Ready to His Will (again...)

[zarathustra]

Mod note: miguel edited this away, we don't like tricky questions here (by mistake of course, soooorry)

The question was about the validity of the ruling quoted in the following post.

[zarathustra]

He's referring to a discussion in this thread (sorry it's messy -- blame Wim... ).

The ruling was in Digest 110:

(3) The playability of Ready to his Will has been brought into question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapping a character is an active condition of the play of Ready to his Will. Therefore, it is not possible to play this card if there are no untapped characters in the company. Furthermore, it is not possible to play this card and refuse to tap a character in the hopes that all the attacks will be canceled and that no ally will be created.

[miguel]

Despite having a great mousehand, I managed to salvage what I wanted:

It says "character who NOW taps..." because tapping is a manditory condition of taking the creature as an ally. It doesn't say "may tap" because then people would claim they can take the ally and not have to tap since the tapping part is optional.

I disagree here. "May tap to..." would clearly indicate that RtHW can cancel the attacks and taking the ally would be optional. I don't see any reason to overturn the previous ruling.

[zarathustra]

Nice one, slick

I agree with you. Is there anything we can say to Jon, though, beyond, "Sorry, you just don't understand"? I guess the "does" vs. "may" distinction is the key....

[Konrad Klar]

Despite having a great mousehand, I managed to salvage what I wanted:

It says "character who NOW taps..." because tapping is a manditory condition of taking the creature as an ally. It doesn't say "may tap" because then people would claim they can take the ally and not have to tap since the tapping part is optional.

I disagree here. "May tap to..." would clearly indicate that RtHW can cancel the attacks and taking the ally would be optional. I don't see any reason to overturn the previous ruling.

I disagree. "character who NOW taps..." means that action is mandatory, not optional. However there are other situations where mandatory action may not performed. e.g. corruption check from Marvels Told may not be performed if target sage is ally. This does not mean the Marvels Told may not be played on ally.

[miguel]

Nice one, slick

SWOOSH! That's how we take care of business here.

I agree with you. Is there anything we can say to Jon, though, beyond, "Sorry, you just don't understand"? I guess the "does" vs. "may" distinction is the key....

Hmm. I think that was indeed his main point, apart from "this is how it was played before". All active conditions just aren't marked in bold.

[miguel]

I disagree. "character who NOW taps..." means that action is mandatory, not optional. However there are other situations where mandatory action may not performed. e.g. corruption check from Marvels Told may not be performed if target sage is ally. This does not mean the Marvels Told may not be played on ally.

Yepo. I get where you're coming from, but as I said in my previous post, not all active conditions are marked in bold. That doesn't mean all non-bold text is considered an active condition. This ruling was closely related to the Sac of Form one saying that discarding the wizzie is the active condition, which makes a lot of sense.

[Konrad Klar]

[This ruling was closely related to the Sac of Form one saying that discarding the wizzie is the active condition, which makes a lot of sense.

I'd say that Wizards (as target) is active condition. Discarding it is action (main effect).

[zarathustra]

I'm pretty sure that blowing the creature up is the main effect of Sac of Form.

[Konrad Klar]

I'm pretty sure that blowing the creature up is the main effect of Sac of Form.

Only one main effect? Discrading Wizard, controled non-item cards, placing items off to the side are not parts of main effect?

[zarathustra]

As I said above and elsewhere, I see the discarding of the wizard as a cost, not an effect. As such, it is an active condition of playing Sac of Form, and thus must be done in order to play Sac of Form (just as a character must be tapped to play Concealment).

To my mind, this issue is settled.

[Konrad Klar]

So discarding of controlled non-item cards and placing items off to the side are active conditions too in your opinion? How can it otherwise be done if Wizard is discarded at declaration? In other words there is no way of canceling of Sacrifice of Form by failed cc caused by effect declared in response?

[zarathustra]

Yes, those are part of the active condition as well.

Perhaps I should post all the discussion we had on this back at meccg.net. What a pain in this ass that Wim is blocking us from transferring everything at once...

[Konrad Klar]

Where is essential difference between discarding that is main effect and discarding that is active condition?
Why discarding of target non-enviroment hazard long-/permanent-event is main effect, not active condition? Why "discard this item to" is printed on e.g Healing Herbs and "discard Wizard" (but not "discard Wizard to") is printed on Sacrifice of Form?

[zarathustra]

Please try to give us a little context when you make an argument... we're not stupid, but we don't always know what's in your mind. I realized eventually that you're referring to Marvels Told...

Why discarding of target non-enviroment hazard long-/permanent-event is main effect, not active condition?

The somewhat obvious reason is that -- except in very bizarre circumstances -- a player does not initiate Marvels Told at the cost of a long-/-perm event. Rather, he initiates MT with that as his goal. Hence, discarding the event is not an active condition.

Why "discard this item to" is printed on e.g Healing Herbs and "discard Wizard" (but not "discard Wizard to") is printed on Sacrifice of Form?

Because ICE had no idea how complex the rules they wrote really were.