Timing: Multiple attacks and chain of effects crossing them

[Konrad Klar]

Scenario:
The Tormented Earth is played on a sorcery-using character facing the attack from Bairanax Ahunt.
Can the Prowess of Age be declared in response?

I think that no.
"Cancel (a dragon attack)" has not been declared. There is no target for Prowess of Age.

[Theo]

Assuming you aren't considering the alternative effect of Prowess of Age.

Speaking to:

Also, I can find nothing in Annotation 5-8 or the rest of the rules to suggest that "facing a non-automatic-attack" is considered to be an active condition. Sure, it is a condition for selecting the character that The Tormented Earth is played on, but it is not an active condition that would be verified at resolution of The Tormented Earth per Annotation 7. The only active condition verified at resolution of The Tormented Earth is that the character card targeted at declaration still exists.

Condition, Active: A prerequisite for an action actively made by a player.

Selecting a (sorcery-using) character that is facing a non-automatic-attack is a prerequisite for the action of playing the card, in order be able to satisfy the requirements written on the card for it to be played.

It sounds like you think that only selecting a character is a prerequisite for playing the card, and the character being sorcery-using and facing a non-automatic-attack are prerequisites on selecting the character that are somehow divorced from being prerequisites for playing the card?

Really, it comes back to sounding like you are assuming that only targets are active conditions. I would agree that the character-without-conditions is the target (and the attack; separate discussion). The rules make it clear that conditions of targets can also be part of active conditions: e.g. "having a character of a particular skill in play."

[Konrad Klar]

Assuming you aren't considering the alternative effect of Prowess of Age.

Yes.

[CDavis7M]

Even if a corruption check is declared, its result is not declared.
If a choice is declared, a result of the choice is not declared.

If any action happens in the game, it was declared. "Actions in a chain of effects are resolved in the reverse order from which they were declared." Therefore, if a choice is declared, a result of the choice IS declared. But the result of the choice is declared contingent on being chosen.

The result of roll for a corruption check is a resolved action (tapping the character, moving their card to the discard pile, or moving their card to the out of play pile. These resolved actions were necessarily declared according to the rules on actions. Yes, the result of the roll is not known until the roll resolves (the dice are rolled). But the actions resulting from a roll can be declared contingent on the roll:

The effect of The Roving Eye "Target character is forced to make modified by -2" involves numerous inherent declarations:

Declare: If the target character is a hero and the modified dice roll is equal to or one less than the target character's corruption point total, discard the target character.
Declare: If the target character is a minion and the modified dice roll is equal to or one less than the target character's corruption point total, tap the target character.
Declare: If the modified dice roll is two less than the target character's corruption point total, move the target character to the out of play pile.
Declare: the dice roll is modified by -2
Declare: opponent makes a dice roll.

It is easy enough to simply declare all actions that are resolved, even if they are contingent on some dice roll of choice of a player. There is no reason to pretend that they are not declared.

It is what differentiates multiple alternative effects of a card from a choice that is a main effect of a card.
You can deny an existence of the difference and you can interpret Drowning Seas and Waiting Shadows accordingly.

For multiple alternative effects, only one of the alternate effects is ever declared.

For Drowning Seas, discarding of the chosen item is declared and the player's choice of item is declared. Where a choice is required at declaration, no target can be specified and so an action contingent on a choice is not "an action that requires a target" per Annotation 8.

For Waiting Shadows, the tapping of the chosen character is declared and the defender's choice of character is declared.

While dice rolls and choices of a player are made at resolution, actions contingent on these results are still declared.

---------

Any discarding as a result of Annotation 9a can also be declared. There is no reason to pretend that the resolving action is not declared.

Per Annotation 9a, Will of Sauron will be discarded when Doors of Night is discarded. Therefore, when an action cancelling Doors of Night is declared (e.g., by effect of Twilight) then an action discarding Will of Sauron is also declared contingent on Doors of Night being discarded per Annotation 9a. The discarding of Will of Sauron is declared by the rules.

[CDavis7M]

Bearer of x type of item(s) is still bearer of x type of item(s) , even if the item(s) at declaration are different from item(s) at resolution.
The particular bearer (Frodo, Boromir etc.) must be still the same particular character, but what describes it as bearer of x type of item(s) does not must.

A sorcery-using character facing a non-automatic-attack must still be the same particular character (and must be sorcery-using), but a non-automatic-attack at declaration does not must be the same as a non-automatic-attack faced at resolution.

A situation is different if at least one happens:
- action is explicitly declared against (in case of card also - playable on) X,
- at least one declared action (along with declaration of a card that causes it) operates on specified at declaration X.

In these cases we have to do with a targeting. No more, no less, this means that a X specified at declaration may not be different that X at resolution.

There is no support for your conclusions in the rules.

[CDavis7M]

Scenario:
The Tormented Earth is played on a sorcery-using character facing the attack from Bairanax Ahunt.
Can the Prowess of Age be declared in response?

I think that no.
"Cancel (a dragon attack)" has not been declared. There is no target for Prowess of Age.

Yes, Prowess of Age can be declared in response to The Tormented Earth. Prowess of Age would cancel the declared action of "if the player's choice is to cancel the attack then cancel the attack." The player could still choose to cancel the action, but that declared cancellation action has already been canceled. The player should probably make their choice such that the other declared action would resolve: "if the player's choice is to modify the prowess, then give the attack -3 prowess."

[CDavis7M]

Condition, Active: A prerequisite for an action actively made by a player.

Yes, active conditions are prerequisites for an action. But that doesn't necessarily mean that any and all prerequisites for an action are active conditions. "If Doors of Night is in play" is a prerequisite for many actions but it is not an active condition of those actions. Doors of Night may be played after declaration of such an action and the action may still be declared and resolve. Similarly, "facing an attack" is a condition but it is not an active condition.

Really, it comes back to sounding like you are assuming that only targets are active conditions. I would agree that the character-without-conditions is the target (and the attack; separate discussion). The rules make it clear that conditions of targets can also be part of active conditions: e.g. "having a character of a particular skill in play."

I am not assuming that only targets are active conditions. The examples given in the MELE Glossary are: tapping a character, discarding an item, or having a character of a particular skill in play. Of course, there are many other active conditions. Beyond the example of tapping a character, tapping an item or an event are also active conditions per Annotation 5. Beyond discarding an item, discarding a character, agent, or event is also an active condition per Annotation 6. Discarding a particular card from your hand can also be an active condition. Beyond the examples given in the MELE glossary, any target of an action is an active condition per Annotation 8. The Hazard Limit is an active condition for playing hazards.

The character is the target of playing The Tormented Earth and the target is clearly an active condition per Annotation 8. I can appreciate the argument that the target character being "sorcery-using" is an active condition because it is similar to having a character with a particular skill. However, there is nothing in the rules on active conditions suggesting that "facing a non-automatic-attack" should be an active condition.

Also, the Companion book states that "active conditions serve as the price of an action." This is clearly true for tapping and discarding. But there is also a price being paid by having a character of a certain skill in play. This could also apply to having a sorcery-using character. But it does not apply to "facing a non-automatic attack," which is a choice of the opponent, not a price paid by the player.

[Konrad Klar]

If any action happens in the game, it was declared. "Actions in a chain of effects are resolved in the reverse order from which they were declared.

Actually it says nothing about "actions not in chain of effects". Not mentioned is not the same as not existing.

Per Annotation 9a, Will of Sauron will be discarded when Doors of Night is discarded. Therefore, when an action cancelling Doors of Night is declared (e.g., by effect of Twilight) then an action discarding Will of Sauron is also declared contingent on Doors of Night being discarded per Annotation 9a. The discarding of Will of Sauron is declared by the rules

Just imagine that second copy of Doors of Night has been declared in response to Twilight.
I am suspecting that exhausting of play deck can be declared too.

[CDavis7M]

If any action happens in the game, it was declared. "Actions in a chain of effects are resolved in the reverse order from which they were declared.

Actually it says nothing about "actions not in chain of effects". Not mentioned is not the same as not existing.

Go back to the fundamentals: "ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY"

Per Annotation 9a, Will of Sauron will be discarded when Doors of Night is discarded. Therefore, when an action cancelling Doors of Night is declared (e.g., by effect of Twilight) then an action discarding Will of Sauron is also declared contingent on Doors of Night being discarded per Annotation 9a. The discarding of Will of Sauron is declared by the rules

Just imagine that second copy of Doors of Night has been declared in response to Twilight.
I am suspecting that exhausting of play deck can be declared too.

The declared discarding of Will of Sauron is contingent on "when Doors of Night leaves play, or when any play deck is exhausted." If a second copy of Doors of Night is declared after the declared discarding of Will of Sauron, then Will of Sauron is not discarded because Doors of Night is in play.

There is no timing issue when exhausting the play deck. The timing is considered to be "declared and resolved immediately" and so would the discarding of Will of Sauron.

[Theo]

Condition, Active: A prerequisite for an action actively made by a player.

Yes, active conditions are prerequisites for an action. But that doesn't necessarily mean that any and all prerequisites for an action are active conditions. "If Doors of Night is in play" is a prerequisite for many actions but it is not an active condition of those actions. Doors of Night may be played after declaration of such an action and the action may still be declared and resolve. Similarly, "facing an attack" is a condition but it is not an active condition.

A key point that you seem to be missing is underlined. "If Doors of Night is in play" is never (to my knowledge) a condition of an action actively made by a player. Playing a card is an action actively made by a player: "Playable if Doors of Night is in play" => Doors of Night in play is an active condition. Resolving the effects (some of which are actions) on a card in order are not actions actively made by a player. This is really the same point that Konrad already made: some actions (typically those not actively made by a player) are not declared in a chain of events.

---

Treating "sorcery-using" as part of the active condition and not "facing a non-automatic attack" is unreasonable to me. Double standards.

---

Will of Sauron discussion is somewhat erroneous from https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 103&t=3506. Will of Sauron is now only discarded if Doors of Night is not in play. Regardless, in my opinion the entire point of specifying that the discarding of Will of Sauron happens immediately and not in a chain of effects is that the discard action is not declared, it is simply implemented whenever Doors of Night is not in play.

[CDavis7M]

Resolving the effects (some of which are actions) on a card in order are not actions actively made by a player. This is really the same point that Konrad already made: some actions (typically those not actively made by a player) are not declared in a chain of events.

.... So then the target of a resolving effect is not an active condition? But it is.

If the player plays a card with effects, they have actively made the choice to have those effects declared.

If you read the Companion you'd see that this statement on "actively" is in contrast to Passive Conditions which are discussed together with Active conditions. There is nothing to suggest that effects of playing a card are not choices actively made by the player.

Some people are masters of losing context.

---

Treating "sorcery-using" as part of the active condition and not "facing a non-automatic attack" is unreasonable to me. Double standards.

Some things are defined as active conditions by the rules and some things aren't. Maybe Socery-using is similar to having a skill. At least it is a property of the target, which is an active consition. "Facing an attack" is not similar to any listed active conditions and it is not even a property of the target.

---

Will of Sauron discussion is somewhat erroneous from https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 103&t=3506. Will of Sauron is now only discarded if Doors of Night is not in play.

This is how it always was according to ICE.

Regardless, in my opinion the entire point of specifying that the discarding of Will of Sauron happens immediately and not in a chain of effects is that the discard action is not declared, it is simply implemented whenever Doors of Night is not in play.

... Will of Sauron was always declared and resolved in a chain of effects and still is. Before Annotation 9a Will of Sauron would have been discarded in the following chain of effects and now it is discarded is the same chain of effects as Doors being removed from play.

It is nice that you have an opinion but we actually know from ICE the reason for Annotation 9a and it is not based on your opinion. Let me know if you find it or can figure it out on your own. It is an easy catch.

[Konrad Klar]

Some people are masters of losing context.

Some people are masters of creating a new context in place of the lost context.

Some things are defined as active conditions by the rules and some things aren't. Maybe Socery-using is similar to having a skill. At least it is a property of the target, which is an active consition. "Facing an attack" is not similar to any listed active conditions and it is not even a property of the target.

Diplomat only. A character facing a corruption check in the diplomat's company may automatically transfer one item he bears to another character in his company. The item must be transferable, and the new bearer must be able to bear it. "'...you will first surender to me the Key of Orthanc, and your staff. They shall be pledges of your conduct, to be returned late, if you merit them.'" -LotRIII

If "Facing an attack" is not similar to any listed active conditions and it is not even a property of the target then maybe "facing a corruption check" is similar and is a property of the target?
If no, then Pledge of Conduct is effective method of transferring of item between any characters in diplomat's company, whether they are facing a corruption check or not.

Are you expecting from Active Conditions chapter listing all possible particular active conditions?
"is at Haven", "you have at least n factions", "Denethor II is not in play" are not listed.

[CDavis7M]

Diplomat only. A character facing a corruption check in the diplomat's company may automatically transfer one item he bears to another character in his company. The item must be transferable, and the new bearer must be able to bear it.

If "Facing an attack" is not similar to any listed active conditions and it is not even a property of the target then maybe "facing a corruption check" is similar and is a property of the target?

This conclusion does not follow from the premise. And the conclusion is incorrect as discussed below.

If no, then Pledge of Conduct is effective method of transferring of item between any characters in diplomat's company, whether they are facing a corruption check or not.

If you attempted to explain how this would work within the rules of the game you would see that it doesn't.

"Facing a corruption check" is not an active condition for any effect that I have seen. And if you considered the rules, you would see that the bearer is not necessarily the target of playing Pledge of Conduct nor is the bearer the target of any of the effects of Pledge of Conduct. In addition, "facing a corruption check" is not even a property of a character. The closest property of a character is its "corruption point total." "Facing a corruption check" is simply a (non-active) condition checked at resolution of the transferring effect.

Are you expecting from Active Conditions chapter listing all possible particular active conditions?

Did you not read this? It is clear from the rules that there are several other active conditions beyond those listed.

The examples given in the MELE Glossary are: tapping a character, discarding an item, or having a character of a particular skill in play. Of course, there are many other active conditions. Beyond the example of tapping a character, tapping an item or an event are also active conditions per Annotation 5. Beyond discarding an item, discarding a character, agent, or event is also an active condition per Annotation 6. Discarding a particular card from your hand can also be an active condition. Beyond the examples given in the MELE glossary, any target of an action is an active condition per Annotation 8. The Hazard Limit is an active condition for playing hazards.

If only there were an Active Conditions chapter. We only have Annotations 5-8 and the introduction paragraph in the Companion. The MELE and CRF statements are a summary of these at best.

"is at Haven", "you have at least n factions", "Denethor II is not in play" are not listed.

Not only are these statements not active conditions but they are not even conditions that would encounter any sort of timing issue, which is what active conditions were created to solve. Please at least understand what the rules are doing.

[CDavis7M]

Diplomat only. A character facing a corruption check in the diplomat's company may automatically transfer one item he bears to another character in his company. The item must be transferable, and the new bearer must be able to bear it.

If "Facing an attack" is not similar to any listed active conditions and it is not even a property of the target then maybe "facing a corruption check" is similar and is a property of the target?

This conclusion does not follow from the premise. And the conclusion is incorrect as discussed below.

If no, then Pledge of Conduct is effective method of transferring of item between any characters in diplomat's company, whether they are facing a corruption check or not.

If you attempted to explain how this would work within the rules of the game you would see that it doesn't.

"Facing a corruption check" is not an active condition for any effect that I have seen. And if you considered the rules, you would see that the bearer is not necessarily the target of playing Pledge of Conduct nor is the bearer the target of any of the effects of Pledge of Conduct. In addition, "facing a corruption check" is not even a property of a character. The closest property of a character is its "corruption point total." "Facing a corruption check" is simply a (non-active) condition checked at resolution of the transferring effect.

Are you expecting from Active Conditions chapter listing all possible particular active conditions?

Did you not read this quote below? It is clear from the rules that there are several other active conditions beyond those listed.

The examples given in the MELE Glossary are: tapping a character, discarding an item, or having a character of a particular skill in play. Of course, there are many other active conditions. Beyond the example of tapping a character, tapping an item or an event are also active conditions per Annotation 5. Beyond discarding an item, discarding a character, agent, or event is also an active condition per Annotation 6. Discarding a particular card from your hand can also be an active condition. Beyond the examples given in the MELE glossary, any target of an action is an active condition per Annotation 8. The Hazard Limit is an active condition for playing hazards.

If only there were an Active Conditions chapter. But we only have Annotations 5-8 and the introduction paragraph in the Companion. The MELE and CRF statements are a short summary of the statements in the Companion.

Are you expecting from Active Conditions chapter listing all possible particular active conditions?
"is at Haven", "you have at least n factions", "Denethor II is not in play" are not listed.

Not only are these statements not active conditions but they are not even conditions that would encounter any sort of timing issue, which is what "active" conditions were created to solve. Please at least understand what the rules are doing.

[Konrad Klar]

In addition, "facing a corruption check" is not even a property of a character.

I did not say that it is a property of character and I do not think that it is.
I think that it is property of target.
Target of Pledge of Conduct may not be just "Frodo"; target may be "Frodo facing a corruption check".

Please at least understand what the rules are doing.

I was under impression that an understanding what the rules are doing is a main goal of the discussions in the sub-forum, not prerequisite.
What is actual main goal?

P.S.
Ultimately nothing may prove or disprove that or another system of interpreting of rules.
If there is no dictionary of foreign language and its grammar is unknown, two interpreters may assign any meaning to any word.
Translating of the same story written in the foreign language may result in a two completely different stories.
If there is no assumption that original story is sensible, there are no constraints. Probably most of possible resulting stories will fall into category Dadaism.