The Empire card Franz's Decree says:

Action : One target unit cannot attack or defend until the end of turn.

Can the card be played after Attackers have been declared to prevent one target unit from attacking, or is it too late by then? Or does this card have to played in Capital phase (or any other action space before Battlefield phase)?

jullevi said:

I think you can play it during any Action step. In order to prevent a Unit from attacking, you need to use it no later than the Action Step after Declare Target (Step 1 in combat). After a Unit is declared attacker, I don't think it'll go away.

Actually, step 1 of combat is declare the attack zone but, yes, the action window after that step is the latest you could play this card. After Declare Attackers, this card will not prevent the unit from attacking.

Hurdoc said:

Isn't the what I said ?

Yes, but you phrased it with "I think" which I felt wasn't definitive enough.

Hurdoc said:

"I think" is my escape clause, which I tend to put in even when I know I'm 100% correct / .

Ok, thanks for the answers. There was some confusion because I originally looked only at the Turn Sequence chart on page 14 and didn't notice that Declare target and Declare Attackers were actually different phases and there was an Action slot between them. That Action slot seems to be the optimal timing to play Franz's Decree.

I disagree.

It says that a unit can't attack. Therefore, you should wait for them to declare the attackers, then use that card, and the target unit can't attack. It is an action, and actions can be played after attackers are declared, and if a unit is then targeted by FD, then it can't attack. Same logic applies to defenders.

An example of having to play a tactic before they declare them an attacker is if you corrupt a unit, because a corrupt unit stops a unit from being declared a defender or an attacker. Once declared an attacker, corrupting them will not stop them from attacking because they've already been declared that turn. If they stay corrupted, then they won't be able to declare themselves as an attacker or defender next turn.

Therefore, if FD said you can't declare a unit as an attacker or defender, then you would have to use the card before they are declared. But it just says a target unit can't attack or defend. As I see it, there is nothing in the rulebook that gives any special protection to a unit that has been declared an attacker or defender.

i agree with your reasoning, as the wording of the card says nothing about declaring the unit as an attacker or defender, and the card would be WAY more useful if it stopped an already declared attacking unit.

Now do Nate and Eric agree?... You'll probably get no definitive ruling on the forum, and the FAQ will come 2 days after the Four Horseman, so Ild send the question to rule support. Of course, I have yet to receive a response from rule support so....

There are currently no cards that remove an attacking or defending character, and in order to do so Franz's Decree would need to specifiy this effect. It doesn't. Instead it reads, " Action: One target unit cannot attack or defend until the end of the turn." In order to prevent a unit from attacking it needs to be ineligable prior to already attacking.

The key to my arguement is it doesn't say you can't declare a unit an attacker or defender but instead that the target unit can't attack or defend. So it seems reasonable to me that if a unit is declared an attacker or defender you would be able to play FD and say to your opponent this unit can't attack or defend this turn. In the rulebook, corruption specifically says you can't declare them as attackers or defenders. FD doesn't say that. If you had to do it before they were declared, why wouldn't FD specifically say you can't declare target unit as an attacker or defender. Since it specifically points out in the rulebook that corruption takes away the ability to declare units as defenders or attackers we can use the difference in the language to rule that a declared attacker or defender could be stopped by FD.

In the rulebook there is no immunity that I can see that would stop an action being played against a unit that has been declared an attacker or defender. Of course this is all IMHO.

Sounds like someone should email Nate as both arguments are valid.

Comparing the wording for Corruption versus FD is apple and oranges since Corruption is a game state with its own rules and not a tactic. The rule of thumb for CCG's is the card tells you what you can do with it. Cannot not attack is not the same as stop attacking, no longer attacking, or remove from combat.

Send it to Nate.

Really? There's confusion over this card?

I just hope Nate doesn't get inundated with inane questions that bog down the real issues (such as beginning of turn, and other timing related issues).

Hurdoc, insults don't help. And if your such a bad ass why are you trolling the W:I blogs to show your superior intelligence.

That said, dormouse, it's not necessarily to compare a tactic with a state but to comment on the designers intent. If the maker of this game goes to the trouble of deliberately spelling out that corruption stops a player from declaring a unit as an attacker or defender, then why wouldn't he use the same language about FD? Since he doesn't specify declaring and instead uses the wording as cannot attack or defend, then even after a unit is declared, FD would be able to be used as an action after the attacking or defending units are declared and thereby take them out of the battle.

Again, just IMHO. I think this will be settled only by an official ruling.

You may end up being wrong, but all your points have merit. Why word a card "may not attack or defend" and not "may not be declared as an attacker.defender", if youJust because no other card has the same ability doesnt mean that your points are wrong. Honestly I think the designers will rule against your interpretation, but the wording of the card and rulebook are not clear in this regard. Honestly, I dont think anyone can play this game correctly without help.

Ask yourself honestly. Is there anything anyone here can say to convince you that your interpretation is wrong? The people who disagree have made it clear there is no arguement that will convince them that they are wrong. The only thing that will change ANYONE's opinion, is a Rule support/Nate ruling.

Always remember, nothing is obvious and there is no common sense in CCG/LCGs.

Ventura's suggestion isn't any crazier than expecting Abandoned Mine to create its own action window.

This is no longer a game where simple interpretation works. Cards are ruled based on designer intent, and it seems that holds no matter how inscrutable the intent is. It's impossible to tell if the unique wording on the card means something, as mateooo points out, or if it's just bad consistency of terminology, which we've also had plenty of.

Send it to Nate. We can all guess at what it means, but there's no way to know until he rules on it.

If you think I was insulting in an my earlier post, you are absolutely mistaken. If I really wanted to be insulting, I would have said something to the effect:

"There appears to be an Axis of Ignorance on these boards with you (Ventura) and Buhallin being the first two members, and several others vying to be the third. It's as if you are deliberately trying to antagonize and troll the the forum by being obtuse with simple card effects. There ARE cards that are confusing with wording, but not the ones you mention."

Then again, it's a good thing I hadn't said that.

/flamesuit - ON!

EDIT: By the way, if my "tone" puts me in the same company as Dormouse, I'd be honored.

Really? That's the best you've got? An "If I really said that but I didn't even though I did" insult? Weak, although you do get bonus points for the mangled Bush quote, even if it was rather forced.

As I said, simple interpretation doesn't work once designer intent takes over. Even the vaunted dormouse was blindsided by the Abandoned Mine ruling. Expecting that "cannot attack" means it cannot participate in an attack even though it has been declared as an attacker is far more reasonable than thinking cards create new game flow to allow themselves to work even though they don't say so.

People with odd interpretations have turned out to be right as often as not, and prompted enough discussion that people have explored the rules. Even when we've disagreed (strongly) about interpretations we've never just shouted people down or called them stupid trolls for reading cards differently.

I'm not sure why you seem so personally, deeply offended by people reading the cards differently, or having seen enough rulings that didn't fit the cards to be open to odd readings, but you really should move on. You're really not contributing anything.

Actually that is blatantly false. We've had three rulings that were against common wisdom, out of the couple of dozen questions put forward.

The reason why the wording is different can be based entirely on the mechnics at work, not to mention there are cards if not in this LCG yet, will probably be cropping up at some point in the near future that allow a card to attack or defend without being declared. This wording would prevent them from participating without being able to remove them.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. It is a card that should probably be included in decks either way... the verdict will really just determine if it is a good card that should be in a deck x2 or a great card that should be x3. Nate will let us know which way it is.

dormouse said:

That is entirely a matter of opinion.

In regards to these rule interpretation disputres, there are 2 or more opinions, or else there would be no dispute.

what is one persons' "common wisdom" is another persons' "that makes no sense". Just cuz an opinion is yours, does not make it "common wisdom".

No it is not, but feel free to stick to hyperbole... it's a great way of convincing people of your side of an argument.

Common wisdom as a phrase has a known meaning. It does not mean, "my way is right" it means, the majority of people beleve the same thing. Go back and look at the disputes, Nate more often than not rules the same way, with the same explanation as what the frequent posters here put forward. There have been notable exceptions... three or four of them... out of the dozens asked.

hmm, there may be confusion between the terms "common wisom" and "popular opinion "

Actually the only difference between the two is that wisdom is based on past experiences and/or has been proven out. IOW when the popular opinion is based on past rulings and reading the rules closely it is Wisdom. When Nate says that the popular opinion is correct and gives the same reasoning, it is Wisdom. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The LCG games are conceived in whole with numerous effects that did not appear on the Core Set cards already in mind. Some of those are slated for release with the Skaven cycle of Battle Packs, others for the Companions set, still others without any specific set in mind, or possibly without even a faction currently in mind. If you know that at some point there will be one of more jumpers (units that can attack or defend without following the normal rules) in the game (and Thanquol seems to be a precursor to this mechanic) and you seek to create a card that can be used to counter their ability... even before they show up, you choose one wording which is more expansive than appears otherwise in the game.

Regardless we'll eventually get a clarification from Nate.