Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post your decks, discuss strategy, ask for tips, etc.
User avatar
kober
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:31 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by kober »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:55 pm
[...] cardnum.net/rules [...]
I like the refreshed version of the CRF files too! They do include the recently-resurfaced full text of CRF 15, don't they?

Anyway, would be nice if all those files were posted on councilofelrond.org/rules too.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

kober wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:13 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:55 pm
[...] cardnum.net/rules [...]
I like the refreshed version of the CRF files too! They do include the recently-resurfaced full text of CRF 15, don't they?
The CRF on Cardnum is not the same as the CRF 15 I posted. For instance, Theo noticed that the errata changing which hazards affect CvCC was listed under "errata section" but the entry for "CvCC" itself was outdated until a later version of CRF 15. So, this is where some of the confusion stems from.

I was trying to sort out what happened with CRF 15 but I was have difficulty finding all of the sections together from the same source. I was always missing one section of the other. Then I also noticed that the date in the "CRF Introduction" was changed without changing from 15 to 16. Theo noticed some differences between the different dated versions. There is one version from May '98 and another from June '98 (I think, I'd have to look again). But then later on I found another "CRF 15" from December '98, which I think is complete but I never got around to posting. I'll have to look at this again.

Anyway, I'm still not sure what the last ICE version of the CRF looked like. But the one on Cardnum is not it.

Also, the ICE Digests on Cardnum are missing Digets 1 and 2 and a few others. I think I tracked a few of them down, and I gave them to Rezwits. So the ICE Digets there may get updated at some point.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:27 am
But from the minimal exposure I get from reading the old lists, there also seemed to be a lack in the community of people challenging such an on-the-fly approach to handling things.
Don't say that in front of Martin Toggweiler. There were numerous people challenging the ICE rulings and asking for clarification. Especially on Dragon hoards, We Have Come to Kill, the site phase resource playability restrictions, Fallen Wizard rules, it goes on and on. There are thousands of challenges and numerous on certain cards/rules.

----------

Some of the CoE rulings may have stemmed from questions that arose during a tournament. But the CoE Digests clearly show that the questions were emailed to the Netrep or posted to the METW mailinglist. There was plenty of time to look up the rule and any past rulings.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by Theo »

I absolutely did not intent to downplay those that were challenging. I was only speaking to my limited viewing with the tools now at my disposal---definitely biased by what the Netreps chose to share.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:39 pm
2. If multiple effects already in play would happen at the same time, those effects are applied in the order that they were originally brought into play, except:
  1. The Hazard Player decides the order of applying the effects if the order matters, but only if those effects were in play at the start of a Movement/Hazard phase.
  2. The Resource Player decides the order of applying effect if the order does not matter.
Bottom-line: The order that triggered effects (mostly long/permanent events) are applied is determined by the order they are played, except that the hazard player can re-decide the order at the start of the M/H phase.
To get back on topic, how would you handle corruption cards (with effects that would happen at the same time) according to the above?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Sat May 02, 2020 4:39 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:39 pm
2. If multiple effects already in play would happen at the same time, those effects are applied in the order that they were originally brought into play, except:
  1. The Hazard Player decides the order of applying the effects if the order matters, but only if those effects were in play at the start of a Movement/Hazard phase.
  2. The Resource Player decides the order of applying effect if the order does not matter.
Bottom-line: The order that triggered effects (mostly long/permanent events) are applied is determined by the order they are played, except that the hazard player can re-decide the order at the start of the M/H phase.
To get back on topic, how would you handle corruption cards (with effects that would happen at the same time) according to the above?
Providing a gameplay example would allow for clear decision making.

From what I can tell, the order of corruption checks/effects doesn't matter. The only time order of corruption matters is when considering other effects that are not in play yet, like tapping for support. The potential of a character to tap in support is not a consideration under Rule 2 (or Annotation 26 which is it based on).

What about with Traitor? The order of corruption checks could change who becomes the traitor. Still, the traitor attack is triggered. The attack is not already in play. So it doesn't count.

In general, it seems like the resource player would decide the order.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by Theo »

Don't forget Council, where the player who took their turn last must make corruption checks first and each player gets to choose the order for their own checks.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

I think it would be beneficial to have an example with corruption cards for 2B, because while they don't work together in a way that matters in terms of the OP, the order they are applied can certainly matter for gameplay.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Mon May 04, 2020 7:22 pm
I think it would be beneficial to have an example with corruption cards for 2B, because while they don't work together in a way that matters in terms of the OP, the order they are applied can certainly matter for gameplay.
I've been trying to think of an example where the order matters (2A) but I can only come up with situations where effects NOT already in play cause the order to matter. Let me know if you have a gameplay example.

I added these examples to 2B (where the order doesn't matter). Two Covetous Thoughts and two Lure of Natures are a decent example. Ren the Unclean is not really an example of the rules because it only involves 1 card, not two cards trying to beat each other. I put it there since it's common.

2B. The Resource Player decides the order of applying effect if the order does not matter. This simplified rule is based on the Annotation 26 and the ICE Rulings applying Annotation 10 on Passive Condition rules to these situations.
  • Doors of Night, The Nazgûl are Abroad, and The Pits of Angband are in play at the end of the turn. The order of applying the effects does not matter because retrieving the Nazgûl using The Nazgûl are Abroad doesn't preclude retrieving the Dragon using The Pits of Angband.
  • If a company has a tapped character with Covetous Thoughts and an untapped character with Covetous Thoughts that would both make a corruption check at the end of the turn, the order does matter because the untapped character could support the tapped character's corruption check before they make their own check (which may remove them from play preventing them from supporting). However, supporting a corruption check is not an effect that was already in play. The Resource Player decides the order because the order does not matter when considering only the effects already in play. The Resource Player would also decide the order of corruption checks when 2 of his characters in the same company have Lure of Nature for similar reasons.
  • If Ren the Unclean is tapped causing each character to make a corruption check at the same time, the Resource Player decides the order of the corruption checks. While the order could matter due to new effects (supporting the CCs), the order does not matter when considering only the effects already in play. Even if Traitor were already in play, the attack by Traitor is not already in play and it does not happen at the same time as the corruption checks.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon May 04, 2020 9:46 pm
I've been trying to think of an example where the order matters (2A) but I can only come up with situations where effects NOT already in play cause the order to matter. Let me know if you have a gameplay example.
The One Ring gives +1 CP for all characters in the bearer's company, which would be an effect already in play (let's assume Lure of Nature on bearer and on another character). However, I think it should still fall into 2B because
Annotation 26 wrote:If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied.
The two corruption cards amount to the same number of total corruption checks (2x Wilderness in the company's site path), no matter which is applied first. In other words I think it's more about how the effects in question interact, than what the end result of those effects will be (or how other effects may influence those results). Does that make sense?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

I see your point and I agree with the timing. But thinking more about it, Rule 2 and Exception 2B don't apply to The One Ring example or my Ren the Unclean example. The +1CP effect of The One Ring already happened a long time ago when the character joined the company. It's not happening at the same time as the corruption check caused by Lure of Nature. The Ren the Unclean example also doesn't fit rule 2 (or 2B) because it's just 1 card.

I don't think Annotation 26 or Annotation 10 applies to The One Ring Example.

ICE ruled that the Resource Player decides the order for Ren the Unclean. This ruling is not technically governed by Annotation 10 but it seems like they have the same basis.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:Removing the sage skill is an action that modifies an attribute of a card, just like how +1 prowess, +5 Direct Influence, or +1 corruption point are actions modifying card attributes. Modifying an attribute of a card requires targeting.
...
removing the sage skill would need to wait for the following chain of effects after the chain of effects in which In the Heart of His Realm resolved.
Is there a rule you're basing this on? Or is this your interpretation of something else?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:50 am
CDavis7M wrote:Removing the sage skill is an action that modifies an attribute of a card, just like how +1 prowess, +5 Direct Influence, or +1 corruption point are actions modifying card attributes. Modifying an attribute of a card requires targeting.
...
removing the sage skill would need to wait for the following chain of effects after the chain of effects in which In the Heart of His Realm resolved.
Is there a rule you're basing this on? Or is this your interpretation of something else?
Yes. This is based on the rules mentioned in the title: the timing rules (MELE p. 50 and 69) and the rules on passive conditions (METW Companion, p. 49).

One of the effects of In the Heart of His Realm is: "any sage at a site in a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth, or moving with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in his site path, loses his sage skill." The effect "loses his sage skill" does not target a particular Sage -- it is not "playable on" a particular character. Instead, this is a categorical effect which may be triggered by a passive condition that is satisfied by any sage being "at a site" or "moving" in a Dark-domain/Gorgoroth. Therefore, in the example above, the effect of removing a particular character's sage skill is triggered when In the Heart of His Realm resolves since the passive condition is satisfied. Per the rules on Passive Conditions, this effect is declared first in the following chain of effects (the chain after the chain in which In the Heart of His Realm resolved).

Accordingly: removing the sage skill would need to wait for the following chain of effects after the chain of effects in which In the Heart of His Realm resolved.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 4:33 pm
Yes. This is based on the rules mentioned in the title: the timing rules (MELE p. 50 and 69) and the rules on passive conditions (METW Companion, p. 49).
Sure, but to my knowledge METW (or MELE) Companion is not readily available for people to read. Would be nice to have at least the relevant quotes from them IMO.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:28 am
Sure, but to my knowledge METW (or MELE) Companion is not readily available for people to read. Would be nice to have at least the relevant quotes from them IMO.
It sure is readily available. Just send a friendly email and €11.95 to Wim Heemskerk 👍

Otherwise, much of the discussion of passive conditions from the METW Companion has been copied into the CRF and the rest has been copied to this site.

Post Reply

Return to “Decks, Strategy, Tips, Ideas”