Smoke Rings & Weigh All Things to a Nicety

[gkg]

I disagree with the stated status quo listed (maybe it is a US status quo?). Since MEWH came out, I always played this and saw it played according to option B (throughout Europe).

To me B is both correct and the status quo.

[Konrad Klar]

I disagree with the stated status quo listed (maybe it is a US status quo?). Since MEWH came out, I always played this and saw it played according to option B (throughout Europe).

To me B is both correct and the status quo.

I second that.

[the JabberwocK]

I disagree with the stated status quo listed (maybe it is a US status quo?). Since MEWH came out, I always played this and saw it played according to option B (throughout Europe).

To me B is both correct and the status quo.

I don't believe this is specific to the USA, so far as I know. I believe Shapeshifter (and maybe Thorsten) said something about it, so perhaps they can shed more light on their perspective.

In any event, this wasn't given the label of a "Status Quo" ballot item, so even if the comment made in the Additional Comments section is inaccurate, Council Member votes will not be more heavily weighted for this ballot item.

[Shapeshifter]

I disagree with the stated status quo listed (maybe it is a US status quo?). Since MEWH came out, I always played this and saw it played according to option B (throughout Europe).

To me B is both correct and the status quo.

This surprises me. I don't really recall how those two cards were played back in the ICE days (1995-1998). What I can definitely say is, since I came back to the game in 2004, that I never saw anybody play it like suggested in option B. And I attended a lot of tournaments throughout Europe (including Worlds) since then - mostly I played FW myself.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

That is true, afaik option A (can't use Smoke Rings to pull minion resources/characters) is the current practice during larger tournaments.

[gkg]

I certainly never stopped my opponent doing option B and never was stopped from doing option B. That being said, I am far from active tournament player last ~10 years.

[CDavis7M]

This topic was already voted on in 2018.

Option A: Smoke Rings & Weigh All Things To a Nicety MAY NOT be used to bring an opposite alignment resource card into your play deck. An opposite alignment character card is permitted.
28 Votes
55%

Option B: Smoke Rings & Weigh All Things To a Nicety MAY be used to bring an opposite alignment resource or character card into your play deck.
23 votes
45%

The voting decided that Smoke Rings & Weigh All Things To a Nicety MAY NOT be used to bring an opposite alignment resource card into your play deck. An opposite alignment character card is permitted.

But in all of the discussion, I did not see anyone mention ICE Digest 53 with concurs with the CoE vote.

From: Anders Gabrielsson <and...@strindberg.ling.uu.se>
>Can you use Smoke Rings/Weigh All Things to a Nicety to retrieve cards of
>the opposite alignment? I've assumed you can't, but I'm not sure. You can
>use either to retrieve Stage Cards, right?

Smoke Rings targets the card it retrieves, so it could not get a minion
resource. Either could retrieve Stage resource cards.

[Konrad Klar]

What to say? Another nonsensical argument.

[CDavis7M]

What to say? Another nonsensical argument.

One interpretation of the rules may allow for activity in the game to happen without being declared and maybe even without targeting. Such an interpretation of the rules might also not think that "possibility of drawing, bringing, searching for, or playing (also preventing of playing*) a resource, or a card in general, affect the resource, or a card in general."

Some might consider this first interpretation to be nonsense.


A different interpretation of the rules may consider moving a card from the play area to the discard pile to target and affect the card (i.e., discarding the card). This interpretation would also consider any movement of a card to target/affect the card. Movement of a target card is an activity in the game and so movement of a card affects the card. If the target card could not "affected" by the moving-action, then how could the card ever be moved? Under this interpretation, Smoke Rings can include (1) an action of the player choosing a resource card or character card and (2) an action action that targets and affect the chosen card -- it is taken to hand. Therefore, the chosen card may not be a minion resource card.

Some might consider this second interpretation to be reasonable.

[Konrad Klar]

At this moment I do not have an access to my personal computer, so I'm sorry, but I cannot provide citations.

But consider Unexpected Outpost.
It causes bringing 1 hazard from SB or discard pile to play deck (and this action is mandatory). And "up to two" if Doors of Night is in play.
How player could specify at declaration which hazards are targets, if it even is not known whether Doors of Night will be at resolution of Unexpected Outpost?
And what if at declaration there is Doors of Night in play and at resolution there is not? Would Unexpected Outpost fizzle?

[CDavis7M]

Only "required targets" must be specified at declaration per annotation 8. Outpost and Smoke Rings have contingent targets that would be specified at resolution.

Outpost involves 2 actions:

(1) player chooses 1 (or 2) hazard cards
(2) chosen cards are moved

The player's choice is made at resolution. The chosen card is the target of the movement action, but the target is contingent upon the player's choice. As with the many other similar cards involving a choice by the player, contingent targets are not "required targets" per Annotation 8 and so they would not have to be specified at declaration.

[Konrad Klar]

"required targets"
The term is coined by you.
That is OK. This is your realm and you are stating rules that describes "required targets".

My understanding of target of an action. An entity specified at declaration of an action. If it does not exist at resolution of the action then the action has no effect.
This means, among others, that anything not specified at declaration of an action is not target of the action.
And this understanding does not make a distinction between "required" and "not required" targets of action.
All targets of action are required at declaration and at resolution of the action.

[CDavis7M]

"required targets"
The term is coined by you.
That is OK. This is your realm and you are stating rules that describes "required targets".

This is the realm of the Annotations, not mine.

Annotation 8: An action that requires a target...

All targets of action are required at declaration and at resolution of the action.

This rule is created by Annotation 8, which only describes actions requiring a target.
An action have a target that is contingent on a player's choice made at resolution cannot be said to require a target at declaration.

What is the other alternative? To pretend that the cards are not targets at all?

-----

But if one were to make their realm, they might create one where things can happen outside of the mechanics of the game.

[Konrad Klar]

What is the other alternative? To pretend that the cards are not targets at all?

Alternative is not creating meaningless terms.
"Required targets", as if there could be not required targets.

Pretending itself requires an existence of different actual state.
So if moved cards are not targets of Smoke Ring, Weigh All Things to a Nicety, Unexpected Outpost it is impossible to pretend that they are not targets.

[CDavis7M]

What is the other alternative? To pretend that the cards are not targets at all?

Alternative is not creating meaningless terms.
"Required targets", as if there could be not required targets.

Pretending itself requires an existence of different actual state.
So if moved cards are not targets of Smoke Ring, Weigh All Things to a Nicety, Unexpected Outpost it is impossible to pretend that they are not targets.

Of course the cards moved by Smoke Rings or Outpost are targeted. But not necessarily a target that needs to be specified at declaration.

Still, I'm open to having targets of Outpost specified at declaration (without revealing) and then sorting out any "fizzled" targets at resolution (eg if doors is not in play). This could lead to weird situations but it could be workable. And certainly better than pretending there is no target. I'm ok to change my opinion. I haven't been maintaining it for a decade.

How would you explain Outpost?