Old to the game and have some questions

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Bandobras Took »

So according to you, things the rules says aren't actions are actions, examples of things that don't target do target, when a card states that it's playable on a Sage at an untapped site, what it really means is that it's playable on a character, and when a card states that it's playable on a moving company, it doesn't matter if the company ceases to be a moving company before resolution.

I think this thread has gone on long enough for auditors, as it were, to gain an understanding of how the rules work.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:22 pm
So according to you, things the rules says aren't actions are actions, examples of things that don't target do target, when a card states that it's playable on a Sage at an untapped site, what it really means is that it's playable on a character, and when a card states that it's playable on a moving company, it doesn't matter if the company ceases to be a moving company before resolution.
That's not what I said at all. The rules say active conditions aren't actions, but the rules don't say that tapping is not an action. Tapping is an activity in the game and so the rules say that tapping is an action, even if it might sometimes be an active condition. This is consistent with the rules.

Cards that don't target anything may have effects that do target. This is consistent with the rules.

When a card states that it's playable on a Sage at an untapped site, then a Sage needs to be at an untapped site at DECLARATION of the card. And since the card is playable on a character, that target character needs to be in play at RESOLUTION (per Annotations 7 and 8 ), but the site does not need to be untapped (nothing in Annotation 7 creates an active condition at resolution). This is consistent with the rules.

(Clearly the untapped state of the site is not checked at resolution because otherwise certain cards like Far-sight and even the play of any item or ally wouldn't be able to resolve. This would not be consistent with the rules)

A card played on a moving company requires a moving company at DECLARATION and the target company must be in play at resolution, but the target company doesn't need to be moving at resolution. If a company was once moving and is no longer moving, then they must have been returned to origin. In this case, the M/H phase would be over. And the hazard limit would be gone. Resolution fails because the M/H phase is over, not because the company is no longer moving. This is consistent with the rules.

------------------

Image

Active conditions are established/resolved immediately at declaration of a card (it is not an "action" and so it is not resolved later in a chain of effects). And so the active condition of "Sage at an untapped site" has already been declared and resolved when it is time to resolve the action of playing the card. A resolution of the card, the active conditions are gone. There is no declaration of "Sage at an untapped site" all after declaration of playing the card, and especially not at resolution of playing the card. Just like how declaration of a short event no longer exists after the card and all of its effects have resolved. Once the declaration is resolved, it doesn't come back.

There is nothing in the rules stating that you must declare and resolve "Sage at an untapped site" twice. It is declared and resolved once.

The only active conditions that are present at resolution of a card are the active conditions specifically declared at resolution of the card. This is a special case for Targeting -- which creates 2 active conditions: the 1st to be declared and resolved at declaration of the card and a 2nd active condition to be declared (again) and resolved at resolution of the card (Annotation 8 ). The targets of a card, as active conditions, must exist when the actions resolve (Annotation 7). This make sense because the declared action has to be played out through the target. The hazard limit is also checked at resolution.

Why would the rules require an untapped site at resolution of a card when the site is not the target of the card? Especially when the other actions of the card will tap the site at declaration. And how would an active condition be declared twice without some special rule (e.g., Annotation 8 )?

------------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:22 pm
I think this thread has gone on long enough for auditors, as it were, to gain an understanding of how the rules work.
I just don't want to give up hope on these 4 players.

Image

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Theo »

Ha. The particular targets of Far-sight are indeed both a Sage and an untapped site. So much for massive text waves.

Under my ARV2019 clarification proposal, "Sage only" make a sage a target as required entity for the card play action (Ref: CRF Targets). Playing Far-sight at an untapped site is only an active condition from the italic portion.

However, besides that, a card cannot be played to no effect (Ref: CRF Playing a Card), and so whether or not you decide to tap a sage and a site, which must be decided when you declare playing the card (Ref: CRF Annotation 27), must be decided in the affirmative to play the card. The tapping action then makes both the sage and the site targets (Ref: CRF Targets).

Unless you are CDavis7M*, who doesn't believe that a card can have multiple targets, so the target is the amalgamation "the sage and the site". :roll:
*This claim is not certified by CDavis7M.

Additionally, both must be untapped when Far-sight is declared and begins to resolve (Ref: Annotation 5).
Last edited by Theo on Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:20 am
Ha. The particular targets of Far-sight are indeed both a Sage and an untapped site. So much for massive text waves.
Informally, I see what you mean. But technically, an entity by itself (with no associated action) has no targets. The Far-sight card is an an entity and so it has no target. Actions have targets. The action of playing Far-sight targets a character card entity. This is the only target of the action of playing Far-sight. The site is not a target of the action of playing Far-sight. But yes, the site is a target of the site-tapping action declared by the card-text of Far-sight. So it is OK to say "The particular targets of Far-sight are indeed both a Sage and an untapped site" if we were not trying to be technical.

------------------------
Theo wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:20 am
Under my ARV2019 clarification proposal, "Sage only" make a sage a target as required entity for the card play action (Ref: CRF Targets).
The character (a sage) is already a target entity for the action of playing Far-sight. The target is already required to be specified at declaration per Annotation 8.

An ARV proposal is not needed to make this the case.

------------------------
Theo wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:20 am
However, besides that, a card cannot be played to no effect (Ref: CRF Playing a Card), and so whether or not you decide to tap a sage and a site, which must be decided when you declare playing the card (Ref: CRF Annotation 27),
This seems misleading. Annotation 27 describes the declaration of "optional effects", which occur when a card has multiple "alternative" effects OR when it can be played either as either a creature or as an event. The choice described in Annotation 27 covers the choice of which actions on the card will be declared and which actions on the card will not be declared.

Annotation 27 has no impact on the tapping of the sage and the sight in Far-sight.

But yes, the decision to tap the sage and the site are made BY the decision to play the card. The declaration of these actions are SET by the action of playing Far-Sight. If you play Far-sight, the sage-tapping action MUST be declared and the site-tapping action MUST also be declared. If a player did not want to choose to do these actions, then they would NOT play Far-sight. There is no choice by the player beyond the initial decision to play Far-sight.

------------------------
Theo wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:20 am
The tapping action then makes both the sage and the site targets (Ref: CRF Targets).
Right, they are the targets of their respective tapping actions. But they are not the targets of the actions of playing Far-sight.

------------------------
Theo wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:20 am
Unless you are CDavis7M, who doesn't believe that a card can have multiple targets, so the target is the amalgamation "the sage and the site". :roll:
I never said that the action of playing a card and the actions declared by that card's card-text may not have different targets. Of course they can. But a single action cannot have multiple targets. If it appears that it does, then the action must really involve multiple actions when you break it down into the fundamental mechanics of the game (e.g., "Tap the sage and the site" is not 1 action with 2 targets, it is really 2 actions, each with their own separate target).

And I also never said that "the target is the amalgamation "the sage and the site"". And I certainly would not say that about the action of playing the Far-sight card. My explanation is in the preceding paragraph.

------------------------
Theo wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:20 am
Additionally, both must be untapped when Far-sight is declared and begins to resolve (Ref: Annotation 5).
Right. But specifically, they are tapped when the searching-action (tap the sage and the site to search) is declared (not when Far-sight played). This way, the site is not tapped until after the target character is specified as an active condition for playing Far-sight (e.g., specifying the character having the Sage attribute that is at an untapped site where "Information" is playable). If the character is not available (e.g., the player made a mistake), Far-sight is returned to your hand without tapping the site.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Theo »

This is an interesting premise, but I one that I cannot agree with.

If the effects of cards were divorced from the play of those cards, then no cards could be declared because cards cannot be played that have no effect on the game. O_o

No; to get anywhere, I believe that the declaration of playing a card includes the declaration of its effects.

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:01 pm
Theo wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:20 am
Under my ARV2019 clarification proposal, "Sage only" make a sage a target as required entity for the card play action (Ref: CRF Targets).
The character (a sage) is already a target entity for the action of playing Far-sight. The target is already required to be specified at declaration per Annotation 8.

An ARV proposal is not needed to make this the case.
Yes, this is the meaning and argument of the proposal being a clarification. What did you think the proposal was about?

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:01 pm
But a single action cannot have multiple targets. If it appears that it does, then the action must really involve multiple actions when you break it down into the fundamental mechanics of the game (e.g., "Tap the sage and the site" is not 1 action with 2 targets, it is really 2 actions, each with their own separate target).
Equivalent results does not imply equivalent meanings. "Tap the sage and the site" is a single action in English. It seems like you might be getting bit by the cyclic logic of presupposing that "the fundamental mechanics of the game" require that actions only have one target.
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:01 pm
Theo wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:20 am
Unless you are CDavis7M, who doesn't believe that a card can have multiple targets, so the target is the amalgamation "the sage and the site". :roll:
And I also never said that "the target is the amalgamation "the sage and the site"". And I certainly would not say that about the action of playing the Far-sight card. My explanation is in the preceding paragraph.
Yes, my apologies for my unneeded cheekiness. I'll add a disclaimer.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:58 am
This is an interesting premise, but I one that I cannot agree with.

If the effects of cards were divorced from the play of those cards, then no cards could be declared because cards cannot be played that have no effect on the game. O_o

No; to get anywhere, I believe that the declaration of playing a card includes the declaration of its effects.
The rule on playing for no effect (Legal play, MELE p87) is not limited in scope to only consider declaration of playing a card. "Playing" includes both declaration and resolution. Otherwise the rule would make no sense as you suggested.

The declared action of playing the card is immediately followed by all of the actions in the card text declared in reverse order. These are all separate actions of the same card.

---
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:58 am
Yes, this is the meaning and argument of the proposal being a clarification. What did you think the proposal was about?
The ARV clarification seems to turn the CRF clarification into a rule. But the CRF clarification is only true 99.9% of the time. It is not true in cases where a card includes alternative effects that are never declared together but has key words covering both the first effect and the alternative effect.

So, I disagree with the proposed ARV rule you mentioned.

---
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:58 am
Equivalent results does not imply equivalent meanings. "Tap the sage and the site" is a single action in English. It seems like you might be getting bit by the cyclic logic of presupposing that "the fundamental mechanics of the game" require that actions only have one target.
But we are not taking about English, we are taking about the mechanics of the game: actions, targeting, entities, attributes, chain of effects. Everything in the game is definable with these terms. And even in English, tap the sage character card and the site card involves 2 separate actions as the cards are not fixed together.


----
Theo wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:58 am
I'll add a disclaimer.
Preferably a Sienfeld or Simpsons gif. 👍

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3651
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:15 am
Theo wrote: ↑28 Sep 2019, 07:20
The tapping action then makes both the sage and the site targets (Ref: CRF Targets).
Right, they are the targets of their respective tapping actions. But they are not the targets of the actions of playing Far-sight.
Sounds terrible...

Active conditions do not have other active conditions.
An action may have a target. Declaration or resolution of action does not have a target.
Declarations are not declared, resoultions are not resolved.

If player declares a card he is declaring at the same time its actions and effects.
For example:
player declares Marvels Told,
by this act he declares
cc made by sage, discarding hazard event, Marvels Told (itself).
In that order.

If someone does not believe then I must ask him:
- when and how to declare New Friendship to modify cc?
- when and how to declare Many Sorrows Befall to cancel Marvels Told?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:27 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:15 am
Theo wrote: ↑28 Sep 2019, 07:20
The tapping action then makes both the sage and the site targets (Ref: CRF Targets).
Right, they are the targets of their respective tapping actions. But they are not the targets of the actions of playing Far-sight.
Sounds terrible...

Active conditions do not have other active conditions.
An action may have a target. Declaration or resolution of action does not have a target.
Declarations are not declared, resoultions are not resolved.
My point is that the targets of the actions of tapping the sage and the site do not set the target of playing the card. The preceding sentence sets the target of playing the card.

In Far-sight, one of the actions in the card text is "searching through your play deck" and it has the active conditions of tapping the sage and the site. Still, these active conditions are actions themselves and they do have targets. But the 2 tapping actions are declared and resolved outside of the chain of effects because they are also active conditions.

That said, my point is that that the 3 separate targets of "tap the sage and the site to search" are not the same as the target of playing the card.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:27 am
If player declares a card he is declaring at the same time its actions and effects.
For example:
player declares Marvels Told,
by this act he declares
cc made by sage, discarding hazard event, Marvels Told (itself).
In that order.

If someone does not believe then I must ask him:
- when and how to declare New Friendship to modify cc?
- when and how to declare Many Sorrows Befall to cancel Marvels Told?
I don't think there is disagreement here. No one thinks that declaring play of a card does not declare all of the card text's actions in reverse order. What point are you making?

We are discussing targets. New friendship can target a declared dice roll by special exception allowing non-resolved rolls to be targeted (MELE p50). Many Sorrows Befall can target a non-resolved card per its card text.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3651
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:35 pm
My point is that the targets of the actions of tapping the sage and the site do not set the target of playing the card. The preceding sentence sets the target of playing the card.

In Far-sight, one of the actions in the card text is "searching through your play deck" and it has the active conditions of tapping the sage and the site. Still, these active conditions are actions themselves and they do have targets. But the 2 tapping actions are declared and resolved outside of the chain of effects because they are also active conditions.

That said, my point is that that the 3 separate targets of "tap the sage and the site to search" are not the same as the target of playing the card.
If you mean that Far-Sight at its execution initates nested chain of effects "Taps the sage and site to search.."
then I agree.
Tapping the sage and the site are active conditions of search action. They are not active conditions of Far-Sight.

"The sage makes a corruption check." makes the sage a target of Far-Sight.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:35 pm
I don't think there is disagreement here. No one thinks that declaring play of a card does not declare all of the card text's actions in reverse order. What point are you making?
That wat is actually declared is a card itself, not "playing the card".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:59 pm
If you mean that Far-Sight at its execution initates nested chain of effects "Taps the sage and site to search.."
then I agree.
Tapping the sage and the site are active conditions of search action. They are not active conditions of Far-Sight.
If we are both talking about how actions that are active conditions are declared and resolving immediately without regard for the normal timing rules on chains of effects, then I am OK to call to call it "nested." But I prefer to think of declaration and resolution of active conditions as occurring outside of the chain of effects entirely (rather than being nested within the chain of effects), but there is no difference on gameplay so it doesn't matter what we call it.

I agree that tapping the sage and the site are resolved immediately when the search action is declared (either nested within the chain or outside of the chain).

---------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:59 pm
"The sage makes a corruption check." makes the sage a target of Far-Sight.
Let's speak technically within the rules of the game. Far-sight is a card. A card alone does not have a target without some action (e.g., being played on the target).

The action of playing Far-sight actually DOES target the sage by stating "Sage only."

The corruption check action ALSO targets the sage. But being the target of the corruption check does not make the sage a target of the action of playing Far-sight.

-----------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:59 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:35 pm
I don't think there is disagreement here. No one thinks that declaring play of a card does not declare all of the card text's actions in reverse order. What point are you making?
That wat is actually declared is a card itself, not "playing the card".
If we are being technical and precise with the rules, a "card" is not "declared." Only actions are declared. Actions are declared in a chain of effects. Playing an card/entity is an action and it is declared.

But I am OK with the informality of saying that "a card is declared" as long as we understand that this is just short hand for saying that the action of playing the card is declared and all of the actions in the card text are declared. The examples in the rulesbook use this informality (MELE p70) similar to how they use informal language when describing the strike sequence.
MELE p. 50 wrote:Typical actions include playing a card, making a corruption check, revealing a card, etc.
MELE, p. 87 wrote:Action: Any activity in the game (card play, a corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses, etc.). Each action is not immediately resolved when it is declared.
MELE p. 88 wrote:Chain of Effects: A series of actions declared in response to one another before any of them resolve. Actions in a chain of effects are resolved in the reverse order from which they were declared (last in, first out)
The action of playing a card can have a target. The target of playing a card may be the same or different from the other actions declared by the card's card text.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3651
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:01 pm
If we are being technical and precise with the rules, a "card" is not "declared." Only actions are declared. Actions are declared in a chain of effects. Playing an card/entity is an action and it is declared.
A chain of effects, despite its name contains not only effects.
Effects, actions, cards may be declared.
Declarations may not be declared.
If someone is playing a card, he is declaring the card.
He is not declaring that he is playing the card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M »

Going full circle back to my original purpose for starting this thread, these are the fundamental mechanics of the game, and everything in the game can be understood to operate by these mechanics. I'm not creating this -- these mechanics are derived from the sections copied above (https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 968#p32946). Every statement below has support in the rules. I have not found anything in the game that is inconsistent with these fundamental mechanics.
  • The game mechanics used by the rules of the game are the same as the game mechanics used for playing cards.
  • An "action" is ANY activity in the game, including activity performed by card effects, activity directly or indirectly performed by the player (including a player speaking or indicating a decision/choice for a particular card effect), activity performed to meet active conditions, and activity of the game itself according to the rules (e.g., beginning and ending a phase or turn, drawing cards, moving/placing cards, etc).
  • EVERY action in the game is declared and resolved. Every action that is not an active condition is declared and resolved in a chain of effects, even if it is declared and resolved "behind the scenes" (which happens when there is no timing issues on the gameplay). For example, untapping an item during the untap phase involves a declared untapping-action that targets the item. And when this action is resolved (without any thought by either player), the item is untapped. This untapping chain of effects is never described in the rules or considered by players because the timing does not matter. But still, untapping an item in the untap phase is technically an action with a target and this action is technically resolved in a chain of effects.
  • A "target" of an action is the card/attribute of a card/deck/pile/hand/etc that an action is played out through. Nothing happens in the game without a target. Actions without targets don't do anything in the game directly, but they may indirectly perform setup a following action that does have a target.
  • Only actions have targets. Cards do not have targets unless there is some action causing the targeting (e.g., a card being played or placed on another card causes the card to target the other card).
  • Each distinct action has 1 target or no target. In a handful of cases, an action can have multiple targets (e.g., tapping 2 cards, or recycling/moving 2 or 3 cards from your discard to your deck, etc.). But in these cases, the action with multiple targets can be treated as multiple actions with different targets (e.g., 2 recycling-actions targeting 1 card instead of 1 recycling-action targeting 2 cards). Of course, attacks can have multiple targets because they can have multiple strikes. But attacks are resolved differently than other actions and they have their own rules (e.g., it stays in play and can be canceled, strikes are assigned, and then strikes are resolved).
  • The action of playing a card (e.g., "playable on") only ever has a single target.
  • One or more sentences of card text can be referred to as an "effect." An effect can contain multiple distinct actions, each of which has their own single target (possibly the same or different), or no target. An "effect" can even be an action that modifies the game rules for a particular player for as long as the effect is in play.
  • There may be several different conditions for selecting a valid target. These conditions may be based on the status of an card (e.g., a certain card being in play or a certain card being tapped or untapped, etc). However, these conditions for selecting a valid target are not targets themselves.
  • Cards by themselves do not have targets unless there is some action targeting the card that causes the card to target another card (e.g., playing or placing the card on another card).
  • When an Event card is played, the actions in the card text of the Event are immediately declared in a chain of effects. Either actions will be performed or lasting effects (e.g., actions triggered by an active or passive condition, or changes to the rules) will be put into place.
  • Active conditions are still actions and they have targets. Actions that are active conditions are declared and resolved immediately without respect to the timing rules for chains of effects.
  • Actions are ONLY active conditions if they are defined as being an active condition. In some cases, tapping, discarding, and targeting are defined as active conditions by the Annotations.
  • Active conditions are only ever declared&resolved once at declaration of the corresponding action. As a special case -- the "target" as an active condition and the hazard limit are also declared&resolved at resolution of the corresponding action.
  • An action can have multiple active conditions, and the active conditions can have different targets. But the action itself does not inherit the targets of its active conditions.
  • The action of playing a card does not inherit the targets of the actions created by the card text.
  • Character Cards have attributes (prowess, mind, DI, MP, bonuses/penalties to certain checks, etc). Attributes are not actions.
  • Site and region cards have attributes (site type, playability, site path, region name, region type, adjacency, etc).
  • Items cards can be considered to modify the attributes of the character card controlling the item. Hence the use of pluses and minuses when weapons describe attributes.
  • Non-Event cards can have effects that are actions. These actions are declared using active conditions.
  • Modification of attributes of a card is an action. Everything that changes anything in the game is an action.
  • Modification of attributes by events are declared actions resulting from play of the event.
  • Presumably, modification of attributes by items can be considered a declared action in response to the character taking control of the item. But I don't see any timing issues with attribute modifications created by non-event cards, so it doesn't matter when/how the attributes are modified.
In addition, it's important to recognize that the rules are dense. Often, a single word can change the meaning of a rule. It's also important to recognize that the context in which a rule is given provides meaning. The rules are organized into sections with headings and these headings inform the player when to apply the rule (and when not to).

And it's important to recognize that the CRF is a set of clarifications to the rules and is it does not override the existing rules unless unless it is labeled as errata. The CRF explicitly states in the Introduction that "Some of these clarifications are considered errata to the rules or cards, and are noted as such. The Turn Sequence and Rulings by Term sections are specifically considered clarifications to the rules, and are therefore overridden by card text that specifically does so. A complete list of errata is included." A clarification to the rule does not create a limitation on the player when the actual rule otherwise allows some action. Likewise, a clarification to a rule does not create an allowance for the player when the actual rule otherwise prevents some action.

The CRF statements are made directly in response to a specific question from a player on how a card is to be played. But the question is not included in the CRF and so the situation is unknown. So when a CRF clarification contradicts the rules in certain situations, the player must think for themselves using the fundamental mechanics of the game to determine whether the clarification applies to a situation or not. The CRF statements are not 100% right all the time. Ichabod admits this in the Digests. And if you reviewed the changes between different CRFs you can see how some of the clarifications were re-addressed and updated. You can see this in the various re-prints of the cards as well.

Apparent conflicts between the CRF and the rules can arise because the context in which the CRF statements is often missing. If the context was provided for a seemingly conflicting CRF statement, it would likely be clear why that statement was not intended to override a particular rules.

------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:42 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:01 pm
If we are being technical and precise with the rules, a "card" is not "declared." Only actions are declared. Actions are declared in a chain of effects. Playing an card/entity is an action and it is declared.
A chain of effects, despite its name contains not only effects.
Effects, actions, cards may be declared.
Declarations may not be declared.
If someone is playing a card, he is declaring the card.
He is not declaring that he is playing the card.
I disagree with some of these statements because they are inconsistent with the fundamental mechanics of the game. I disagree with the statement "Effects, actions, cards may be declared." because cards are not declared. Only actions are declared. Effects are just actions (triggerable or declared directly). Of course, the action of playing the card can be declared along with declaring all of the card's effects. And we can informally refer to this as "declaring a card." Still, cards are not declared.

Of course "Declarations may not be declared." I am not sure what the point of saying this is.
Konrad Klar wrote:If someone is playing a card, he is declaring the card.
He is not declaring that he is playing the card.
I disagree. He IS declaring that he is playing a card. Playing a card is an action. It is the action of moving the card from your hand and placing it in your play area, in the neutral/hazard play area, or with/on/under another card. A card by itself is not an action and it is not declared in a chain of effects. There must be some action that is declared, not the card itself. "Playing a card" is short-hand for declaring the action of playing of the card along with declaring all of the actions in the card text in reverse order in a chain of effects, and then resolving those actions in the chain of effects. Each of these actions can have different targets and different active conditions.

While not a mechanic of the game, a player might want to declare a card title (with no impact on the game). This is probably OK with fair warning.
The Dwarves Are upon You!
"Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!'

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Theo »

Let's analyze actual quotes rather than just prosthelytizing:
MELE wrote:... can be the target of another action or effect declared later in the same chain of effects
So, there are effects which are not actions, and it is also not the case that "only actions can have targets". If all effects were actions, why is it not called the "chain of actions"?

"Activity" is just pushing the debate to a new term. Note that being modified is not an active verb, but a passive one. My theory continues to be that passive verb use represents game effects that are (intended to be) implemented not as actions.

---
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:42 pm
If someone is playing a card, he is declaring the card.
He is not declaring that he is playing the card.
I would prefer to say that part of playing a card is declaring that action. But the literal wording of the following quote is awkward:
MELE wrote:Declaring an Action: Stating an action is being played, though the actual effects of the action are not implemented until both players have had the chance to respond with the declaration of other actions.
So the action of playing a card needs to be declared by stating that playing a card is being played. O_o

Normally we speak only of cards being played, not actions being played. However, actions are "played" in the sense that the game is "played". This would give a meaning similar to "Stating an action is being performed".
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: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Bandobras Took »

Every statement below has support in the rules.
Repeating this doesn't make it true.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:39 pm
Every statement below has support in the rules.
Repeating this doesn't make it true.
Which statement is not supported by the rules? And what rule contradicts that statement?

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”