Alliance Of The Free Peoples wrote:Discard when any hero Dwarf faction, hero Elf faction, or hero Man faction is discarded from play. Cannot be duplicated.
Passive Conditions
* A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
* Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
I'm not sure what you're asking. The Passive Condition will only exist when Alliance resolves, not beforehand. If Alliance said "Discard
if any hero Dwarf faction, hero Elf faction, or hero Man faction
has been discarded from play," that would be different.
n case of some verbs, like "cancel", "close", "eliminate", phrase "it is cancelled/closed/eliminated" refer to the result of the activity rather than to the pending action. For pending action "it is being cancelled/closed/eliminated" must be used.
In case of some other verbs, like "dispute", "process", "drive" phrase "it is disputed, processed, driven" does not unambiguously refer to the result of the activity nor to the pending action. "It is being disputed/processed/driven" unambiguously refer to the pending action, "it has been disputed/processed/driven" unambiguously refer to the result.
So directly comparing of meaning "it is played" to meaning "it is cancelled" is a manipulation, unless it was unintentional (I hope).
According to the definitions, there is no manipulation.
Playing a card (present tense or participle, take your pick) is the process. A card is
played (past tense or participle) only if the process successfully resolves.
The language of a specific game may not follow the rules of the larger language, anyway:
Unabated wrote:The first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the effects of this card. Cannot be duplicated on a given attack.
If I look in my hand for a card that will cancel the attack, I have by normal language definitions attempted to cancel it, but not by the definitions of the game.
By the way, I do agree that the general idea of playing a card is open to interpretation, but I think the idea that a card is not considered played unless the process of bringing a card from hand into play successfully resolves allows for far fewer loopholes (provided you cannot declare illegal actions).
To return to the question of Alatar:
Creature Cards
You may use a creature card to directly attack one of your opponent's companies. Such an attack can occur only if one of the following criterion is met:
Creature Cards are used to directly attack companies, and playing a creature card is the most common method -- but it is not the only method for a creature card to directly attack companies. Therefore Alatar can be used on creature cards that are played.
Exhalation of Decay wrote:Playable on an Undead hazard creature in your discard pile. If target Undead can attack, bring it into play as a creature that attacks immediately (not counting against the hazard limit). The attack's prowess is modified by -1.
In Great Wrath wrote:Playable on a Nazgûl in your discard pile that could immediatly attack. The Nazgûl attacks immediately (not counting against the hazard limit) with +2 prowess and -1 body.
Here is the difference: Alatar could teleport to face attack created by Exhalation of Decay because the card text overrides normal definition of card play.
Alatar could not teleport to face the attack created by In Great Wrath because the Nazgul card attacks without being brought into play (according to definition in CRF).
I just wanted to know if He can teleport or not... Sages 
