Old to the game and have some questions

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
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:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:01 am
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"?
Yes, there are effects that are not actions. For example, an effect can establish an action triggered by an active condition. An effect can also establish an action triggered by a passive condition. These effects are resolved in a chain of effects. But an effect creating an action that is subject to some condition is not an action itself and it does not have a target.

-------------
Theo wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:01 am
"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.
"Activity" has been in the definition of actions since the original METW rulesbook.

As for passive vs active verbs, it seems clear that passively "being modified" cannot happen to one entity without some action causing the modification. But what is an example of passive verbs establishing effects? Is this related to the previous discussion on the effect "Corruption points for Palantiri are twice their previous value" created by Bane of the Ithil-stone?

There are many effects in the game similar to this one. Similar in that they effect "all" or "each" of something ("each Palantiri" is affected by Bane). For instance, the effect of "The prowess of all Undead attacks is increased by one" from Plague of Wights. Using Bane of the Ithil-Stone as an example, such "each/all" effects are applied to each Palantiri that is in play now and each Palantiri that comes into play later (while Bane is in play). So I agree in this case -- there is a lasting a game effect, which is not an action itself:
  • Establish a passive condition satisfied by a Palantiri being brought into play, where the passive condition triggers a doubling-modification action targeting the corruption-point-attribute of that particular Palantiri.
I believe that Bane of the Ithil-Stone also includes an immediate action for each Palantir when it resolves - "for each Palantiri already in play, perform a doubling-modification action targeting the corruption-point-attribute of that particular Palantiri." (more on this in the post below).

You might be right about the use passive verbs in establishing effects for later. I haven't looked at everything. Still, I wouldn't call establishing a passive condition an "effect that is implemented not as an action" since the passive condition implements an action when it is triggered. But the effect is not resolved as an action (there is no immediate activity).

-------------
Theo wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:01 am
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".
I think "Playing a card" is just shorthand for the action of moving a card to the play area, to some card, or to the neutral area, etc. This movement action is declared just as other actions are declared. "Being played" refers to declaration (vs "in play" after resolution).
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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 »

Passive Conditions wrote:
  • Condition, Passive: An action that causes another action to take effect. The triggered action will be the first declared action in the chain of effects immediately following the chain of effects that contained the passive condition.
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play. Typical passive conditions involve forcing corruption checks and forcing the effects of environmental long-events. These are called passive conditions because the actions they satisfy come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by the player.
  • Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike sequence follow a different set of rules.
  • Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
  • Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
Therefore, when a 1st action (the passive condition) occurs in a 1st chain of effects, if that 1st action meets certain conditions established by a 2nd effect, then the 1st action may trigger a 2nd action of the 2nd effect to be the first declared action in a 2nd chain of effects following the 1st chain of effects. Thus, the 2nd action is performed as a result of a passive condition.

But how can a passive condition trigger an action if the passive condition was already brought into play a long time ago? That is, the action that satisfies the conditions was not resolved in the preceding chain of effects

Consider the many cards having effects that are applied to "each" or "all" of something. Such cards establish some action as a passive condition that triggers the action on the card. The passive conditions are shown in bold italics and the triggered action is shown with an underline.
  • Bane of the Ithil-Stone -- "Corruption points for Palantíri are doubled." -- triggered by a Palantiri.
  • Rank Upon Rank -- "All non-agent Man attacks receive +1 prowess and +1 strikes."
  • Smaug Ahunt -- "Any company moving in Withered Heath, Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, and/or Grey Mountain Narrows immediately faces one Dragon attack"
  • Snowstorm -- "Each moving company with a in its site path must return to its site of origin"
  • Wizard's Flame -- "All attacks against Wizard's company suffer a -2 modification to prowess for the rest of the turn."
  • The Evenstar -- "the prowess of each Elf is modified by +1 (until the end of turn)"
In these examples above, the Palantir may already be in play, the non-agent Man attack may already be in play, a moving company's new site card may have already been revealed, and Elves may already be in play and they may be brought into play later (by A Change Meeting).

The triggered actions are declared in the chain of effects following the resolution of the passive condition. But the effects of such cards ALSO apply to entities that are already in play (which were not brought into play in the preceding chain of effects). How does the effect apply to those entities? I see 2 alternatives for handling this situation:
  1. The passive condition can be triggered by the state/status of the card being in play (which would be considered an action for purposes of a passive condition)
  2. The card's effects not only includes an effect triggered by a passive condition, but also declared actions for "each/all" of the appropriate entities in play.
I believe that (1) is less likely to be correct because "being in play" is the result of an action being resolved, it is not an action itself. Still, we could treat in-play status as if it were an action for purposes of triggered active conditions.

I believe that (2) is more likely to be correct because there is no issue with resolving the effects immediately upon resolution.

This point has actually been ruled on in ICE Digest 79 (which copies in rulings from a few preceding Digests). I'll copy a small portion first and then the entire thing at the end.
ICE Digest 79 wrote:Now that I think about it, RtHW does not fail. Remember, the effect of RUR is done as a passive condition, and is the first declared effect in the chain of effects immediately after the condition resolves (RUR and a man attack being in play). Therefore, Assassin only has one strike when RtHW resolves.
Thus, the ICE ruling states that Rank Upon Rank's actions of "+1 prowess and +1 strikes" are triggered as a result of a passive condition of "a man attack being in play". Hmm... My 1st issue is that I don't consider "being in play" to be an action -- and passive conditions are actions by definition. My 2nd issue that if the actions of "+1 prowess and +1 strikes" WERE triggered as a result of "being in play," then these actions of Rank Upon Rank would NOT be "the first declared effect in the chain of effects immediately after the condition (the man attack being in play) resolves." The description of passive conditions states "The triggered action will be the first declared action in the chain of effects immediately following the chain of effects that contained the passive condition." But there is no chain of effects that contained "the man attack being in play." "Being in play" is not an effect or an action that gets resolved in a chain of effects.

This ruling doesn't fit with the existing description of how passive conditions operate. There were no later rulings in the ICE Digests to address this same topic. It could be a workable solution to follow the Digest and consider "being in play" as an action and then declare the triggered actions immediately in the chain of effects following resolution of Rank Upon Rank (instead of upon resolution of the passive condition). But this really makes the "+1 prowess and +1 strikes" more like delayed actions (instead of triggered actions as a result of a passive condition).

So, I think the Digest is incorrect. I think that if the Asssassin is in play and Rank Upon Rank is NOT already in play, then when a player declares Ready to His Will, the hazard player can declare Rank Upon Rank in response. Meaning that Rank Upon Rank will resolve before Ready to His Will. And (in my opinion) resolution of Rank Upon Rank would include both (1) establishment of a passive condition effect and (2) actions targeting each non-agent Man attack in play. Meaning that Ready to His Will would not be able to resolve as it's target would be invalid.

But at the end of the day, this timing issue hardly ever arises. I can't think of another situation where it comes up besides Rank Upon Rank and Ready to His Will. So I'm OK with the ICE ruling even if it doesn't really follow the description of actions or passive conditions.

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

The relevant ICE Digest rulings (questions in italic, ICE response in bold):
ICE Digest 35 wrote:4) Does Ready to His Will refer to creature's cardtext or
> current situation? (e.g. opponent plays Rank Upon Rank
> and Assassin. Can i play RtHW?)


Current situation. However, Rank Upon Rank's effect is declared
when Assassin comes into play. You can play Ready to His Will
in response
ICE Digest 42 wrote:From: Ndongo Bastos <lgr9...@student1.lu.se>
>Can I play Ready to His Will on an enhanced Assassin
>(e.g. with Rank upon Rank)?


Yes. Rank Upon Rank must be declared and resolved as
a passive condition, and you can respond to it with
Ready to His Will.
ICE Digest 78 wrote: >>Just a minor point. Rank Upon Rank's effect is applied as a passive
>>condition. That means it is the first declared effect in the first
>>chain of effects after Assassin resolves. Thus, you can respond to
>>it with a Ready to His Will.

>
>Ichabod, does this mean that *Ready to His Will* works against an
>*Assassin* even if *Rank Upon Rank* was in play before the Assassin was
>ever played? If so this really seems weird.


That's exactly what it means. And yes, it is a bit weird. But it's either
have something a bit weird, or make up a whole new timing rule. We went
for a bit weird.


>Tell me if the following is correct:
>With no Rank Upon Rank in play an Assassin is played, then Rank Upon Rank
>is played, in respose to which Ready to His Will is played; Ready to His
>Will successfully resolves because the Assassin still only has one strike
>per attack at this point.


Correct, assuming htis is done after Assassin resolves.

>If, however, in the above example, Ready to His Will is played in response
>to the Assassin and Rank Upon Rank is played in response to Ready to His
>Will; RtHW will now fail because the Assassin now has two strikes per
>attack when RtHW resolves.


Incorrect. Ready to His Will is discarded with no effect, since it has
no valid target (Assassin has not resolved yet)
.
ICE Digest 79 wrote: From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>
>>>If, however, in the above example, Ready to His Will is played in response
>>>to the Assassin and Rank Upon Rank is played in response to Ready to His
>>>Will; RtHW will now fail because the Assassin now has two strikes per
>>>attack when RtHW resolves.

>>
>>Incorrect. Ready to His Will is discarded with no effect, since it has
>>no valid target (Assassin has not resolved yet).

>
>Hmmm... if Ready to His Will had no valid target when announced, wouldn't
>the announcement be illegal, thus the card could not be played (at that
>time) in the first place and would be kept in hand instead of discarded?


Technically, yeah.

>Anyway what I meant to ask was suppose an Assassin is announced and
>resolves ( but the target/attacks not yet carried out); RtHW is now
>announced, in response Rank Upon Rank is announced. The chain of effects
>resolves, RtHW fails because the Assassin no longer has one strike per
>attack. Right?


Now that I think about it, RtHW does not fail. Remember, the effect
of RUR is done as a passive condition, and is the first declared
effect in the chain of effects immediately after the condition
resolves (RUR and a man attack being in play). Therefore, Assassin
only has one strike when RtHW resolves.


>With regard to the weird timing rules which allow RtHW to work on an
>Assassin even if Rank Upon Rank is in play before the Assassin is
>announced, I really think this should be changed in the rules when METW
>second edition is released, if not sooner. The intuitive interpretation
>IMO would be that cards ALREADY IN PLAY like RUR work immediately and
>continuously when a card it modifies resolves (Assassin) and cannot be
>preempted by the announcement of a card not yet in play at that point.


Well, of course that's intuitive. And I already said that. But the
choice is between an intuitive answer, and creating a whole new rule
which will complicate the timing rules even more. We chose not making
the rules more complicated. YMMV.

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 »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:56 pm
So, I think the Digest is incorrect.
Alternatively, the requirement that a passive condition be an action as stated in MELE is too strict. Rather, MELE doesn't actually use Passive Condition outside of its own glossary entry and the "Declaring an Action" entry, where the wording has immediately changed to be inconsistent with the "Passive Condition" entry.
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 »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:29 pm
Which statement is not supported by the rules? And what rule contradicts that statement?
To regurgitate, ad nauseam: the rules define meeting active conditions to not be an action. The rules also tell us that cards which affect an entire class of things do not target, and list Wake of War as example. (Incidentally, they're using "card" in the exact same sense they're using it when they say "A card cannot be played for no effect." If we assume the rules divorce card play from a card's text, that means that no cards can legally be played, since only their text has an effect, not the card itself.)

So long as your conclusions are based on either of these false premises, they are wrong.
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 »

Theo wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:04 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:56 pm
So, I think the Digest is incorrect.
Alternatively, the requirement that a passive condition be an action as stated in MELE is too strict. Rather, MELE doesn't actually use Passive Condition outside of its own glossary entry and the "Declaring an Action" entry, where the wording has immediately changed to be inconsistent with the "Passive Condition" entry.
Thinking about the glossary entry and the Annotations, I agree that the glossary definition could be too strict. The Annotations were written in the METW companion BEFORE the MELE rulesbook. The glossary entry is a summary of the Annotations. But the Annotations do not restrict passive conditions to only being actions. Still, the Annotations require the triggered action to be declared in the chain of effects following the chain of effects that produced the passive condition (which, if the passive condition was already in play, it could have been produced many chains of effects ago).

Also interesting to note that the designers realized that the definition of Passive Conditions was not perfect -- Annotation 9a doesn't fit the original or the glossary definition (e.g., considering Will of Sauron -- the original Annotation 9 would cause the discarding of Hazard long events in a 3rd chain after discarding Will of Sauron in the preceding 2nd chain, after discarding Doors of Night in the preceding 1st chain. While Annotation 9a states to discard these cards simultaneously with discarding Doors. Annotation 9a fixes the issue of the hazard long events not being discarded since Will of Sauron's effects is no longer in play in the 3rd chain when the hazard long events were supposed to be discarded).

----------

By the way, I don't see any inconsistency between the glossary on Passive Conditions and Declaring an Action. One refers to the chain of effects that "Produced" vs "Contained" the passive condition. But these 2 terms just refer to being "declared and resolved" in that chain. Is there some other issue?
Condition, Passive: An action that causes another action to take effect. The triggered action will be the first declared action in the chain of effects immediately following the chain of effects that contained the passive condition.
Declaring an Action: Stating that 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. Each time you play a card, you are declaring an action. Actions triggered by passive conditions are declared as the first action in the chain of effects following the chain of effects which produced the passive condition.
-------------

Anyway, going back to the Annotations:
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play. Typical passive conditions involve forcing corruption checks and forcing the effects of environmental long-events. These are called passive conditions because the actions they satisfy come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by the player.
  • Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike sequence follow a different set of rules.
  • Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
  • Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
If Rank Upon Rank and others cards that establish a passive condition do trigger their effects in the chain following their own resolution when the passive condition is met by something already in play, then maybe this is statement reflects that:
  • If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition and the passive condition is in play when the card resolves, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects containing the card.
----------

Another possible issue arises when actions are triggered by passive conditions but that action will have no effect if it is declared in the following chain of effects. This issue arises with actions that perform cancellation or modify dice rolls. Such actions need to be triggered in the same chain of effects as the passive condition.
  • Webs of Fear and Treachery -- "all modifications to each influence attempt are reduced to zero"
  • Time are Evil -- "All offering attempts and influence attempts are modified by -3"
  • Promptings of Wisdom -- "cancel all hazard effects for the rest of the turn that: force his company to return to its site of origin or that tap his company's current or new site."
  • Bane of the Ithil-Stone -- "automatically cancels any effect that causes a player to search through or look at any portion of a play deck or discard pile."
  • Foolish Words -- "Any riddling roll, offering attempt, or influence attempt by the target character is modified by -4"
  • Traitor -- "Any resulting body check is modified by +1."
If the modifications to influence/offering/body checks were declared in the following chain of effects, the dice roll would have already happened when the previous (current) chain of effects resolves.

It seems that actions triggered as a result of a passive condition can be declared immediately in the same chain of effects as long as those actions are capable of targeting declared but not-yet-resolved actions. Dice roll modifications can target not-yet-resolved dice rolls. Cancellation effects can target not-yet-resolved actions.

So, these cards (cancellation of "each/all" ___ and modifying each/all ___ dice roll by passive condition) could not follow original Annotation 9 if they were to work at all.




PS, I can see viability of an argument that "cancellation" effects simply negate the validity of declaration or resolution of the appropriate effects, without needing to declare or resolve the specific cancellation. But this argument doesn't work for dice rolls.

PPS, "is modified" (passive) is used in several cards with respect to prowess and dice rolls, etc without ever establishing a passive condition established. So I don't think there is a direct correlation between verb tense and effects that occur after resolution.

PPPS, I hope Butterbur sends this promptly.
G.PNG
G.PNG (1.74 KiB) Viewed 3386 times
Last edited by CDavis7M on Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:31 pm, edited 9 times in total.

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:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:44 pm
So long as your conclusions are based on either of these false premises, they are wrong.
Ok, so all of my conclusions are all correct.

--------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:44 pm
The rules also tell us that cards which affect an entire class of things do not target, and list Wake of War as example. (Incidentally, they're using "card" in the exact same sense they're using it when they say "A card cannot be played for no effect." If we assume the rules divorce card play from a card's text, that means that no cards can legally be played, since only their text has an effect, not the card itself.)
But declaration of playing a card (e.g., moving it from you hand to the play area" necessarily causes all of the card's effects to be declared (MELE p. 50). While playing a card is an separate actions from the actions created by the card's effects, the play of the card still caused the card's effects to be declared. So if the card's effects have an effect on the game, then the play of the card was not for "no effect."

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 »

If declaring playing a card causes (rather than encapsulates) declaring its effects, then the resolution of those effects occurs prior to the card play resolving and the card itself being considered to be in play. This would be problematic for cards that specify placement of themselves within their effects; such cards could never actually have their play declaration resolve; they would have already been placed. So while their declaration of play has an effect, the play itself cannot have an effect, and thus such cards can never be declared. :shock:
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:31 pm
If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition and the passive condition is in play when the card resolves, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects containing the card.
You do realize that this statement cannot apply to passive conditions that are actions, since they are never "in play" even if they are "played".

I do really like the idea of the non-unique Bane of the Ithil-Stone not actually canceling search effects. :twisted:

On further review I noticed that Rank Upon Rank verb tense is actually active, unlike all the "is/are modified" cases, and even though the word choice uses one of the most passive verbs.

The view I was trying to express before is that passive verb tense (or really, passive mood, perfect verb tense) indicates an effect rather than an action (there is no requirement for an actor). Note that only actions caused by passive conditions need to be resolved in a new chain of effects; passive effects (by the present "to be" verb) simply are; one could regard them as asserting properties that modify the rules governing the entities they effect directly and immediately.
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:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:14 am
If declaring playing a card causes (rather than encapsulates) declaring its effects, then the resolution of those effects occurs prior to the card play resolving and the card itself being considered to be in play. This would be problematic for cards that specify placement of themselves within their effects; such cards could never actually have their play declaration resolve; they would have already been placed. So while their declaration of play has an effect, the play itself cannot have an effect, and thus such cards can never be declared. :shock:
I have considered this issue before, and come up with some thoughts. But before all that, let's recognize that this doesn't really matter because the game works. There is no situation where this matters. So then it doesn't matter how "playing a card" actually works within the mechanics of the game. Whatever interpretation of playing a card, playing a card would be OK as far as Legal Play of Cards as long as the effects of the card fit the 3 requirements.

Also, note that when "playing a card," the card does not actually hit the table until RESOLUTION of the action of "moving a card from your hand to the table." At declaration of the moving action, the card has not hit the table yet, and so it is unknown to your opponent. BUT!!! What about the chain of effects!? How can we reconcile this issue? Luckily, the designers already recognized this issue and created the solution of "synonymous" actions (see list of Annotations below)

Using this framework it's clear that:
  • (A) RESOLUTION of the card being moved from your hand to the play area is synonymous with (B) DECLARATION of "playing the card" followed by (C) the DECLARATION of all of the effects of the card in reverse order. (Yes, resolution of one action is considered the same as declaration of many other actions. See Annotation 5, etc)
  • When you declare that a card is being played, the card is immediately moved (resolved) and the card's effects are declared in reverse order. These are "synonymous" -- they all happen at the exact same time according to the game mechanics. Meaning, the movement of the card is resolved without respect to timing and any chain of effects, similar to resolution of an active condition.
This works the same as the beginning of the movement/hazard phase. The actual flipping over of a new site card at the beginning of the M/H phase IS the resolution of the action of starting the movement hazard phase -- which includes the "synonymous" actions of starting the M/H phase, drawing cards, and revealing any new site card. The start of the M/H phase is still a declared action (that causes all of these things to happen at resolution), but there is never any reason to declare anything in response. In fact, the hazard player can't declare anything in response because the M/H phase hasn't started. And the resource player has no reason to ever declare anything in response. Just like the resource player would never bother to declare anything in response to the action of untapping a character in the untap phase.

In another example, the RESOLUTION of tapping a character can be synonymous with declaration of some action. There is no difference between this and the resolution of moving a card to the table being synonymous with playing a card.

Playing a card involves synonymous actions even though the designers never indicated as such. There are a lot of things in the game that are understood to work within the mechanics of the game without specifically referring to those mechanics. Like the rule requiring the the hazard limit to be checked upon declaration and upon resolution. Meaning, that sufficient hazard limit is an active condition at both declaration and resolution of playing the hazard (even though active conditions are never mentioned). There is just no other way for playing a card to work. And the definition matches the description of how cards are played. So this must be the underling mechanic.

This use of "synonymous" actions is the way that the designers reconciled timing issues when actions are supposed to happen together. The synonymous actions happens without respect to the timing rules for chains of effects. I'll refer to this as being "outside" of the chain of effects. Examples of synonymous actions:
  • Annotation 25b: Players drawing cards when a new site is revealed is synonymous with the resolution of the new site being revealed. It happens immediately, not in the following chain of effects.
  • Annotation 5: Tapping an entity as an active condition is considered synonymous with the action's declaration.
  • Annotation 6: Discarding an entity as an active condition is considered synonymous with the action's declaration.
  • Annotation 19: A special action resulting from a strike is generally considered synonymous with the strike dice-roll.
  • Annotation 21: A successful strike against a character is synonymous with that character being wounded
  • Annotation 22: Reassigning of the eliminated character's items is considered to be synonymous with his failed body check.
  • Annotation 23: A character being discarded or eliminated and his items being discarded are considered synonymous with a failed corruption check.
--------------
Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:14 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:31 pm
If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition and the passive condition is in play when the card resolves, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects containing the card.
You do realize that this statement cannot apply to passive conditions that are actions, since they are never "in play" even if they are "played".
Yes that is the point. The MELE Glossary entry on Passive Conditions is not a perfect reflection of the description of Passive Conditions in the Rules Annotations. This statement above is additional -- intended to cover passive conditions that are in play. This statement was not intended to apply to actions. The existing statement already applies to actions.

Clearly Rank Upon Rank applies to Attacks that are resolved and in play. And the effect of +1 prowess/strike is implemented either (A) by a passive condition according to the statement above or (B) by declaring and resolving an action directly without use of passive conditions.

I still think (B) is more likely to be the case since (A) has the issue of passive conditions being described as declaring the triggered actions "in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition." (e.g., Sun gives all Dúnadan +1 prowess, but a particular Dúnadan in play may never have been produced in a chain of effects, it could have been produced during the character draft).

------------
Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:14 am
The view I was trying to express before is that passive verb tense (or really, passive mood, perfect verb tense) indicates an effect rather than an action (there is no requirement for an actor). Note that only actions caused by passive conditions need to be resolved in a new chain of effects; passive effects (by the present "to be" verb) simply are; one could regard them as asserting properties that modify the rules governing the entities they effect directly and immediately.
Why would an action require an "actor" (beyond the player)? Is the target of the action the "actor"? Or, what would the actor be?

I agree that some "effects" would not necessarily have a target. I would consider an "effect" be a statement on a card. Most effects are actions or a series of actions. But some effects create actions that are triggerable by active or passive conditions. I would call this a "lasting effect" because it remains in play. What would you consider to be an "effect"?

Also, I don't see anything in the game's framework for "passive effects" that "modify the rules governing entities they effect directly and immediately."

Instead, I see:
  • Cards having attributes (e.g., Mind, prowess, site-type, region name, etc).
  • Annotation 1 describing actions that target elements of the card
From this, I understand +1 prowess to be an action modifying an attribute of an entity. I don't see how any entity could have its attributes modified without some action.

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 »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:23 pm
Using this framework it's clear that:
  • (A) RESOLUTION of the card being moved from your hand to the play area is synonymous with (B) DECLARATION of "playing the card" followed by (C) the DECLARATION of all of the effects of the card in reverse order. (Yes, resolution of one action is considered the same as declaration of many other actions. See Annotation 5, etc)
  • When you declare that a card is being played, the card is immediately moved (resolved) and the card's effects are declared in reverse order. These are "synonymous" -- they all happen at the exact same time according to the game mechanics. Meaning, the movement of the card is resolved without respect to timing and any chain of effects, similar to resolution of an active condition.
It is irrelevant to me where the card is moved. CRF Annotation 1 is unambiguous that a card is not considered to be in play prior to being resolved in its chain of effects.
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:23 pm
Why would an action require an "actor" (beyond the player)? Is the target of the action the "actor"? Or, what would the actor be?
In English, every verb requires a subject. Active verbs explain an action taken by the subject. For imperative tense we often have an implicit subject (in our case the player). Passive verbs do not need to have any actor, not even an implicit one (or some would say Existence is the implicit actor).

One of my proposals for this year's ARV discusses at length my beliefs that a "number and type"-specified actor of an action should qualify as an additional target for that action, in addition to any object entities that seem to be readily recognized as targets. (Actors, in the case of Ruse.)
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:23 pm
Also, I don't see anything in the game's framework for "passive effects" that "modify the rules governing entities they effect directly and immediately."
Indeed. I've been having a heck of a time tracking down where our notion that card texts supercede the rulesbooks originates. At the very least, we have the CRF:
CRF wrote: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.
My working theory is that the passive effects are meant to alter how we understand the underlying rules. Implementing the effect would necessitate "direct and immediate" adoption; we can't choose to postpone following new rules. So "any resulting body check is modified by +1" means something like the dice roll is interpreted as being 1 higher. To contrast, your "action" framework might be conceptualized as the dice roll being interpreted at face value before some undefined actor must come along and actively declare and then resolve that the roll increases by one.
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: 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 »

1.
I want to stress:
I never said that action must be declared.
Also I believe that "discard" or "tap" are actions whether they are declared, or they are activities taken to establish an active condition, or otherwise.
2.
CRF says that active conditions are not separate actions (I understand that "separate" in this context means "separate from declared actions").
This does not exclude possibility that they may be actions generally. It even suggests such possibility.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

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 »

3.
If cards cannot be declared then what is cancelled by Many Sorrows Befall?
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:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:35 am
1.
I want to stress:
I never said that action must be declared.
Also I believe that "discard" or "tap" are actions whether they are declared, or they are activities taken to establish an active condition, or otherwise.
2.
CRF says that active conditions are not separate actions (I understand that "separate" in this context means "separate from declared actions").
This does not exclude possibility that they may be actions generally. It even suggests such possibility.
I'm OK with 1 and 2 because I think there is no difference to the game. But I would prefer the terminology of multiple different actions being "synonymous actions"

As for point 3. "Card" refers to the card's effects.

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:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:26 pm
As for point 3. "Card" refers to the card's effects.
Playing a card means introducing it into play. This involves declaring and resolving it.
I do not think that a creature card that at its resolution cannot came into play (due to lack of HL, not being keyable anymore to specified region symbols, or site type etc.) has its attacks canceled.
Otherwise its attacks would be considerd faced.
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:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:01 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:26 pm
As for point 3. "Card" refers to the card's effects.
I do not think that a creature card that at its resolution cannot came into play (due to lack of HL, not being keyable anymore to specified region symbols, or site type etc.) has its attacks canceled.
Otherwise its attacks would be considerd faced.
I didn't say that it would

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:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:28 pm
I didn't say that it would
I know. I said that a card (itself, but along with actions and effects that it creates) may be decalred and I say that a card (itself), may be fizzled.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”