A Plethora of Questions....

[the JabberwocK]

Resource events do not generally require an untapped site nor that the automatic-attack to be faced. This may vary based upon specific card text.

It clearly states in the rule above...

Just MELE does not clearly state.
MELE says that which resource events require facing AA, is "based upon specific card text". And that is true and has not been removed by CRF. But MELE does not say what in that "specific card text" is deciding about that requirement. I do not know a resource event with text like "playable after facing AA" or with similar text.
CRF specify what is deciding:

Play of an ally, item, faction, or resource card which will normally tap the site must be
after the company resolves all automatic, agent and on-guard creature attacks.

(If exclude allies, items, factions, then only remaining resource cards will be events, but maybe it will change in future; onward compatibility is not bad thing).

That paragraph MELE is also silent about what can be played after facing AA but before facing agent and on-guard creature (and silent about agent and on-guard creature at all). Not mentioning X does not contradict with mentioning X (formally).

For this reasons the CRF entry may be considered as an addition, not errata.

BTW. Although to be able to play "an ally, item, faction, or resource card which will normally tap the site" a company must face "all automatic, agent and on-guard creature attacks" the company has much more of freedom after facing only AAs than before facing AAs. It is no longer limited to action that directly affect AA.

Ok, I understand what you are saying here. However, I still feel the MELE rule wording is a bit misleading. To me it indicates non-item, faction, ally resources that tap the site do not necessarily require facing Auto-Attacks first. Of course the later CRF rule does clear things up. One final question on this... are there ANY resources in the game that require tapping the site that do not require auto-attacks to be faced first? Any exceptions to the rule basically that I should be aware of?

Instead of bringing a new character into play during your organization phase, you may discard a character that is at a Darkhaven or at his home site. Your Ringwraith may not be discarded. You must take this action when you are forced to discard a character due to a lack of available influence. In this case, the characters need not be at a Darkhaven.

Underline mine.

For this reason the whole scenario "What if I play a new character first from my hand during my Organization phase?" is not valid. In organization phase you may either play a character, or discard a character. If you do not have an enough influence to control a characters you must do latter. You may not do former.

Understood. This is more clear now. Thank you.

[Konrad Klar]

One final question on this... are there ANY resources in the game that require tapping the site that do not require auto-attacks to be faced first? Any exceptions to the rule basically that I should be aware of?

There are only actions that tap a site (in result). There are no actions that require tapping a site (as their condition; like Marvels Told requires tapping a sage as its condition).

I do not know any exception from:

Play of an ally, item, faction, or resource card which will normally tap the site must be
after the company resolves all automatic, agent and on-guard creature attacks.

[Bandobras Took]

There are only actions that tap a site (in result). There are no actions that require tapping a site (as their condition; like Marvels Told requires tapping a sage as its condition).

Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where "Information" is playable. Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent. This item is placed in your hand and the play deck is reshuffled. The sage makes a corruption check.

Tapping the site is a condition of the action of searching through your deck. Which leads to the ugly problem of the card fizzling itself, but this is no place for that discussion.

[the JabberwocK]

There are only actions that tap a site (in result). There are no actions that require tapping a site (as their condition; like Marvels Told requires tapping a sage as its condition).

Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where "Information" is playable. Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent. This item is placed in your hand and the play deck is reshuffled. The sage makes a corruption check.

Tapping the site is a condition of the action of searching through your deck. Which leads to the ugly problem of the card fizzling itself, but this is no place for that discussion.

What do you mean the card fizzles itself? How to use this card seems fairly straightforward to me.

[Konrad Klar]

There are only actions that tap a site (in result). There are no actions that require tapping a site (as their condition; like Marvels Told requires tapping a sage as its condition).

Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where "Information" is playable. Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent. This item is placed in your hand and the play deck is reshuffled. The sage makes a corruption check.

Tapping the site is a condition of the action of searching through your deck. Which leads to the ugly problem of the card fizzling itself, but this is no place for that discussion.

Nice finding.

Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where "Information" is playable. Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent. This item is placed in your hand and the play deck is reshuffled. The sage makes a corruption check.

This time bold is original.

"untapped site X" and "tap site X to" cannot both be conditions of card . One precludes other (is it what you mean by: "the ugly problem of the card fizzling itself" ?).
"tap site X (to)" may be main effect of card that has condition "untapped site X".

Unless Far-Sight creates nested chain of effects, where player may declare searching through his play deck (and taps site and sage as condition),
"Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck" does exactly the same what "Tap the sage and the site. Search your play deck" of All Thought Bent Upon It does.
And even then a fizzling the searching through his play deck would require playing something in response in that nested chain of effect. Something that would remove/untap/wound a sage, or untap site, or make sage a non-sage.

(I'm just trying to find a sense in that what probably is yet another screwed ICE's text).

[Bandobras Took]

What do you mean the card fizzles itself? How to use this card seems fairly straightforward to me.

Because of ICE's timing rules, when the card is resolving, there will come a point when the site and character must both be tapped and untapped in order to successfully resolve, something which is clearly impossible.

The intent and use of the card are clear; it's merely ICE's wording which muddies the issue.

[Konrad Klar]

What do you mean the card fizzles itself? How to use this card seems fairly straightforward to me.

Because of ICE's timing rules, when the card is resolving, there will come a point when the site and character must both be tapped and untapped in order to successfully resolve, something which is clearly impossible.

The intent and use of the card are clear; it's merely ICE's wording which muddies the issue.

That would be issue only if both "Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where 'Information' is playable." and "Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck" would be condition of Far-Sight.
If "Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck" is main effect there is no such issue.

"Tap abc to xyz" is convention that indicates that tapping of abc is condition of xyz, is done at declaration of xyz and abc must be in play and tapped when to comes to resolution of xyz.

However fact that Fair-Sight requires untapped site indicates that "Tap the sage and the site" is either condition of something else or just error.
Either there is nested chain of effects inside of Fair-Sight, or... it is just error.

ICE is used to compact wording that is malforming of meaning.
Example that I just have at hand:
[quote="]@ Attacks or strikes keyed by name to a region or site cannot be cancelled by effects
which refer only to the type of the region or site.[/quote]
Not:
"Attacks keyed by name to a region or site or strikes from such attacks cannot be cancelled by effects
which refer only to the type of the region or site."

Literally that means that (maybe) there are strikes keyed to something and that strikes from attacks keyed by name to a region or site are free from this restriction (because such strikes itself are not keyed to anything).

[Bandobras Took]

An untapped site and character are the conditions (because they are targets) for the card play action.

A tapped site and character are the active conditions of the search action.

Note that the minion equivalent, All Thought Bent On It, has altered wording, meaning ICE may have recognized the problem.

[Konrad Klar]

A tapped site and character are the active conditions of the search action.

At best: tapping a site and tapping a character are conditions. Tapped site (of certain type) is condition of Rescue Prisoners, for example.

In that case either:

- the main effect of Far-Sight is declaration of other action, so (I am repeating myself) nested chain of effects.
And if nothing can be played in response to that declaration, final effect is the same as in case of All Thought Bent On It.
Only difference is that Far-Sight is working internally in different (unusual) way.

- both "Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where 'Information' is playable." and "Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck" are conditions of Far-Sight. Conditions that are simply impossible to be fulfilled, like having a card and discarding the card in the same time.

[Bandobras Took]

Cards do not have conditions. Only actions have conditions.

Condition, Active: A prerequisite for an action actively made by a player. Typically this involves tapping a character, discarding an item, or having a character of a particular skill in play. Active conditions are declared and resolved with no time for response by an opponent or yourself.

Action: Any activity in the game (card play, a corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses, etc.). An opponent and yourself have the opportunity to declare other actions in response. Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions

Actions may be card play, but card play is not the only possible action.

The condition of the card play action for Far-Sight is a sage at an untapped site. The condition for the search action which the card creates is to tap the sage and the site.

So the main effect of Far-Sight is indeed a separate action from the card play action, declared and resolved in the nested chain of effects created by the declaration of the card play action.

Where this gets really ugly is that the search action is technically declared before the card play action (else it would be possible for a card's effect to resolve before card play itself actually resolves).

[Konrad Klar]

Where this gets really ugly is that the search action is technically declared before the card play action (else it would be possible for a card's effect to resolve before card play itself actually resolves).

The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.

If "search" is action of nested chain of effects, then by playing Far-Sight you are not declaring "search" but you are declaring a declaration of search.
This means that "search" will not be declared until the card Far-Sight will resolve.

Order of declarations is:
1. Corruption check of sage,
2. Declaration of "search",
3. Far-Sight (as whole).

What happens from declaration to the end of "search" action is a level-down chain of effects, hence nested. Like a chain in which Concealment was declared is nested in the chain in which a creature was declared.

[Bandobras Took]

Where this gets really ugly is that the search action is technically declared before the card play action (else it would be possible for a card's effect to resolve before card play itself actually resolves).

The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.

If "search" is action of nested chain of effects, then by playing Far-Sight you are not declaring "search" but you are declaring a declaration of search.
This means that "search" will not be declared until the card Far-Sight will resolve.

Order of declarations is:
1. Corruption check of sage,
2. Declaration of "search",
3. Far-Sight (as whole).

What happens from declaration to the end of "search" action is a level-down chain of effects, hence nested. Like a chain in which Concealment was declared is nested in the chain in which a creature was declared.

Play of Concealment can only be declared if there is actually an attack. An attack is not created until a creature card actually resolves. So that example doesn't work.

I can't agree that one is declaring a declaration, either. There's no end to that can of worms; when does one declare the declaration of the declaration? In order for the search action of Far-Sight to occur after the card play of Far-Sight has successfully resolved, it must either:

a) be declared before the card play of Far-Sight; or
b) occur as the first action in a chain of effects immediately following the action that caused it to trigger

Hmmm . . . is it possible to treat the search action of Far-Sight as an action triggered by the passive condition of the card resolving?

[Konrad Klar]

Play of Concealment can only be declared if there is actually an attack. An attack is not created until a creature card actually resolves. So that example doesn't work.

I do not understand what does not work in that example. In your opinion.

A company is facing an attack from creature. Is chain of effects in which the creature was declared ended? May next creature be played?
If no, then any chain started now is nested in chain in which the creature was declared (and which is still lasting).

I can't agree that one is declaring a declaration, either.

Then we are talking in different languages from some time. We are using "nested" in different meanings.
Otherwise, what you said before:

So the main effect of Far-Sight is indeed a separate action from the card play action, declared and resolved in the nested chain of effects created by the declaration of the card play action.

is what I'm trying to say.

In order for the search action of Far-Sight to occur after the card play of Far-Sight has successfully resolved, it must either:

a) be declared before the card play of Far-Sight; or
b) occur as the first action in a chain of effects immediately following the action that caused it to trigger

I do not know what "successfully resolved" means. Not fizzled when it comes to resolution?
When the card resolves, actions printed on it start executing.
One of them is "Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck..."
Not may fault that not "Tap the sage and the site. Search through your play deck..." instead.

Hmmm . . . is it possible to treat the search action of Far-Sight as an action triggered by the passive condition of the card resolving?

Because there is not enough of equilibristics around that text that looks like containing condition due to use a word "to"?
I do not know how you imagine it and what change in rules it would require to be working.

[Bandobras Took]

An attack is only created when a creature resolves. Concealment requires that there be an actual attack, not the declaration of an attack. In much the same way, one cannot use Marvels Told to discard a permanent event that has not yet resolved in its own chain of effects. One does not declare either Marvels Told or Concealment in response to the declaration of an appropriate hazard; one uses them once the hazard has resolved in its own chain of effects. There is therefore no nesting, as I understand the term.

As for successfully resolved, essentially, yes. A card only successfully resolves it nothing has happened to "fizzle" it. A common method of fizzling a resource is to remove its target before it resolves. When a card resolves, the actions on it start executing, which means that, in the chain of effects, those actions must have been declared before declaring the play of the card itself. The only other possibility is that those actions begin new chains of effects, which is how actions caused by passive conditions work, thus my question.

Incidentally, an attack by itself is not an action, but facing the attack might be considered one.

[Konrad Klar]

An attack is only created when a creature resolves. Concealment requires that there be an actual attack, not the declaration of an attack. In much the same way, one cannot use Marvels Told to discard a permanent event that has not yet resolved in its own chain of effects. One does not declare either Marvels Told or Concealment in response to the declaration of an appropriate hazard; one uses them once the hazard has resolved in its own chain of effects. [...]

Right.

There is therefore no nesting, as I understand the term.

Some truism:

Annotation 12: An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded when the final
strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check
are resolved.

If to take a chain of effects with Marvels Told as example, when the action "discard hazard non-environment long/permanent event" is being performed the Marvels Told is already resolved, but not ended/concluded. Marvels Told will be ended/concluded after corruption check of sage will be performed. Then the Marvels Told card is discarded.

If to wait for end of chain in which creature was declared, then it will be too late to play Concealment. On what? On attack that has been faced (resolved and concluded)?

So anything that require faced attack* must be declared while chain in which the attack was declared is still not finished. Not in response to its declaration (too early), not in next chain of effects (too late). Name such chain "nested" or as you like.

Different approach is used for targeting a dice-rolling actions. Like a faced attacks*, they do not exist in play outside of chain of effects in which they was declared and resolved. So waiting for finish of chain in which they was declared, before targeting them, means being always too late. Hence:

Annotation 2: A corruption check or any dice-rolling action can be targeted in the
chain of effects during which it was declared.

*) ICE uses term "attack" for object that can attack, not for process that involves combat. Automatic-attack persists in play even if there is no defender.