Region types in card text

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Bandobras Took wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:22 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:19 pm The simple answer: No, because Withered Lands targets Region Types and the [-me_wi-] symbol in the card text of Framsburg is not a Region Type itself, just a reference to Region Types on creatures (see MELE p.26 and the color insert).
Agreed. And very well put.
Could a reference be provided for this notion of "just a reference to Region Types"? I have searched my sources in vain.

One implication would be that Withered Lands could not be used (preemptively) to change the region types that appear on Elven Cloak/Shadow-cloak, to change what they can cancel. (This is under a "strikes inherit from attack properties" assumption that allows these cloaks to cancel anything. O_o)
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

When Withered Lands and Framsburg mention the word "wilderness" in their text, they are referring to Region Types (i.e., "wilderness" is a type of region, denoted by a tree [-me_wi-] symbol), which are found on certain cards as shown in the color insert. To be helpful, the text of Withered Lands, Framsburg, etc. also include the symbols, dare I say it, for reference.

Framsburg lets you play a creature as an automatic-attack if it includes one of the mentioned Region Types or Site Types. Framsburg's text regarding automatic attacks is referring to the symbols on the side of the creature that would be played.

Withered Lands can change a Region Type of another card. It cannot change a word referencing a region type on another card.

Image
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Theo wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:40 pmCould a reference be provided for this notion of "just a reference to Region Types"? I have searched my sources in vain.

One implication would be that Withered Lands could not be used (preemptively) to change the region types that appear on Elven Cloak/Shadow-cloak, to change what they can cancel. (This is under a "strikes inherit from attack properties" assumption that allows these cloaks to cancel anything. O_o)
In much the same way that a card that requires a scout is not a scout, and a card that targets an agent is not an agent, a card that requires or targets a region does not become a region simply by virtue of the symbol that lets you know what it affects in the first place.

Withered Lands must target a Wilderness.

Elven Cloak allows the cancellation of an attack keyed to Wilderness.

One cannot change Elven Cloak's ability with Withered Lands, because the Wilderness mentioned in Elven Cloak is not a distinct entity, and therefore cannot be a target. You cannot use the Wilderness Symbol on Elven Cloak as part of the site path for a company. Instead, it is a limiter on the kind of attacks that Elven Cloak can cancel. A reference, as was said.
There are six types of regions and six types of sites:
If a card is not already a region or a site, then any such symbols on a card merely refer to the type of region/site that can be affected/used by the card.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Target is an entity.
Prowess and body are not entities. They are attributes describing entities.
As such they cannot be targeted. Action that changes particular character's or particular attack's prowess/body must target the particular character/attack.

Region symbols in company's site path and on map are entities.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:39 am Prowess and body are not entities. They are attributes describing entities.
How do we know that textual instances cannot also be targetable entities?
MELE Glossary: Targeting wrote:Some possible targets are: characters, corruption checks, strike dice rolls, items, sites, and companies.
Any "thing" could hypothetically be a target.

--
Bandobras Took wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 3:55 am In much the same way that a card that requires a scout is not a scout, and a card that targets an agent is not an agent, a card that requires or targets a region does not become a region simply by virtue of the symbol that lets you know what it affects in the first place.

Withered Lands must target a Wilderness.
Yes, I'm not confused that Elven Cloak is not itself a Wilderness. I'm scrutinizing the notion that Withered Lands must target "a Wilderness". Do we know that "a Wilderness" stands for "a Wilderness region", rather than any instance of "a Wilderness" in concept or text? Definitely a stretch, just trying to push the limits of insanity and cover the possibilities. (And possibly also distract CDavis from his crusade against subtle ARV proposals.)

An alternative answer for Elven Cloak might be that there is no time for Withered Lands to change its Wilderness instance? An actively declared effect has no effect on game play until it is resolved, so perhaps the "Wilderness" text in the Elven Cloak is still in a state of potential existence and does not truly exist as a fully-realized entity until after it is resolved (and changing it retroactively wouldn't prevent the canceling)? I'm just as not-fully convinced...
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:45 am How do we know that textual instances cannot also be targetable entities?
Card playable on character is not playable on occurrence of "character" word in text of other card.
Card playable on "X" is not playable on occurrence of "X" in text of other card.

(or is?)
Theo wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:45 am Any "thing" could hypothetically be a target.
Entity is primitive notion so it is not defined.
Some possible targets are: characters, corruption checks, strike dice rolls, items, sites, and companies.
This suggest that there are "things" that are not possible targets.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Theo wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:45 amYes, I'm not confused that Elven Cloak is not itself a Wilderness. I'm scrutinizing the notion that Withered Lands must target "a Wilderness". Do we know that "a Wilderness" stands for "a Wilderness region", rather than any instance of "a Wilderness" in concept or text? Definitely a stretch, just trying to push the limits of insanity and cover the possibilities. (And possibly also distract CDavis from his crusade against subtle ARV proposals.)
Yes. We do know that. When ICE wants something to affect/alter card text, they tell us that. See Webs of Fear and Treachery and Wizard's Trove.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Wizard's Trove is a great example of actually changing another cards text.

But for my understanding - "wilderness" is a term of the game. It has special meaning and associated mechanics described through out the rules.

The game does provide mechanics for altering attributes (skills, direct influence, prowess, body, mind, marshalling points). And the game provides mechanics for altering various checks (rolls). However, the game does not provide any mechanic for altering "Card Text" (besides those cards discussed).

And my crusade, if anything, is for saving the time of others. No one wants to spend hours reading BS. No one wants to take 10 minutes to read and understand a proposal only to realize that it is actually not a problem (no one misunderstands the supposed issue). And then move on to the next one to realize the same thing, and on and on and on.

Compare the 2018 proposals to the 2019 proposals. 2018 had 1 kind of junk proposals (multiplayer rules). Pretty much all of the 2018 proposals had debatable interpretations that were solved. That is not the case for over half of the 2019 proposals. No one thinks attacks from At Home Dragons are not "an attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon" for purposes of defeating manifestations. No one is forcing their opponent to make 2 CCs on palantir use. No one is inserting twilight into a currently resolving chain of effects, etc.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis, I appreciate you expressing your opinion on rule interpretations and furthermore hope that you do so via the vote itself. However, you claim to have other's interests in mind, but your intolerance for anyone having a different opinion on interpretations than you is destructive of open discussion and community. This is not the place for shouting matches or bullying tactics. I instead refer to the wisdom of another:
the Jabberwock wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:44 amWe are a small community of friends, so let's keep it friendly and extend mutual respect
the Jabberwock wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:58 amThere are many rules in the game that particular players may disagree with or think that they make "little sense." It is anything but clear as to why the powers that be back in the day may have made certain rulings. It could be for balance reasons, meta-game, unseen problems that arise elsewhere, etc, etc. It's a waste of time to lament the fact that a ruling was made which you disagree with. If you feel strongly enough about it, feel free to submit a proposal
Last edited by Theo on Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:12 am
Some possible targets are: characters, corruption checks, strike dice rolls, items, sites, and companies.
This suggest that there are "things" that are not possible targets.
Suggestion is the enemy of clarity.
Bandobras Took wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:06 pm When ICE wants something to affect/alter card text, they tell us that. See Webs of Fear and Treachery and Wizard's Trove.
Those are about exempting text. If anything, the lack of other examples/rules "suggests" that inclusion of card text is within the intended scope. Only our stubbornness prevents it.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:09 am Only our stubbornness prevents it.
No.
Negative definition of entity prevents it.
There is no (or is but I do not know it) positive definition of entity usable in the game.
Negative definition of entity is:
"Something what describes an entity is not entity itself".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Correction:
Negative definition of entity is:
"Something what describes an entity is not entity itself.
Unless a some entity is a group of other entities".

This means that if something cannot exist otherwise than in conjunction with some entity it is not entity itself.

A card is an entity. Text of a card cannot exist without conjunction with the card. So text of the card is not entity.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Umm . . . you may want to look at the *other* half of Wizard's Trove. Deliberately replaces a "reference" (exact quote) in the card text.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Intolerance? I agree with most all (I can't think of an exception) the reasoning and conclusion of the rules posts.

I have disagreed on some when I think the reasoning and conclusion are lacking information that should change the conclusion.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:28 am
Theo wrote: Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:09 am Only our stubbornness prevents it.
No.
Negative definition of entity prevents it.
There is no (or is but I do not know it) positive definition of entity usable in the game.
Negative definition of entity is:
"Something what describes an entity is not entity itself".
The implication of this is that a non-textual-instance "Wilderness" CANNOT be targeted by Withered Lands, because it is a descriptor of a region entity rather than being an entity itself. Uhoh. Unless that's what you meant by "Unless a some entity is a group of other entities"? But I cannot find your definition in the primary sources, so I'll continue to call this stubbornness. ;)

Meanwhile, a textual instance is still "a thing with distinct and independent existence"-Oxford. There is no description until one interprets it.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”