Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:40 pm

Theo wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:15 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:34 pm
Pallando and Press-gang's effects initially don't do anything, but later these effects come into play indirectly as a result of other decisions made by the players.
One problem with your interpretation is that it contradicts the rules saying that the effects of permanent events are implemented immediately.
There is no contradiction. All effects are implemented immediately. The effects that are immediately implemented here establish what the passive condition is that will trigger an action later. There is no requirement that the action of the immediately implememnted effect also happen immediately.

This is clear in the rules:

Image

Examples of how the already implemented effects can be triggered are also given in the rules:

Image

Effects using passive conditions work the same whether created by a permanent, long, or short event. The only difference is the duration of the effect and how it may be canceled. Short event effects creating actions triggered by passive conditions last less than one turn, but they must be canceled at declaration if they are to be canceled at all. While long and permanent events last longer, but they can be canceled after resolution.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:58 am

Theo wrote:
Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:41 am
Ah, I see your concern now. I was thinking they were using passive condition, but on thorough inspection I agree that they aren't. In that case, their effects resolved in whichever order they entered play. Whichever entered first makes the condition within the second's effect impossible.
This means that Annotation 26 takes affect, so if both Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper are in play at the beginning of player's M/H phase, a hazard player decides about order of their effects. I.e. he cannot postpone his decision to the moment when next non-Ringwraith minion character has to be discarded.
Right?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:06 am

Right; when they are first played only the first played will be relevant, but each start of a player's movement/hazard phase after that the hazard player chooses which will be relevant.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:59 pm

Annotation 26 does not apply to the declaration of Press-gang and Pallando because these effects are alternatives, they don't have a net effect.
CRF Movement/Hazard Phase wrote:Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
The effects of Press-gang and Pallando discussed here are alternatives: the would-be-discarded minion is either placed "off to the side" OR he is eliminated. There is no "net effect" of these two effects. Annotation 26 also to Fell Winter ( [-me_bl-] to [-me_wi-] ) and Morgul Night ( [-me_wi-] to [-me_sl-] ). A [-me_bl-] either becomes a [-me_sl-] (Morgul Night declared first) or a [-me_wi-] (Fell Winter declared first). The alternatives of Press-gang and Pallando do not create a "net effect" similar to these effects. Instead, the effects of Press-gang and Pallando are governed by Annotation 10.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:08 am

Saying "it isn't annotation 26" is insufficient justification for "it must be annotation 10". But you've already expressed your opinions there, so no need to rehash.

But as for "it isn't annotation 26", I think you have a different (too strict) sense of what "net effect" means. Another example of net effect is with Snowstorm and Itangast Ahunt. "They are separate effects", but the net effect (either being attacked and then returned home, or just returned home) certainly depends on the order they are resolved. In general, when the resolution of one effect can prevent the other effect from being meaningful, there is a dependency of the net effect on the order the two are resolved.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:45 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:59 pm
Annotation 26 also applies to Fell Winter ( [-me_bl-] to [-me_wi-] ) and Morgul Night ( [-me_wi-] to [-me_sl-] ). A [-me_bl-] either becomes a [-me_sl-] (Morgul Night declared first) or a [-me_wi-] (Fell Winter declared first). The alternatives of Press-gang and Pallando do not create a "net effect" similar to these effects.
You are using the term "declared" while Annotation 26 operates on term "applied".
How about effects of Itangast at Home and Bane of the Ithil-stone?
Both effects affect the greater item palantiri. Addition and multiplication give different "net effect" depending on the order of the operations.
Both cards may be in play even if there are no greater item palantiri in play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:59 am

@CDavis7M
Seems like you feel comfortable with fact that if Morgul Night is applied as first and Fell Winter is applied as second, a region that was initially [-me_bl-] is not affected by Morgul Night.
[If order of applying ot the effects would be different, then the region would be affected by Fell Winter ( [-me_bl-] to [-me_wi-]) and then by Morgul Night ( [-me_wi-] to [-me_sl-] )]

How is it different from a discarding being altered by Press-gang and thus not being altered by Pallando the Soul-keeper, or vice versa?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:02 pm

Theo wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:08 am
Saying "it isn't annotation 26" is insufficient justification for "it must be annotation 10". But you've already expressed your opinions there, so no need to rehash.
This is not my argument. Pallando and Press-gang are different from Fell Winter and Morgul Night. By principles of circular reasoning, the ◯s have trees and towers [-me_wi-] [-me_bl-] which may be affected by the Annotation 26, while Pallando and Press-gang don't have ◯s and so Annotation 26 does not circularly apply 8)
Theo wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:08 am
But as for "it isn't annotation 26", I think you have a different (too strict) sense of what "net effect" means. Another example of net effect is with Snowstorm and Itangast Ahunt. "They are separate effects", but the net effect (either being attacked and then returned home, or just returned home) certainly depends on the order they are resolved. In general, when the resolution of one effect can prevent the other effect from being meaningful, there is a dependency of the net effect on the order the two are resolved.
No doubt that there is a difference to the player and their company. But the movement of the company is not the same as a creature, these effects don't work with each other. And so Annotation 26 doesn't govern.

-------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:45 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:59 pm
Annotation 26 also applies to Fell Winter ( [-me_bl-] to [-me_wi-] ) and Morgul Night ( [-me_wi-] to [-me_sl-] ). A [-me_bl-] either becomes a [-me_sl-] (Morgul Night declared first) or a [-me_wi-] (Fell Winter declared first). The alternatives of Press-gang and Pallando do not create a "net effect" similar to these effects.
You are using the term "declared" while Annotation 26 operates on term "applied".
Nothing was meant by this difference in terminology.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:45 am
How about effects of Itangast at Home and Bane of the Ithil-stone?
Both effects affect the greater item palantiri. Addition and multiplication give different "net effect" depending on the order of the operations.
Both cards may be in play even if there are no greater item palantiri in play.
This IS a net effect. Both effects change the corruption points and so there is a net effect. The hazard player would decide per Annotation 26. Looking at this again in the ICE Digests and looking at the Companion, it seems that the purpose of Annotation 26 is to prevent a player from getting full use from ordering effects as the hazard player and then diminishing their effectiveness when those hazards are turned on him during his resource turn by re-ordering the effects per Annotation 10, which would otherwise apply. Basically, if you played the lasting hazard effects, they can at least be turned on you with the same effectiveness.

So, Annotation 26 only governs the timing if these effects were both in play at the start of the M/H phase. Annotation 26 wouldn't govern the timing if the effects were in play before the actions were triggered by a passive condition but were not both in play at the start of the M/H phase. So, even if there is a difference in the net effect, the hazard player doesn't always get to decide the order, they only get to decide the order if the effects were already in play. Still, the hazard player has some say given that they are the one playing the new hazards.
ICE DIgest 53" wrote:From: SpenceC67 <Spen...@aol.com>
>Suppose a character bears a 3-corruption point Palantir and no other items. If both The Roving Eye and The Balance of Things are in play (each of which would cause the corruption points of the Palantir to double), how many corruption points does the character have? 6? 9? 12? (Does it matter which hazard was played first?)


The Roving Eye would not cause the corruption to double. I am assuming you mean Bane of the Ithil-stone, which would double the CPs. In that case it doesn't matter which was played first, he has 12 corruption points. Ouch. When the play would matter is with Rumor of the One, The Balance of Things and a character with only a 2 CP ring item. If they were both in play at the start of the movement/hazard phase the hazard player would decide the order they were applied in, otherwise they would be applied in the order they resolved. If Rumor of the One is applied first, the CPs would be 6, if Balance is applied first, the CPs would be 5.
Before, I was wondering whether the hazard player would always decide ordering in situations of net effect, and whether the ordering would only apply to effects triggered at the start of the M/H phase or not. Apparently Annotation 26 artificially sets order regardless of when the effects are triggered.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:59 am
@CDavis7M
Seems like you feel comfortable with fact that if Morgul Night is applied as first and Fell Winter is applied as second, a region that was initially [-me_bl-] is not affected by Morgul Night.
[If order of applying ot the effects would be different, then the region would be affected by Fell Winter ( [-me_bl-] to [-me_wi-]) and then by Morgul Night ( [-me_wi-] to [-me_sl-] )]

How is it different from a discarding being altered by Press-gang and thus not being altered by Pallando the Soul-keeper, or vice versa?
If there is the possibility that Morgul Night and Fell Winter stack together to create a net effect (e.g., [-me_bl-] to [-me_wi-] to [-me_sl-] ), Annotation 26 governs the timing even if a different ordering would cause one effect or the other to not apply to a particular region type.

The effects of Press-gang and Pallando don't stack together regardless of the ordering.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:25 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:02 pm
Theo wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:08 am
But as for "it isn't annotation 26", I think you have a different (too strict) sense of what "net effect" means. Another example of net effect is with Snowstorm and Itangast Ahunt. "They are separate effects", but the net effect (either being attacked and then returned home, or just returned home) certainly depends on the order they are resolved. In general, when the resolution of one effect can prevent the other effect from being meaningful, there is a dependency of the net effect on the order the two are resolved.
No doubt that there is a difference to the player and their company. But the effect of Snowstorm and an Ahunt Dragon are affecting two different things. The movement of the company is not the same as a creature, these effects don't work with each other. Instead, for Snowstorm and an Ahunt, the resource player chooses the declaration order of Snowstorm and the Ahunt attack per Annotation 10 as they would both be triggered at the same time when revealing a new site.
I'm not sure what you meant by "instead" here. I was talking about net effects, not who gets to choose the order. Here are a few definitions; take your pick:
Macmillan english dictionary: "A net effect or result is the final one, after everything has been considered."
Merriam-Webster: "Excluding all nonessential considerations: BASIC, FINAL; net effect."

A final outcome can be to a player / game state, not just a single property. I see no evidence to suggest that "net effects" only apply to modifications to a single property, as you seem to be claiming.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:09 pm

Good idea. Let's weigh the evidence.

The only examples of Annotation 26 given by ICE are region-type changing effects (Fell Winter and Morgul Night in the Companion book) and effects doubling numbers (doubling strikes and corruption points in the ICE digests). I haven't seen anything stating that Annotation 26 applies whenever there is a possibility for the game to play out differently.

While it is a possible interpretation, there is no evidence in the published game documents to suggest that Annotation 26 applies whenever "A final outcome can be to a player / game state." Please share if you find something.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:59 am

Even if it were possible for Annotation 26 to govern this situation, both Pallando and Press-gang would need to have already been in play at the start of the M/H phase for Annotation 26 to apply.

What would be the timing if one or both of Pallando and Press-gang were played during the M/H phase? Would Annotation 10 not apply?


It seems clear enough that Annotation 10 on Passive Conditions would govern timing since Pallando and Press-gang's effects come into play indirectly as a result of other decisions made by the players, which is what the rules on passive conditions were made to cover.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:25 am

I believe I have said before that *I* don't see Press-gang nor PallandoTSK using passive conditions.

The historic tendencies of CoE would probably side with you in that regard, though, given the chance. Cue Bandobras' signature. An example of a ruling in this realm that I think is obviously questionable:
CoE #21 wrote:*** A passive condition is like Lure of Nature, which sits on a character waiting for the character to walk through a wilderness. When they do, the effect is triggered.
What?? The effect is triggered at the end of every movement/hazard phase the character took part in; if the character moved through zero wildernesses then they make zero corruption checks.

Interpret this one for me? I actually would have thought Greed does set up a passive condition.
CoE #124 wrote:Even though the corruption checks from Greed are not triggered by a passive condition, they are treated that way for the purposes of timing.

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:09 pm
The only examples of Annotation 26 given by ICE are region-type changing effects (Fell Winter and Morgul Night in the Companion book) and effects doubling numbers (doubling strikes and corruption points in the ICE digests). I haven't seen anything stating that Annotation 26 applies whenever there is a possibility for the game to play out differently.

While it is a possible interpretation, there is no evidence in the published game documents to suggest that Annotation 26 applies whenever "A final outcome can be to a player / game state." Please share if you find something.
You are talking about limiting the scope of a term which does not inherently have such a limit. In my opinion, the burden is on you to provide a reason for deviating from common English usage. The published game documents were written in English (principally), so English definitions are my evidence barring redefinition within the published game documents.

Your citing the scope of examples given in the rules does not sway me. You might just as readily say that the rules do not give any examples of a player drawing more than X cards during their turn, but that does not deductively imply that there is a limit on the number of cards a player may draw in a turn. i.e., "e.g." does not require that all cases be covered, nor preclude other cases from being possible.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:26 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:02 pm
CDavis7M wrote: ↑04 Nov 2019, 19:59
Annotation 26 also applies to Fell Winter ( to ) and Morgul Night ( to ). A either becomes a (Morgul Night declared first) or a (Fell Winter declared first). The alternatives of Press-gang and Pallando do not create a "net effect" similar to these effects.
You are using the term "declared" while Annotation 26 operates on term "applied".
Nothing was meant by this difference in terminology.
I do not mind to argue. I only wanted to hear your opinion.
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:02 pm
This IS a net effect. Both effects change the corruption points and so there is a net effect. The hazard player would decide per Annotation 26. Looking at this again in the ICE Digests and looking at the Companion, it seems that the purpose of Annotation 26 is to prevent a player from getting full use from ordering effects as the hazard player and then diminishing their effectiveness when those hazards are turned on him during his resource turn by re-ordering the effects per Annotation 10, which would otherwise apply. Basically, if you played the lasting hazard effects, they can at least be turned on you with the same effectiveness.

So, Annotation 26 only governs the timing if these effects were both in play at the start of the M/H phase. Annotation 26 wouldn't govern the timing if the effects were in play before the actions were triggered by a passive condition but were not both in play at the start of the M/H phase. So, even if there is a difference in the net effect, the hazard player doesn't always get to decide the order, they only get to decide the order if the effects were already in play. Still, the hazard player has some say given that they are the one playing the new hazards.
From your previous example (Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead) I'm infering that modifications to prowess also count as the "effects".
Nice to hear that resource player chooses order of applying/declaring (as you said "Nothing was meant by this difference in terminology") effects only if the order does not matter (e.g. bonuses to prowess of attacks from Rank upon Rank and from Night).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:12 pm

Theo wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:25 am
I believe I have said before that *I* don't see Press-gang nor PallandoTSK using passive conditions.

The historic tendencies of CoE would probably side with you in that regard, though, given the chance. Cue Bandobras' signature. An example of a ruling in this realm that I think is obviously questionable:
CoE #21 wrote:*** A passive condition is like Lure of Nature, which sits on a character waiting for the character to walk through a wilderness. When they do, the effect is triggered.
What?? The effect is triggered at the end of every movement/hazard phase the character took part in; if the character moved through zero wildernesses then they make zero corruption checks.

Interpret this one for me? I actually would have thought Greed does set up a passive condition.
CoE #124 wrote:Even though the corruption checks from Greed are not triggered by a passive condition, they are treated that way for the purposes of timing.
The CoE has bogus rulings all over the place. The NetRep clearly didn't refer to the ICE rulings and often didn't bother to read the CRF. I don't even look at them anymore.
Theo wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:25 am
I believe I have said before that *I* don't see Press-gang nor PallandoTSK using passive conditions.
How else could they work?
Last edited by CDavis7M on Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:33 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:26 am
From your previous example (Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead) I'm infering that modifications to prowess also count as the "effects".
Nice to hear that resource player chooses order of applying/declaring (as you said "Nothing was meant by this difference in terminology") effects only if the order does not matter (e.g. bonuses to prowess of attacks from Rank upon Rank and from Night).
Unfortunately, the ICE rulings make it more complicated than that. The resource player actually can choose the order to applying/declaring effects if the order DOES matter (not only if the order does not matter) if one of the effects causing the order to matter was not already in play at the start of the M/H phase (e.g., it was played during the current M/H phase).
Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
Example: Resource Player has 2 companies, A and B. Plague of Wights and Doors of Night is in play.
-Company A moves. The Moon is Dead is played. A Barrow-wight creature is played. The Resource Player decides the declaration/application order because The Moon is Dead was not in play at the start of the M/H phase. So Barrow-wight has only 3 strikes: 1 strike originally, doubled to 2 by PoW, plus an extra 1 from TMiD.
-Company B moves. Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead are already in play. A Barrow-wight creature is played. The Hazard Player decides the declaration/application order and so Barrow-wight now has 4 strikes: 1 strike originally, plus 1 from TMiD, doubled to 4 by PoW.

Why does the Resource player get to decide the order for Company A? Why is this difference needed in this situation? I think this situation is unintentional. I think the rule really only makes sense when it is your own hazards being used against you.

Of course, if The Moon is Dead were already in play and Plague of Wights were not already in play, then the Hazard player could still maximize the strikes by playing PoW before strikes are assigned. But then the Resource player would choose the order for the 2nd Barrow-wight played. Causing discrepancies in the number of strikes given the same cards being in play/played (which is not obvious from the cards).

Looking at Annotation 26 again, it seems to be stating that the hazard player would need to review the hazards already in play at the start of the M/H phase and immediately decide the order in which effects are to be applied, before any cards are even played. And then "once this interpretation is established", play resumes as normal.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”