about "stay her appetite"

Marcos · Post by **Marcos** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:31 am

stay her appetite wrote:Playable on an ally. Make a roll (draw a #). If the result plus the ally's mind is greater than your opponent's unused general influence plus its controlling character's unused direct influence plus two, the ally attacks its controlling character (detainment attack against a hero). This attack has 1 strike and prowess equal to the ally's normal prowess plus a dice roll (drawn #). Discard the ally if it attacks and is not defeated.

bolds are mine

as i've been told, detainment attacks can't be defeated, so, will vs hero this card always discard the ally?

Sly Southerner · Post by **Sly Southerner** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:17 pm

Only if it attacks I think.

Konrad Klar · Post by **Konrad Klar** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:03 pm

Lidless Eye, Starter Rules, Combat, Defeating An Attack wrote:A detainment attack from a creature is never defeated and the creature's card is always discarded after the attack is resolved.

LIdless Eye, Using MELE with METW, Combat, Marshalling Points wrote:A Wizard player does not receive marshalling points for defeating a creature with an "*" next to its marshalling points or for defeating a detainment attack.

Underlines mine.

Only detainment attack from a creature cannot be defeated.

Marcos · Post by **Marcos** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:27 pm

thanks konrad

Sly Southerner · Post by **Sly Southerner** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:22 am

thats interesting, but not how I have played it on gccg in the past - i think even againt mark alfano.....

is that correct?

Bandobras Took · Post by **Bandobras Took** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:18 pm

That is correct.  It can be useful for dealing with cards that say "discard when such an affected attack is defeated."

Darksatin · Post by **Darksatin** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:11 pm

Council of Elrond Rulings Digest #82 :
Stay Her Appetite :
The attack is detainment against a Hero controlling character. It seems that it is not possible to beat a detainment attack. So the Ally is automatically discarded. Is that correct ?

*** Correct.

Bandobras Took · Post by **Bandobras Took** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:36 pm

Darksatin wrote:Council of Elrond Rulings Digest #82 :
Stay Her Appetite :
The attack is detainment against a Hero controlling character. It seems that it is not possible to beat a detainment attack. So the Ally is automatically discarded. Is that correct ?

*** Correct.

Now, if there's a similar ruling about defeating a detainment attack.

Sly Southerner · Post by **Sly Southerner** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:26 am

This thread has become very confusing. Are you guys deliberately trying to muddy the waters or what?

The CoE ruling posted by Darksatin seems pretty conclusive to me.

Jambo · Post by **Jambo** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:43 am

Darksatin wrote:Council of Elrond Rulings Digest #82 :
Stay Her Appetite :
The attack is detainment against a Hero controlling character. It seems that it is not possible to beat a detainment attack. So the Ally is automatically discarded. Is that correct ?

*** Correct.

That's how I've always played the card.  However, since ICE introduced errata for this card changing the +2 to a +5, it's now pretty useless.

Konrad Klar · Post by **Konrad Klar** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:06 pm

Sly Southerner wrote:This thread has become very confusing. Are you guys deliberately trying to muddy the waters or what?

The CoE ruling posted by Darksatin seems pretty conclusive to me.

This ruling is doubtful. (To me).

Bandobras Took · Post by **Bandobras Took** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:38 pm

Sly Southerner wrote:This thread has become very confusing. Are you guys deliberately trying to muddy the waters or what?

The CoE ruling posted by Darksatin seems pretty conclusive to me.

It would seem so to me if someone could quote the logic behind it.  Every so often, people's underlying assumptions about the rules turn out to be dead wrong (hence my little joke about using the word beating instead of defeating).  The rules Konrad quoted were fairly clear; it is the CoE ruling which muddies the waters in this case by saying that no detainment attack is ever beaten.  If someone can show me where it states that no detainment attack is ever defeated, then the CoE ruling on Stay Her Appetite makes perfect sense.

Sly Southerner · Post by **Sly Southerner** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:24 pm

I think it would be better if you had stated your positions clearly at the start of the thread rather than playing leaving others to try to work out what you are saying.

IMHO players such as Marcos seeking rules clarifications are only going to get more confused and turned off the game by this type of thread which has unfortunately become increasingly common on this forum.

Bandobras Took · Post by **Bandobras Took** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:58 am

Sly Southerner wrote:I think it would be better if you had stated your positions clearly at the start of the thread rather than playing leaving others to try to work out what you are saying.  IMHO players such as Marcos seeking rules clarifications are only going to get more confused and turned off the game by this type of thread which has unfortunately become increasingly common on this forum.

1)  Both Konrad and I did state our positions clearly at the start of the thread;

2)  Darksatin quoted a ruling, but the ruling was based on a flawed assumption, and pointing this out is only a natural response;

3)  This forum is for getting unofficial answers to rules questions, which means some answers are going to contradict;

4)  When confusion arises because of differing views on a rules question, that's when it gets forwarded to the NetRep team, which Konrad has already done;

5)  If people aren't allowed to express a rules interpretation and even make points in its defense, then what is the point of this forum?

The Dream Cards and Optional Rules Forums are for discussing what we think the rules ought to be.

This forum is for defining what the rules are and discussing those "gray areas" where confusion is naturally going to arise.

In this case, confusion stems from the CoE ruling which assumes that detainment attacks are never defeated.  Konrad has shown that there is no basis for such an assumption.  Detainment attacks from creatures are never defeated.

CoE 103 wrote:The rules book only references creature attacks when explaining defeating an attack.

***  Non-creature attacks are defeated in the same way that creature
attacks are defeated.  Furthermore, detainment attacks can wound neither
the attacker nor the defender.

MELE Rules, Again wrote:A Wizard player does not receive kill marshalling points for defeating a creature with an * next to its marshalling points or for defeating a detainment attack.

The rules expressly allow defeating a detainment attack and only forbid defeating detainment attacks from creatures.  Therefore, non-creature detainment attacks can be defeated according to CoE 103.  Stay Her Appetite is a non-creature detainment attack, and can therefore be defeated.

Hopefully this long and boring post will clear up any lingering confusion.  I do ask all readers to forgive my sense of humor, especially when I denote such with a great big smiley face.

P.S.  Marcos and I play regularly.  If he's going to get turned off of the game, it's going to be from a lack of challenging opponents.

Sly Southerner · Post by **Sly Southerner** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:33 am

Thanks Bandobras. That was not a boring post - it actuallly finally explained what the confusion was about which IMHO really wasnt very clear until now.