Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Konrad Klar »

Helms of Iron wrote:Playable only if you have a Nazgûl permanent-event in play. Discard the Nazgûl when this card is brought into play. All Orc, Troll, and Man attacks with body have their body modified by +1; and all Orc, Troll, and Man attacks with no body have 4 body. ...on the front of their iron helms was an S-rune, wrought of some white metal.-LotRIII
Scimitars of Steel wrote:Playable only if you have a Nazgûl permanent-event in play. Discard the Nazgûl when this card is brought into play. All Orc, Troll, and Man attacks receive +1 prowess. Day drew on. The goblins gathered again in the valley. There a host of Wargs came ravening and with them came the bodyguard of Bolg, goblins of huge size with scimitars of steel.-Hob


An article a in the phrase "Playable only if you have a Nazgûl permanent-event in play." indicates an unspecified Nazgûl permanent-event.
In other words a different Nazgûl permanent-events may satisfy a playability conditions, one at declaration, other at resolution.

However an article the in the phrase "Discard the Nazgûl when this card is brought into play." indicates that the Nazgûl permanent-event is specified i.e. previously chosen, or mentioned Nazgûl permanent-event.

Therefore it is unclear (for me) whether a/the discarded Nazgûl permanent-event is a target of the "discard" action, or not.
I am suspecting that intention of ICE has been expressed in the phrase "Playable only if you have a Nazgûl permanent-event in play." and use of the in the phrase "Discard the Nazgûl when this card is brought into play." is unfortunate (i.e. the article should be replaced by a, and if so it should be addressed by next errata).

Comments?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Bandobras Took »

This is a tough one. I could see it going either way.

I'm leaning more towards selecting a specific Nazgul event at declaration, though.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1052
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Theo »

The discarding should probably be an active condition for declaration. No freebies.

Something like, "Discard the Nazgûl when this card is brought into play, or this card has no effect." to trigger CRF annotation 6.
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!

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Bandobras Took »

That runs into the basic problem of, at resolution, there not being a Nazgul permanent-event in play, thus the card play action cannot successfully resolve. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by rezwits »

WOW
IMAGE LINK ZOOMING
(install this Chrome Extension Hover Zoom)
(install this FireFox Extension Hover Zoom)
(install this Safari Extension HoverSee)$$
URL ex = "https://cardnum.net/img/cards/METW/metw_gandalf.jpg"
nb to play at cardnum.net you have to disable!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1052
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Theo »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:59 am
That runs into the basic problem of, at resolution, there not being a Nazgul permanent-event in play, thus the card play action cannot successfully resolve. :)
Discard active conditions are the one exception for the card needing to still be in play. Otherwise wouldn't your interpretation mean that Annotation 6 would prevent nearly all discard abilities, including such commonly used cards as cram, Baduila, etc. Underline mine:
CRF Active Conditions wrote: An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the player invoking the action.
Annotation 5: If an action requires an entity to tap as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be untapped when the action is declared; else, the action may not be declared. Tap the entity at this point; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action. When it comes time to resolve the action in its chain of effects, that entity must still be in play and tapped or the action is canceled.
Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.
Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.
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!

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Bandobras Took »

Oh, no. That's just fine. Baduila needs to be discarded to bounce a company. Discard him and bounce the company.

The problem is that to play Helms/Scimitar at all, you need to have a Nazgul perm in play at resolution. Otherwise, the playability condition no longer exists and the card fizzles.

My favorite example of the problem is actually Far-Sight, where you have to play the card on an untapped sage at an untapped site as a playability condition, but unfortunately have to tap both as an active condition for the card's search action. As written, that card fizzles itself.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Konrad Klar »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:56 pm
My favorite example of the problem is actually Far-Sight, where you have to play the card on an untapped sage at an untapped site as a playability condition, but unfortunately have to tap both as an active condition for the card's search action. As written, that card fizzles itself.
I do not believe so and you, apparently, do not believe in my explanation:
There is nested chain of effects (nested in chain of effects in which Far-Sight has been declared); tapping a sage happens at declaration of searching for item.

This make the card needlessly complicated. It would be better to write "tap sage and..." than "tap sage to", but anyway it can work.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Bandobras Took »

If the declaration of searching for the item only occurs after the card play action has resolved, then my entire understanding of chains of effects will need to be transformed.

Is this how all cards should be handled? Card play declares and resolves, and only then are any actions on the cards declared and resolved?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Konrad Klar »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:18 pm
Is this how all cards should be handled? Card play declares and resolves, and only then are any actions on the cards declared and resolved?
No. Sometimes a nested chain of effects is a necessary. If an action is an attack, or a strike then it is necessary to allow for nested chain. If a character is wounded in strike sequence a new nested chain is created (see Annotation 19).

I think that it is an accident that a glitch in text of Far-Sight resulted in text allows the card to work, albeit in unusual way. Usually such glitch makes a card not playable, defunct, or gimp.

Such card texts may be, of course, created deliberately. See all card that allow an agent to make an influence attempt and reconsider, how they actually work :x .
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1052
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Theo »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:56 pm
Oh, no. That's just fine. Baduila needs to be discarded to bounce a company. Discard him and bounce the company.

The problem is that to play Helms/Scimitar at all, you need to have a Nazgul perm in play at resolution. Otherwise, the playability condition no longer exists and the card fizzles.
I'm suggesting placing the requirement for the Nazgul permanent event entirely into the active condition. My fault for not trying to give full text examples. Something like:

Helms of Iron full text: "Discard one of your Nazgûl permanent-events in play when this card is played or this card has no effect. All Orc, Troll, and Man attacks with body have their body modified by +1; and all Orc, Troll, and Man attacks with no body have 4 body."

Scimitars of Steel full text: "Discard one of your Nazgûl permanent-events in play when this card is played or this card has no effect. All Orc, Troll, and Man attacks receive +1 prowess."

Or maybe swap the "has no effect" to an explicit "cannot be played".
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!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Konrad Klar »

Or maybe simply "Discard one of your Nazgûl permanent-events to play this card..." .
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1052
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Theo »

Although I was trying to avoid someone discarding a Nazgul hazard from their hand.

"Discard one of your Nazgûl permanent-events in play to play this card."?
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!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Konrad Klar »

Yes.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Helms of Iron, Scimitars of Steel and (un)specified Nazgûl permanent-event

Post by Bandobras Took »

Yes, that would work.

@ Konrad: I'm still not quite understanding this idea of nested chains; could you make another thread describing the concept?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”