Await the advent of allies and similar cards playability

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

Endless Whispers may be played on character wounded by Undead during current turn. Target cannot become untapped; is something make him untapped it make him tapped instead.
For the effect of the card, target does not need be in tapped state or in wounded state.

Only "if" in text of Await the Advent of Allies are conditions of discarding of the card.

If it is perceived as unintended/undesired state than solution is errata.
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

Theo wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:41 am As an exception, it couldn't have been a clarification but would have needed errata. No, what a card "did" is precisely "how the card usually works."
You misunderstand how ICE used the term clarification and errata. An errata is a change to the text and is used when the new text would contradict the published text. A clarification may or may not change how the card/game works given the original text, but does not contradict that text and there may or may not have been ambiguity. This is explained in the ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS section of the Player Guides.

It's very easy to go through the list of "clarifications" and see dozens of them that changed how the game or cards worked, rather than being an explanation. Even things as simple as Assassin. There is a rule that an attack cannot be cancelled after the strike is assigned. However, there is a mere clarification (not errata) to Assassin that the attack can be cancelled after it is assigned. There is no contradicting card text on Assassin so this is just a clarification and not an errata even though it changed how the game is played.

This also works for rules clarifications. Like the clarification that "The resolution of a character tapping to give +1 to a corruption check happens when the corruption check itself resolves."

But which clarifications changed how the game works and which didn't? You have to read the rules to know, or read the original announcement.

If you go back and read the announcements you'll see how this works.

----------
Theo wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:41 am Regarding rules on events, I thought we'd been over this before. I see no problem here, other than presumably your desire to interpret an allowance effect that lasts until the the card is discarded as an allowance effect that only occurs the moment the card is played. I have to say presumably, because despite having had several opportune posts you still haven't actually managed to clarify your rationale in any way I can understand. At least, were it not for Ichabod's claim of having talked to Mike, I would agree either interpretation could be possible.
The rules on permanent-events say that the effects are immediately implemented and they last until the card is discarded. Playing a character is an action that happens and is done. It's not an on-going effect with a duration. And it should be clear from reading the text of Open to the Summons. If the card was supposed to allow for the character to be played later it would be worded differently, like, "when the agent is played, place this card with the agent." The effect of placing Open to the Summons with the agent happens when the card resolves. The -1 to the agent's mind happens when the card resolves. If you play Open to the Summons without an agent all you have done is gotten a card out of your hand with no effect on the game. This is a violation of Legal Play of Cards but also goes against the rule on events stating that a card may only be played if its effects apply to an existing situation. If an agent is not played, then the effect did not apply to any situation, and the effects of the event were not implemented immediately.

It should also be obvious given the game's design. MECCG has hand-filling card draw but lacks currency costs for playing cards. The only way this makes sense is to require cards to be held in hand until a specific situation arises for them to be played -- and that's what MECCG requires.

----------

If a clarification was issued for Open to the Summons, then I would accept the change to how the card works. But no clarification was issued and for good reason -- none is needed and it also doesn't make sense given the card text. Perhaps it was thought that errata was needed.
Attachments
mewh_opentothesummons.jpg
mewh_opentothesummons.jpg (60.58 KiB) Viewed 912 times
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

When Await the Advent of allies states "character must stay at its current non-haven site" it is stating this on the basis that the character is at a non-haven site. The preceding sentence does not state that requirement but this sentence does. If it were 20 years ago I could see why players would argue against the author's intent and try to distort type-setting decisions by the editor for an unfair advantage, but we should be past that at this point.

Some people also want to pretend that this is an "effect" of the card and not a condition for play just because it's not in bold/italics. But there are many cards with conditions that are required for the card to be played which are not in the bold/italics statement. There are pages of Annotations to the rules explaining that this is how MECCG works and how cards are written.

With Await the Advent of Allies, the bold text simply defines the target and the following sentence gives a condition for the target's site as well as a prohibition against actions. The 2nd sentence doesn't make sense if the character is not already currently at a non-haven site since the effect is supposed to be immediately implemented. Given this, the target character's "current site" must be a "current non-haven site" as Await the Advent of Allies resolves.

I don't know why people want to pretend that later sentences cannot explain earlier sentences. Here is a lesson for 7th graders explaining this reading comprehension technique: https://www.khanacademy.org/ela/cc-7th- ... an-academy

Also, let's not forget that recognizing the author's purpose is a key to reading comprehension. There is no way Await the Advent of Allies makes any sense in the game if the conditions are not recognized. There are no currency-costs to play resource/character cards. GI is the only limitation on the player's ability to take actions. If the player is getting this huge advantage of having the character not count against GI, it's clear from the game's design that there also needs to be a huge limitation. And there is! It's right there in the card text. They must stay at their current non-haven site and the GI effect goes away when a resource is played at that site.

I should become a middle-school teacher.
Attachments
medm_awaittheadventofallies.jpg
medm_awaittheadventofallies.jpg (68.5 KiB) Viewed 908 times
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

What if Shifter of Hues would be in play and Radagast would appear in moving company?
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

Do as the card says. Don't do as the card doesn't.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Radagast would hang in air en route?
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

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:24 pm
Theo wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:41 am As an exception, it couldn't have been a clarification but would have needed errata. No, what a card "did" is precisely "how the card usually works."
You misunderstand how ICE used the term clarification and errata.
I suspect I'm instead confused about your use of "exception." But I'm not too concerned with its importance. To expand on my second sentence: 1) The question Ichabod is responding to is about playing Open to the Summons during the game, not specifically during the draft. 2) The phrase, "we decided it did stick around" responding to that question is similarly not specifically about the draft. 3) Only when we have an implication of that ruling "Therefore, if..." do we get draft context in this exchange, referencing that one fallout of the general sticking around was the reversal of an overruling from a conversation in a recent precious Digest that was about the draft in particular.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:24 pm The rules on permanent-events say that the effects are immediately implemented and they last until the card is discarded. Playing a character is an action that happens and is done.
I completely agree. But Open to the Summons is not worded simply "Play an agent," but has the word "may." This is an ambiguous word, which can mean both "must"---a requirement---as well as "are allowed to"---a permission. As a requirement, it makes sense that it needs to be followed immediately. As a permission, particularly on long and permanent events, we see several instances of ICE using it to mean a modification of the normal allowances. To know how to resolve the "may" ambiguity, ICE offered a helpful NetRep.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:24 pm If the card was supposed to allow for the character to be played later it would be worded differently, like, "when the agent is played, place this card with the agent."
I wonder whether you may simply be lacking familiarity with the em dash. There is no need for different wording for the placing effect to be conditioned on the play allowance being used. The em dash is briefer.

On the other hand, if we want to consider hypothetical wording variation, why didn't they say: "Playable on a company at a Darkhaven" in the initial bold text and drop the prepositional phrase in the sentence after and save themselves half a line? Why would they have included "Cannot be duplicated on a given character" if the effect was to actually require a play action and thus would be impossible for two Open to the Summons with two separate play actions to play the same character? :?
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

Theo wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:29 am 1) The question Ichabod is responding to is about playing Open to the Summons during the game, not specifically during the draft. 2) The phrase, "we decided it did stick around" responding to that question is similarly not specifically about the draft. 3) Only when we have an implication of that ruling "Therefore, if..." do we get draft context in this exchange, referencing that one fallout of the general sticking around was the reversal of an overruling from a conversation in a recent precious Digest that was about the draft in particular.
I was going on memory and I went back and read the conversation. It went like this:
Digest 123:
>If during the draft, two players with Open to the Summons simultaneously
>play the same agent. Neither player can now draft this agent. Does the
>fact the OttS is in play require both players to chose another agent later
>in the draft (if one is available in their draft pool)?

No, but if one isn't played OttS is discarded.

-----
Digest 124:
>When OttS is played during the game it would hang around on the company it
>is played on (as long as the company existed) until an agent was played
>with the company at a Darkhaven, when OttS would be placed of the agent,
>right?

That is not clear.

-----
Digest 125 (a follow up):
>That is not clear.

After talking with mike, we decdied it did stick around. Therefore, if
it is played during the character draft, and you are unable to play
the agent with it, it will stick around until you can play an agent
with the company during the game.

The same applies to Thrall of the Voice.
Given that the original question was about the draft, and the response provides a solution for the character draft, I don't see any reason to believe that Ichabod's statement in 125 was anything other than a fix for the problems arising during the character draft. He certainly was not issuing a clarification to the rules in PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS or EVENTS.

Without an explicit clarification to the card (which they decided not to issue), playing Open to the Summons in this way violates the fundamental rule on PLAYING AN DRAWING CARDS (card is playable only if its effect applies to an existing situation) and it is a violation of LEGAL PLAY OF CARDS (a card may only be declared if it meets at least one of the following criteria: (a) The card must have an immediate effect on the game. (b) The card is a long-event... (c) The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later (e.g., the second use of Dragon’s Desolation)... Only those that are playable on or with a certain entity are restrictive.)

The effects of Open to the Summons are (1) playing an agent at a haven and (2) reducing the agents mind.

If no agent is played and the agent's mind is not reduced, then the effects of Open to the Summons did NOT apply to an existing situation as required by PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS. Furthermore, it violates LEGAL PLAY OF CARDS as there was no immediate effect and there is also no potential effect that could be triggered later. If there was a potential effect of MEWH's Open to the Summons that could be triggered later it would be worded that same as the same as the 15 other MEWH cards that DO trigger later. Open to the Summons would be written like "place this card on the agent when they are played." There is no trigger condition given in the card. Instead, we have "place this card with the agent" and the MAIN rule we have stating how this effect of a permanent-event works is the rule: "The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented."

The rule says that effects are immediately implemented. Legal Play of Cards indicates that permanent-events playable on entitles have restrictions and must have an immediate effect or trigger. And there is no rule suggesting that the player can take actions at their whim as they please.

Plus, it should be obvious given the games design. Again, there's hand-filling card draw where you can draw as many cards as you play and yet there are no currency costs for playing cards. Requiring cards to be held in your hand until they apply to a specific situation is the only limitation.

I don't know why people are on the hunt for "tricks" that hamper the game's design and make it worse. Especially so long after.

----------
Theo wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:29 am
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:24 pm The rules on permanent-events say that the effects are immediately implemented and they last until the card is discarded. Playing a character is an action that happens and is done.
I completely agree. But Open to the Summons is not worded simply "Play an agent," but has the word "may." This is an ambiguous word, which can mean both "must"---a requirement---as well as "are allowed to"---a permission.
All of the cards say may. They say "may" because in games the player is only allowed to take actions defined by the rules, but with card games the cards can also allow them to take actions. Without Open to the Summons, you may not play an agent at a Darkhaven. But with Open to the Summons, you "may." Lots of short-events (A Chance Meeting, etc etc) also say "may."
Theo wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:29 am
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:24 pm If the card was supposed to allow for the character to be played later it would be worded differently, like, "when the agent is played, place this card with the agent."
I wonder whether you may simply be lacking familiarity with the em dash. There is no need for different wording for the placing effect to be conditioned on the play allowance being used. The em dash is briefer.
Nice try but there's nothing about the dash indicating that the statements are related has no suggestion that the effect are not "immediately implemented." And 15 other cards (several with much longer text than Open to the Summons) that actually do have conditions for triggering their effect later in MEWH disagree. The rules on permanent-events disagree. The rules on Legal Play of Cards disagrees. And seems like Mike had a change of heart too.
place this card on.PNG
place this card on.PNG (553.09 KiB) Viewed 868 times
----------

There is no rule allowing the player to take actions at their whim and even though the rules on events are relatively short, a large portion of those rules are spent explaining that the player cannot just play cards and then use them later when they feel like it.

If there was a clarification issued for Open to the Summons, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But Ichabod and Mike discussed this issue, they thought about issuing a ruling, and it never came. This is not the first time this happened. It happened lots of times.

----------

One interpretation has no support in the rules, violates legal play of cards, doesn't have the same language as other cards that can be triggered later, allows for a later effect in the game with no upfront cost in violation of the game's design, and relies on a post that was never issued as a ruling.

Another interpretation is founded on the rules for playing cards, follows the rules on events, is a legal play, and is consistent with the overall game design.

Again, I don't know why some people want the game to be worse just so that they can have a "trick." Even if both players can use the trick, the game is worse because of it. The designers provided a single mechanism to have costs balance effects. That's good game design. I just follow the rules.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Your response still seems predicated on not understanding more than one definition of the word "may," ignoring the linguistic evidence in the card text, ignoring the actual rulings given by the ICE netrep, ignoring how other cards worded similarly must work in the game to not be a total design failure, and frankly continuing to insinuate conspiracy theories against anyone who hasn't failed to do these things. I'm sorry to not be of more service.

I will attempt to avoid repeating the same points, but I think there are a few things in your response to clarify:
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:34 am Given that the original question was about the draft, and the response provides a solution for the character draft, I don't see any reason to believe that Ichabod's statement in 125 was anything other than a fix for the problems arising during the character draft.
The question in 123 was about the draft. It was answered. The same person asked a new question in 124. If 124 had also been about a draft, the person would have already had their answer from 123. I would conclude 124 must have been about something other than the draft. In fact, the questioner used different language "played during the game," rather than "during the draft." Beyond the questioner, if Ichabod had thought the question in 124 was still about the draft, he could have simply reused his answer from 123. I think there is ample evidence that of the two of them and you, only you may think 124 was about the draft. As you said, 125 follows directly from 124.
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:34 am All of the cards say may.
Irrelevant to the thread and the point that "may" needs to be interpreted, but this is factually incorrect. Thorough Search and Hour of Need come to mind.
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:34 am there's nothing about the dash indicating that the statements are related has no suggestion that the effect are not "immediately implemented."
Assuming "has no suggestion" was meant to be "that suggests," I agree. The point wasn't about what was suggested, but what was possible. "It would be worded differently" is baseless. You presented some other cards that do not use the em dash in the way I describe. Yet you present zero cards that indicate what you describe at the exclusion of what I describe. From what I've seen, all other uses of the em dash to separate two actions are cases where the first action is unambiguously a new at-will allowance granted to the player, with the single exception (in the sense of potential ambiguity) of Wizard's Trove, which as I recall went through exactly the same process of revisiting by Ichabod and Mike as OttS.
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:34 am There is no rule allowing the player to take actions at their whim
??? Maybe you were confused that someone was trying to argue that OttS meant that a player could play a character whenever they wanted, like during a strike sequence resolution by your opponent? Because I don't think anyone believes that. Under your interpretation (and presumably Ichabod's original interpretation), OttS can be played any time the player can play a resource on a company at a Darkhaven and allows an immediate character play. Under Ichabod and Mike's last documented interpretation, OttS can be played any time the player can play a resource on a company, and allows an agent being played with another action allowance to be placed with an existing company at a Darkhaven (when such placement was not normally allowed by the Bringing Characters Into Play rules). Yours is much closer to a new action at whim. Mine is not even a new action.
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

It may be usable to compare Open to the Summons with Helm of Her Secrecy.
The Dragons: Helm of Her Secrecy
Rarity: Rare, Precise: R2

Resource: Permanent-event

If Éowyn is in your hand, this card is playable on a company facing an attack (before strikes are assigned)-the company must contain a character with Edoras as a home site. If enough influence is available to control her, Éowyn may be played with (i.e., joins) the company. She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence. If the attack is a Nazgûl, place Helm of Her secrecy with Éowyn following the attack. Otherwise, discard this card following the attack. Regardless, Éowyn remains in play.
Helm of Her Secrecy allows to play Éowyn, but does not require to play her. And says what if the card is not on Éowyn after attack. Open to the Summons does not say, what if agent is not played with target company.
If playing agent character would me mandatory, why playing Éowyn would not be mandatory?
If Open to the Summons may be played only if target company is at Darkhaven and when agent character may be played, then also "If enough influence is available to control her" is condition of Helm of Her Secrecy.

If someone does not care about consistency, then appealing to his/her sense of consistency does not make a sense.
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

An interpretation relying on a dash and without any actual rule and only a Netrep response which did not follow ICE's own procedures for issuing rulings is a poor interpretation.

The rules are clear. The agent playing effect of OttS and the mind reducing effect must apply to an existing situation, not a future situation. Playing OttS without an agent is also a violation of the Legal Play rules clear because there is no condition (like, "when the agent comes into play") to trigger the card placing effect. An em dash by itself cannot convey the meaning of such a condition.

If the effect of Open to the Summons was an on-going effect providing the player an allowance, there is nothing in the OttS card text to prevent the player from using that allowance over and over to play multiple agents at the Darkhaven, moving the OttS card to the next as it is played.
Events.PNG
Events.PNG (74.27 KiB) Viewed 836 times
If a card was intended to do something other than having its effect implemented immediately, there would be at least one word telling the player how that is done. Open to the Summons has no words expressing that its effects can be taken later.

----------
Theo wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:36 am ignoring the actual rulings given by the ICE netrep,
If Ichabod and Mike wanted to make a ruling they would have issued one in the CRF. This goes against how the game works and without a clarification it doesn't work that way. If there was a clarification, I would agree. And ICE had a formal procedure for implementing changes and new rulings: "Rulings for the Middle-earth: Collectible Card Game fall into two categories now. First are those which cover ambiguous situations, and those rulings take effect immediately. Second are those which reverse previous rulings, introduce new rulings on non-ambiguous situations, and errata." Ichabod answering a question, even if he said he talked to Mike, is not a "ruling" under ICE's own procedure. If Ichabod and Mike couldn't be bothered to follow their own procedure and put the ruling in the Rulings Monday then it is clear that they decided not to issue a ruling at all.
Theo wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:36 am and frankly continuing to insinuate conspiracy theories against anyone who hasn't failed to do these things. I'm sorry to not be of more service.
Just because you're a try-hard looking to get an advantage over your opponent doesn't mean that my understanding of the game's design is a conspiracy theory. Everything I said about the design is true and the fundamental limitation on the player given this design is explicitly in the rules: "otherwise, a card is playable only if its effect applies to an existing situation". And this limitation was even clarified by Legal Play of Cards.

There is no way in the design of MECCG that a player does not have to hold Open to the Summons in their hand until they have the agent to play with it. Holding the card in hand is the only cost to play that card and it is the bare minimum cost for all cards in MECCG given the hand-filling card-draw and no-cost mechanics.
Theo wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:36 am From what I've seen, all other uses of the em dash to separate two actions are cases where the first action is unambiguously a new at-will allowance granted to the player, with the single exception (in the sense of potential ambiguity) of Wizard's Trove, which as I recall went through exactly the same process of revisiting by Ichabod and Mike as OttS.
There is nothing about a dash that indicates the preceding statement is a "a new at-will allowance granted to the player." There needs to be a WORD giving that meaning. The words matter because they need to overcome the rule that specifically states that the effects of a permanent event are immediately implemented.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:25 pm If the effect of Open to the Summons was an on-going effect providing the player an allowance, there is nothing in the OttS card text to prevent the player from using that allowance over and over to play multiple agents at the Darkhaven, moving the OttS card to the next as it is played.
"One agent character may be played with target company at a Darkhaven or in your starting company"
If on character is a company still target of Open to the Summons?
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

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:25 pm There is nothing about a dash that indicates the preceding statement is a "a new at-will allowance granted to the player." There needs to be a WORD giving that meaning. The words matter because they need to overcome the rule that specifically states that the effects of a permanent event are immediately implemented.
As stated, the word is "may." There is no additional allowance granted by the em dash. You appear to argue with nothing but your own paranoia.

===

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:25 pm If the effect of Open to the Summons was an on-going effect providing the player an allowance, there is nothing in the OttS card text to prevent the player from using that allowance over and over to play multiple agents at the Darkhaven, moving the OttS card to the next as it is played.
"One" can sometimes mean not more than one.

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:25 pm If a card was intended to do something other than having its effect implemented immediately, there would be at least one word telling the player how that is done. Open to the Summons has no words expressing that its effects can be taken later.
We indeed have many examples of effects being allowances and otherwise not being implemented immediately. "You may play" on Bad Company. "Make a roll" on corruption cards. So much more. What the effects not being implemented immediately have in common is that they follow phrases that logically condition their implementation. Rolls that result in removing the corruption card are conditioned on player choosing (not forced) to exercise allowance to attempt to remove the corruption card. OttS -1 to mind follows the condition of a player choosing to exercise use of allowance to play an agent at a site that might otherwise not be allowed. This is not novel.

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:25 pm If Ichabod and Mike wanted to make a ruling they would have issued one in the CRF.
"These are official rulings made on the METW mailing list." -- ICE Rules Digest 125 and so many others.
Also, historic context, Ichabod's last digest was within a week of this digest. I don't think Van demonstrated immediate proficiency in how things were "supposed" to work.

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:25 pm Holding the card in hand is the only cost to play that card and it is the bare minimum cost for all cards in MECCG given the hand-filling card-draw and no-cost mechanics.
This is naive. Needing to draw a card is a cost. The card taking up a slot in your deck is a cost. But one must also keep OttS in hand until 1) one has a company and 2) one is allowed to play a resource, so even under your own basis your deduction fails.
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

Theo wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 8:59 pm We indeed have many examples of effects being allowances and otherwise not being implemented immediately. "You may play" on Bad Company. "Make a roll" on corruption cards.
Sure. These effects are non-targeted events that apply to a class of entities, non-targeted effects that apply to some rules in the rulesbook, an effect triggered by a passive condition, or an effect initiated by some active condition, or there is some other word in the text specifying how it works different from the normal rules that events are immediately implemented.

Open to the Summons is a targeted effect that applies to a specific company and a specific character and there is nothing in the text to suggest that its effect is not immediately implemented. And in fact, it would violate Legal Play of Cards otherwise and Legal Play specifically calls out targeted permanent-events like Open to the Summons.

-----
Theo wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 8:59 pm OttS -1 to mind follows the condition of a player choosing to exercise use of allowance to play an agent at a site that might otherwise not be allowed.
This interpretation is a violation of Legal Play of Cards. It's clearly incorrect for at least that reason.

-----
Theo wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 8:59 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:25 pm If Ichabod and Mike wanted to make a ruling they would have issued one in the CRF.
"These are official rulings made on the METW mailing list." -- ICE Rules Digest 125 and so many others.
The Digests were not "official rulings." You're mistaken about how the NetRep worked and how ICE issued "rulings." The NetRep is a customer service representative that received booster packs in exchange for answering questions and being helpful on the 'Net. They did not make rulings and were explicitly not authorized to make "rulings." The NetRep answering a question is not a "ruling." The NetReps themselves have said this and I already posted copies of their own posts saying this here recently. As they said themselves, the NetRep is merely the "bearer of the rules," not the Rule maker.

Any "official ruling" would come from the Designers and it would be published as a ruling (clarification or errata) somewhere, on ICE's website, in a book, in the CRF... somewhere. At that point in time (Digest 125) it would have been published in the CRF and in this case, in the Rulings Monday. But it's not there. Apparently they decided against it. Not the first time Ichabod announced a new clarificaiton or errata which was never officially published.

-----
Theo wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 8:59 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:25 pm Holding the card in hand is the only cost to play that card and it is the bare minimum cost for all cards in MECCG given the hand-filling card-draw and no-cost mechanics.
This is naive. Needing to draw a card is a cost. The card taking up a slot in your deck is a cost. But one must also keep OttS in hand until 1) one has a company and 2) one is allowed to play a resource, so even under your own basis your deduction fails.
I think my understanding of the game mechanics and design decisions in balancing those mechanics is not within the definition of "naïve". Also, drawing cards and having a card take up a slot in a deck are not "costs" in terms of game design.

In game design, a "cost" is something lost of sacrificed to obtain some effect or result. This is the same meaning of "cost" outside of gaming in some contexts. Requiring the player to hold a card in a hand (with a limited hand size) until the card applies to an existing situation is a "cost" in the game design because it represents a sacrifice or loss that is used to obtain the effect. The player cannot hold another card which could be played to get an effect and draw them a new card. Instead they are stuck holding the card hoping for the situation to arise so that they can get the effect of that card.

Needing to draw a card and having one card in your deck compared to another card are not "costs" in terms of game design. The player doesn't lose or spend anything to achieve some result when they draw a card or have one card in their deck instead of another. This is not what a "cost" is.

But yes, randomly drawing the card you want is a limitation. Yet, drawing cards is hardly a limitation at all in a game with hand-filling card draw. The only thing restricting cards from being drawn are the restriction on playing cards: a card must apply to the existing situation.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”