Page 2 of 4

Re: RUSE

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:16 pm
by CDavis7M
Theo wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:44 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:42 am
... inconsistent with the rule on Keywords (e.g., "skill only" keywords do not carry any inherent requirements).
Actual rule:
MELE wrote:Keywords do not necessarily carry any rules (though some do, like ‘Unique’ and ‘Corruption’).

:?:

I already wrote the actual rule:

Image

And then wrote more after this upon further thought and research. And I concluded that the CRF statement on "Foo" skill cards was designed to fix early METW skill only cards that didn't contain the requirements in their text.

Ruse includes skill requirements in it's text. The CRF statement was not intended to change Ruse. But something needs to be fixed. Presumably Ruse and any skill cards not requiring skills in their text.

What do.you think?

Re: RUSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:37 am
by Theo
I think it is bad practice to switch from quoting a rule to making statements that disagree with what you quoted as though they were logically consistent.

Doing so should (rightfully) undermine credibility.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:44 am
by CDavis7M
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:37 am
I think it is bad practice to switch from quoting a rule to making statements that disagree with what you quoted as though they were logically consistent.

Doing so should (rightfully) undermine credibility.
Which statements were inconsistent?

A skill only keyword carries no inherent requirements if the "Foo only" statement in the CRF is a clarification of how skill cards are played and not a new rule (it is not labeled as errata).

Like I said, the "Foo" statement was intended to clarify the older cards without explicit references to skills outside of the Keywords. It wasn't intended to create new restrictions on Ruse. And so the Ruse keyword language should be updated.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:05 am
by Theo
Maybe it's just the ambiguity of what you meant by "inherent".

Also worth pointing out: "[Skill] only." is not a keyword. There are two words. [Skill] is a known concept with ("inherent?") rules:
MELE wrote:Skills: This is one of the criteria for using certain cards (e.g., warrior skill is required to use certain weapons).
This same rule appears in METW, where there are only items written as "Warrior only". By process of elimination, the rule concept of the skill being required to use a card must be applicable to precisely these cards.

There is no errata in the CRF because there is no change to the previous rule, only clarification this (logical if not explicit) way of communicating the requirement. The implication of that clarification is that Ruse (as written) does indeed require both a Scout and a Diplomat to be "used", clarified into "played".

Re: RUSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:42 am
by CDavis7M
Taking your interpretation, any explanation for why this MELE card is not simply "Adûnaphel only" ?
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:05 am
Maybe it's just the ambiguity of what you meant by "inherent".
I just mean there are no rules explicitly referring to that keyword. There are rules for the corruption keyword and the unique keyword.
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:05 am
Also worth pointing out: "[Skill] only." is not a keyword. There are two words.
It is not a keyword if there are two words? :?: What about "Light Enchantment." Is it not a keyword without a hyphen? What is the purpose of bringing this up.

The earlier cards are inconsistent with the formatting of keywords using "Diplomat only" where as later on in MELE the cards use "Diplomat only." Maybe in METW "Diplomat only" was is intended to be an active condition and not a keyword? Which would explain why Lordly Presence doesn't include any further mention of a Diplomat. But in MELE, and especially in Ruse, it is clear which part of the text is a keyword and which part is the active condition.

Image

Image
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:05 am
[Skill] is a known concept with ("inherent?") rules:
MELE wrote:Skills: This is one of the criteria for using certain cards (e.g., warrior skill is required to use certain weapons).
I wonder what sort of limitation or allowance on the game mechanics could be derived from this statement alone. None? Presumably this descriptive statement is intended to inform the reader and is merely mentioning rules found elsewhere to (e.g., on items having the text "warrior only."). Plus, this statement on skills describes many situations, not simply cards having the words "<skill> only".
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:05 am
This same rule appears in METW, where there are only items written as "Warrior only". By process of elimination, the rule concept of the skill being required to use a card must be applicable to precisely these cards.
The limitation of the effect only applying to a warrior is stated on the card itself. The description of skills does not create this rule. The rule is created by the card. Just as most "<skill> only" cards have requirements created by the card itself (with some exceptions in the earlier cards).
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:05 am
There is no errata in the CRF because there is no change to the previous rule, only clarification this (logical if not explicit) way of communicating the requirement. The implication of that clarification is that Ruse (as written) does indeed require both a Scout and a Diplomat to be "used", clarified into "played".
:lol:

Theo, I wrote above, this CRF statement was made with respect to New Friendship and Old Friendship. Not Ruse. There is nothing to suggest that the CRF Statement on "foo only" cards intended to create new rules for cards that already explicitly refers to skills in their text (e.g., Ruse). And there is nothing in the original rules to suggest that "Diplomat only. Scout only." in Ruse requires a character to be both a Diplomat and a Scout.

There is no character included in MELE with that is both a Diplomat and a Scout. There is only Adûnaphel. Ruse would be a worthless card in MELE under your interpretation. If you have no respect for my interpretation, at least respect the designers of the game.

---------------

There is no community benefit to scouring the rules for seemingly inconsistent out of context statements as an attempt to conceive new hidden rules. There is no need to pretend to know the rules better than the community and show how they are playing the game wrong.

If anything, this undermines the community effort in clarifying the rules. And such efforts at undermining are rampant.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:34 am
by Theo
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:42 am
There is no community benefit to scouring the rules for seemingly inconsistent out of context statements as an attempt to conceive new hidden rules. There is no need to pretend to know the rules better than the community and show how they are playing the game wrong.

If anything, this undermines the community effort in clarifying the rules. And such efforts at undermining are rampant.
With this opinion, I'm not sure why you're still preaching then.

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:42 am
It is not a keyword if there are two words? :?: What about "Light Enchantment." Is it not a keyword without a hyphen? What is the purpose of bringing this up.
Well, I thought it was humorous...

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:42 am
The limitation of the effect only applying to a warrior is stated on the card itself. The description of skills does not create this rule. The rule is created by the card. Just as most "<skill> only" cards have requirements created by the card itself (with some exceptions in the earlier cards).
Now maybe you're being humorous? If you believe items cards themselves create the effect, then why should Ruse be different?
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:42 am
Theo, I wrote above, this CRF statement was made with respect to New Friendship and Old Friendship. Not Ruse. There is nothing to suggest that the CRF Statement on "foo only" cards intended to create new rules for cards that already explicitly refers to skills in their text (e.g., Ruse). And there is nothing in the original rules to suggest that "Diplomat only. Scout only." in Ruse requires a character to be both a Diplomat and a Scout.
"There is nothing to suggest that" New Friendship and Old Friendship follow a different set of rules for card play from Ruse. There is all precedent to suggest---as you stated---that the CRF is clarifying the preexisting intent. There is every indication from the actual text on Ruse that it requires a Diplomat, and similarly that it requires a Scout. You are otherwise ignoring/dismissing the actual text on Ruse and the CRF making it explicit. Do so as you wish, just don't pretend you aren't chiseling away at the game.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:42 am
There is no character included in MELE with that is both a Diplomat and a Scout. There is only Adûnaphel. Ruse would be a worthless card in MELE under your interpretation. If you have no respect for my interpretation, at least respect the designers of the game.
You are misunderstanding, again. Ruse requires that a Diplomat and a Scout play it. It doesn't require that they be the same character. By the CRF rules, they simply need to be in the company facing the attack. A successful ruse requires teamwork (or, as you've noted, multi-skill). A single scout or diplomat cannot pull off a ruse by themselves.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:54 am
by CDavis7M
Even if that is how the rules work, I don't think it was intentional to make Ruse require both skills. Do you think it was intentional to require both a Diplomat and a Scout in the company to play Ruse?
wrote:"(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill" (CRF rulings by term - skill).
I just can't see how the "Foo only" statement can actually function as a rule within the framework of the other rules.

That's part of why I don't think it's a rule. I think it's a description and so it doesn't need to function within the rules because it is merely describes how certain cards work.

If the rules are as you say, how do you imagine Ruse actually working when played? It seems like you expect the "Foo only" statement to create 2 new active conditions for playing Ruse. But Ruse already lists active conditions. And how would these "Foo only" active conditions work?
Foo Only Ruse wrote:Can only be played by characters with the Diplomat skill. Can only be played by characters with the Scout skill. Playable on an untapped diplomat in a covert company facing an attack.Tap the diplomat. The attack is canceled.
Alternatively, can only be played by characters with the Diplomat skill. Can only be played by characters with the Scout skill. playable on a scout facing an attack. No strikes of the attack may be assigned to the scout.
How does this make any sense? What other active condition looks like this? How can Ruse be playable on an untapped Diplomat but then also playable on a different Scout character at the same time? There is nothing in the "foo only" statement about the character being in a company.

And if it's an active condition, why is it not in the active condition section?

And if it's not an active condition, what is it? What other mechanic of the game can create such limitations?

Re: RUSE

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:23 am
by Konrad Klar
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:54 am
Foo Only Ruse wrote:
Can only be played by characters with the Diplomat skill. Can only be played by characters with the Scout skill. Playable on an untapped diplomat in a covert company facing an attack.Tap the diplomat. The attack is canceled.
Alternatively, can only be played by characters with the Diplomat skill. Can only be played by characters with the Scout skill. playable on a scout facing an attack. No strikes of the attack may be assigned to the scout.

How does this make any sense? What other active condition looks like this? How can Ruse be playable on an untapped Diplomat but then also playable on a different Scout character at the same time? There is nothing in the "foo only" statement about the character being in a company.
Trickery is Scout only=Can only be played by characters with the Scout skill but is playable on attack. So why not "can only be played by characters with the Diplomat skill. Can only be played by characters with the Scout skill. playable on a scout facing an attack."?
How can Ruse be playable on an untapped Diplomat but then also playable on a different Scout character at the same time?
Cards may have multiple targets. Ruse has two in primary use - untapped diplomat in covert company facing attack (target of "tap" action") and the attack (target of "cancel").

Playable "by" is not the same as playable "on". Trickery is not playable on scout.
There is nothing in the "foo only" statement about the character being in a company.
Right. But also:
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. In order to cancel an attack or
to directly affect an attack, the character doing so must be in the company facing the
attack.
Note that the region/site type a hazard creature was keyed to can be affected
otherwise. Cards only modify attacks if they say they specifically mention attacks.
Underline mine.
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:54 am
And if it's an active condition, why is it not in the active condition section?
In active condition section of what? CRF?
For the same reason for which "Playable only if Doors of Night is in play" is not in the section. There are multitude of possible active conditions. Not all may be listed there. Only categories of them.
If you mean active condition section of card, there is (unfortunately) no such section.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:57 pm
by CDavis7M
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:23 am
Trickery is Scout only=Can only be played by characters with the Scout skill but is playable on attack. So why not "can only be played by characters with the Diplomat skill. Can only be played by characters with the Scout skill. playable on a scout facing an attack."?
If you quoted Trickery in your post it would give you an opportunity to read it.
Trickery wrote: Scout only against an Orc, Troll, Man, Elf, Slayer, Awakened Plant, or Giant attack against his company. Make a roll (or draw a #); if the result is greater than 5, the attack is cancelled.
You stated that Trickery "is playable on attack." But if you read the card you'll notice that it is not. It is playable on a Scout character in a company that is facing an Orc, Troll, Man, Elf, Slayer, Awakened Plant, or Giant attack. But the Trickery short-event itself is not playable on the attack. It is only playable on the Scout character. Of course, the character must be a Scout and their company must be facing the appropriate attack. And of course trickery include a cancel action that targets the attack. But these are different from the single target that Trickery is "playable" on.

From what I can see, there are no cards in the game having "playable on/by/at" conditions that are "playable" on two different entities. Cards are only ever playable on/by/at one entity.

Also, compare Trickery to Adûnaphel Unleashed that actually is playable on an attack, but not on Adûnaphel herself, and certainly not on both the attack and Adûnaphel. Both the first option and the alternative option are playable on the attack. The first is playable on an attack where the attack is against Adûnaphel and the alternative is playable on an attack that is by Adûnaphel.
Adûnaphel Unleashed wrote:Playable on any attack against Adûnaphel (as your Ringwraith) if she is the only character in her company. The number of strikes of the attack is reduced to one and the attack's body is modified by -2.
Alternatively, playable on any attack by a lone Adûnaphel the Ringwraith (as your Ringwraith). You choose defending characters. Any resulting body checks for defending characters are modified by +2. Cannot be duplicated on a given attack.
----------
Konrad Klar wrote:
How can Ruse be playable on an untapped Diplomat but then also playable on a different Scout character at the same time?
Cards may have multiple targets. Ruse has two in primary use - untapped diplomat in covert company facing attack (target of "tap" action") and the attack (target of "cancel").

Playable "by" is not the same as playable "on". Trickery is not playable on scout.
This is so incorrect that it's going to take a while to unravel.

CARDS ONLY EVER HAVE 1 TARGET. This reminds me of the other thread where you asked me not to confused Resource Cards and their Effects and I had to explain that "resources" refers to both resource cards and effects of resource cards.

Yes, the tap action targets the diplomat and the cancel action targets the attack. But the Ruse short-event card DOES NOT target the attack. It ONLY targets the Diplomat (putting aside the alternative effect) as you can see from "Playable on an untapped diplomat." The target of the card is not necessarily the same as the targets of the effects.

The "tapped diplomat in covert company facing attack" is the playability condition for the action of playing Ruse itself. The action of playing Ruse targets a character because it is "playable on" a character. Therefore, the playability condition for the action of playing Ruse is defined as an active condition since it has a target. And so that playability condition will be checked immediately when the card is played per the rules on Active Conditions. The playability conditions for the action of playing Ruse (e.g., taking it from your hand and putting it on the table) is checked before any of the effects written in the card text are declared or checked for active conditions.

But yes, the CRF on Skill does say "playable by." That's unfortunate because this usage differs from the use of "playable on" and "playable by" across all released cards.

Allies, Items, and Factions are playable "by" characters. Short-events are not playable "by" characters, they are playable "on" characters. Look at the rest of the released cards. The only time "playable by <some character>" occurs when it is an item, ally, or faction being played. The Trickery short-event is playable "on" a Scout, not "by" a scout.

The earlier METW cards used the term "Scout only" (etc.) to mean "playable on a Scout." This is clear if you compare similar cards from METW and MELE. Like Stealth (Scout only. without using the term "playable") vs. Sneakin' (Scout only. Playable during the organization phase on an untapped scout in a company with a company size less than 3.).

Still, I have no idea what conclusion you can hope to draw from your statement "Trickery is not playable on scout."

----------
Konrad Klar wrote:
There is nothing in the "foo only" statement about the character being in a company.
Right. But also:
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. In order to cancel an attack or
to directly affect an attack, the character doing so must be in the company facing the
attack.
Note that the region/site type a hazard creature was keyed to can be affected
otherwise. Cards only modify attacks if they say they specifically mention attacks.
Underline mine.
This statement is discussing cancellation of attacks using a card played on a character or some effect controlled by the character.

It says nothing about "playable on a character" conditions some how applying to the entire company. Especially not in the case of Ruse where the card specifically states that it is "playable on an untapped diplomat in a covert company facing an attack" or alternatively "playable on a scout facing an attack."

--------
Konrad Klar wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:54 am
And if it's an active condition, why is it not in the active condition section?
In active condition section of what? CRF?
Yes. If this rule was intended to turn keywords into active conditions, then why is it not under those sections?

------------
Konrad Klar wrote: If you mean active condition section of card, there is (unfortunately) no such section.
Oh you haven't noticed it? Many cards have a "playability condition" section of the card. I hate to spoil the surprise, but it's the first sentence comes right after the any keywords and often (but not always) its in bold italics. You can identify the sentence because it says "playable on/at/by/only/during" (etc.), although some early cards, mostly from METW and METD, did use the term "Scout only" or "Elrond only" to indicate playability conditions. Later, the "<foo only> phase was reserved for keywords and not playability conditions. You can see this in the updated Vilya, which placed "Elrond only" with "Playable on Elrond only."

These are the conditions for playing the card itself.

------------

These misleading misinterpretations of the rules all over the forum are the ones that make the first impression on a new player trying to learn the rules. And first impressions are difficult to overcome, making it even more difficult to learn the game. You read the rules but corrupted by these misinterpretations and it can take a while to recognize them as such. How frustrating!

Re: RUSE

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:08 pm
by Konrad Klar
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:57 pm
You stated that Trickery "is playable on attack." But if you read the card you'll notice that it is not.
Probably I would see something different than you are seeing.
I do not see "Playable on" phrase. And only action that can result from the card (beside dice-roll) operates on attack, not on scout.
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:57 pm
From what I can see, there are no cards in the game having "playable on/by/at" conditions that are "playable" on two different entities. Cards are only ever playable on/by/at one entity.
Good observation.
But there are cards that do not have "playable on" phrase at all, and still have target(s).
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:57 pm
These misleading misinterpretations of the rules all over the forum are the ones that make the first impression on a new player trying to learn the rules. And first impressions are difficult to overcome, making it even more difficult to learn the game. You read the rules but corrupted by these misinterpretations and it can take a while to recognize them as such. How frustrating!
"I'm suspecting you may be a troll."
Kuduk Lore

Re: RUSE

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:24 pm
by CDavis7M
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:08 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:57 pm
You stated that Trickery "is playable on attack." But if you read the card you'll notice that it is not.
Probably I would see something different than you are seeing.
I do not see "Playable on" phrase. And only action that can result from the card (beside dice-roll) operates on attack, not on scout.
Exactly. The only actions in the card text of Trickery are (1) the roll action and (2) the attack canceling action. But if the "Scout only" sentence is not an action, what is it? "Scout only against an Orc, Troll, Man, Elf, Slayer, Awakened Plant, or Giant attack against his company." It is a playability condition. A condition for playing the Trickery short-event card itself.

EVERY statement in a resource EVENT card text is either (1) a keyword, (2) a playability condition(s), or (3) a description of an action (including conditions or effects of the action). I guess certain text in a resource event card could also be (4) an indication of different sets of optional/alternative actions. But from what I can see in the rules and on the cards, these are the only effects defined by resource event card text.

The phase "Scout only against an Orc, Troll, Man, Elf, Slayer, Awakened Plant, or Giant attack against his company" certainly is not a keyword. And it certainly is not an action as there is no action to be taken besides the play of the card itself. So then what is it? It's a condition for playing Trickery. The action of playing trickery targets the Scout. And since it is a target, the targeted Scout is an active condition for the action of playing of Trickery. We all know this is how cards are played without even understanding the details of the CRF on Action Conditions.

In cases where the playability condition of the card itself targets a character (e.g., the Scout in Trickery), I think it is safe to say that the card is playable "on" that character. Allies, items, and factions, are played "by" characters. Events are not playable "by" characters, they are played "on" characters.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:08 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:57 pm
From what I can see, there are no cards in the game having "playable on/by/at" conditions that are "playable" on two different entities. Cards are only ever playable on/by/at one entity.
Good observation.
But there are cards that do not have "playable on" phrase at all, and still have target(s).
Yes, it is completely fine for a card to only have actions and no playability conditions. Look at Tempering Friendship ("+4 to an influence attempt against a faction"). It only has 1 action (+4) and that action has 1 target (the influence attempt dice roll). Dark Tryst also has no playability conditions and just 2 actions (the drawing and removing actions).

And take a look at Escape vs Diversion. Apparently it was to silly to allow players to play Escape (no playability conditions) without an attack (cancelling action cannot be declared) and then wound their own characters (wounding action can be declared and resolved). And so in MELE a playability condition was added to Diversion. Using Escape this way was surely unintended. And surely even less intended was the benefit this could have when playing Fallen Wizard.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:08 pm
"I'm suspecting you may be a troll."

Kuduk Lore
I'm just frustrated at the time I wasted as a beginner reading nonsense forum posts when I should have just re-read the rules and read the Digests.

I know the rules are long, but just re-read these sections all in one sitting and let me know if you think anything different:
  • MELE - Section 2 THE CARDS AND DECKS - KEYWORDS (p. 12)
  • MELE - Section 10 PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS - EVENTS (p. 40 and 41)
  • MELE - Section 10 PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS - ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY (p. 50, 69, and 70)
  • MELE - GLOSSARY - Action (p. 87)
  • MELE - GLOSSARY - Chain of Effects (p. 88)
  • MELE - GLOSSARY - Condition, Active (p. 88)
  • MELE - GLOSSARY - Condition, Passive (p. 88)
  • MELE - GLOSSARY - Declaring an Action (p. 88 and 89)
  • MELE - GLOSSARY - Keyword (p. 89)
  • MELE - GLOSSARY - Targeting (p. 89)
  • CRF - Rulings by Term - Actions
  • CRF - Rulings by Term - Active Conditions
  • CRF - Rulings by Term - Passive Conditions
  • CRF - Rulings by Term - Playing a Card
  • CRF - Rulings by Term - Short Event
  • CRF - Rulings by Term - Skill Cards
  • CRF - Rulings by Term - Targets
  • CRF - Rulings by Term - Timing
Everything I have said here and in the Riddling Talk discussion was learned from these sections.

CRF Rulings by Term - Skill Cards wrote:"(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill.
This statement generally describes the effects of cards stating "Foo only." At its most restrictive, it may refer to cards having active conditions stating "Foo only." But this statement does not place restrictions on cards having "Foo only" as keyword while also having separate active conditions based on the "foo" skill. Cards like Ruse already have active conditions. Nothing about the CRF "foo only" statement suggests that it changes the playability conditions listed on the card.
Ruse Card Text Effects wrote:
  • Keywords: Diplomat only. Scout only.
  • Option 1 - Action 1: Play Ruse for first optional effect.
  • Option 1 - Action 1 - Active conditions : Playable on an untapped diplomat in a covert company facing an attack. (1) The character is in play, (2) the character has the Diplomat skill, (3) the character is untapped, (4), the character is a covert company, and (5) the character is in a company facing an attack.
  • Option 1 - Action 2: Tapping action.
  • Option 1 - Action 2 - Target: The Diplomat in the covert company that is facing the attack.
  • Option 1 - Action 2 - Active Condition: The Diplomat is in play.
  • Option 1 - Action 3: Cancelling action
  • Option 1 - Action 3 - Target: The attack that the covert company is facing.
  • Option 1 - Action 3 - Active Condition: The attack that the covert company is facing is in play.
  • Identifier of optional/alternative effects: "Alternatively,"
  • Option 2 - Action 1: Play Ruse for second alternative effect.
  • Option 2 - Action 1 - Active Conditions: playable on a scout facing an attack. (1) The character is in play, (2) the character has the scout skill, (3) the Scout (is in a company that) is facing an attack.
  • Option 2 - Action 2: Effect of preventing strike assignment
  • Option 2 - Action 2 - Target: The Scout.
  • Option 2 - Action 2 - Active Condition: The Scout is in play.
There is no room for the statement "(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill" to place Diplomat only Scout only restrictions on Ruse under this framework.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:58 am
by Theo
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:57 pm
From what I can see, there are no cards in the game having "playable on/by/at" conditions that are "playable" on two different entities. Cards are only ever playable on/by/at one entity.
Or the evidence for a card being played by more than one character is right in front of you, but you cyclic-logic dismiss it as impossible. Furthermore, there is ample evidence for cards that are "played by" one entity and "played on" another. A great example:
Focus Palantir wrote:Permanent‐event
Sage only. Playable on a Palantír with a sage in the company. The bearer of the Palantír now has the ability to use the Palantír.
Discard Focus Palantír if the Palantírʹs company moves.
I'm not saying it's not weird, but it is possible. Spies Feared is another that even says "Scout or Ranger only."

One might argue that Padding Feet can be played on two characters at once... but I won't argue that.

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:24 pm
The phase "Scout only against an Orc, Troll, Man, Elf, Slayer, Awakened Plant, or Giant attack against his company" certainly is not a keyword. And it certainly is not an action as there is no action to be taken besides the play of the card itself. So then what is it? It's a condition for playing Trickery. The action of playing trickery targets the Scout. And since it is a target, the targeted Scout is an active condition for the action of playing of Trickery. We all know this is how cards are played without even understanding the details of the CRF on Action Conditions.
I personally agree with all of this, except the "We all know...". I reference three pages contesting this issue: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 145&t=3683

(Incidentally, I also believe that "Magic." events are implicitly played by a character that can "use" the type of magic. But I admit knowing no explicit rule for this.)

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:24 pm
In cases where the playability condition of the card itself targets a character (e.g., the Scout in Trickery), I think it is safe to say that the card is playable "on" that character. Allies, items, and factions, are played "by" characters. Events are not playable "by" characters, they are played "on" characters.
The rules (even beyond the CRF rule you are dismissing) disagree with you:
MELE wrote:Bróin, a scout, taps and plays A Nice Place to Hide to cancel the attack
MELE wrote:For example, Last Child of Ungoliant has the sage skill, so she can tap to play a Secrets of Their Forging card.
MELE wrote:Ciryaher taps and plays A Nice Place to Hide to cancel the automatic-attack.
Curious how the examples of characters playing events coincide with events with the "[skill] only." qualifier... precisely in line with the CRF.

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:24 pm
This statement generally describes the effects of cards stating "Foo only." At its most restrictive, it may refer to cards having active conditions stating "Foo only." But this statement does not place restrictions on cards having "Foo only" as keyword while also having separate active conditions based on the "foo" skill.
If the character playing Focus Palantir was Call of Home'd after Focus Palantir is declared, you would say any other sage would serve just as well for the active condition? I disagree; the play of the "Sage only" card is play by a particular sage, which establishes an additional active condition on the sage actuallly playing the card.

---

I do not understand the format/meaning of your list.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:02 pm
by Bandobras Took
Unfortunately, all of those examples are of fulfilling an active condition. It is incontestable that when a character taps to fulfill an active condition, that card relies on that particular character to remain in play.

Focus Palantir does not have any such mechanic. It requires the presence of a sage. It targets the Palantir. So long as there is a sage at resolution, all of the requirements have been met.

Even Align Palantir's wording "Sage only if a Palantir is in his company." is merely a condition that looks for an available sage at declaration and resolution.

As mentioned elsewhere, saying a card is played by a character means no more than indicating the means of achieving something. For X Only cards, that means is having X in play under the appropriate conditions when the card resolves. If X doing something was an active condition, then X becomes a specific character, but not until then.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:57 pm
by CDavis7M
Theo wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:58 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:57 pm
Cards are only ever playable on/by/at one entity.
there is ample evidence for cards that are "played by" one entity and "played on" another. A great example: Focus Palantir.

I'm not saying it's not weird, but it is possible. Spies Feared is another that even says "Scout or Ranger only."

One might argue that Padding Feet can be played on two characters at once... but I won't argue that.
Let's read the cards: Focus Palantir is "Playable on a Palantír." Meaning, it targets the Palantir. It also has the condition that the Palantir is (borne by a character) in a company with a sage. Still, it only targets the Palantir.

Spies Feared says "Scout or Ranger only. Playable on a shadow-hold [-me_sh-] if one of your scouts is there or on a Ruins & Lairs [-me_rl-] if one of your rangers is there." Therefore, it is played on a site. BUT it also has the condition that the site be a particular site-type and that a character of a particular skill be there. Spies Feared is "Scout or Ranger only" because of the playability conditions that require a Scout in one case, or a Ranger in another case. But Spies Feared it is definitely not targeting the Scout/Ranger character.

And Padding Feet literally says that it is playable "on a lone scout minion."

None of these are examples of a card being played on 2 different entities. The closest example I can see is Align Palantir, which is played on the Sage but then kept with the Palantir. Even then, it is only played on 1 entity and then later kept with a 2nd entity.

--------------
Theo wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:58 am
MELE wrote:Bróin, a scout, taps and plays A Nice Place to Hide to cancel the attack
MELE wrote:For example, Last Child of Ungoliant has the sage skill, so she can tap to play a Secrets of Their Forging card.
MELE wrote:Ciryaher taps and plays A Nice Place to Hide to cancel the automatic-attack.
Curious how the examples of characters playing events coincide with events with the "[skill] only." qualifier... precisely in line with the CRF.
A Nice Place to Hide has the "Scout only" keyword, no playability conditions, and a single action (attack-cancelling) with the active condition that a Scout taps. Since there is only 1 action, the active condition of that action effectively prevents the card from being played if the action's active condition cannot be met (the cancelling action's active conditions are different from the card-play action's active conditions). Therefore, by the active conditions of the actions in the card (not by the "Scout only" keyword) does the card have the requirement that it "can only be played by characters with the scout skill."

With Secrets of Their Forging, the card actually says "Playable on a sage." This is clearly an active condition for playing the card.

The only examples of "playable by" a character in all of the cards that I've seen involve conditions for characters playing allies or factions. But sure, I'm OK with the informal statement "Baby Ungoliant plays Secrets." But I'm OK if a player wants to informally say that a character "played" it as it makes no difference to the game mechanics. The METW and MELE examples are informal as you pointed out.

What are other examples of "Skill only" keyword cards to consider whether their effects already require a character of the skill or not.

Test of Fire is a "Sage only" card with no playability conditions but it has 1 single ring-test action and that action has the active condition of targeting "a gold ring in a sage's company." So yes, it can only be "played by" a Sage, even though its not actually played "on" the sage, or the ring.

Voices of Malice is also a "Sage only" card with no playability conditions. And it actually has 2 actions! But... yeah, both the discard-action and the corruption-check-action have active conditions requiring a sage. So yes, it's also "Sage only" and has no need of requirements from the "foo only" statement.

-------------
Theo wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:58 am
If the character playing Focus Palantir was Call of Home'd after Focus Palantir is declared, you would say any other sage would serve just as well for the active condition? I disagree; the play of the "Sage only" card is play by a particular sage, which establishes an additional active condition on the sage actuallly playing the card.
Only "actions" have "targets." The action of playing Focus Palantir targets the Palantir. The sage in the company is just a condition of the targeting. The target of an action doesn't have its own targets :?

Only the Palantir is targeted. This Palantir is targeted upon declaration of Focus Palantir and must still be in play at resolution. If Call of Home gets rid of the Palantir, then a different palantir cannot be targeted at resolution because the first palantir was already the target of the active conditions. But if the same Palantir is transferred and there is another Sage, then it's all OK. The sage and the company are not the targets. They are not active conditions, merely conditions. Targets are active conditions by definition in the CRF rulings by term.

Image

Image

----------------
Theo wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:58 am
I do not understand the format/meaning of your list.
It's just a list of everything that is in the card Ruse when you actually break it down according to the mechanics of the rules. If the statement "(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill." is going to have any effect on the game, it needs to fit in there somewhere.
Theo wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:58 am
Or the evidence for a card being played by more than one character is right in front of you, but you cyclic-logic dismiss it as impossible.
Well, I tried to explain why I think "foo only" doesn't apply to ruse in that way with my best understanding of the rules.

To achieve the requested effect of Ruse requiring a company with both a Diplomat and a Scout, the active conditions of Ruse (1st option) would need to be altered to say (addition in underline): "Playable on an untapped diplomat in a covert company, facing an attack, that also includes a scout."

I just don't see how the "foo only" statement can get us there: "(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill."

The "foo only" statement says nothing about a company. And it is literally an accurate description of every single card that uses the phrase "Foo only." EVERY card that says "<foo skill> only" as a keyword (vs METW use as active condition) already has playability conditions requiring a character with the skill or a set of actions with active conditions targeting a single character with the skill. There is literally no card out there that needs the "foo only" statement to create additional requirements.

The "foo only" statement only fits with the early METW cards that use "<Skill only>" as the active condition for playing the card. Also, Many Turns and Doublings.
Lordly Presence wrote:Diplomat only. +5 to an influence check against a faction.
If the influence check is successful, draw a card.
There is no Diplomat referenced when the actions are described in the card text. We have the +5 action to a check and the draw card action if the check succeeds, but not Diplomat. But these older cards did not consider "Diplomat only" to be a keyword, they considered them to be the active condition. It is clear that "Diplomat only" is an active condition because it is not an action and no action in the card requires a Diplomat. In this case, the "Foo only" statement helps the reader understand that "Diplomat only" is an active condition. "(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill. Yup. Diplomat only is an active condition for Lordly Presence.

But in Ruse, "Diplomat only. Scout only." are keywords, not active conditions. Ruse already has other alternative active conditions that involve a Diplomat or a Scout. "Diplomat only. Scout only." is not an active condition and its not an action, so then it's a keyword.

Re: RUSE

Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:34 pm
by CDavis7M
Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:02 pm
Even Align Palantir's wording "Sage only if a Palantir is in his company." is merely a condition that looks for an available sage at declaration and resolution.
I read Align Palantir as have different playability conditions than Focus Palantir. Which is why Align Palantir needs to have that trick effect of "keep with" the Palantir. The action of playing Align Palantir will target a character as the active condition (not the Palantir, as in Focus Palantir).