Playing a card with Crown of Flowers that targets a character

[Konrad Klar]

If it were obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I call as witnesses 25 years' worth of MECCG errata and clarifications in my defense

... in your hand?

after resolving,

Still not obvious that I am talking about state of a card after its resolution, not about state of the card before resolution?

[Yangtze2000]

Still not obvious that I am talking about state of a card after its resolution, not about state of the card before resolution?

Ah right, but resolution wasn't the point of contention, as I understood it. I thought you were taking issue with the idea that someone might (mis)interpret the wording on CoF to mean that it had to be played at the same time as a Resource? I actually agree with your understanding of the card, as I've said every time, but I still think it's poorly worded.

[panotxa]

My former question was aimed, as somebody guessed before, to get rid of Fireworks with a Twilight before untap phase so the character untaps as usual. But the WHY is not the point of this debate.

I can understand most of the points of view shared here. I feel that the “common sense” should not allow playing CoF this way (not even with a permanent like Sacrifice of Form, in my opinion, which is something legal) but this game’s rules have nothing to do with common sense.

I do feel that resources that have to be “played with” a specific card, like Fireworks, should not be “played with” another card, but it’s hard for me to find a strong argument that doesn’t allow this...

What I clearly see is that we get always lost in eternal debates... we need a Netrep that provides answers to this kind of inquiries, despite not pleasing everyone (better than not pleasing no one, like now).

Anyway, thanks to everybody that joined the discussion... hope I get something clear from it

[CDavis7M]

You are postulating now an existence of "fixed card position" rule, such that a card cannot change its position on table, unless it is explicitly required or allowed by rules, or text of the card. Rule that prevents actions that would change position of the card.

This is literally the fundamental principle of game design. The player can't take actions unless the game allows it. There is no game anywhere, ever, that does not follow this.

This is like stating that because rules do not say about possibility of moving allies between companies, a character controlling an ally cannot join other company.

Another bogus analogy on the Quest for Inconsistency. The character literally "controls" the ally, of course the ally goes along. This is what "control" means.

When is the last time you read the ally rules? Iif there was any question beyond that, the Ally rules spell it out: "Every ally is controlled by the character that tapped to bring it into play; i.e., it must be placed under and remain with that character’s card."

----------

Hmm... I think I'm more with Konrad here. Fireworks is a Resource and that's the only condition imposed by Crown of Flowers. And there's nothing in the rules that says an Environment like Crown of Flowers cannot be played 'with' (or moved after play to) a character, though it wouldn't change it's game effect and would usually just be confusing, which is where CDavis7M's positional point comes in.

This is not my position. As stated above, if you could somehow play Fireworks with Crown of Flowers that would allow Fireworks to be discarded early by discarding CoF, thereby allowing your character to untap earlier since Fireworks would have prevented them from untapped if it were in play.

There is also no basis for the argument that "there's nothing in the rules that says an Environment like Crown of Flowers cannot be played 'with' (or moved after play to) a character". The player cannot take an action unless allowed to by the rules. I don't get why this argument is brought up so often. This should be obvious because otherwise you're not playing by the rules the game, you're cheating. This is universal.

To work with Fireworks, you would have to play fireworks on the character and then pick Crown of Flowers up and place it with Fireworks. There is nothing on Crown of Flowers that allows this. The resources needs to be "played with" Crown of Flowers otherwise it is not "played with" Crown of Flowers. If Crown of Flowers were meant to be movable to another resource, it would have used the existing game mechanic of "place this card with [that card]." But Crown of Flowers doesn't use that mechanic.

The fact that a game mechanic exists to perform the action coupled with the fact that Crown of Flowers doesn't have that mechanic should make it clear that the player doesn't get to perform that action of their own accord.

[CDavis7M]

I feel that the “common sense” should not allow playing CoF this way (not even with a permanent like Sacrifice of Form, in my opinion, which is something legal) but this game’s rules have nothing to do with common sense.

The game rules definitely "make sense" but they don't always follow what the RPG simulation would suggest ("common sense"). The rules are dense, but there is consistency. The mechanics are not sacrificed for the sake of simulation.

By the way, Sacrifice of Form is "Wizard only" which means "Only playable on a Wizard." The Sacrifice of Form card is played on the wizard character card. This is how the cards have been ruled and the errata to other cards shows this. Sacrifice of Form cannot be played "with" Crown of Flowers because it is already played on the Wizard. Then, when the Wizard and non-items are discarded, and instead of discarding Sacrifice and other items, they are moved off-to-the-side. So if CoF was played with SoF, it would have been discarded.

[CDavis7M]

I feel that the “common sense” should not allow playing CoF this way (not even with a permanent like Sacrifice of Form, in my opinion, which is something legal) but this game’s rules have nothing to do with common sense.

The game rules definitely "make sense" but they don't always follow what the RPG simulation would suggest ("common sense"). The rules are dense, but there is consistency. The mechanics are not sacrificed for the sake of simulation.

By the way, Sacrifice of Form is "Wizard only" which means "Only playable on a Wizard." The Sacrifice of Form card is played on the wizard character card. This is how the cards have been ruled and the errata to other cards shows this. Sacrifice of Form cannot be played "with" Crown of Flowers because it is already played on the Wizard. Then, when the Wizard and non-items are discarded, and instead of discarding Sacrifice and other items, they are moved off-to-the-side. So if CoF was played with SoF, it would have been discarded.

I do feel that resources that have to be “played with” a specific card, like Fireworks, should not be “played with” another card, but it’s hard for me to find a strong argument that doesn’t allow this...

Strong argument: the rules don't allow it. A completely separate action would be required. The game already has a mechanic ("place this card with that card") that would allow that action. And CoF does not implement that mechanic. So CoF does not work with Fireworks.

Actions beyond the rules are cheating. This is what cheating is. MECCG is not Formula 1 where everything that is not restricted is allowed. And even with Formula 1, the rules specifically say that other changes are allowed.

[panotxa]

I don’t see since when Sacrifice of Form can not be played with Crown of Flowers...

You say the rules don’t allow it, but last time I checked this was the official approach:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1673&p=17065#p17065

[CDavis7M]

I don’t see since when Sacrifice of Form can not be played with Crown of Flowers...

The same reason Fireworks can't be played with Crown of Flowers. Sacrifice of Form is played on the Wizard because this is what "Wizard only" means, it targets the Wizard. This is why ICE ruled that "___ only" cards cannot use your opponent's characters--the card cannot be played on your opponent's cards, it cannot target them. This is why Vilya received errata from "Elrond only" to "Playable on Elrond." Sacrifice of Form is played on the Wizard.

You say the rules don’t allow it, but last time I checked this was the official approach:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1673&p=17065#p17065

The rules don't allow it. This is a decision from a player-run organization, not a rule from the game designers. And even the ruling says "I think it's allowed to play any (hero/stage) resource with CoF, but of course any requirements for playing said resource would still need to be met." Sacrifice of Form requires that it be played on a Wizard. Miguel did not consider that.

[Konrad Klar]

Another bogus analogy on the Quest for Inconsistency. The character literally "controls" the ally, of course the ally goes along. This is what "control" means.

When is the last time you read the ally rules? Iif there was any question beyond that, the Ally rules spell it out: "Every ally is controlled by the character that tapped to bring it into play; i.e., it must be placed under and remain with that character’s card.

Just that. There are two associated cards. One must stick with other.
An ally is controlled controlled by a character.
For Crown of Flowers and a resource played with it there is no hierarchy specified.

[CDavis7M]

Just that. There are two associated cards. One must stick with other.
An ally is controlled controlled by a character.
For Crown of Flowers and a resource played with it there is no hierarchy specified.

Being together is literally the definition of the word "with." There is nothing that can be "with" two completely separate things, they are separate, they are not "with" each other. "With" may also imply control by or of something. The game designers can't go defining every basic English word, some reading comprehension is required.

Fireworks doesn't work with Crown of Flowers because the Character and Crown of Flowers are separate, they can never be "with" each other and so neither can "Fireworks."

• There is a character in play. Characters are played with a company at a site.
• Crown of Flowers is a resource. It is played in your Play Area.
• Crown of Flowers and the Character are distinct and separate cards.
• Fireworks is played. Fireworks is "playable on a character." It is placed with the character. Crown of Flowers is in a completely different location in the Play Area.
• There is no rule or any effect on Crown of Flowers that lets the player pick it up from the Play Area and place it "with" the Fireworks and the character.

Crown of Flowers only works with non-targeted events that are not played "with" some other card.

• Crown of FLowers is played in your Play Area.
• A non-targeted resource is played with Crown of Flowers

[Konrad Klar]

There is no rule or any effect on Crown of Flowers that lets the player pick it up from the Play Area and place it "with" the Fireworks and the character.

There is no rule that says how exactly Crown of Flowers, Fireworks, Chance of Meeting does work.
Rules create some boundaries within which cards, actions may be played/taken/function.
There is no rule like "card have fixed position at play area, unless specifically stated otherwise".
Nothing bounds Crown of Flowers to its initial position at play area, like nothing bounds permanent-events played on character to their initial position at play area. A character card is moved to other site, other company, permanent-events played on the character moves along the character.

[CDavis7M]

There is no rule like "card have fixed position at play area, unless specifically stated otherwise".
Nothing bounds Crown of Flowers to its initial position at play area

This is not how MECCG works and it is not how any game works. The rules define what actions the players can take. The players cannot take actions outside of the rules. That is called "cheating."

There is no rule like "a player may not search through their play deck to see what they might be drawing." But that is cheating.
There is no rule like "a player may not draw cards from their deck anytime they like." But that is cheating.
There is no rule like "a player may not knock cards out of their oppoents hand to see what they are and hide the good ones." But that is cheating.

It doesn't matter whether there is a rule that binds Crown of Flowers to its initial position. What matters is that there is no rule or card effect that allows Crown of Flowers to be moved with Fireworks. Moving Crown of Flowers to be with Fireworks is cheating - it is an action beyond the rules of the game. Crown of Flowers only works on a card that is physically played with it. Fireworks is physically played with the character, not with Crown of Flowers. There is nothing allowing the player to move Crown of Flowers to be with Fireworks. End of story.

Very inconsistent for the Enforcer of Consistency to insist that a player can cheat.

A character card is moved to other site, other company, permanent-events played on the character moves along the character.

This is because the character "controls" those resources. I just posted a portion of the rules that explains what "controls" means besides what should be understood by its definition. Cards controlled by another card are are placed under that card and remain with that card. This would be the case even if the rules didn't explain, it's what "controls" means.

[Yangtze2000]

Ah, you can't have it both ways, CDavis7M. You can't say in one breath if it's not stated it's not allowed, and then in the next breath argue much of what we consider to be the rules of a game is inferred.

[CDavis7M]

Ah, you can't have it both ways, CDavis7M. You can't say in one breath if it's not stated it's not allowed, and then in the next breath argue much of what we consider to be the rules of a game is inferred.

... That's not what I'm saying. I never said that the rules of the game are "inferred." They are definitely not inferred. I'm simply referencing the fact that Words have an inherent definition beyond how they are described in the rules. The rulesbook relies on the standard definition of most words because it cannot possibly hope to define every word that it uses. The rules literally say that a character can "control" a resource. What else could "control" mean in this context besides "the power to use and take actions with those cards"? If the card is "controlled" by some entity, it must necessarily stay with that entity that "controls" it otherwise it would not be "controlled" - by definition. And if there was any question about "control," the rulesbooks says that a controlled card is placed under and remains with that card.

There is nothing in the statement "You can play one resource from your hand with this card" on Crown of Flowers that suggests that the resource played from your hand can be played with a different card and then Crown of Flowers can then be picked up and placed with that resource. By definition, an entity can not be "with" two completely separate entities. It can only be with one of them. What else does "with" mean in this context besides "physically next to / possession of or by"?

[Yangtze2000]

There's plenty in the statement that suggests you can play both cards at the same time, though, and if the Resource card is targeted the Flowers would presumably go with it.

The word 'with' isn't used in the rules that I can see. A controllable resource is first 'played', and then tucked under the character that is to control it. It's a two stage process, at least in description. So to where is the Resource played before it is tucked? Wherever it is played to, it is then clearly moved to be tucked. So there is a precedent of play-then-move without that being spelt out on the cards.

It would be interesting to know how many other cards use this vexatious word 'with', and if the usage is consistent.

Anyway, if you're saying the designer has already clarified the card's intentions then there's no argument.