cards placed off to the side are in play for purposes of uniqueness (at least for the purposes, they are not affected by effects in play, but nowhere is stated that they are not in play for other purposes).
No where is it stated that the ally is played, in play, or eliminated from play. Check again.

Similarly Armory cannot be used to block initial play of Sting. (It can block future play of another Sting if Sting is first played and then stored to Armory.)
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:43 pm
Theo wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:07 pm
I wouldn't like the concept of Come at Need being used to block the play of unique entities.
You may dislike the concept, but that is not argument.
Someone may play (if not place off to the side) Mistress Lobelia (or Gollum), just to prevent a playing Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (or My Precious).
Players are allowed to leverage any aspect of presence a card in play.
It is my belief that the dislike of rules is grounds for seeking their alteration, or, as in this case, resisting disliked changes.

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:41 am
by dirhaval
First, the hazard "usually" cannot be used to prevent its play by an opponent: the ally will attack that company and thus be discarded.
half-first: when is the attack? start of the movement/hazard phase? I guess so.

Second, The hazard will cause trouble for those using Here, There, or Yonder.

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:06 am
by Konrad Klar
Theo wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:05 am
No where is it stated that the ally is played, in play, or eliminated from play. Check again.
Dark Minions, Placement of Cards “off to the side” (Clarification) wrote:Cards placed off to the side are in play for the purposes of uniqueness. Unless stated
otherwise, when a host permanent-event is removed from the playing surface, any
cards placed off to the side under it are discarded.
Theo wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:05 am
Similarly Armory cannot be used to block initial play of Sting. (It can block future play of another Sting if Sting is first played and then stored to Armory.)
Not similarly: nowhere is stated that an items held under Armory are placed "off to the side". Armory does not block initial play of Sting placed under Armory. It does block a playing other copy of Sting (if Sting is stored, or placed under Armory).
dirhaval wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:41 am
First, the hazard "usually" cannot be used to prevent its play by an opponent: the ally will attack that company and thus be discarded.
Strictly speaking "a single-strike attack (with no type) with the attributes of the ally, except the prowess is increased by 7" is faced. The ally itself does not attack.
dirhaval wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:41 am
half-first: when is the attack? start of the movement/hazard phase? I guess so.
The attack is declared when opponent's company moves to a site where the ally is playable. At start of the movement/hazard phase or at end of turn (if the company uses effect of a card like Ancient Stair).

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:00 pm
by Theo
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:06 am
Theo wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:05 am
No where is it stated that the ally is played, in play, or eliminated from play. Check again.
Dark Minions, Placement of Cards “off to the side” (Clarification) wrote:Cards placed off to the side are in play for the purposes of uniqueness. Unless stated
otherwise, when a host permanent-event is removed from the playing surface, any
cards placed off to the side under it are discarded.
Ah, good. My memory that that part implied cards placed off to the side from play. But you're right there is no "from play" there. I indeed find this disconcerting. A Fallen Wizard with 2x Rumor of Rings and 2x Whisper of Rings can block all Dwarven Rings based on just rumors and whispers... craziness.
Revealed to All Watchers wrote:Unique. Reveal your hand to opponent. Place all non‐hazard cards from your hand off to the side. ...
Talk about uniqueness problems.

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:06 am
Theo wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:05 am
Similarly Armory cannot be used to block initial play of Sting. (It can block future play of another Sting if Sting is first played and then stored to Armory.)
Not similarly: nowhere is stated that an items held under Armory are placed "off to the side". Armory does not block initial play of Sting placed under Armory. It does block a playing other copy of Sting (if Sting is stored, or placed under Armory).
[\quote]

Why would "place" = "play"? Why would the card not just say "play"?

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:49 pm
by Konrad Klar
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:00 pm
Why would "place" = "play"? Why would the card not just say "play"?
Maybe because that cards may be played later. Why Armory does not say that they are "placed off to the side" I do not know.
But because they are not technically "placed off to the side" they may be affected by effects in play (e.g. by Slip Treacherously).

Interaction with the rule:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Stored Cards wrote:Stored cards are not considered to be in play, except for uniqueness.
creates a funny effect.
Cards stored under Armory are treated differently that cards placed under Armory.
The former are not affected by effects other that these which specifically affect a stored cards (Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent). And player should care about this distinction.
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:00 pm
Revealed to All Watchers wrote:
Unique. Reveal your hand to opponent. Place all non‐hazard cards from your hand off to the side. ...

Talk about uniqueness problems.
This is actually confusing. But there is explanation.
Dark Minions, Placement of Cards “off to the side” (Clarification) wrote:Certain cards and effects require other cards be placed “off to the side” (for example,
Sacrifice of Form from Middle-earth: The Wizards). Cards placed off to the side are
placed on the playing surface off to the side of the normal area of play. Such cards are
kept with their host permanent- event that caused this effect.
Underline mine.

Like in case of "revealing your Ringwright" or "revaling your Wizard" where both phrases mean something different than ordinary revealing a Ringwright/Wizard card. Placing "cards from your hand off to the side" not with host permanent- event is something different than operation described by "Placement of Cards “off to the side”". And Ringwright Follower is something different than follower of Ringwright or Ringwright's follower.

Blame ICE for their poor dictionary lacking a distinctive words for different notions.

Re: Come at Need

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:35 pm
by Bandobras Took
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:49 pm
Blame ICE for their poor dictionary lacking a distinctive words for different notions.
That's my philosophy, all right. :)