Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2917
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 5:46 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:33 pm
-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.
Thanks.
I do not think that this situation was intentional, too. Albeit for other reasons.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:17 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:33 pm
-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.
Where are you deriving this from?

The last rulings on this that I know of all indicate that the attack modification effects don't trigger until the creation of the attack, at which point it is no longer the start of the movement/hazard phase and the resource player gets to choose the order.
CoE #63 wrote:It doesn't matter if the enhancers are already in play or played in the M/h phase - the enhancers don't do anything until their passive effects (enhancing attacks) are triggered by the play of a creature. So in the case above it doesn't matter that you played Moon is Dead 3 turns ago, Plague this turn and then the wight - when the wight is declared all the enhancer effects trigger, and the resource (moving) player chooses the order of resolution of those as per anno 10.
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
Theo
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:38 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
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.
How else could they work?
See above.

In contrast, how could they possibly work with passive conditions?
CRF wrote: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.
1) What were you thinking the passive condition is? The potential for a character to be discarded? The character in a state of about-to-be-discarded?

2) Let's say this situation occurs from a body check on the character. The replacement action occurs to be resolved in the next chain of effects. Whoops! By the time it gets to that point, the character has already been discarded. There is no opportunity to "cancel" the discard. There is not even an about-to-be-discarded character state.

No; replacement effects seem like they have to be modifications to the rules themselves: applied immediately and only relevant when the rule they replace would otherwise be enacted.
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: 897
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:27 pm

Theo wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:17 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:33 pm
-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.
Where are you deriving this from?

The last rulings on this that I know of all indicate that the attack modification effects don't trigger until the creation of the attack, at which point it is no longer the start of the movement/hazard phase and the resource player gets to choose the order.
CoE #63 wrote:It doesn't matter if the enhancers are already in play or played in the M/h phase - the enhancers don't do anything until their passive effects (enhancing attacks) are triggered by the play of a creature. So in the case above it doesn't matter that you played Moon is Dead 3 turns ago, Plague this turn and then the wight - when the wight is declared all the enhancer effects trigger, and the resource (moving) player chooses the order of resolution of those as per anno 10.
This CoE ruling is inconsistent with the ICE ruling, yet it makes no mention of overruling ICE. So the CoE ruling is a mistake. This is just another example of the CoE Netrep not knowing or reading the ICE rulings.

I had thought similar to this CoE ruling until reading the ICE rulings. The Resource Player still chooses the order of most everything that gets triggered at once. But before anything is ever played in a particular M/H phase, the Hazard Player will need to speak up and set the ordering for applying TMiD and PoW, if they were already in play, per Annotation 26. Then, the order for applying these two effects is already set whether or not their effects are triggered. The Resource Player cannot change this later. Annotation 26 is definitely contrived. And I'm not quite sure what the reasoning was for it besides your own environment hazards being played against you.

-----------
Theo wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:38 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
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.
How else could they work?
See above.
...
replacement effects seem like they have to be modifications to the rules themselves: applied immediately and only relevant when the rule they replace would otherwise be enacted.
Except, if these effects were only modifying the rules, then they wouldn't apply to card effects that would discard a character (e.g., A Lie in Your Eyes). Such card effects are not governed by any rules on discarding. Even orcs being discarded by body checks is a card effect, merely described in the rules. If Pallando and Press-gang were to apply to any discarding action, their effects would need to be applied to the potential situation, and that is what the rules on Passive Conditions were designed to cover.

------
Theo wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:38 pm
CRF wrote: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.
1) What were you thinking the passive condition is? The potential for a character to be discarded? The character in a state of about-to-be-discarded?

2) Let's say this situation occurs from a body check on the character. The replacement action occurs to be resolved in the next chain of effects. Whoops! By the time it gets to that point, the character has already been discarded. There is no opportunity to "cancel" the discard. There is not even an about-to-be-discarded character state.
I've made no Whoopsie here. Sometimes a passive condition can merely be a declaration of something, without that something resolving, and the triggered action can be declared in the same chain of effects as the declared passive condition. Annotation 9 doesn't described every situation. It doesn't even describe cards already in play acting as passive conditions.

There are many cards where the passive condition is simply a declaration and the triggered action is declared and resolved in the same chain of effects. Some particular declared actions can be a passive condition for triggering cancellation of that particular action in the same chain of effects (e.g., Govern the Storms, Tookish Blood, pretty much any cancellation really). Declared dice rolls can be passive conditions for triggering a roll modification in the same chain of effects (e.g., Tribal Totem, Times are Evil, First of the Order, White Light Broken, etc.). Or any effect that needs to be applied in response to a declared action (Necklace of Silver and Pearls).

There are many cards that replace some potential action, or cancel that action and perform some other action instead. But most times cards creating such effects also create the potential for the replaced-action to happen (e.g., Thief, Roving Eye, etc.). But just because Pallando and Press-gang don't create the situation where the potentially replaced action would happen doesn't mean that their effects aren't applied to each such situation as it arises.

So yes, the passive condition can simply be a declared action that might result in discarding of a minion. And Pallando and Press-gangs effects would be triggered, declared, and resolved in the same chain of effects in response to the declared action. And the order of their effects would be set by the Resource Player per Annotation 10, unless both effects were already in play at the start of the M/H phase, in which case the Hazard Player would have established the order at the start of the M/H phase. If some minion were to be discarded, the resolved effects of Pallando and Press-gang would negate the discarding and one of their effects will triggered based on the ordering and conditioned upon whether the discarding would have happened.

-------

The designers created the rules on passive conditions to govern effects that happen later but only indirectly by other actions and decisions by the player, such as the effects of Pallando and Press-gang. Many other cards use passive conditions in a way similar to how I've explained Pallando and Press-gang work (triggered, declared, and resolved in the same chain of effects as the passive condition). Plus, if these effects merely modifyied the rules as you suggest, that would not let Pallando and Press-gang's effects apply to card effects, since they are not governed by the rules, which would clearly not be intended as most discarding actions are card effects (e.g., orc minions discarded by body checks).

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:35 am

Some things are absolutely immune to reverse-engineering. They are the things without purpose.
The terms and associated rules that do not answer the questions: when exactly action is declared if condition that activate it occurs in middle of chain of effects or outside it, what if multiple such actions must be declared at the same time, what if multiple effects in play cause different net effect depending of an order of applying them.
If they are applicable to almost anything and do not distinguish between effect and action, applying and declaring, they only make a game more complicated.
They are also absolutely immune to checking for errors in them. They works as they works and no change can make them better or worse, because they are purposeless after all.

P.S.
Best piece:
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:27 pm
Except, if these effects were only modifying the rules, then they wouldn't apply to card effects that would discard a character (e.g., A Lie in Your Eyes). Such card effects are not governed by any rules on discarding. Even orcs being discarded by body checks is a card effect, merely described in the rules.
I did not know that I do not know how to do with character card if result of A Lie in Your Eyes indicates discarding the character.
Obviously presence of Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper in play does not change my not knowing.

EDIT: "hot to do" > "how to do"
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:56 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:35 am
Some things are absolutely immune to reverse-engineering. They are the things without purpose.
The terms and associated rules that do not answer the questions: when exactly action is declared if condition that activate it occurs in middle of chain of effects or outside it, what if multiple such actions must be declared at the same time, what if multiple effects in play cause different net effect depending of an order of applying them.
If they are applicable to almost anything and do not distinguish between effect and action, applying and declaring, they only make a game more complicated.
They are also absolutely immune to checking for errors in them. They works as they works and no change can make them better or worse, because they are purposeless after all.
These problems (Press-gang VS Pallando, etc) occur because the original game was not built around these rules. Instead, these rules were retrofit to the game. And the new rules are very brief by design and intended to clarify the issues that had arisen over only a few years of the game being played (they were not intended to describe everything).
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:35 am
P.S.
Best piece:
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:27 pm
Except, if these effects were only modifying the rules, then they wouldn't apply to card effects that would discard a character (e.g., A Lie in Your Eyes). Such card effects are not governed by any rules on discarding. Even orcs being discarded by body checks is a card effect, merely described in the rules.
I did not know that I do not know how to do with character card if result of A Lie in Your Eyes indicates discarding the character.
Obviously presence of Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper in play does not change my not knowing.
Image



An argument was made: Pallando and Press-gang don't use Passive Conditions. Instead they "modify the rules."

While the rules state that discarded cards go into the discard pile, Pallando and Press-gang don't modify where discarded cards go. They change what happens when a character would otherwise be discarded. Unlike the corruption rules for Hero characters, there are no rules that would discard a minion. There are only card effects.

So, not only do the rules and officially published materials never describe "modifying the rules," there are actually no rules that could even be modified by Press-gang or Pallando.

Instead, the designers created the Annotations including rules on Passive Conditions and the M/H phase. The Pallando VS Press-gang situation fits those rules. So why would they not be applied to this situation?

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:05 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:27 pm
This CoE ruling is inconsistent with the ICE ruling, yet it makes no mention of overruling ICE. So the CoE ruling is a mistake. This is just another example of the CoE Netrep not knowing or reading the ICE rulings.
It may be a mistake, but then it would be an official mistake. Or it wasn't a mistake. You cannot know. There are other cases of the CoE knowing the ICE rulings but overruling them anyway without mentioning that they were doing so publicly, which we now know of courtesy of the archives being unlocked.

-----
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:27 pm
Except, if these effects were only modifying the rules, then they wouldn't apply to card effects that would discard a character (e.g., A Lie in Your Eyes). Such card effects are not governed by any rules on discarding.
Where did you come up with this idea? If card rules couldn't modify other card rules, there was a lot of wasted ink. Unabated in Malice replacement wouldn't work. Out He Sprang restriction against additional region allowance modification would be ignorable. Dreams of Lore, Rescue Prisoners, etc, etc, would not be able to keep a character tapped against e.g. Narya. I feel like this is only scratching the surface of problems with your idea.

------
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:27 pm
Theo wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:38 pm
CRF wrote: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.
1) What were you thinking the passive condition is? The potential for a character to be discarded? The character in a state of about-to-be-discarded?

2) Let's say this situation occurs from a body check on the character. The replacement action occurs to be resolved in the next chain of effects. Whoops! By the time it gets to that point, the character has already been discarded. There is no opportunity to "cancel" the discard. There is not even an about-to-be-discarded character state.
I've made no Whoopsie here. Sometimes a passive condition can merely be a declaration of something, without that something resolving, and the triggered action can be declared in the same chain of effects as the declared passive condition. Annotation 9 doesn't described every situation. It doesn't even describe cards already in play acting as passive conditions.

There are many cards where the passive condition is simply a declaration and the triggered action is declared and resolved in the same chain of effects. Some particular declared actions can be a passive condition for triggering cancellation of that particular action in the same chain of effects (e.g., Govern the Storms, Tookish Blood, pretty much any cancellation really). Declared dice rolls can be passive conditions for triggering a roll modification in the same chain of effects (e.g., Tribal Totem, Times are Evil, First of the Order, White Light Broken, etc.). Or any effect that needs to be applied in response to a declared action (Necklace of Silver and Pearls).
Not sure I understand your Necklace of Silver and Pearls example.

I'm all for Annotation 9 not covering every situation. The rules specifically allow dice rolls to be acted upon. In theory I'm not against other passives from declaring their actions in a currently-being-created chain of effects out of necessity. This would cover e.g. Govern the Storms and other passives triggered by declarations. But a currently-being-resolved chain of effects cannot have new effects added to it. One could say that declared discarding effects could still be responded to, but discarding can also happen during resolutions of chains of effect without ever having been declared. I do not see how replacement as a passive would not be able to cover such instances mechanically without throwing away the core notions of chains of effect.
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: 897
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:54 am

Theo wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:05 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:27 pm
This CoE ruling is inconsistent with the ICE ruling, yet it makes no mention of overruling ICE. So the CoE ruling is a mistake. This is just another example of the CoE Netrep not knowing or reading the ICE rulings.
There are other cases of the CoE knowing the ICE rulings but overruling them anyway without mentioning that they were doing so publicly, which we now know of courtesy of the archives being unlocked.
I haven't seen any such examples. What rulings are you referring to?

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

You argued that Pallando and Press-gang don't use passive conditions, instead they modify the rules of the game:
Theo wrote:
Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:41 am
I was thinking they were using passive condition, but on thorough inspection I agree that they aren't.
Theo wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:52 am
The are amending All rules that would discard characters from play, as they specify...? Failed body checks, failed corruption checks, dismissal, being influenced away, miscellaneous other card effects, etc. Characters aren't just discarded from play with no rules governing such. Of these examples, only card effects have a possibility of being triggered by a passive condition. But even then it would be those cards' effects that create the passive condition, not PallandoTSK or Press-gang.

I disagree. Presumably card effects can modify the rules of the game, but this is never described in the rules. What is described in the rules are card effects modifying attributes of cards, creating actions, and canceling other card effects.

Pallando and Press-gang specify an action (eliminate or move off to the side) to take instead of discarding the character. This is the same as canceling the discard-action and creating the specified action, which are types of actions described in the rules. The effects of Pallando and Press-gang "cause an action to happen" due to a condition that "comes into play only indirectly as the rule of a decision made by a player." We have rules to govern this situation: Passive Conditions. "A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play. These are called passive conditions because the actions they satisfy come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by a player."

You still haven't provided any rationale for why the rules on Passive Conditions would not apply to the situation where Pallando and Press-gang are both in play when a minion is discarded.
Theo wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:05 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:27 pm
Except, if these effects were only modifying the rules, then they wouldn't apply to card effects that would discard a character (e.g., A Lie in Your Eyes). Such card effects are not governed by any rules on discarding.
Where did you come up with this idea? If card rules couldn't modify other card rules, there was a lot of wasted ink. Unabated in Malice replacement wouldn't work. Out He Sprang restriction against additional region allowance modification would be ignorable. Dreams of Lore, Rescue Prisoners, etc, etc, would not be able to keep a character tapped against e.g. Narya. I feel like this is only scratching the surface of problems with your idea.
Now you argue that "card rules can modify card rules." Presumably you mean "card effects" as "card rules" is not a term of this game, it is never described. You provided no support for this assertion and so there is nothing to say beyond that.

As for problems with my ideas - there are none. As discussed above: the rules describe card effects modifying attributes of cards, creating actions, and canceling other card effects. The rules also define passive conditions. Some passive conditions are necessarily triggered and declared in the same chain of effects (e.g., cancellation)

Unabated in Malice states "the first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the this card." This effect operates using Passive Conditions in a similar way as Pallando and Press-gang: when cancellation of the attack is declared, that declaration is a passive condition that triggers (1) declaration of a cancelling action that cancels the attack-canceler and (2) declaration of cancelling the effects of Unabated in Malice in the same chain of effects as the attack-canceler. Cancellation effects are always declared in the same chain of effects and they can target earlier declared actions to be cancelled. However, there is no timing issue here and so the Annotations don't discuss this situation.

Similarly, Dreams of Lore and Rescue Prisoners have effects that cancel any declared untapping action. These cancellations would be triggered in the same chain of effects as the untapping-action and they would negate the untapping. Again, there is no timing issue here and so the Annotations don't discuss this situation.

Out He Sprang fits as well. The Balrog has an effect that prevents him from using Region or Stater Movement. This is the same as cancelling any Movement that would be Region Movement or Starter Movement. Out He Sprang cancels the region-movement-cancellation-effect of The Balrog. This is applied using rules on Passive Conditions but as there is no timing issue it doesn't matter.Again, there is no timing issue here and so the Annotations don't discuss this situation.

-------------
Theo wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:38 pm
But a currently-being-resolved chain of effects cannot have new effects added to it. One could say that declared discarding effects could still be responded to, but discarding can also happen during resolutions of chains of effect without ever having been declared. I do not see how replacement as a passive would not be able to cover such instances mechanically without throwing away the core notions of chains of effect.
I said before:
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:34 pm
Instead, Pallando and Press-gang's effects apply to any situation where a character would be discarded. In order to work their effects must be applied to situations where a character might be discarded.
The discarding-action is NOT the passive condition for triggering Pallando and Press-gang. Otherwise these effects would have the timing issues that you mentioned.
An action in a chain of effects is negated if the conditions required to perform it are negated by another action that is resolved before it in the chain of effects.
Instead, the situation in which a character might be discarded is the passive condition for triggering Pallando and Press-gang. When a situation occurs where some character might be discarded, the discard-cancellation-effects of Pallando and Press-gang are triggered and declared in that same chain of effects. Their cancellation-effects would negate resolution of any discarding caused by that situation and instead perform the elimination or placing action.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:43 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:54 am
Theo wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:05 am
There are other cases of the CoE knowing the ICE rulings but overruling them anyway without mentioning that they were doing so publicly, which we now know of courtesy of the archives being unlocked.
I haven't seen any such examples. What rulings are you referring to?
I'm referring to the this subforum, but don't remember which topics. I'll try to look more when I'm less busy.

-----
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:54 am
Pallando and Press-gang specify an action (eliminate or move off to the side) to take instead of discarding the character. This is the same as canceling the discard-action and creating the specified action, which are types of actions described in the rules.
I don't think replacement is synonymous with "cancel and create". Replacement as a word suggests changing the rules, to me. There is a difference in that something that is created and then canceled has at least a history of having been created. As you know, attacks that are canceled still count as being faced. Replacement naturally prevents the thing from ever having been created; something else was created instead.

-----
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:54 am
You still haven't provided any rationale for why the rules on Passive Conditions would not apply to the situation where Pallando and Press-gang are both in play when a minion is discarded.
As I have said, I think replacement effects don't make sense via passive conditions (more below); they do make sense via rule modification. For you who doesn't see a difference between replacement and "cancel and create", I can understand why this might be hard to fathom.

-----
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:54 am
Now you argue that "card rules can modify card rules." Presumably you mean "card effects" as "card rules" is not a term of this game, it is never described. You provided no support for this assertion and so there is nothing to say beyond that.
Now you are excessively pedantic. I did not mean "card rules: a term of the game". I meant the rules "one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere." The "Carrying out the instructions on resource cards," which is the wording from the rules, means that such instructions govern conduct within the game. If the rules did not include a statement that players should carry out instructions on cards, one could argue that instruction text on cards is meaningless. But I suspect you knew this and were just being retaliatory.

-----
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:54 am
As for problems with my ideas - there are none. As discussed above: the rules describe card effects modifying attributes of cards, creating actions, and canceling other card effects. The rules also define passive conditions. Some passive conditions are necessarily triggered and declared in the same chain of effects (e.g., cancellation)

...

The discarding-action is NOT the passive condition for triggering Pallando and Press-gang. Otherwise these effects would have the timing issues that you mentioned.

Instead, the situation in which a character might be discarded is the passive condition for triggering Pallando and Press-gang. When a situation occurs where some character might be discarded, the discard-cancellation-effects of Pallando and Press-gang are triggered and declared in that same chain of effects. Their cancellation-effects would negate resolution of any discarding caused by that situation and instead perform the elimination or placing action.
A "character might be discarded" situation triggers the "cancel and create" effects? Forgive me, I'll need you to walk me through a step by step example.
  1. Let's say Ioreth has a Lure of Nature and is moving through a Wilderness.
  2. The end of her company's movement/hazard phase arrives.
  3. Lure of Nature instructs Ioreth to make a corruption check.
  4. The player starts resolving the corruption check by making a roll.
  5. The player fails the corruption check roll by 1, which means that Ioreth must be discarded.
  6. Ioreth is discarded.
So are you saying that Press-gang is waiting for the passive condition of the start of (4), because it creates a situation where some character might be discarded?

Unfortunately, a "canceling" action triggered by a passive condition couldn't be declared then because there is no discard action for it to target.

There is no time between the creation of the discard action (5) and it's resolution (6) for a cancel action to be declared or resolve.
CRF wrote:Annotation 23: When a character fails a corruption check, the standard effects of this (i.e., the character being discarded or eliminated and his items being discarded) are implemented immediately and are considered synonymous with the failed check.
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
Theo
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:54 am

Additionally, consider Undead automatic attacks: "each character wounded must make a corruption check".
CRF wrote:Annotation 19: Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body). However, if the strike calls for any special actions to follow it (e.g., a character wounded by William may be required to discard his items), these special actions are resolved before the body check. ... No action may be declared in response to a special action resulting from a strike unless the special action is a dice-rolling action, i.e., a special action is generally considered synonymous with the strike dice-roll. If the special action is a dice-rolling action, an action may be declared in response to it [only] if the action directly affects the dice-roll.
A "cancel and create" action cannot be declared once a character rolls their dice against the strike. Unless one would argue my interpreted "only" addition, in which case the entire final sentence would become pointless.
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: 897
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:11 pm

Like I said before, Press-gang's effect would be triggered by the situation where discarding is possible. In the case of a corruption check, Press-gang's effect would be declared in the same chain of effects after the declaration of the corruption check and it would apply to that particular corruption check. In the case of an attack, Press-gang's effect would be declared in response to the attack (not in response to a character being wounded). While discarding as a result of a body check is not a declared action, resolution of the discarding can still be negated. There are other card effects that negate non-declared actions already mentioned in this post.

The bottom line is: there are rules on passive conditions and they can govern this situation. There is no reason to pretend that the timing rules on passive conditions don't apply here. Especially where there are no rules on "modifying rules" or "replacement."


By the way, attacks that are cancelled are still "faced" because resolution of a card creating an attack is different from the resolution of the attack. Attacks can be cancelled after being created. Actions cannot be canceled after resolving.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:37 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:11 pm
The bottom line is: there are rules on passive conditions and they can govern this situation. There is no reason to pretend that the timing rules on passive conditions don't apply here. Especially where there are no rules on "modifying rules" or "replacement."
Indeed, among the basest of lines. To deny a difference in wording, guise one mechanism with others, and then ignore the factual incompatibilities with the explicit rules! But as I said before, it is right in line with historic CoE netrep follies, so perhaps should be of no surprise.

Meanwhile, ample evidence for handling implementation text through rules modification exist on the cards themselves, some just more explicitly than others. Or did you suppose they should have put rules modification in the original rules books? If they needed to modify themselves then they would have just been written the modified way in the first place!

Not to deviate from the original post, but simply to present what is a clear example to me:
A Strident Spawn wrote:Unique.[CRF] Playable if you are Pallando or Saruman and have 6 or more stage points and a protected Wizardhaven [ [-me_ha-] ]. Each of your half-orcs requires one less point of influence to control. During your organization phase, you may take one Half-orc character from your discard pile to your hand. You may play Half-orc characters at your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ], and even if your Fallen-wizard is not there. Cannot be duplicated by a given player.
Of course, I'm sure everything on this card could be a passive condition if we simply fabricate our own rules and ignore the actual words present!

Otherwise, the card establishes new rules ("one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere") for the player to follow, several of which modify the existing set of rules on their topic.
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: 2917
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 12, 2019 10:23 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:11 pm
he way, attacks that are cancelled are still "faced" because resolution of a card creating an attack is different from the resolution of the attack. Attacks can be cancelled after being created. Actions cannot be canceled after resolving.
Actions cannot be canceled after resolving.
Your claim. I believe that you are working on system that works for itself, but that do not have to regulate anything in the game.

I think that returning action from Beorning Skin-changers short-event must resolve to be able to be canceled by the effect of Promptings of Wisdom.
Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the
play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions
declared in the same chain of effects. An exception to this is a dice-rolling action, e.g.
a corruption check.
To cancel an action before it resolves, the canceling action must contain a text that explicitly allows for that.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2917
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 12, 2019 10:50 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:23 am
I think that returning action from Beorning Skin-changers short-event must resolve to be able to be canceled by the effect of Promptings of Wisdom.
Precisely: check for presence of untapped warrior with prowess 4 or more in company must resolve. The eventual returning action is not even declared (as not declared are tap, discard, eliminate actions that are eventual results of corruption check).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2917
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 12, 2019 2:58 pm

Endless Whispers wrote:Dark Enchantment. Playable on a non-Wizard character wounded by an Undead attack this turn; does not count against the hazard limit. Target character can never become untapped while bearing this card. Any effect that would move him to an untapped state makes him tapped instead. Cannot be duplicated on a given character. During the organization phase, a sage in the target character's company may tap to attempt to remove this card. Make a roll (or draw a #): if the result is greater than 7, discard this card.
Underline mine.

@CDavis7M
How, in your opinion, the underlined part should be interpreted?
What happens if Halfling Strength is played on wounded Hobbit with Endless Whispers?

In my opinion, when Halfling Strength executes, it makes the target Hobbit tapped.
Nothing is automatically declared in addition to the chain of effects in which Halfling Strength has been declared.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”