Alatar teleport to face ahunt

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4484
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I don't have too much to add.
Bandobras Took wrote:Not quite. The definition of playing a card from the CRF requires that the card be brought into play.
Maybe my English is too weak, but "process of bringing a card from your hand into play" does not mean "successfull process of bringing a card from your hand into play". In other words "played" does not mean "successfully played". Someone may bring a card into play without success.

Bandobras Took wrote:
MELE wrote: A company commits to moving by playing a new site card (face down) during its organization phase.
Site cards do not come from the hand -- how can one play a site card? :)
Whether playing is a process of bringing card into play from hand or just a process of bringing card into play (from any source) is separate question.

In other threads I have mentioned about sometning similar:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Active Conditions wrote:Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the
action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your
hand
, it is discarded.
Underline mine.

So what means "playing a card from your hand"? "bringing a card from your hand into play from your hand"?

Summary no. 2:
You may find a correct rule and say there are errors in some places that does not match the rule.
Or you may build rules atop of language glitches (and also say there are errors in some places that does not match the rule).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
kufel
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:52 pm
Location: Nowy Sacz, Polska

OMFG :shock: I just wanted to know if He can teleport or not... Sages :wink:
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4484
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Sometimes progress goes in unexpected direction. :)
Often things stumbles on fundamental rules that are not understood in the same way by all disputants.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
kufel
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:52 pm
Location: Nowy Sacz, Polska

IMHO problem is that this should be taken by comon sense... IT'S ONLY GAME! Alatar will protect his poor fellows from any dangerous... No matter if it was played, putted, dropped, kicked, flopped, bringed (...) from hand, leg, table, chair, floor, head, mouth (The Mouth?)... Whatever You want...
So in this way Alatar will not teleport to face attack from Spider of Morlat played as pernament event...
Alatar to himself (sitting in Edhellond with bunch of dancing Elf-girls, drinking the best wine and smokink the best weed-sh*t): Stupid.. I told them NOT to go that way! So f*ck them!
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4484
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Whose common sense?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
kufel
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:52 pm
Location: Nowy Sacz, Polska

Players, MECCG and Tolkien Fans!
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3157
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

kufel wrote:Players, MECCG and Tolkien Fans!
Common sense is different for each of those groups. ;)
Konrad Klar wrote:Maybe my English is too weak, but "process of bringing a card from your hand into play" does not mean "successfull process of bringing a card from your hand into play".
Is an attack canceled even if the cancelling attempt is not successful? Is a strike successful even if the strike is not successful?

If the process does not result in the card being in play, you have not played the card.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4484
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bandobras Took wrote:Is an attack canceled even if the cancelling attempt is not successful? Is a strike successful even if the strike is not successful?
No and no.
At the same time:
If a cancelling attempt was not successfull this means the cancel action was taken.
If an action did not resolve itself this means the action was declared.


Process is not result. "Cancelling the attack" does not mean "the attack is canceled".
By the same logic "is played" does not mean "is in play".

In many places in CRF (too much to quote) phrases "may (not) be played in response" are used interchengeably with "may (not) be declared in response". Errors? Or does it fit in your interpretation?



@kufel
You are speaking about "common sense". Some other cards, e.g. Ready to His Will and Memories of Old Torture specifically mention the attack the creature. Not the attack, not even the hazard creature attack, but attack the creature. Should be a "common sense" applied in such cases?
Are you suggesting that text of Alatar is so poorly written that even words "creature" and "attack" are used interchangeably there?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3157
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

By the same logic "is played" does not mean "is in play".
Of course not. But "is played" should mean the card play action was successful just as much as "is canceled" means a canceling action was successful.
In many places in CRF (too much to quote) phrases "may (not) be played in response" are used interchengeably with "may (not) be declared in response".
As I said earlier, this depends entirely upon whether you are allowed to declare actions that will be illegal upon resolution. I don't believe you can, but I don't know where to find a solid rule about it.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4484
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Sorry for late answer. I had to consult with someone skillful in English, to verify certain language questions.

In case of some verbs, like "cancel", "close", "eliminate", phrase "it is cancelled/closed/eliminated" refer to the result of the activity rather than to the pending action. For pending action "it is being cancelled/closed/eliminated" must be used.
In case of some other verbs, like "dispute", "process", "drive" phrase "it is disputed, processed, driven" does not unambiguously refer to the result of the activity nor to the pending action. "It is being disputed/processed/driven" unambiguously refer to the pending action, "it has been disputed/processed/driven" unambiguously refer to the result.

So directly comparing of meaning "it is played" to meaning "it is cancelled" is a manipulation, unless it was unintentional (I hope).

I could compare in similar manipulative way "it is discarded" from e.g. Alliance of Free Peoples to the both "it is played" and "it is cancelled".
AoFP says: "Discard then any hero Dwarf faction, hero Elf faction, or hero Man faction is discarded from play".
Faction card that has been discarded from play (and now is in discard pile) before resolulution of AoFP. Is such faction card discarded from play?
Like the attack that has been cancelled is cancelled, faction card that has been discarded from play is discarded from play.
Context of both Alatar and AoFP is the same too. "When [...] is discarded/played"
So does AoFP check for existence of such card or rather it check for act of discarding?

Of course it is manipulative example. Someone may notice that there is no time between one "it is discarded" (act of discarding) and second "it is discarded" (result), process and its result are immediate. Process of playing card and its effect are not immediate. So what is exact timing?

Answer would be found in "CRF, Rulings by Term, Timing", but unfurunatelly in your opinion this section of CRF is poorly written and "Declaring an Action:" from Lidless Eye too, so there is no common ground where evidence would be found.

This invariably leads to the same choice:

a) "CRF, Rulings by Term, Timing, Annotation 27" and Declaring an Action:" from Lidless Eye are poorly written. Alatar, Skies of Fire, Doors of Night (from Lidless Eye) are correct base of reference.

b) "CRF, Rulings by Term, Timing, Annotation 27" and Declaring an Action:" from Lidless Eye are correct. According to them "card is played" is synonym of "card is declared". For this reason "When [...] is played" in texts of Alatar, Skies of Fire, Doors of Night (from Lidless Eye) is odd.

b is my choice.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3157
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Alliance Of The Free Peoples wrote:Discard when any hero Dwarf faction, hero Elf faction, or hero Man faction is discarded from play. Cannot be duplicated.
Passive Conditions

* A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.

* Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
I'm not sure what you're asking. The Passive Condition will only exist when Alliance resolves, not beforehand. If Alliance said "Discard if any hero Dwarf faction, hero Elf faction, or hero Man faction has been discarded from play," that would be different.
n case of some verbs, like "cancel", "close", "eliminate", phrase "it is cancelled/closed/eliminated" refer to the result of the activity rather than to the pending action. For pending action "it is being cancelled/closed/eliminated" must be used.
In case of some other verbs, like "dispute", "process", "drive" phrase "it is disputed, processed, driven" does not unambiguously refer to the result of the activity nor to the pending action. "It is being disputed/processed/driven" unambiguously refer to the pending action, "it has been disputed/processed/driven" unambiguously refer to the result.

So directly comparing of meaning "it is played" to meaning "it is cancelled" is a manipulation, unless it was unintentional (I hope).
According to the definitions, there is no manipulation. Playing a card (present tense or participle, take your pick) is the process. A card is played (past tense or participle) only if the process successfully resolves.

The language of a specific game may not follow the rules of the larger language, anyway:
Unabated wrote:The first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the effects of this card. Cannot be duplicated on a given attack.
If I look in my hand for a card that will cancel the attack, I have by normal language definitions attempted to cancel it, but not by the definitions of the game.

By the way, I do agree that the general idea of playing a card is open to interpretation, but I think the idea that a card is not considered played unless the process of bringing a card from hand into play successfully resolves allows for far fewer loopholes (provided you cannot declare illegal actions).

To return to the question of Alatar:
Creature Cards
You may use a creature card to directly attack one of your opponent's companies. Such an attack can occur only if one of the following criterion is met:
Creature Cards are used to directly attack companies, and playing a creature card is the most common method -- but it is not the only method for a creature card to directly attack companies. Therefore Alatar can be used on creature cards that are played.
Exhalation of Decay wrote:Playable on an Undead hazard creature in your discard pile. If target Undead can attack, bring it into play as a creature that attacks immediately (not counting against the hazard limit). The attack's prowess is modified by -1.
In Great Wrath wrote:Playable on a Nazgûl in your discard pile that could immediatly attack. The Nazgûl attacks immediately (not counting against the hazard limit) with +2 prowess and -1 body.
Here is the difference: Alatar could teleport to face attack created by Exhalation of Decay because the card text overrides normal definition of card play.

Alatar could not teleport to face the attack created by In Great Wrath because the Nazgul card attacks without being brought into play (according to definition in CRF).
kufel
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:52 pm
Location: Nowy Sacz, Polska

Konrad Klar wrote: @kufel
You are speaking about "common sense". Some other cards, e.g. Ready to His Will and Memories of Old Torture specifically mention the attack the creature. Not the attack, not even the hazard creature attack, but attack the creature. Should be a "common sense" applied in such cases?
Are you suggesting that text of Alatar is so poorly written that even words "creature" and "attack" are used interchangeably there?
Yes, common sense..
Ready to His Will: Imagine what happens if it was not specified: hazard creature... so then You will play it on Dimrill's Dale AA and take Dimrill Dale site under Ready of His Will card? Same for Memories...
Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

kufel: I don't think you can really apply "common sense" to this situation. Altar's teleport ability is completely unlike anything else in the game, and in fact has no true basis in Tolkien's world. Since there is no base for comparison you cannot say what is common sense for this situation. It certainly isn't that Alatar will jump in vs. any attack. Auto-attacks, agent attacks, Tidings of Bold Spies, CvCC, etc. are all attacks that Alatar will not respond to. Therefore we must take the literal meaning. Since an Ahunt card is not a creature card when played Alatar will not respond. Also an Ahunt card is not actually played on a company (i.e. when played it does not target a company). It may be played against one company and attack another.

Bottom Line: No teleporting in vs. an Ahunt dragon.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”