Council of Elrond

CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Condition wrote:A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.

So actions caused by Greed (corruption chcecks) and Rumor of Wealth (Dragon attack) are not, from strict, technical point of view, actions caused by passive conditions.
However mechanics of that actions is similar to the mechanics of actions caused by passive conditions.*
Problem is that actions from Greed and Rumor of Wealth can be triggered at the same time as action from e.g. Troll-Purse or Known to The Ounce, or Lure of Expedience.
Definition of Passive Condition from Lidless Eye has been repleaced by that from CRF and nowadays there are no regulation in rules for such situations.

Any thought, ideas for ruling?


*) Such actions perfectly fits in the old definition:

Lidless Eye, Appendices, Glossary wrote:Condition, Passive: An action that causes another action to take effect. The triggered action will be the first declared action in the chain of effects immediately following the chain of effects that contained the passive condition.

Greed wrote:Playable on a site. Until the end of the turn, each non-Hobbit, non-Wizard character at the site must make a corruption check each time an item is played at the site. The character playing an item need not make a corruption check. When a character makes one of these corruption checks, it is modified by subtracting the corruption points that the item would normally give the character if he controlled the item. Cannot be duplicated on a given site.

Rumor of Wealth wrote:Playable on a Ruins & Lairs [R] that is not a Dragon's lair. Any one Dragon hazard creature (except Earcaraxe) may be played (and does not count against the hazard limit) at the site during the site phase this turn after the successful play of a major or greater item.

I think you have a good point, and I believe the effects of these cards should be treated similarly to passive conditions. Perhaps it's because they create attacks (sort of) and corruption checks? Are there any non-attack, non-cc effects from cards similar to these, or any cards creating attack/cc where you would not have a chance to respond?

Rumor of Wealth is actually pretty easy, since cards creating attacks need to start the chain of effects.

CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Movement/Hazard Phase: Attack wrote:# Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects; i.e., a creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception.
# @ Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15. [CoE] %

So, the creature should start the next chain of effects following the succesful play of major/greater item.

Greed is trickier though... But you should be able to respond to dice rolls, which would mean the corruption checks from Greed need to be declared, then resolved... Right?

But since it's not a passive condition, could Greed actually create a nested chain?

<start chain>
(i) character taps to play item, item is placed with character
(ii) Greed is revealed on-guard, and considered to have been declared and resolved prior to start of chain: declare and resolve a nested chain of corruption checks now
<no more declarations, chain starts to resolve>
(iii) item is succesfully played: site taps
<end chain>

Eh?

I'm a little unclear as to what the question is. Is it if there are multiple effects such as greed, Troll-Purse, etc. which effect happens first? I believe it is hazard player chooses, although I haven't looked that up.

Also, why isn't greed a passive condition? It seems to trigger when an item is played.

Wacho wrote:I'm a little unclear as to what the question is. Is it if there are multiple effects such as greed, Troll-Purse, etc. which effect happens first? I believe it is hazard player chooses, although I haven't looked that up.

Also, why isn't greed a passive condition? It seems to trigger when an item is played.

Question is about timing. Currently there are no rules at all that would explain how Greed actualy is working. Players intuitively handle cc from Greed as cc caused by Lure of Expedience.
It was explained in the first post of topic: by current definition, a Passive Condition causes an action as stated on a card already in play. Lure of Expedience is in play when its passive condition triggers and must be in play when cc resolves (cc may be canceled by discrading LoE before resolution of cc). Greed is not in play at any of this points, so nor definition, nor set of rules that governs Passive Conditions cannot be applied to it.

Proposed ruling:

"If action from Greed is triggered, the action (cc) is declared as first action of next chain of effects (i.e. chain of effects that immediately follow the chain of effects where the action was triggered) along with other actions caused by passive conditions triggered in the same chain of effects as action from Greed. If there is more than one such action player that turn is proceded decides order of declarations."

Phrase "(i.e. chain of effects that immediately follow the chain of effects where the action was triggered)" may be eventually omitted, because with it ruling would look as overcomplicated.


@miguel
I agree that Rumor of Wealth is not actually problem, because Dragon does not need be played immediately.

Yep, I think we got this one pretty much resolved (pun intended).

I'd make the ruling a bit simpler to read though, like:

Proposed Ruling II wrote:Even though Greed does not create a passive condition, its effect is treated as such for the purposes of timing.

Good to go?

I could not make it better.

people has been playing it that way anyways, so it is good to go.

Second thought.

Proposed Ruling III wrote:Even though Greed does not create action caused by passive condition, its effect is treated as such for the purposes of timing.

Reason:
Passive conditions should not be mixed up with actions caused by passive condition, even if ICE was doing so sometimes (e.g. in clarification to Ready to his Will).
Sorry for noticing it so late.

Yeah I get it, but I fear that would be harder to understand for most people (and while in laymen's terms "passive condition" would be understandable in what I mean, I agree that I shouldn't encourage it to be used that way). How about:

Proposed Ruling IV wrote:Even though the corruption checks from Greed are not triggered by a passive condition, they are treated that way for the purposes of timing.

Great.
Absolutely correct and does not sound scary.

(this scary phrase - "action caused by passive condition")

Awesome. I will include that in the digest.

Published in digest #124. Locked.

miguel wrote: I think you have a good point, and I believe the effects of these cards should be treated similarly to passive conditions. Perhaps it's because they create attacks (sort of) and corruption checks? Are there any non-attack, non-cc effects from cards similar to these, or any cards creating attack/cc where you would not have a chance to respond?

Worm's Stench.