Chant of Rage + Crusader Griffin

[ClockWork]

It says "If you cannot(melee attack a creature with a hate token), then it(enchanted creature) must move towards a creature with a hate token, if possible.".

 After the Griffin moves towards the Hate token, it is still possible to move towards the creature with the hate token. Because it is possible, the Griffin must move towards the hate token. There is no stated limitation, only a command or rule, a trigger. If you can move towards the hate token, you must. This card doesn't care if you already moved, are a level 8 creature, if it is Tuesday, or if there is a passage attack wall, a Bed of Sea Urchins, Mangler Caltrops, and 2 different trap enchantments in your route, if it is possible, you must. Psychic friggin mind-control, its a pain in the rear


See Mandatory Actions in the Official rules supplement. While making a sweeping attack a Bloodthirsty creature does not satisfy its Bloodthirsty condition by merely attacking only one wounded creature. A bloodthirsty creature must make all attacks possible against any legal wounded targets. That is why on the second attack of sweeping the bloodthirsty creature must again select a wounded creature if possible.

[bigfatchef]

Taunt is clarified more precisely. The question is, if chant of rage is meant to be a taunt effect. If not I would think the card text is golden and forces a move whenever possible, since it doesn't say otherwise.
On the other hand Zuberi is totally 99,9% times correct...

[Halewijn]

I would agree with clockwork.. Totally makes sense. Additionally, since the griffin could attack after the 2 moves actions it would force him to attack. (Same reasoning as Clockwork)

On the other hand, Zuberi is totally 99.9% of the times correct...

[Zuberi]

I'm honestly not sure guys. I'm in the middle of a change of residence and living situation, and in general just a really stressful week, so I could definitely be wrong. Without looking anything up though, my gut is that you've already fulfilled the must move closer requirement, but that is just my gut and looking at nothing but the card.

[Laddinfance]

Zuberi is, as always, amazing. This cards interactions are turning out to be a bit more complicated that I had anticipated, and just for note I did not assume them to be simple. When I get back from BGG con, which is next week, Zuberi and I can talk about it and nail this down.

[cryodragon]

This seems like a question of when/how often a check is made for mandatory actions. It is agreed that when the griffin is activated, the mandatory actions for Chant of Hate is checked and the griffin must move one zone closer. The question to me is after moving one zone, are the mandatory actions for Chant of Hate checked again? If yes and movement is still uninhibited, then the griffin must move again, (and following this logic, if uninhibited, attack the mandatory target). If there is not a check after the first movement, then Zuberi would be correct and griffin has the option to stop and take other actions. However, even in that ruling I do not think it makes sense for the griffin to have the option of taking a second move action to a zone that does not move it closer. It would be able to wait or attack another creature in that middle zone, ect.

Given that after the first movement action there is a check for things like hindrance and zone enchantments triggering, I favor there also being a check for Chant of Hate and thus agree with ClockWork. But maybe that is not the correct way of thinking of mandatory actions.

[Zuberi]

I'm sorry for all the confusion on this topic that I may have caused in my hasty responses without being able to dedicate the attention it deserves. I've had a chance to look over things more closely now, and I believe I was mistaken.

My initial reading of the card and question basically made me think like this. After the Griffin has moved one zone and performed another action of its choice (or another move and action of its choice), it has fulfilled the requirements set forth by Chant of Rage. At no point during its activation was it able to make the melee attack, and it did move closer to the Hate token during its activation.

The problem is that this isn't really how Mandatory Actions work. They can't be fulfilled. They don't go away. Every time you take an action, you check to see if you have any mandatory actions, not if you've done all of your mandatory actions. If I was to cast Battle Fury on a Deptonne in a zone with one damaged target and one undamaged target, it can't attack the damaged enemy and then go after the undamaged one just because its already fulfilled the Bloodthirsty requirement of hitting the damaged one. It has to keep attacking the damaged target until that target no longer exists. This is described in detail on page 11 of the rules Supplement.

Thus, when you activate the Griffin, you go to take an action with it and see that you have to make a melee attack if able. You're not able. Then you see that you have to move if able, and you are, so you do. Now, you go to take another action and repeat this process, with the end result being that you are forced to move twice and melee attack the crocodile.

[Zuberi]

My apologies to Jacksmack. Maybe you can get a well deserved banana sticker after Laddin gets back from bgg con.

[baglio88]

What about elusive (but not fast) creatures? Do they have to move as close as possible (double movement) even though they can't attack, or can they just move once and attack another creature (or guard, or do nothing)?

[jacksmack]

Same for elusive which in this case can be kind of a backfire that its not hindered when it enters the zone of something you actually want to attack. Instead it must move 1 zone closer because it may do so by being elusive.

I think this card has alot of potential. Perhaps even too much.
Im thinking about a big creature chasing a flying creature it cannot attack. But hey... it has dissipates tokens and wont last forever, so maybe its fine.

[Kelanen]

If I was to cast Battle Fury on a Deptonne in a zone with one damaged target and one undamaged target, it can't attack the damaged enemy and then go after the undamaged one just because its already fulfilled the Bloodthirsty requirement of hitting the damaged one. It has to keep attacking the damaged target until that target no longer exists.

Although if you gave it Sweeping it could attack a damaged foe, and a non-damaged one...

[Zuberi]

If I was to cast Battle Fury on a Deptonne in a zone with one damaged target and one undamaged target, it can't attack the damaged enemy and then go after the undamaged one just because its already fulfilled the Bloodthirsty requirement of hitting the damaged one. It has to keep attacking the damaged target until that target no longer exists.

Although if you gave it Sweeping it could attack a damaged foe, and a non-damaged one...

Truth. This is because the damaged creature is not a valid target for the second attack, as Sweeping can not hit the same creature twice, so you regain control of your actions and can choose whatever target you wish or even to stop attacking.

[Kelanen]

Truth. This is because the damaged creature is not a valid target for the second attack, as Sweeping can not hit the same creature twice, so you regain control of your actions and can choose whatever target you wish or even to stop attacking.

Agreed.

Now if there were two damaged creatures, and an undamaged one, is the 2nd attack forced to go for the other damaged creature? I have a dim recollection that there was a ruling that it's not, and gets a free choice on the 2nd swing, but I could be mistaken...

[Zuberi]

You would have to attack the other damaged target. Basically this goes back to my previous misinterpretation of Chant of Rage and the fundamental aspect of how mandatory actions work. You check whether or not you can do them whenever you take an action, not whether or not you have done them.

So, when making a Sweeping attack with a bloodthirsty creature, you ask yourself "can I melee attack a damaged Living enemy creature?" whenever you make your first attack, and then you ask yourself that same question again when making the second attack. If the answer is "yes" then you are forced to do so.

With only one damaged enemy in your zone, the answer would be yes during the first attack, but not the second because you can't attack the same creature twice with a sweeping attack. With two damaged enemies in your zone though, the answer would be yes both times.

TLDR: There are examples in the Supplement covering just this issue. You would have to keep attacking damaged Living enemy creatures for as long as such creatures were an option to you, and could not Sweep into an undamaged creature until the damaged ones were no longer options.

[Kelanen]

Thanks - agreed that's consistent with the Fast ruling. I brought it up because I had a dim recollection of something different, but obviously mistaken.