How do hazard creatures which create persistent effects work?

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:22 am After split, a resulting (non-original) companies lose their history? They are not considered facing Undead attack in this turn?
I'd suppose that any non-original companies would not inherit history. They are a different, new entity. Characters inherit history (relevant for e.g. Dark Numbers).
Kjeld wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:48 pm The ruling seems to only apply to "resource permanent-events". Why be so specific if it was meant to apply more broadly? I don't think this applies to resource short-events (e.g. Secret Entrance), let alone hazard effects like Chill Douser or Uruk-lieutenant.
The first sentence of the ruling establishes the existence of an original company concept. Without an original company, Secret Entrance wouldn't be able to apply to any of the "new" companies. The second sentence is specific to overrule the similarly specific original MELE rule.
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/
Zakath
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:15 am
Location: United States

Yeah, I don't think it's the case that new companies 'lose' anything - they didn't exist before the action that created them, so they had no history to lose. The character(s) in the new company might have history from earlier in the game, but the new company doesn't.

It might help if we gave companies names. So Alpha Company could set out from Lorien composed of Aragorn, Bilbo, and Sam. Your opponent plays Chill Douser against Alpha Company. For the rest of the turn, Alpha Company is 'the company' that Chill Douser's text refers to. Next your opponent plays Ghouls against Alpha Company, activates a Power Built By Waiting and follows it up by targeting Sam to be Left Behind. After the attack from Ghouls is faced, Sam forms a new company which you designate as Beta Company. Alpha Company, meanwhile, has lost a character but is still the same company, and still has the effect from Chill Douser following it. At the end of the movement-hazard phase, Beta Company dissolves and Sam rejoins Alpha Company. Once again, the composition of the company has changed but its identity remains the same. And if Alpha Company just moved to the Dead Marshes, the automatic-attack there will be boosted by the effect from Chill Douser should the company attempt to enter the site.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

A "company" is just a group of characters. That's all. An effect on a group of characters can only affect one group of characters. When a group of characters faces an attack, any subgroups of characters have also faced that same attack.

An "effect" that is "on" a company "targets" the company. There can only be 1 target of the effect. The rule on resource permanent-events also applies to resource or character effects on a company. Meaning that when a company is split, the resource player chooses which company gets the effect and which doesn't.

On the other hand, a company having "faced an attack" is not an "effect" that targets the company. Having faced an attack is not limited to 1 particular company. So if a company faces an attack and is later split, all resulting companies are considered to have faced the attack regardless of the new companies being different companies.

----------
Zakath wrote: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:11 pm If they were long-events (like Wake of War) or permanent-events (like Rank upon Rank), it's settled that they operate by means of passive conditions.

But it seems like creatures can't set up passive conditions, because as the CRF says "A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled."
The rules on passive conditions do not say this. The rules on passive conditions state what can cause an active as a result of a passive condition but they do not state what cards do not cause actions as a result of a passive condition. It should be clear that this understanding is wrong because some short-events cause actions as a result of a passive condition even though the event is discarded (e.g., Dwar of War short-event, First of the Order, etc.). There is nothing in the rules stating that the bonus effects of Chill Douser and Uruk-lieutenant do not operate using passive condition timing. If anything, the effect of these cards actually define the passive condition that will trigger the action of giving the bonuses. Since they define a passive condition, they use passive condition timing.

Zakath wrote: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:11 pm I can't find anything in the rules or CRF explicitly addressing the 'duration' of a hazard creature, so possibly the idea would be that such a creature remains in play until the end of the company's movement-hazard phase (or until the end of the turn) since it has effects beyond simply creating an attack?
The creature leaves play as normal (MP pile, out of play pile, or discard pile). Both Chill Douser and Uruk-lieutenant state that the effect only works for the current turn.
Zakath wrote: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:11 pm It does seem like there must be some sort of 'memory' associated with the hazard creatures faced in a particular movement-hazard phase, because otherwise creatures like Orc-warband would be non-functional.

The record keeping for the game is not explicitly described but the Designers typically expect the players to only need to remember what has happened in the current turn. There are only a few exceptions, and half of those are from errata.
Zakath wrote: Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:11 pm But I don't know how that allows an effect from an already-resolved and discarded card to be applied to cards played afterward.
The rules state that the effects of permanent and long events only last until the card is discarded. There is no such rule for short-events. The rules state that short-events can have a duration. The effects of creatures are not specifically described but clearly they can have a duration as indicated on these 2 cards.

----------
Zakath wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:50 pm Yeah, it seems like that would be a good precedent to look at for this. It would matter for purposes of how Chill Douser interacts with Plague of Wights.
This is covered by Annotation 26. It is the other of playing these effects that matters. The doubling from Plague of Wights would be applied to the attack first, before the effect of Chill Douser, if Plague of Wights was already in play at the start of the M/H phase. If the same company took a second M/H phase, then the doubling from Plague of Wights would happen after the +1 from Chill Douser.
Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
----------
Kjeld wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:27 pm To give an example scenario. A company of four characters (HL = 4) is moving to the Dead Marshes. The hazard player plays Chill Douser (which is not canceled). Next, the hazard player plays Ghouls, now 6 strikes at 8 prowess, and then plays Left Behind on one of the characters. At this point, there are now two moving companies, of three and one characters.
  1. Is Chill Douser's bonus to Undead attacks still in effect for both companies, neither company, or just one of the companies if the hazard player plays another Undead creature?
  2. Will Chill Douser affect the Undead automatic-attack at Dead Marshes if the rejoined company decides to enter the site? Left Behind reads that the split off character now "may rejoin his original company following all movement/hazard phases."
Yes, Chill Douser's effect will affect both companies. This is because both groups of characters (both companies) have faced the attack. This is not an "effect" that can only target 1 company.

Yes, Chill Douser can affect the automatic-attack, and it would in this case.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:26 am I do not have an evidence, but I'm suspecting that after split a resulting companies inherit a history of an original company.
I do have an evidence. Hazards that rely on whether a company has faced an attack apply to both companies of a split.

But resource/character effects on a split company will only affect 1 company chosen to be the original company, not the new company.
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 113
Date: 1998/07/27

>Lets say I have an Ahunt Dragon out in play. Company moves through one of
>those regions, faces the attack, not defeated. I play some undead with
>THID, attack not defeated, make roll and some of the characters from the
>party split. Since THID states they form there own party and have an
>additional M/H phase limit of one, would they again face the Ahunt Dragon
>alone again?

No. Both companies are considered to have faced the Dragon Ahunt, so
they don't face it again.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:26 am I may have a two characters company with Bilbo and Frodo. Frodo splits of into different company. Is now the Frodo's company considered original, or the Bilbo's company is considered original?
The resource player gets to choose.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:26 am Please note that both Bilbo and Frodo from the mentioned two characters company may be affected by Turning Hope to Despair.
Would it mean that that effect of Chill Douser's attack is gone?
Chill Douser's effect would be applied to both companies of the split.

----------
Kjeld wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:48 pm The ruling seems to only apply to "resource permanent-events". Why be so specific if it was meant to apply more broadly? I don't think this applies to resource short-events (e.g. Secret Entrance), let alone hazard effects like Chill Douser or Uruk-lieutenant.
The rule only mentions permanent-events. But ICE has ruled that this also applies to other resource/character effects on a company. Chill Douser and Uruk-lientenant work differently.

----------
Zakath wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:54 pm Yeah, I don't think it's the case that new companies 'lose' anything - they didn't exist before the action that created them, so they had no history to lose. The character(s) in the new company might have history from earlier in the game, but the new company doesn't.

It might help if we gave companies names. So Alpha Company could set out from Lorien composed of Aragorn, Bilbo, and Sam. Your opponent plays Chill Douser against Alpha Company. For the rest of the turn, Alpha Company is 'the company' that Chill Douser's text refers to. Next your opponent plays Ghouls against Alpha Company, activates a Power Built By Waiting and follows it up by targeting Sam to be Left Behind. After the attack from Ghouls is faced, Sam forms a new company which you designate as Beta Company. Alpha Company, meanwhile, has lost a character but is still the same company, and still has the effect from Chill Douser following it. At the end of the movement-hazard phase, Beta Company dissolves and Sam rejoins Alpha Company. Once again, the composition of the company has changed but its identity remains the same. And if Alpha Company just moved to the Dead Marshes, the automatic-attack there will be boosted by the effect from Chill Douser should the company attempt to enter the site.
Beta company with Sam still is still considered to have faced the Chill Douser and its effect can be applied to an attack against Sam. When a company splits, both companies are considered to have faced the attacks of the original company. But resource/character effects on the company will need to be divvied up.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:13 pm On the other hand, a company having "faced an attack" is not an "effect" that targets the company. Having faced an attack is not limited to 1 particular company. So if a company faces an attack and is later split, all resulting companies are considered to have faced the attack regardless of the new companies being different companies.
...
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 113
Date: 1998/07/27

>Lets say I have an Ahunt Dragon out in play. Company moves through one of
>those regions, faces the attack, not defeated. I play some undead with
>THID, attack not defeated, make roll and some of the characters from the
>party split. Since THID states they form there own party and have an
>additional M/H phase limit of one, would they again face the Ahunt Dragon
>alone again?

No. Both companies are considered to have faced the Dragon Ahunt, so
they don't face it again.
This is an interesting ruling, but logically false. A new entity cannot be said to have any history; that would contradict the meaning of "new".
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: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:13 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:13 pm On the other hand, a company having "faced an attack" is not an "effect" that targets the company. Having faced an attack is not limited to 1 particular company. So if a company faces an attack and is later split, all resulting companies are considered to have faced the attack regardless of the new companies being different companies.
...
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 113
Date: 1998/07/27

>Lets say I have an Ahunt Dragon out in play. Company moves through one of
>those regions, faces the attack, not defeated. I play some undead with
>THID, attack not defeated, make roll and some of the characters from the
>party split. Since THID states they form there own party and have an
>additional M/H phase limit of one, would they again face the Ahunt Dragon
>alone again?

No. Both companies are considered to have faced the Dragon Ahunt, so
they don't face it again.
This is an interesting ruling, but logically false. A new entity cannot be said to have any history; that would contradict the meaning of "new".
I disagree because "A company is a group of characters that move and act together." A company is just a group of characters.

Original Company A moves though Northern Rhovanian. Smaug Ahunt in play: "Any company moving in Withered Heath, Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, and/or Grey Mountain Narrows immediately faces one Dragon attack (considered a hazard creature attack)--3 strikes at 15/7 (attacker chooses defending characters)."

A group of characters (Company A) has faced one Dragon attack.

Then an undead creature and Turing Hope to Despair is played: "If the result is less than 11, the character splits off and forms his own company with the same site path as his original company. The character faces a separate movement/hazard phase this turn with a hazard limit of one."

Character X (Company B) splits off from the group of characters (Company A). Character X moves with the same Northern Rhovanian in its site path. Character X (Company B) has already "faced one Dragon attack." They do not face 2 Dragon attacks, just 1.

Yes, the "company" has been created, but its still the same character. So that new company still has faced the Dragon attack even though it was just split off.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:13 pm This is an interesting ruling, but logically false. A new entity cannot be said to have any history; that would contradict the meaning of "new".
Newly born child has history of his lineage.
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 6:23 am
Theo wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:13 pm This is an interesting ruling, but logically false. A new entity cannot be said to have any history; that would contradict the meaning of "new".
Newly born child has history of his lineage.
Unless raised by Elrond, in which case they have to wait 21 years to obtain the history of their lineage.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I wouldn't think of a lineage as an individual's history. Perhaps it could be considered the individual's family's history. Unless the individual is placed into a new family...

For CDavis7M:
Your focus on the character having already faced it does not correspond to the language used on the Ahunt cards. I'm not sure what language would be closer to how you are interpreting them. Something like, "Any company moving in X immediately faces one dragon attack... if it does not contain a character that has already faced such an attack this turn"?

Consider:
Set C of characters faces an Ahunt.
Set C of characters has a character X split (Turning Hope to Despair or Left Behind).
Character X is attacked by a hazard creature.
Alatar joins Character X.
Character X dies to creature.
Solo Alatar (who has not faced the Ahunt this turn) is in a new company (that never faced the Ahunt). The Ahunt passive should then trigger even with the above extreme rewording, still contradicting Rules Digest 113.
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

A company may face an attack from the same Ahunt multiple times during the same company's M/H phase.
This happens when (and because) conditions triggering the attack reappear.
E.g. after facing the attack the company is redirected to other site so it is no longer moving through affected regions. Then (in result of Chance of Being Lost) the company is again moving through affected regions.
The same may be sometimes achieved by removing and then introducing Doors of Night effect.
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: Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:55 am Consider:
Set C of characters faces an Ahunt.
Set C of characters has a character X split (Turning Hope to Despair or Left Behind).
Character X is attacked by a hazard creature.
Alatar joins Character X.
Character X dies to creature.
Solo Alatar (who has not faced the Ahunt this turn) is in a new company (that never faced the Ahunt). The Ahunt passive should then trigger even with the above extreme rewording, still contradicting Rules Digest 113.
This situation does not contradict ICE's ruling in Digest 113 above. Alatar never faced the one dragon attack.

Even in the situation where Alatar and Character X are in the company together, the group of Alatar and Character X have not faced the attack even if Character X has. That group of characters would face the attack.

Theo wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:55 am For CDavis7M:
Your focus on the character having already faced it does not correspond to the language used on the Ahunt cards. I'm not sure what language would be closer to how you are interpreting them. Something like, "Any company moving in X immediately faces one dragon attack... if it does not contain a character that has already faced such an attack this turn"?
I'm looking at the rules first, then interpreting the card's text in view of that. The language on the Ahunt Dragons does not contradict my interpretation.

I don't think your interpretation of the "company" being some separate entity (such that a "new" company would not be considered to have faced the attacks that the characters did) is correct so I read the rules again to check and I still cannot find any support for that interpretation.

The rules on what a company is:
  • Company: During play, you may organize your characters into groups called companies.
  • During play, you may organize your characters into groups called companies.
  • COMPANIES A company is a group of characters that move and act together. This allows characters to move, act, and defend as a unit, allowing stronger characters to protect the weaker characters. This mechanism can be used to allow a variety of tactics during play.
  • Clarification: A company is not an "attack," and a character is not an "attack." So hazards that modify attacks have no effect on characters and companies.
  • Company: A coordinated groups of characters as designated by their player.
Everything in the rules indicates that a company is just a group of characters. If they group of characters previously faced an attack as a subset of against another larger group of characters, then the group of characters clearly faced the attack.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:04 am A company may face an attack from the same Ahunt multiple times during the same company's M/H phase.
This happens when (and because) conditions triggering the attack reappear.
E.g. after facing the attack the company is redirected to other site so it is no longer moving through affected regions. Then (in result of Chance of Being Lost) the company is again moving through affected regions.
The same may be sometimes achieved by removing and then introducing Doors of Night effect.
You are misunderstanding how Passive Conditions work. First, the situations described do not re-establish the passive condition (or whatever you are thinking). Instead, the passive condition of a moving company is continuously present. Second, an Ahunt Dragon cannot cause more than "faces one Dragon attack attack." If the attack has been faced then the effect has been applied. The effect does not get re-applied.

There is a difference between "facesone attack" (Ahunts, permanent-events creating attack, etc.) and "creates one attack" (Tidings of Bold Spies).

With Ahunts, the effect applied by the passive condition is that the company "face one Dragon attack." The Passive Condition is movement by a company in the affected regions. Movement is continuously ongoing and so the passive conditions would be continuously triggered. That is why the Ahunt Dragons specifically state "faces one Dragon attack." If Ahunts instead stated "creates one Dragon attack" then the company continuously face dragon attacks.

Many Environment cards also have a passive condition that is continuously in play, and they would continuously applies their effects except that the CRF states "Once the effects of an environment card have been applied to a target during a given movement/hazard phase, that effect is not applied again to that target during the current turn."
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:38 am Everything in the rules indicates that a company is just a group of characters. If they group of characters previously faced an attack as a subset of against another larger group of characters, then the group of characters clearly faced the attack.
What is clear to you seems like incorrect language usage to me. The characters in the group have faced the attack. The group of characters has not faced the attack.

As I understand it, treating collective nouns as the members they contain is more common in British English, but then the rules would have needed to pluralize verbs associated with the word company, e.g., "Any company moving in X immediately face [(plural)] one Dragon attack..." They do not do this.

At least I now appreciate more fully how Ichabod's response is ambiguous about whether he's using collective nouns this way or not. However, the language on the Ahunt cards themselves is not ambiguous, so I still believe that Ichabod was incorrect regardless of his collective noun use.
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

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:01 am You are misunderstanding how Passive Conditions work.
Set pieces of the game.
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: Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:35 am However, the language on the Ahunt cards themselves is not ambiguous, so I still believe that Ichabod was incorrect regardless of his collective noun use.
What do you mean "the language on the Ahunt cards themselves is not ambiguous"? I don't see your other comments on the non-ambiguity of the Ahunt language and how that would supposedly make the ruling incorrect.

To me, the card text in the ahunt is clear that the company moving in those regions must only "face" the attack, meaning that an attack was created which targeted the company. The rules are clear that a company is just a group of characters. If a group of characters has already been targeted by the Ahunt Dragon attack, then they have already faced the attack regardless of whether the original company has been split or not.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:49 pm What do you mean "the language on the Ahunt cards themselves is not ambiguous"? I don't see your other comments on the non-ambiguity of the Ahunt language and how that would supposedly make the ruling incorrect.
The non-ambiguity of the Ahunt language refering to a company (group) as an entity is the basis for my previous comment:
Theo wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:13 pm This is an interesting ruling, but logically false. A new entity cannot be said to have any history; that would contradict the meaning of "new".
-----
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:49 pm To me, the card text in the ahunt is clear that the company moving in those regions must only "face" the attack, meaning that an attack was created which targeted the company. The rules are clear that a company is just a group of characters. If a group of characters has already been targeted by the Ahunt Dragon attack, then they have already faced the attack regardless of whether the original company has been split or not.
A "group of characters" as its own entity has not faced an Ahunt attack if it is a new group. Turning Hope to Despair causes groups to "form", so any such group (as its own entity) is new, even if the characters in it are IDENTICAL to the original (say, only one character was in the original company).

A "group of characters" to describe the characters themselves that are assembled together (within a singular entity-group) would require the corresponding verb to be plural (there are, in general, multiple characters). In order to conclude the entity had already been faced in the Turning Hope to Despair situation, one would need to check the histories of the characters rather than the history of the new group (as its own entity), but the Ahunt cards do not use a plural verb for "group of characters" to support such a use of "group of characters".
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/
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”