Passive conditions/actions vs cards that produce 'effects'

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Passive conditions/actions vs cards that produce 'effects'

Post by Jambo » Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:55 am

I touched on this a little on GCCG last night, but here’s the more thorough explanation. ;)

Firstly, here’s the crf entry for passive condition:
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
So all passive conditions result in actions.

Here are some example cards that produce actions as a result of passive conditions:
Corruption cards, e.g. Lures.
The Way is Shut
Snowstorm
Long Winter

And here’s an example list of cards which produce effects, not passive conditions that produce actions:
Bane of the Ithil-stone
Flotsam and Jetsam
Fell Winter
In the Heart of His Realm

Basically the purpose of this thread is trying to illustrate the difference between these two categories of cards that (a) produce passive conditions leading to actions, and (b) simply exert a ‘permanent-like’ effect which exists as long as the card is in play. By the latter I mean once they’ve resolved in their own chain of effects there’s no passive conditions created which can lead to actions.

The main difference between the two categories is the way one interacts with the card after the card resolves.

(a) Upon resolving, the former produces a passive condition, which when the situation is right, triggers an action which then immediately forms the action next chain of effects. Once the action is resolved, it’s complete and there is no going back – e.g. a company returns to the site of origin; a site is tapped; a creature attack from an Ahunt; a corruption check from a Lure, etc, etc. This is what I believe is key. Once the action resolves, it cannot be reversed. Of course one shouldn’t forget there are other ways to deal with such resolved actions, such as subsequently cancelling the resolved attack from an Ahunt.

(b) Upon resolving, the latter just creates an effect – e.g. border-holds gain a wolf attack, characters with a dark-domain in their site path lose their sage skill, being unable to search through discard pile or play deck. When the conditions aren’t met, the effects simply aren’t ‘applicable’. Such is the case for Flotsam and Jetsam when the play deck is more than 15 cards, or when a company leaves the appropriate sites/regions in ItHoHR, or one isn’t at a border-hold for Fell Winter. More critically, the ‘effects’ of this second category of cards are immediately removed if the card leaves play – border-holds don’t retain their wolf attack after Fell Winter leaves play. This is the main difference when compared to an action that is created from a passive condition.

If you see it this way, the cards seem to fall into place quite easily.

If you try to read it otherwise, in that those cards I’ve listed in category (b) should be in category (a), then cards like Flotsam and Jetsam don’t work. Every turn (or is it phase, or when is it?) would it be checking to see if the action can be applied (i.e. is the play deck at the required level), and every turn (or phase) could one then respond to it with a Smoke Rings? The implications associated with ItHoHR are even more intricate. A company entering an affected region would always have a chance to respond. What happens if the company remains at the site – does the card keep triggering actions indefinitely? At what point would the card not trigger? Can the card even un-trigger? Can passive conditions trigger actions to cancel the card's actions it first created? When does the checking next occur? Each phase, each movement hazard phase, each turn? It’s horrible even trying to comprehend how this all works.
Last edited by Jambo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Passive conditions/actions vs cards that produce 'effect

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:01 am

First of all, welcome Jamie. :)
Jambo wrote: It’s horrible even trying to comprehend how this all works.
My favorite quote on this board yet. :roll:


Now about your post... I like it. I think the definition between cards that create a passive condition and cards like Bane needs to be clarified. I think what you wrote makes a lot of sense.

Just to be clear, the effects from group (b) cards, once already in play, would simply be applied without a chain of effects, correct? For example the additional AA from Fell Winter when a moving company reveals a new borderhold.

Which group would Rank Upon Rank belong to?

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Passive conditions/actions vs cards that produce 'effect

Post by Jambo » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:13 pm

miguel wrote:
Jambo wrote: It’s horrible even trying to comprehend how this all works.
My favorite quote on this board yet. :roll:
That's what happened when I tried to work out how cards in (b) worked using passive conditions and actions. Brain mush.
miguel wrote:Just to be clear, the effects from group (b) cards, once already in play, would simply be applied without a chain of effects, correct? For example the additional AA from Fell Winter when a moving company reveals a new borderhold.


They resolve when the card itself resolves.
miguel wrote:Which group would Rank Upon Rank belong to?
Group (a). A Man attack would trigger the passive condition of a resolved Rank Upon Rank and the resulting action is to apply a +1 prowess and +1 strike to the Man attack. Rank Upon Rank has to be in play when the action resolves otherwise the action is cancelled.
crf wrote:· A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is
canceled.
Once the action has been resolved, removing Rank Upon Rank wouldn't then remove the effects of the resolved and completed action!

The next question would be when do automatic attacks resolve. The moment the site card is revealed or the moment the site is entered?
Last edited by Jambo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Passive conditions/actions vs cards that produce 'effect

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:21 pm

Jambo wrote:
miguel wrote:Just to be clear, the effects from group (b) cards, once already in play, would simply be applied without a chain of effects, correct? For example the additional AA from Fell Winter when a moving company reveals a new borderhold.


They resolve when the card itself resolves.
That didn't really answer my question... I play Fell Winter during your 1st company's move/haz phase. Then your 2nd company moves, revealing as its new site a borderhold. Now, Fell Winter and its effect have already resolved. Time to apply the effect to the new site, and I'm assuming that would happen immediately without a chain of effects, because Fell Winter didn't create a passive condition. Correct?

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:22 pm

Oh yes, that would be correct. To be honest, most of this was initiated by Konrad, I just collated it all.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Passive conditions/actions vs cards that produce 'effect

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:40 pm

Jambo wrote:The next question would be when do automatic attacks resolve. The moment the site card is revealed or the moment the site is entered?
The automatic-attacks exist when the site card is face-up, and may be targeted by hazards that target attacks. (Resolving an attack happens when its strikes are being faced.)

I have to say it's not clear to me why Rank Upon Rank and Fell Winter (1st effect) would work differently. Wouldn't a borderhold trigger Fell Winter in the same manner that a man attack triggers Rank? Or am I missing something?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:52 pm

CRF, Errata (Cards), Ready to his Will wrote:Note that cards like Rank Upon Rank are applied as a passive condition, once an
attack of the right type is in play. Therfore you can play and successfully resolve Ready to His Will in respons to the declaration of Rank Upon Rank's effect.
This only one notation made by ICE that I know, which proves that effects like modifiers to prowess/strikes are working according to the passive conditions rules.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: Passive conditions/actions vs cards that produce 'effect

Post by Jambo » Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:23 pm

miguel wrote:
Jambo wrote:The next question would be when do automatic attacks resolve. The moment the site card is revealed or the moment the site is entered?
The automatic-attacks exist when the site card is face-up, and may be targeted by hazards that target attacks. (Resolving an attack happens when its strikes are being faced.)

I have to say it's not clear to me why Rank Upon Rank and Fell Winter (1st effect) would work differently. Wouldn't a borderhold trigger Fell Winter in the same manner that a man attack triggers Rank? Or am I missing something?
Off-hand (i.e. at work), the only thing I think of here, is that if Fell Winter worked like a passive condition triggering an action, and revealing a border-hold triggered this, then subsequently removing Fell Winter after the action had resolved in its own chain of effects wouldn't then remove the extra Wolf attack created at the border-hold. The action is resolved and completed. Which is possible.
crf wrote:· A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
There's also:
crf - Targets wrote:· Annotation 3: Long-events and certain other cards do not have targets because they are not played out through one specific entity, i.e., they generally affect an entire class of things.
But then there's no difference between Rank Upon Rank (perm-event) and Minions Stir (long-event).

However, if they don't have specific targets are they always in effect. I.e. there's no chain of effects upon revealing a border-hold? The secondary effect of Fell Winter also falls under this category.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:05 pm

While long-events and many permanent-events itself does not have targets, action caused by that cards (triggered by passive condition) may have target.
It is clealrly visible in case of Ahunts (a company is target of attack).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:26 pm

If long- or permanent-event hazards that modify attacks (e.g. Rank Upon Rank and Minions Stir) work by passive conditions creating actions then once the action of boosting an applicable site's automatic attack resolves in the next chain of effects, can the effect on the site's attack be removed by later removing the booster card from play before the attack is actually faced?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:42 pm

I don't think so. Effect has been applied to the target. And now the effect and card that caused the effect are indenpedent.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:04 pm

That would make sense according to the note on Ready to His Will in the crf about the effect of Rank Upon Rank being a passive condition.

However, many people don't play it that way. People still use MT or VoM during the site phase to discard a Minions Stir which was played during the movement/hazard and would have already modified the auto attack.

Could that same logic be applied to the first effect of Fell Winter too (the one creating the wolf attack)? This is an action very similar to that of creating a Ahunt dragon attack in one of its stated regions?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:04 pm

Continuous effect is not the effect that can be applied to something. Some objects may be under such effect.
It would be better using word result if speaking about effect applied to the target (or some other object) and word effect if speaking about continuous effect.

I don't think that Fell Winter follow rules concerning passive conditions.
If it is discarded then its effects disappers. It does not leave any permanent results.

CRF says "are applied as a passive condition, once an attack of the right type is in play.".

OK. It does not say about attack of the right type directed against company (or something else). Just about attack of the right type.

An automatick-attack is still in play, as long like site card (and/or other cards) is in play. So if we take CRF entry as is, we have situation, where activator of action caused by passive condition (passive condition itself) is still in play. It "does not occur" unlike any other passive condition.
Further any other card like Redoubled Forces is automatically triggered.
When discarded, such card leaves its result and another copy may be played, and so on...

I believe that such interpretation cannot be accepted. I think that "attacks of the right type" mentioned by CRF entry are actually "attacks of the right type directed against target".
In such case, actions from cards like Redoubled Forces would not be activated until AA is faced. Declaration of attack is something what can be called as an event that occurs (like other known passive conditions).
And such interpretation allows for applying passive conditions rules to the AAs in unchanged, consistent way, without causing additional problems and strange situations.

EDIT:
Some language errors corrected (remains -> leaves).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:26 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:I believe that such interpretation cannot be accepted. I think that "attacks of the right type" mentioned by CRF entry are actually "attacks of the right type directed against target".
In such case, actions from cards like Redoubled Forces would not be activated until AA is faced. Declaration of attack is something what can be called as an event that occurs (like other known passive conditions).
And such interpretation allows for applying passive conditions rules to the AAs in unchanged, consistent way, without causing additional problems and strange situations.
I believe this is a sensible approach, but is this what happens?

Hoarmurath as a permanent-event can be tapped turning it into a short-event which gives +1 strike to any attack, after which Hoarmurath is discarded. This action can be used to target a revealed site's automatic attack. Now, theoretically Hoarmurath could then be retrieved and tapped for the same effect giving another +1 strike to the same automatic attack. However, because this is achieved by short-events, the effect will only last till the end of the current turn.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:51 pm

How long should last result of Redoubled Forces? As long as a site (other card that creates AA) is in play?
How long should last result of Deadly Dart used against AA? Deadly Dart is not short-event too.

Taking into account text of Deadly Dart, I don't think that it is problem casused by applying passive condition rules to cards like Redoubled Forces.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”