[UEP, Accepted] Cards Playable On Auto-Attacks

To share and discuss non-standard rules, from the simplest of house rules to the more serious Unofficial Errata Proposals.

Moderators: Jambo, Tegarend, Moderators

Post Reply

Do you approve of this UEP?

Poll ended at Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:37 pm

Yes
16
94%
No
1
6%
 
Total votes: 17

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

[UEP, Accepted] Cards Playable On Auto-Attacks

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:37 pm

This one's a little esoteric, so bear with me:

Name: Cards Playable On Auto-Attacks

Status: Accepted

Proposal maintainer: Bandobras Took

Categories: Balance

Errata:  The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, alter the number of strikes, alter strike assignment, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.

Problem:  Right now cards which alter the number of strikes or strike assignment are unplayable on auto-attacks.  This is unfortunate and dampens a whole lot of methods of dealing with auto-attacks.

Solution:  Allow strike assignment/strike number resources to be played on auto-attacks.

Pros:  A little more leeway in facing auto-attacks

Cons:  Sojourn in Shadows can be used for at least a little cheeziness should this UEP be accepted.

Rationale:  I think the potential to play strike assignment cards on auto-attacks opens things up for more exciting play.

Discussion: http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.p ... torder=asc

Voting started at: August 25th, 2008

Voting ends at:  September 25th or thereabouts
Last edited by Bandobras Took on Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:05 pm
Location: Marburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Shapeshifter » Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:37 pm

This is the first time I vote on an UEP but we need this one.
I am not happy with the way auto-attacks are handled right now. I would guess that at least 90% of all MECCG players (including myself) played it like you propose before the above mentioned discussion began.
IMO this UEP is even a candidate for a regular rules change.

Pikachu
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:07 pm
Location: Ostfriesland/Germany
Contact:

Post by Pikachu » Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:31 am

I agree *fully* with Karsten.

Only when joining this forum and following the discussions I realized that there is something strange about auto-attacks and that I was always playing them...well, not wrong (I refuse to see it that way), but not according to the rules.

Thorsten the Traveller
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Tilburg, The Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:08 am

Well, one could say there are cards that specifically mention strike-reduction of auto-attacks, so perhaps ICE made a conscious decision to leave this out. If so however, their reasons for doing it remain hidden from me, so I'm inclined to vote yes.
There is a difference between strike reduction and strike assignment though. If you play Many Foes he Fought on Glorfindel, it basically means the others don't need to face any strike. At auto's with many strikes (Moria, Carn Dum) where he is sure to face a strike even if tapped, that's very good. I don't think it's overpowered, or thematically wrong, but maybe such could be a reason to distinguish between auto and normal attack.
This is the first time I vote on an UEP but we need this one.
So you think this is the most needed of all?  :? But thank you Karsten for joining and setting aside all principles that have prohibited you to vote so far.  :wink:
'Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:17 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:01 pm

In short, I agree!

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:00 am

I can't shake the feeling that somebody voted "no" just to keep this one from passing by 100%. :)

sarma72
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Post by sarma72 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:55 am

Agree as well, in particular for the sake of simplicity. Didn't even know the original rule and would assume automatic-attacks are resolved like normal ones...

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:51 pm

Wow, this one almost passed by acclamation!

But it still passed.  Hooray!

Post Reply