Master of Wood, Water or Hill

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:28 pm

Not to derail from OP too much, but...
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:29 am
2.
I strongly disagree that Smoke Rings targets anything, i.e that a resource or a character in play deck or sideboard must be chosen at declaration of Smoke Rings.
It also does not affect the resource/character, likewise a card that allows/causes a playing other card does not affect the other card.
How is this?
CRF wrote:A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Enitities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type. Note that "the foo" counts as specifying one "foo."
Smoke Rings wrote:Bring one resource or character from your sideboard or discard pile into your play deck and shuffle.
Entity: one resource or character.
Action: bringing from your sideboard or discard pile into your play deck.

Seems unquestionably targeting to me.

In a related thread you claimed:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:30 pm
Smoke Rings may be played even if there is no resource/character card in discard pile/sideboard (they potentially may appear there in result of an actions declared in response).
But I don't agree. You argue that they don't target because they may be played even if there is no reasource/character card in discard pile/sideboard, but I'd argue that they can't be played in that situation because they require a target.

I appreciate the Exhalation of Decay and In Great Wrath examples being more explicit, but I don't think this means that not having a "playable on" phrase means it isn't targeting under the current definitions.
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:39 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:43 am
I don't believe that cards in hand should be considered in play as they have not been played.

As for Strident Spawn, you can play a character beyond influence but they must return to your hand at the end of organization if they still go beyond it. Regardless of that rule, would the game framework not work like this?

1. Declare 3-mind Ill Favored Fellow (half orc)
2. Declare mind-reducing effect of Strident Spawn
-----
3. Resolve mind-reducing effect
4. Resolve 2-mind Ill Favored Fellow
This cannot work as you describe. A character is not in play until its play declaration resolves, and your premise was that A Strident Spawn only affects characters in play.

But you are right that I forgot the CRF rule that changed to allow character play without sufficient influence; so at this point A Strident Spawn is a bad example.
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:46 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:43 am
I don't understand the hypothetical involving Glove of Radagast...

Is the hypothetical - how can you check if an ally in the discard pile is playable via Glove of Radagast (eg it has 1 mind and is not played) unless the discard pile is in play?
The issue is that if a card not in play (an ally in your discard) cannot be affected (by Glove of Radagast making playable it playable), then it cannot be made playable. The second part of Girdle allowing something to be taken from your discard is contingent on it already being made playable by the first part, but if the first part cannot affect a card in your discard then the second part could not apply. :?
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:06 pm

Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:28 pm
How is this?

CRF wrote:
A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Enitities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type. Note that "the foo" counts as specifying one "foo."

Smoke Rings wrote:
Bring one resource or character from your sideboard or discard pile into your play deck and shuffle.
Figure is a square only if it has 4 sides.
But having 4 sides is not enough to make a figure a square. Some non-square rectangles and non-square rhombuses and non-square trapezoids also have 4 sides.

Arouse Denizens affects one automatic-attack, but it is played on site and targets the site, one automatic-attack is chosen at resolution.
Dark Tryst causes drawing three cards. It does not target them. It may be responded by Smoke Rings and then the three cards most likely will be different at resolution than at declaration of Dark Tryst.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by CDavis7M » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:01 pm

Theo wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:43 am
I don't believe that cards in hand should be considered in play as they have not been played.

As for Strident Spawn, you can play a character beyond influence but they must return to your hand at the end of organization if they still go beyond it. Regardless of that rule, would the game framework not work like this?

1. Declare 3-mind Ill Favored Fellow (half orc)
2. Declare mind-reducing effect of Strident Spawn
-----
3. Resolve mind-reducing effect
4. Resolve 2-mind Ill Favored Fellow
This cannot work as you describe. A character is not in play until its play declaration resolves, and your premise was that A Strident Spawn only affects characters in play.

But you are right that I forgot the CRF rule that changed to allow character play without sufficient influence; so at this point A Strident Spawn is a bad example.
Being more accurate: Strident Spawn doesn't reduce the mind of characters, but instead reduces the influence required to control them. Therefore, it doesn't affect the mind of the half-orc itself, but instead affects the METW rule "a character's mind determines how many influence points (GI or DI) are required to keep this character in play". So I would think that Strident Spawn would enable play beyond normal GI/DI regard less. But I still think that a permanent event can affect a declared card (character).

Also interesting is that the METW rules say "keep in play" vs "bring in play".

MoWWoH is sure bringing up a lot of fundamental rules questions.

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk


User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by CDavis7M » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:06 pm

Theo wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:43 am
I don't understand the hypothetical involving Glove of Radagast...

Is the hypothetical - how can you check if an ally in the discard pile is playable via Glove of Radagast (eg it has 1 mind and is not played) unless the discard pile is in play?
The issue is that if a card not in play (an ally in your discard) cannot be affected (by Glove of Radagast making playable it playable), then it cannot be made playable. The second part of Girdle allowing something to be taken from your discard is contingent on it already being made playable by the first part, but if the first part cannot affect a card in your discard then the second part could not apply. :?
I think Glove of Radagast is similar to Smoke Rings. The playability effect and the taking of the ally effect are "effects", not conditions or targets. Like how "resource" is not a condition of Smoke Rings, it is just a definition of the effect. So, there is no consideration about targeting cards in play.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Theo » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:10 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:06 pm
Figure is a square only if it has 4 sides.
But having 4 sides is not enough to make a figure a square. Some non-square rectangles and non-square rhombuses and non-square trapezoids also have 4 sides.
How would you like to define the square then?

What is additionally written in the rules:
MELE Glossary wrote:Targeting: choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the "target" of the action.
So please explain how Smoke Rings is only a rhombus in light of this definition and the CRF extension.

Bringing us to:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:06 pm
Arouse Denizens affects one automatic-attack, but it is played on site and targets the site, one automatic-attack is chosen at resolution.
Dark Tryst causes drawing three cards. It does not target them. It may be responded by Smoke Rings and then the three cards most likely will be different at resolution than at declaration of Dark Tryst.
Arouse Denizens: I would say, rather, that "one automatic-attack" is an entity specified by number and type that is chosen by the player, and the increase effect is played out through. It is definitely a target of the increase effect. The passive nature of the effect makes me consider that it is not targeted by the card itself, so I agree doesn't need to be specified at card declaration.

Drawing cards: no entity is ever chosen. Thus it is clear that this isn't targeting.

Unless you want to argue that you can choose which card in your deck you draw, which would be a perfectly valid argument as far as I am concerned. But considering that the definition of play deck includes, "You randomly draw cards from this deck during play," it only seems fair that you still shouldn't get to choose which card but must draw through some random processes (perhaps such as rolling a die to determine which card is drawn? Or... shuffling and drawing off the top of the deck.). :?
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:29 am

Theo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:10 am
How would you like to define the square then?
A figure with 4 sides of equal length, where each side is either parallel or orthogonal to other sides.
Theo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:10 am
So please explain how Smoke Rings is only a rhombus in light of this definition and the CRF extension.
I cannot explain it in the light, because the definition is tautology.
As long it is not known (moot case) what exactly is "entity through which a card or effect is/will be played out" it is not known (moot case) what is targeting, and vice-versa.

Annotation 8 says more about nature of target.
Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active
condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved.
An action may not be declared if its target is not in play. However, dice-rolling actions
may always be targeted by other actions declared later in the same chain of effects.
A card in sideboard or discard pile is not in play.
Just that.
An exceptional text of other cards may allow target an object that otherwise cannot be targeted.
Smoke Rings does not have a such text.

Incite Denizens is more visible example than Arouse Denizens.
If choosing of object is part of main effect then the choosing is not done at declaration, thus the object is not target of declared action.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Theo » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:30 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:29 am
An exceptional text of other cards may allow target an object that otherwise cannot be targeted.
Smoke Rings does not have a such text.
"from your sideboard or discard pile" is such text. If this phrase was not present, then the one (targeted) resource or character would need to be in play. However, it is present, so the (still-)targeted resource or character needs to be from your sideboard or discard pile.
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:38 am

Theo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:30 pm
"from your sideboard or discard pile" is such text. If this phrase was not present,
If this phrase would not be present then it would not be known, from where to bring a resource/character.

Like in case of short-events that allow/cause playing a card. The card is not specified prior resolution. Type and quantity is specified (e.g. Bounty of the Hoard).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Theo » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:19 pm

Bounty of the Hoard does not need to specify a target because it the uses the modal auxiliary "may" to indicate permission for future action. Smoke Rings uses an imperative.
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:50 pm

However it specifies some object by type and number.
"one item of its choice" in text of Drowning Seas is also specified by number and type.

For someone this may be a "target detector".
For me it is merely one of criterion of being a target.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:58 pm

Theo wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:19 pm
Bounty of the Hoard does not need to specify a target because it the uses the modal auxiliary "may" to indicate permission for future action. Smoke Rings uses an imperative.
I do not know from where you got "future".
In the game an action may be voluntary or not.
Mere fact that an action is voluntary does not shift the time of its execution.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:03 pm

In my mind (no support), effects like Smoke Rings and cards that provide playability beyond the rules... These types cards are temporary "targeting" (affecting) the rules of the game themselves, if anything. You know, basically creating a new rule of the game to enable this new effect (instead of affecting properties or effects of other cards).

The rules define what cards can be played and how, and (in my mind) other cards can affect these playability rules.

The rules define how cards can be drawn and how sideboarding works, and (to me) Smoke Rings affect these rules.

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk


User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Master of Wood, Water or Hill

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:22 pm

The whole sense of being or not being a target of an action is that a target must be specified at declaration of the action and non-target does not must.

Any action that operates on specified number of cards in deck/pile/sideboard must at least specify the number of the cards and source (deck/pile/sideboard) and destination (deck/pile/sideboard/hand).

If specifying a number of the cards would be enough reason to treat the cards as a targets, then the effort put in writing the texts of Exhalation of Decay and In Great Wrath is inexplicable/meaningless.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”