On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:08 pm

Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:26 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:54 am
3. Even if in M/H phase a target character was facing a Spider attack it was not the same Spider attack as faced in site phase.
In other words: in M/H phase it was not possible to play Flies and Spiders on any character facing a Spider attack in site phase.
The target of the card is the character, not the spider attack (although obnoxiously the card has an implicit "facing a strike from a spider attack"). The "character facing a spider attack" is the same character. Maybe this discussion should be moved to a card-specific thread.
Bilbo is facing a Spider attack #1 in M/H phase, later Bilbo is facing a Spider attack #2 in site phase.

If some hazard is played in site phase on character, or on hobbit, it may be said this is the same character, or hobbit which existed during the movement/hazard phase (Bilbo).

But if some hazard is played in site phase on character facing a Spider attack, the "character facing a Spider attack" in site phase is not the same "character facing a Spider attack" which existed during the movement/hazard phase.

Simply because Spider attack in M/H phase is ended, and Spider attack in site phase is still proceeded.

Some activity must last across M/H phase/site phase boundary to be able to said that this is the same activity that existed in both phases.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Theo » Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:18 am

I'm not used to thinking of an entire activity being a target, but rather the target is a character and the "facing a spider attack" is a qualifier that must be met for that character to be a target. I think this interpretation is supported by the remainder of the card: "If the strike is successful, target character is not harmed...", rather than "target character facing a spider attack".
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:51 am

I do not think that an activity is a target of Flies and Spiders, but that a character taking the activity (facing Spider attack) is a target.
Rules Erratum: An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been
played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must
have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.
What is target of Flies and Spiders played in site phase?

Character? Just Character?
Character that faces Spider attack?

Did this target exist in M/H phase?

At best an identical target existed. The same character would face other Spider attack in M/H phase.
Otherwise this means that "character that faces Spider attack" currently (where results of attack are not known yet) is the same what "character that faces Spider attack" in past (completed, where results of the attack are known already).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Theo » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:15 pm

We may be at an impasse. I am indeed saying that the character is the target (as written on the card), so the same target existed. The reason that the character is a valid target has changed because the spider attack has changed, but the "target character" is the same.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:05 pm

Theo wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:15 pm
The reason that the character is a valid target has changed because the spider attack has changed, but the "target character" is the same.
If Bilbo was not bearing a major or a greater item in M/H phase but he become bearer of such item in site phase, then someone would say that reason for which he is valid target of Dragon-Sickness did appear in site phase but the "the target character" is the same.
Actually only Bilbo in site phase is the same Bilbo as Bilbo in M/H phase. In M/H phase Bilbo - valid target of Dragon-Sickness did not exist.

Bilbo-facing-Spider-attack-in-site-phase (be the attack automatic-attack, or from revealed on-guard creature, or from Rescue Prisoners) did not exist in M/H phase. Maybe there was a Bilbo-facing-Spider-attack in M/H phase.

My point is that if target is described as "X during Y activity" the X must be the same X and Y must be the same Y in both M/H phase and site phase to say that target existed both in M/H phase and site phase.

There may be no real world situation that could prove or disprove the point.
But it may be worth to ask: whether Pledge of Conduct played on Bilbo facing cc in M/H phase and Pledge of Conduct played on Bilbo facing cc in site phase is the Pledge of Conduct played on the same target, or two Pledge of Conduct played on different but identical targets?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:26 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:05 pm
My point is that if target is described as "X during Y activity" the X must be the same X and Y must be the same Y in both M/H phase and site phase to say that target existed both in M/H phase and site phase.
And my point is that the target is "X", just X.

I'll try a life example. If I said, "Pick a car in this sales lot. I'll give it to you," I think the target of the picking is just the car. If you were to pick a car, and then I drove the car you picked out of the lot to the front of your house, it would still be the car that you picked as a target even though it is no longer "a car in this sales lot".

It would be strange to say, "this isn't the car-I-picked-in-your-sales-lot because it isn't in the sales lot anymore, go away." I mean, I understand that you can argue that, I just don't think it is the typical interpretation.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:42 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:05 pm
My point is that if target is described as "X during Y activity" the X must be the same X and Y must be the same Y in both M/H phase and site phase to say that target existed both in M/H phase and site phase.
I'm now realizing I also believe that the requirement Y needn't have even been true during the movement-hazard phase, only that it could have been true. Underline mine:
CRF wrote:Rules Erratum: An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.
It doesn't specify a limit on other hazards that could have been used to make it so that the card could have been played. If a player could point out a possible combination that could have allowed a hazard to have been played, I see no reason to not allow it to be revealed on-guard to affect a character/company (that existed during the movement hazard phase).

For example: Subtlety of Guile. Under the overly strict interpretation, it would be impossible to use on a dragon automatic attack or even Itangast at Home. But why should Itangast being in his (its?) home be any less guileful? The CRF doesn't actually place any such restriction using a more focused interpretation of target: the character or company, as long as it existed during the movement/hazard phase.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:14 pm

Rules Erratum: An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.
This is mine underline.
Subtlety of Guile wrote:The body of one non-Wizard character wounded by a Dragon attack is lowered by 1 unil the end of the turn.
Alternatively, lowers the body of one non-Wizard character wounded by a manifestation of Itangast by 2 until the end of turn or lowers the body of each non-Wizard character in a company facing an attack by a manifestation of Itangast by one until the end of the turn.
Cannot be duplicated on a given character or company.
Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:42 am
For example: Subtlety of Guile. Under the overly strict interpretation, it would be impossible to use on a dragon automatic attack or even Itangast at Home.
Yes. Because it can be played on described character, or on described company in both uses, not on automatic-attack, nor Itangast at Home manifestation.

It can be revealed from On-Guard for first use, second use, but not for "lowers the body of each non-Wizard character in a company facing an attack by a manifestation of Itangast by one until the end of the turn."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: On-Guards - Identical but not the same targets

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:43 pm

Thanks for confirming my impression of your interpretation.

"all targets" is not the same as "all targets and conditions". Nor do I think the rule should be changed to that.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”