pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:38 pm

🤨 Lost in the Borderlands is not the same issue as Baduila. Like you said, it targets a company and its effect does not. And, like you said, Baduila does not target the company (it is an agent), it's effect targets the company. So I don't get why you say they are the same? You know it's not the same issue.

And yes, I have always agreed that a "card and its effects are distinct." I never said otherwise. My point was that there is no distinction between "targeting" of hazard effects vs targeting of hazard cards. Especially not in METW.

I agree with your analysis of Tom v. Baduila but not the conclusion because I disagree with the premise that "hazard" in Tom Bombadil refers ONLY to "hazard cards" targeting a company and not also "hazard effects" targeting a company. My reasoning is that these cards say "hazards" and not specifically "hazard cards." The usage of words on the cards and in the rules are so loose that "hazard" in Tom Bomdabil can be interpreted to mean both "hazard effect" as well as "hazard card." And NO, the non-definitive glossary description of "hazard cards" (labeled "hazard") in a listing of non-definitions with some definitions does not provide a basis for excluding this interpretation.

Your more limiting and specific interpretation ("hazard" only means "hazard card" and not "hazard effect") cannot be supported when there is nothing inconsistent with the more general interpretation ("hazard" refers to both cards and effects).

Look at the Glossary listing of "Hazard." Despite the indication in the MELE Glossary section indicates that it provides "definitions" (the METW rules do not claim these to be definitions), this is a really loose sense of the word. Many of the glossary terns aren't strictly defined. Instead the rules and concepts related to the are described.
  • Body: A character’s or creature’s body is a measure of how difficult it is to physically eliminate him. (This describes body, but fails to define it as a number printed on the card.)
  • Hazards: Hazard cards represent evil forces and natural dangers. You may play hazard cards only during your opponent’s movement/hazard phase. (This describes hazard cards as representing evil. This is not a definition of the term "hazard" but a description of "hazard cards.")
  • Keyed: A hazard creature may only be played against a company if the creature is “keyed to” the company's site or site path. (This describes rules for playing creatures and is not definition of "keyed")
  • Location Deck: A player’s site and region cards. (This is not a definition. Sites and regions in play are not a "location deck")
Again, my point is that the rules and cards are poorly worded, allowing for broader interpretations, and that they just do not have a well-defined framework that supports your conclusion.

There is just not way that the interactions were Tom Bombadil and Baduila were intended to be as complicated as you make them out to be. Tom cancels effects of hazards that target a company. Badula effect is not a non-targeting effect (like many long or permanent events). So Tom cancels Baduila. This game really can be that simple.

If it isn't there, then it isn't there

And now I'm going back to reading my METW rules book with a straight face... and the term "conditions, passive" is not mentioned anywhere. This concept, while it existed in METW, was only defined in Lidless Eye. Exactly. The terms were better defined later on.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Theo » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:44 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:38 pm
Your more limiting and specific interpretation ("hazard" only means "hazard card" and not "hazard effect") cannot be supported when there is nothing inconsistent with the more general interpretation ("hazard" refers to both cards and effects).
Moreover, while the MELE glossary only has "hazard" encompass "hazard card", if "hazard" was not also meant to include "hazard actions" (just as "resource" has been generalized to both "resource card" and "resource action") there would be no rules governing hazard actions. Unless the implication is that such actions could NEVER be taken, saying hazard actions are not hazards would imply e.g. Spider of the Morlat could be returned to hand during your own Movement/Hazard phase to reduce your hazard limit. What a card! Or Baduila could return your own company traveling to a Darkhaven back to its home site as a sort of generalized Farmer Maggot attack avoidance. That would actually be cool.
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.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:14 am

Theo wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:44 pm
Or Baduila could return your own company traveling to a Darkhaven back to its home site as a sort of generalized Farmer Maggot attack avoidance. That would actually be cool.
:idea:

If this is bug (not feature) it should be fixed at the level of the text of the card (that already has been fixed in past for other reasons).
There is no need of redefining the term "hazard".

For Spider of the Morlat and Power Built by Waiting:
I do not know whether there is rule that forbids taking actions that count against HL of own company.
Certainly such rule should exist.
(Tapping a Nazgul is out of question, because it counts as playing a short-event, or long-event, and due to texts of Nazgul cards)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:58 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:38 pm
🤨 Lost in the Borderlands is not the same issue as Baduila. Like you said, it targets a company and its effect does not. And, like you said, Baduila does not target the company (it is an agent), it's effect targets the company. So I don't get why you say they are the same? You know it's not the same issue.
But my point is that the term "Hazard" refers to both "effects of hazards" as well as "hazard cards" themselves. There is nothing in the rules to support a conclusion that an "effect of a hazard card" is not a "hazard" for purposes of Tom Bombadil or otherwise.
That was the original issue.

I pointed out that Tom's wording is redundant if hazard and hazard effects are the same thing.

Then you asked for an example of a hazard from METW that raises this issue. The issue of whether hazards and hazard effects are the same thing.

If you can't be bothered to remember what you write, there's no point in continuing the discussion.
And yes, I have always agreed that a "card and its effects are distinct." I never said otherwise. My point was that there is no distinction between "targeting" of hazard effects vs targeting of hazard cards. Especially not in METW.
That isn't what you wrote. (And are incorrect anyway, unless you've managed to come up with an example that you'll actually write down instead of just claiming that you wrote it down earlier.)
But my point is that the term "Hazard" refers to both "effects of hazards" as well as "hazard cards" themselves.
Nothing about targeting there.
The usage of words on the cards and in the rules are so loose that "hazard" in Tom Bomdabil can be interpreted to mean both "hazard effect" as well as "hazard card." And NO, the non-definitive glossary description of "hazard cards" (labeled "hazard") in a listing of non-definitions with some definitions does not provide a basis for excluding this interpretation.
And you keep failing to provide any example that it is loose. So far, Doors and Gates both distinguish between hazard cards and hazard effects, and Tom goes out of his way to list the effects as separate from the hazard.
Your more limiting and specific interpretation ("hazard" only means "hazard card" and not "hazard effect") cannot be supported when there is nothing inconsistent with the more general interpretation ("hazard" refers to both cards and effects).
Shouting isn't making you look any more rational. Providing some examples of where the rules use "hazard" to refer to both a card and its effects would, but you aren't doing that.
Look at the Glossary listing of "Hazard." Despite the indication in the MELE Glossary section indicates that it provides "definitions" (the METW rules do not claim these to be definitions),
MELE wrote:Should a discrepancy arise between an aspect of the MELE and the METW rules, the MELE rules takes precedence as they were written with refinements in language and organization.
If it isn't there, then it isn't there
Exactly. And so far, what isn't there is any scrap of support for the idea that "hazards" should be read to include both cards and effects. Beyond the idea that somebody really wants to. I'll welcome some as soon as anybody bothers to produce some.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:12 pm

Theo wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:44 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:38 pm
Your more limiting and specific interpretation ("hazard" only means "hazard card" and not "hazard effect") cannot be supported when there is nothing inconsistent with the more general interpretation ("hazard" refers to both cards and effects).
Moreover, while the MELE glossary only has "hazard" encompass "hazard card", if "hazard" was not also meant to include "hazard actions" (just as "resource" has been generalized to both "resource card" and "resource action") there would be no rules governing hazard actions.
Ugh. There aren't, anyway.
MELE wrote:During your opponent's movement/hazard phase, the number of hazard cards that you may play on one of your opponent's companies is that company's hazard limit.
The closest we've got to anything that doesn't have to with cards or playing them (unless were going to start arguing that "Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play." actually means it's "the process of not bringing anything of the sort out of your hand because it's an action and not a card.") is in the CRF.
Some hazard permanent-events allow you to tap or discard them for an effect, and this does not count against the hazard limit unless specified otherwise on the card.
That's a rather large hole that needs to be plugged.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:45 pm

My condolences to your opponents.

dirhaval
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by dirhaval » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:24 am

I feel like Sam at the Council of Elrond.
I first thought Lost in Border-lands can be targeted by the ally since I thought, wrongly, the hazard limit
is an entity of the company. I saw Sauron's pasting of entity in an earlier post.

I do see that the ally can cancel the wolf attacks created by Fell Winter. I agree that River can be cancelled
at the start of the site phase. That is the company is affected by a future aspect of River, but the ally
must tap during the movement/hazard phase to cancel River. Oh my. Now I am confused with "do nothing during
the site phase." Is entering the site "doing" something. That is can you enter the site even with River
causing your trouble? You may want to kill an At Home hazard even though you are stuck after facing the attack?
Okay, moment of delusion has vacanted. No entering.

Baduila has the effect, causality, of affecting the company. If you angst against a hazard card, then I think it has
an effect on the company. Now, I do not think resurrection is an effect, for it is the rules that cause the character
to die. Ally can cancel the corruption check by Barrow-wight, but not the consquences of a failed cc.
All in my opinion, but you guys helped me conjure a resource idea for a deck to have mulitple Rumor of Rings
with each of the five skill rings and a minor so to get the right ring in hand based on what happens.

See you at the Green Dragon.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Theo » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:22 am

Ah, here we are:
CoL wrote:When Cards Are Played-A player may not declare any resources during the opponent's turn. Additionally, a player may not actively engage any resource or character effect during the opponent's turn (e.g., a player may not tap a Palantír during the opponent's turn). A player may not declare any hazards and may not actively engage any hazard permanent-events, etc. outside of the opponent's movement/hazard phase.
OK, so no using Spider of the Morlat or Baduila during your own turn. Good.

Further, I see this makes a distinction between resources and activated resource/character effects, and hazards and activated hazard effects. And yet,
CRF wrote:Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources, but may not be the targets for your resources.
CoL wrote:Illegal Targets-A player may not target an opponent's characters, companies, items, followers, etc. with his or her own resources. Of course, resource long-events and other cards which do not target and have global effects will affect opponent's cards.
These are entirely in terms of resources only. If a resource action targeting does not count as the resource itself targeting, this would mean that you may tap an opponent's sage at a Haven along with discarding a stored Reforging! (And then the item you retrieve is immediately discarded, but not before it triggered your well-timed Lure of Expedience!)

Instead, we need to believe that targeting by an active effect of a resource counts as targeting by the resource. Similarly, targeting by an active effect of a hazard should still count as targeting by the hazard. Cycling back to Baduila and Tom, I still conclude that Tom can cancel Baduila's discard effect.

Edit: except Baduila can no longer be targeted by Tom once he has been discarded as the active condition for his own targeting effect. So the question comes down to whether we parse "the effects of one hazard that targets..." as one target, or both "the effects" and "one hazard that targets..." as two needed targets for Tom.

I'd be all for allowing the first parsing, but I know in[imagine from] other historical contexts (on-guard cards, I think it was?), Konrad at least has[may have] been against such eliding.

[edited for fewer assumptions]
Last edited by Theo on Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:52 am

Can an opponent's *characters* be the active condition for your resources?

Also, I think the CoE has run into this issue before.
CoE 4 wrote:"May play resource cards that affect the strike" is interpreted as "may initiate resource/character effects that affect the strike". If you didn't, Fatty Bolger would be useless. Thus, Fatty and a Star-glass bearer could tap for the appropriate effect even if they are targeted by a strike.
The hole was there, as well, but I don't know that they made this of universal application.

As to the larger issue, it's been claimed that '"resource" has been generalized to both "resource card" and "resource action",' but here it looks like variants of "play a resource" have been generalized to include initiating actions from resources (and characters, which are certainly not resources by any stretch of the imagination!). (Though it makes sense; both playing cards and initiating such things are declared actions.)

Is there an instance of a card referring simply to a resource (not the playing of a resource) that can be generalized in such a way?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:26 pm

Image

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Theo » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:25 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:52 am
Can an opponent's *characters* be the active condition for your resources?
Yes. Well, I agree there are no explicit rules, but I think resource precedent would allow this. Three Golden Hairs and Return of the King come to mind as possibly involving an opponent's characters as part of their active conditions.
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.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Theo » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:42 am

Theo wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:22 am
I'd be all for allowing the first parsing, but I know in other historical contexts (on-guard cards, I think it was?), Konrad at least has been against such eliding.
I dug up the old thread: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... =16&t=3243
I had not quite correctly remembered what the disagreement then was about---it was more more about whether a target that satisfies the necessary qualifications is the same target even if the reason the qualifications are satisfied changes. It does raise the same question about whether the qualifications remain part of the target once they are satisfied, but to be safe I'll weaken my assertion about Konrad's opinion.

"one hazard that targets...", while an entity specified "by number and type", is not "an entity that an action is played out through." In my opinion, the canceling action is only played out through "the effects", and so Tom only needs to target those.

Long story short, I agree with 2008 Bandobras. >_<
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.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:44 am

Theo wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:42 am
In my opinion, the canceling action is only played out through "the effects", and so Tom only needs to target those.
Tom cancels all effects of X, but the X must target a company moving through listed regions.
In my opinion.

X may be itself effect o thef X.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:20 pm

2008 Bandobras was a funny fellow, all right. I'd hate to think I was incapable of changing an opinion in the light of new reasoning and evidence. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”