Prowess of Age and The Tormented Earth (could vs would)

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

The Dragons: Prowess of Age
Rarity: Rare, Precise: R3

Hazard: Short-event

Targets and cancels any effect which (declared earlier in the same chain of effects) that would cancel an attack from a unique Dragon manifestation. Alternatively, gives a prowess bonus to a Dragon or Drake attack (must be played before its strikes are assigned) dictated by the number of Prowess of Age cards played on the attack: +1 prowess if 1 played; +4 if 2 played; +9 if 3 played. "'...Then I was young and tender. Now I am old and strong, strong, strong.'"-Hob
Against the Shadow: The Tormented Earth
Rarity: Uncommon, Precise: U3

Resource: Short-event

Magic. Sorcery. Playable on a sorcery-using character facing a non-automatic-attack. Cancels the attack or gives the attack -3 prowess, your choice. Unless he is a Ringwraith, character makes a corruption check modified by -4. Cannot be duplicated against a given attack. "...as if...smitten with a shower of bolts and huge slingstones..."-LotRVI
Bold original.

Can Prowess of Age target The Tormented Earth?

As I see, declared The Tormented Earth neither would cancel attack, nor would give the attack malus to its prowess.
The choice (to cancel or to give malus) is made as part of main effect of The Tormented Earth.

EDIT: not all bold texts was marked as bold.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

I like that you included the work "or" in bold as in the original text. I find the bold "or" to be important in the cards and rules. Probably why it is in bold.

For Tormented Earth, it seems like it has the option between one effect or another effect -- an "optional effect" if you will.

There are rules for this type of thing.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I am selective. I like "your choice" and I like the lack of "alternatively".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:51 pm I am selective. I like "your choice" and I like the lack of "alternatively".
Tormented Earth has optional effects, but the player playing the card must does not have to choose which will take place. He must does not do this at the time the card is played, not but when it is resolved in its chain of effects.

... hmm...

By the way, the card does not lack "alternatively." It's part of "or."
Or.jpg
Or.jpg (12.48 KiB) Viewed 1464 times
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

CRF, Timing wrote:Annotation 27: If a card has optional effects, the player playing the card must choose which will take place. He must do this at the time the card is played, not when it is resolved in its chain of effects. When such a card is resolved, if any active conditions for the choice of effects do not exist, the card has no effect and is discarded. The player may not at this point choose to implement an alternative effect of the card.
You decide whether Tormented Earth is canceling or giving -3 prowess at declaration (ICE's imprecise language strikes again, but the intent of "time the card is played" is made clear by "not when it is resolved").

Prowess of Age will only be valid if the canceling option for Tormented Earth is chosen at declaration.
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

I know and I agree with Annotation 27.
What I said is that The Tormented Earth is not a card with two alternative effects, likewise A Lie in Your Eyes is not a card with two to three alternative effects. Rats! is not a card with two alternative effects.
Ignoring the difference, that the word "choice" makes, means a lack of acceptance for existence of the cards that allow for a choice as main effect.
And if you are opting for that, try to be consistent.
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

You have the option of canceling the attack or modifying its prowess. You cannot do both. You do not *have* to cancel the attack. You do not have to modify its prowess.

Therefore, they are optional by any reasonable definition of the word. What is not optional is to choose between the options.

Edit: effect/action of Rats and Lie are also chosen at declaration, not resolution.
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

Bandobras Took wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 6:08 pm Therefore, they are optional by any reasonable definition of the word. What is not optional is to choose between the options.
Annotation 27: If a card has optional effects, the player playing the card must choose which will take place. He must do this at the time the card is played, not when it is resolved in its chain of effects. When such a card is resolved, if any active conditions for the choice of effects do not exist, the card has no effect and is discarded. The player may not at this point choose to implement an alternative effect of the card.
Underlines mine.

I think that The Tormented Earth, Rats!, A Lie in Your Eyes, Will You Not Come Down? are not the cards that have an alternative effects. They have one effect and the effect is a choice between the options.

Granted, in Annotation 27, CRF uses the terms interchangeably. Take it as is (as though "optional" and "alternative" would be the same) and you will encounter problems quickly.
The Lidless Eye: Rats!
Rarity: Uncommon, Precise: U

Hazard: Short-event

Playable on a company containing at least one minor item that is at or moving to a [-me_rl-] , [-me_sh-] , or . [-me_dh-] Company discards one minor item of its choice or chooses one of its characters to become wounded (no body check required)
"the player playing the card must choose which will take place" but "Company discards one minor item of its choice or chooses [...]".

Problems masked (not visible) in case of resources, if a choice is made by the same player that is playing a card. But mechanics is the same as in case of hazards.
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

The cards have optional effects.

If the optional effect you have chosen becomes invalidated due to failing to meet conditions, you may not then choose an alternative to the effect that you already chose.

Of *course* they aren't cards that have alternative effects. They are, however, cards that have optional effects.

At the risk of pedantry:
op·tion·al
adjective
available to be chosen but not obligatory.
This is the standard English definition of the word. That describes exactly the situation with all three cards you named. Having to choose between options is not the same thing as not having options.

You are focusing on "alternative" when that word is meant merely to describe a forbidden course of action at *resolution.* It has nothing to do with declaration.

So we do not take "optional" and "alternative" to be the same thing, as they are describing different things (an attribute of card text and an action/effect, respectively) at different points during the chain of effects.

Regarding the specific card:

Rats! provides the options of:
A) have company's player choose item to discard; or
B) have company's player choose a character to wound.

When the hazard player chooses A or B, the company's player will then decide the item/character.

All at declaration.
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

Bandobras Took wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 8:00 pm If the optional effect you have chosen becomes invalidated due to failing to meet conditions, you may not then choose an alternative to the effect that you already chose.
Bandobras Took wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 8:00 pm Rats! provides the options of:
A) have company's player choose item to discard; or
B) have company's player choose a character to wound.
So if company's player choose (A) and the item in question is Potion of Prowess (chosen at declaration too), he may in response discard the Potion of Prowess for effect and invalidate Rats!, even if the company possesses other minor items.
Or maybe company's player may choose at declaration (A), but which minor item will be discarded is chosen as main effect?

Primary effect of Drowning Seas may be fizzled so easily too. Moreover Drowning Seas may not be played at all for its primary effect if there is no item to discard.*

*) I think that I have déjà vu.
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

With the slight correction that the hazard player chooses A, and then company's player chooses Potion of Prowess -- it would be valid to discard Potion of Prowess in response, causing Rats! to fizzle. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this.

Nor is there anything wrong with preemptively discarding the item chosen for Drowning Seas.

It is similar to taking Spider of the Morlat back to hand in response to the resource player targeting it with Voice of Malice -- you don't suddenly get to change what you're targeting with Voices of Malice just because your opponent did something. Nor do you get to go back and select a different option on a card like Rats! just because your opponent did something.

And in no case would these decisions be made at resolution.
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

I think that if hazard player chooses A, and company has Potion of Prowess and Elven Rope then usually Potion of Prowess will be designated as victim and then discarded for an effect. The same for any other item that can be discarded for effect in response to Drowning Seas (1st effect).
Bandobras Took wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:45 pm There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this.
I do not know what is intrinsically wrong at all.
If comes from something then leads to similar something.

And no matter how much a creator of some card would want to create a card that allows for choosing a card in play or choosing some option as part of main effect, he is unable to do so because a choosing is intrinsically tied to declaration.

Some chances for choosing a card not in play (e.g. Eyes of Mandos) and for choosing that takes place after die roll (e.g. Call of Home).
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

Offhand, since the choice cannot be made until the cards are actually drawn, you can't really declare "choose one" at all when declaring Eyes of Mandos. The 8 cards, as such, don't exist as an entity, and you're not declared to declare actions just because the required entity *will* exist by the time the card resolves.

Of course, if the action of choosing were caused to happen as the result of a card *already in play* (resolved Eyes of Mandos with eight cards), then it would be the first declared action in its own little chain of effects, but that would require diving into the mess that is the timing of Short Events, and is tangential to the original question, anyway.

Nothing supports the idea that you don't decide which optional effect you use when declaring a card/action with optional effects.
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

Bandobras Took wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2023 12:37 pm Offhand, since the choice cannot be made until the cards are actually drawn, you can't really declare "choose one" at all when declaring Eyes of Mandos.
Offhand, you are right.
Nothing supports the idea that you don't decide which optional effect you use when declaring a card/action with optional effects.
Maybe with except of lack of phrase "choice" in places where obviously there is a choice but a choice made at declaration. And its presence in places that are matter of controversy between us.
Marvels Told discards an event, but does not discard an event of someone's "choice", Call of Home is playable on character, but is not playable on character of someone's "choice".

Unreflective reading a highway code will not give an answer for question "where to go". At best it can lead to conclusion that a highway code has been created for those who have a reason to go somewhere.
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 2:41 pm
Bandobras Took wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2023 12:37 pm Offhand, since the choice cannot be made until the cards are actually drawn, you can't really declare "choose one" at all when declaring Eyes of Mandos.
Offhand, you are right.
I was wrong. You are not right here.
Like in case of A Malady Without Healing - body check will not be performed if 1st corruption check will discard/eliminate target character. Nonetheless the body check is declared action.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”