Nenya, and short events

[rezwits]

I spent last week (5 days) casually building and researching a new deck idea.

I looked for specific rulings on Nenya is in play.. Couldn't really find much.

The way I have always played MECCG regarding resources, and in most cases short-events, my understanding has always been clear to me, and I haven't run into any problems.

A. Short-events last during the CURRENT turn, unless they simply COMPLETE.
B. Long-events last during the CURRENT turn and the next players turn, unless they are REMOVED.
C. Permanent-events last forever (some state whenever a deck is exhausted, etc), unless they are REMOVED.

Simple enough.

I was researching mainly the use of Nenya, and I couldn't find anything in the CRFs, CoE, Errata, or Digests.

I used this reasoning.

Nenya's card text says:

Any one corruption check made by a character not in a Shadow-hold or Dark-hold is automatically successful.

I tried to wrap my head around "Any one corruption check"

I reasoned there is a similar 1,2,3 etc flow or pattern.

The card could have said:

• A corruption check made by a character... (this would mean immediacy, meaning if you are not resolving one right now, then fizzle)
• The next corruption check made by a character... (this would mean the absolutle NEXT check)
• Any one corruption check made by a character... (this would mean ONE corruption check of my choice, or NEXT, up for debate)
• Any corruption check made by a character... (this would mean any and all corruption checks till end of this turn)
That would be like a Ford in play, for corruption checks! Haha, Elf-song in play, is kinda like that already as a long event.

I just figure this is the Song of the Lady, just Galadriel singing... with Nenya, for someone...

IDK...

People have strange interpretations of the rules around here, but I was pretty clear since day one, that:

Short-events are THE turn
Long-event are BOTH players turns
and Permanents are ALL turns
(exceptions of course)

It's really simple...

n.b. I use Ford as a quick example of a Short-event that lasts until the Resource players turn is over without any other wording to state a duration, but there are 50 or so more if needed... And as far as why Nenya says +2 Prowess until end of turn, is so people do not mistake this for a TRIVIAL Risky Blow.

[Theo]

Any one corruption check made by a character... (this would mean ONE corruption check of my choice, or simply NEXT, up for debate)

Based on our discussion, I think you meant this one to be "One corruption check made by a character...".

Of relevance:

Short-event – A short-event’s effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: “until the end of the turn”).

I think the implication of this is that short events effects that don't specify a period are only momentary.

So in my mind, the difference between "Any one" and just "One" is that the "Any one" doesn't require targeting. This means it doesn't need to be specified at declaration. But I still think that the presence of "one" means that the "one" needs to be determined by resolution in order for the effect of automatically passing to be implemented.

That said, I totally agree the cards like Ford make the intent of Nenya ambiguous, since I feel quite confident that their intent was not to make Ford useless.

[Theo]

>3) For *Nenya* to be used to make one corruption check automatically
>successful, must it be played in response to an impending corruption check,
>or if it has been played earlier in the turn (for another reason) can its
>corruption check effect still be applied to a corruption check occurring
>later in the turn?

It must be played in response to the corruption check.

Upheld digest 563.

[rezwits]

Any one corruption check made by a character... (this would mean ONE corruption check of my choice, or simply NEXT, up for debate)

Based on our discussion, I think you meant this one to be "One corruption check made by a character...".

No I am quoting Nenya on that one...

Of relevance:

Short-event – A short-event’s effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: “until the end of the turn”).

But, yes I am using this relevent fact that Nenya IS stating a time frame.

If I someone is sitting with someone at a Bus Stop, and asks, WHEN are we going to go?
and someone replies: WHEN the next bus pulls up, this is essentally a time frame, that qualifies.

Sitting in a car, "When the light turns green", another time frame...

i.e.

• Now
• The next time
• Anytime (once)
• Constantly All
respectively (in corresponding order of the "clauses" mentioned in my intiial post...)

[rezwits]

dude, Theo I NEED a PDF of where ever you are pulling that up from, NOW

I don't have that documentation, I was thinking I was missing something...

Thanks! Those are the CRFs?

[Theo]

I was pulling from Google Group archives. Surprised me too, since I was under the impression that everything up to 578 was integrated into the CRFs, but I was sure I'd seen a ruling on it before.

[rezwits]

Man I read that ruling from 563.

Wow, that was a weak ruling...

Very sad...

I mean that ruling, just makes me think that: No wonder there are troubles with the game.

I mean people come in here (on CoE) and try to argue things using "basic English" for starters as a basis, and other factors and it seems in the past, they just DIDN'T

I mean now that I think I have found ALL the "rulings pages" NO MATTER what they are, I am just going to refer to them, and give up on debating with SENSE.

Because the rulings on how the game was in the first 10 years, is "I suppose" the way the game is to be played...

[CDavis7M]

I am a beginner at this game. But I spent some time trying to learn the rules over the "bogus" Narya ruling (any tapping to support the CC will fizzle). I learned to declare sentences in reverse order and resolve sentences individually and in order. I also learned that basic English understand has no meaning here (due to individual resolution). And many cards include extraneous words that don't provide any limitation/feature to the cards effects (eg, words like "immediately" have no meaning).

First of all, I agree that the Nenya ruling is bogus given the English wording. However, I believe that the ruling is correct in the framework of the game (which is a difficult mentality to achieve).

Also ,I think Ford is not a similar effect. Ford usage is typical of most of the Organization phase cards:

1. I start my organization phase
2. I place my site face down
3. I place my region cards face down
4. I play Ford at the end of the Organization phase.
5. I tap a ranger for Ford

Ford affects the RANGER'S company, who is already in play. Also, it affects the keyability of REGIONS, which are already in play. Ford isn't changing the region type, it's affecting keyability. It's not affecting the abilities of the Ranger character themselves. But these are affected cards that are already in play.

Another example: Healing of Nimrodel doesn't heal your characters immediately, only if they move to a Haven. I sort of imagine this cards as "adding" a special effect to the cards already in play. Nimrodel adds healing to the moved-to Haven, or to the characters of the company themselves. Either way, these cards are in play.

Or, Master of Esgaroth adds conditions and effects to the moved-to site (if it is a border hold, the company can move again). Or Drughu adds prowess bonuses to characters dependent on the attacks key/site.

Obviously short effects don't grant effects to other cards, this is just a way I can understand the game. Still, in all these cases, there is at least something in play that the short event can affect.

Other than the organization phase effects, many other short events happen immediately (eg in response to something) or they specify a duration (except Master of Wood,W,oH, which is why there is a big discussion).

So back to Nenya. It says "any one corruption check made by a character not in a shadow-hold or dark-hold is automatically successful." It's looking for a CC, not for a character (unlike Magic Harp, which additionally gives a duration). The CC needs to be in play. The character being not in a SH/DH is a condition and the CC is the target. So, if played early, Nenya has no CC to target when it is declared. It has to target SOMETHING in order to resolve.

0. Declare Nenya card (should the card itself be declared last and resolved first?)
1. Declare any one CC is successful (which one? It needs a target)
2. Declare that Galadriel makes a CC (she cannot auto-pass her own CC).
2.a Declare&tap any characters in support of Galadriel
3. Declare bonuses
4. Resolve bonuses for the rest of the turn
5.a Resolve CC support bonuses
5. Resolve Galadriel CC
6. Resolve one CC being successful
7. Resolve Nenya card

What if Nenya said "any one CHARACTER not in a SH/DH automatically passes any one CC this turn" ? Then the character would be the target. And I think this wording would enable similar functionality that the English reading suggests. But it would also require the character to be selected upfront. What if it didn't specify "this turn" ? Well, I think it's still OK.

Also, back to my previous learning, words like "any" have no meaning here. It simply means "a" or "one".

I may be totally off base here, and please let me know if I am. I'm just trying to think this out within the framework of this game.

[CDavis7M]

Another question - would the automatic passing of the CC still resolve if Galadriel fails her CC first? That is, would the effects resolve if the conditions of card playability (eg Galadriel only) fail during resolution?

The only other card I see where the CC occurs before some of the effects is Staff Asunder. Would the body of the attack receive -2 if the Wizard fails the CC?

I think the effects would still resolve as conditions are checked at declaration and not at resolution (except in the exceptional case of tapping to support a CC, where the tapped status is checked at resolution).

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

[Theo]

The automatic success effect is not contingent on Galadriel being in play, so would still resolve.

[Konrad Klar]

The automatic success effect is not contingent on Galadriel being in play, so would still resolve.

I would say:
The automatic success effect is not contingent on Galadriel being in play, so if Nenya resolved the effect will be applied.
Nenya itself requires Galadriel in play, both at declaration and at resolution.

Above assumes that cc is either specified at declaration, or is specified in result of main effect of Nenya.

Personally I do not have idea how cc affected by Nenya should be specified.

[CDavis7M]

Perhaps I misspoke earlier.

The rule is: "conditions of a card are checked at declaration and resolution." (I said something different above). Also, if the target of a card is no longer in play at resolution, then the card fizzles.

Let me see if I have this straight. Here, Galadriel is the condition. If she is not in play, Nenya can not resolve. But does Nenya the card itself resolve first (before it's individual effects) or last (after all of it's effects)? I guess it must resolve first because otherwise it's effects could resolve without the card itself resolving.

So, effects of a card can resolve if the conditions of the card are in play at resolution of the card (they have not been affected by other cards in the same chain) even if the condition of the card is lost during resolution of the many individual effects within the card itself. However, the target of the effect must still be in play at resolution (which is not an issue in Nenya).

For Staff Asunder, it is possible for the Wizard to fail his CC and have his Staff and items discarded. Under the old rules, you would just lose the game. But under the -5MP rules, would Wizard's Staff still be placed in the MP pile (from the discard pile)? And would the attacks body still get -2?

I would guess that the effect of the Staff moving to the MP pile would not resolve (it would fizzle) since the staff is not in play (is staff a "target" of this sentence even if it is not a target of Staff Asunder itself?). But, the attacks body would still be -2 (the attack is still in play).

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

[Konrad Klar]

But does Nenya the card itself resolve first (before it's individual effects) or last (after all of it's effects)?

First.

So, effects of a card can resolve if the conditions of the card are in play at resolution of the card (they have not been affected by other cards in the same chain) even if the condition of the card is lost during resolution of the many individual effects within the card itself. However, the target of the effect must still be in play at resolution (which is not an issue in Nenya).

Particular action from a card may not resolve even if the card itself resolved. E.g. body check from A Malady Without Healing will not resolve if first cc has eliminated or discarded target character.

I would guess that the effect of the Staff moving to the MP pile would not resolve (it would fizzle) since the staff is not in play (is staff a "target" of this sentence even if it is not a target of Staff Asunder itself?). But, the attacks body would still be -2 (the attack is still in play).

Yes. Exactly.

[CDavis7M]

Thanks Konrad. I am learning.

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk