From: Chad Martin <chad@t...> Date: Mon Nov 18, 2002 4:34 am Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #45
The NetRep team continues to work through old rulings in an attempt to serve the MECCG community:
Summons from Long Sleep: I don't seem to have the initial question that was posted to the list, but we are reversing Brian Wong's ruling that playing Marvels Told in response to playing a creature off of Summons from Long Sleep will discard the creature and Summons. In particular:
1) You can play Marvels Told on a Summons from Long Sleep in response to a creature being played from it (before the creature has resolved), to discard the Summons. The creature still attacks, but without the +2 bonus.
2) You can play Marvels Told on a Summons from Long Sleep (with or without a creature on it) and it will be removed from play. This assumes that the Marvels Told starts the chain of effects. Note that a creature played on Summons from Long Sleep cannot be played in response because creatures have to start a chain of effects.
3) If somehow a creature played from Summons can't attack then Summons remains in play (with no creature on it) - as the last sentence from the erratum won't be triggered. Note that a cancelled attack still was an attack. -------- The Moon is Dead: This is a short note that my ruling on The Moon is Dead from Rulings Digest #43 is correct, and stands as posted. Here it is again, for reference:
The Moon is Dead is in play. A company travels to a site with an Undead automatic-attack, and should have to face the attack twice. If the company defeats the first Undead attack, and The Moon is Dead is discarded, do they still have to face the second attack?
*** No. -------- I was using both Deeper Shadows to decrease my hazard limit. So, presuming my shadow magic user doesn't fail his checks (which he didn't), the question is what happens, and more importantly, why? The rules say that the hazard limit is checked upon play and upon resolution to verify legalness, but that's still open to interpretation. I think the crux of the interpretation is based on "When is the hazard applied against the hazard limit?" Are hazard applied against the hazard limit in the order they are played, or in the order they are resolved?
Possibility 1 - Hazard is applied to the hazard limit upon hazard play
- Opponent plays creature: Hazard 1 played, hazard limit of 2 - Player playes Deeper Shadow - Opponent plays River Hazard 2 played, hazard limit of 2 - Player playes Deeper Shadow - Deeper shadow resolves: Hazard limit is lowered to 1 - River attempts to resolve Hazard 2 fizzles because the hazard limit is 1 - Deeper shadow resolves Hazard limit is lowered to 0 - Creature attempts to resolve Hazard 1 fizzles because the hazard limit is 0
Possibility 2 - Hazard is applied to the hazard limit upon hazard resolution (whether it is resolved successfully or not)
Result:
- Opponent plays creature 1 hazard played, hazard limit of 2 - Player playes Deeper Shadow - Opponent plays River 2 hazards played, hazard limit of 2 - Player playes Deeper Shadow - Deeper shadow resolves Hazard limit is lowered to 1 - River resolves Hazard becomes Hazard 1 and resolves, hazard limit of 1 - Deeper shadow resolves Hazard limit is lowered to 0 - Creature attempts to resolve Hazard becomes Hazard 2 and fizzles because the limit is 0
*** Oh, my. Let me post here what Philip Carroll posted, and call it official. Thanks, Philip.
Here's what I found in the CRF, under "Playing Hazards": You check the hazard limit at declaration and resolution. At declaration there must be less hazards already declared than the hazard limit. At resolution there must be no more hazards declared than the hazard limit.
So in the chain you cited above, two hazards have been declared. Then, by everyone's favorite MECCG acronym, the second Deeper Shadow resolves and lowers the hazard limit to one. Now when River attempts to resolve, more hazards (2) have been declared than the current limit (1). Survey says -- BUZZ!! -- thus causing River to fizzle. Next, the first Deeper Shadow resolves, lowering the HL again. Lastly, the creature tries to attack, but he fizzles because more hazards have been declared (1) than the current limit (0). -------- You can play River in the same chain of effects?
*** There is no rule that says that River has to start a chain of effects. -------- I have a quick question on these two At Home Dragons. Each reads that all greater/major items give an additional corruption point. Is this extra point considered to be a separate source of corruption than the CP's for the item itself (i.e., for The Balance of Things), as is the case for the One Ring?
*** Since the at Home dragons in question read that each "... item gives an additional corruption point," the source of the extra corruption comes from the item, not the dragon. -------- Is it possible to cancel an attack by reducing the hazard limit below the level of the currently resolving hazard creature? e.g. with a H.L. of 1 remaining and a dragon bearing down on my party, I can drop a Many Turns and Doublings with Gates in play and big, bad Mr. Dragon vanishes in a puff of logic. Right?
*** Correct. -------- Now if I've gotten a yes there, let's say that I'm trundling along with a H.L. of 2 and an Assassin jumps out, since I have a diplomat in the party I slap Flatter a Foe on the bad guy and if I make my roll I'm home free (because the H.L. drops to zero), right? More specifically, when the Assassin fizzles, all 3 of his attacks go bye-bye, correct?
*** Ah, but the Assassin doesn't fizzle. Flatter a Foe is played when facing an attack, so by the time you play Flatter a Foe, the Assassin has already resolved. Lowering the hazard limit has no effect on hazards that have already resolved. -------- Is the attack caused by Tidings of Bold Spies considered a hazard creature attack?
*** No. -------- If you have Wake of War in play and you attack a company with an animal creature that has one strike for each character, let's say Crebian.
Is the effect as follow? a).- One extra strike assign by hazard player to any defending character b).- It does NOT apply, because there is NOT a specific number of strikes, therefore you can NOT add the strike.
*** As quoted by Paul Choquette:
CRF 15: Combat - Attack
"If an attack states all characters in a company face a strike, then effects which allow a character to face more than one strike have no effect against the attack. Similarly, effects that change the attack's number of strikes have no effect. As an exception, effects which reduce the number of strikes to a specific number do work."
This means B is the correct interpretation above. -------- Sorry, Krista, but Legendary Hoard confuses me, too. I'll convene my trusted advisors and get back to you on that one.
Chad Martin chad@t... Official Council of Elrond NetRep http://www.mdi.net/~chscable/elrond.htm Assisted by: Nigel Buckle, Wim Heemskerk and Travis Took