Miruvor: YES, it's usable after being wounded but before body check

[Konrad Klar]

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.

Underline and bold mine.

For anyone who believes that modifiers from card in play to dice-roll are applied as actions caused by passive condition (here: declaration of dice roll).
Anyone who believes so has problem connecting a beginning with end. He/she does not notice that so activated action will (try to*) be declared after the dice-roll is performed. He/she is expecting that the declaration will be appended to the current chain of effects (still at its declaration stage).

*) at the moment a target of the action does not exist anymore.

[CDavis7M]

An attempt to summarize CDavis7M bottom lines:
* Ignore "dice-roll" in Annotation 19.
Why:
1) No card exists that modifies a target body check dice-roll.
2) "The METW/MELE Companion shows the non-targeting effects operate by passive conditions."
3) Effects triggered by passive conditions during the resolution of a chain of effects cannot themselves resolve before the end of that chain of effects.
4) There being no cards that exist that could be played during the body-check chain of effects, conclude that Annotation 19 as literally written must be in error.
5) Furthermore, the intent must have been for "dice-roll" to be ignored. For that matter, ignore "nested" while we're at it.

No... This is not WHY you ignore "dice roll" in Annotation 19. But these are probably some of the reasons WHY the CRF Ruling on "Body Checks" says that you can modify the body in addition to the body check dice roll.

Body Check - "Affecting the body check" includes modifying the die roll or the body of the character making the check.

I'm not making this up.

Consider this -- if eliminating the character is not a separate action from the failed body check (i.e., the eliminating action is declared but contingent on the dice roll) then why would you be able to modify the dice roll but not the body?

----------

2) Short-events cannot use passive conditions as you have defined them ("METW/MELE Companion: A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play."), as these cards are never in play.

Short events CAN create effects that are triggered by passive conditions. The Companion statement that "A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play" is a description, it is not all inclusive. It does not state "a passive condition may only cause an action to happen as stated on a card already in play and by the way, card effects that are in play don't count." The effect of a short event may still be in play even if the short event is not in play.

CoE #124 finally ruled "Even though the corruption checks from Greed are not triggered by a passive condition, they are treated that way for the purposes of timing." This is a rather inconsequential distinction from your statement, though

...What... OK, let's read the ruling. Yup, everyone including the CoE Netrep makes the same mistake -- they assume that short events can never use the timing rules for passive conditions.
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... =91&t=1881
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... f=12&t=541

How else would the timing work? Consider The Evenstar short-event "the prowess of each Elf is modified by +1 (until the end of turn)" and Star of High Hope long-event "The prowess of each Elf and Dúnadan is modified by +1." Both of these effects have no specific target at declaration. The +"1 prowess" cannot be implemented until after these non-targeting effects are in play. The rules on passive conditions cover the timing of this situation.

-----

3) The actual rule is that all effects in a chain are resolved from last to first. This has historically been interpreted to mean that new effects cannot be added to a chain that has begun to resolve. This does not prevent non-action effects triggered by passive conditions from resolving outside of chains of effect (passive condition rules only state that actions are declared in the next chain of effects... although the passive condition wordings are "action" biased). We know that not everything declared resolves within a chain of effects (e.g. active conditions, choosings made by players), and not every persistent effect works through passive conditions (e.g. corruption points, item modifiers, and other directed rule modifications).

The tapping/discarding/etc actions satisfying Active Conditions are NOT declared in a chain of effects. Also, I believe that choices by the player are inherently declared -- this is the way to determine that a target is not "required" per Annotation 8, and thus not an active condition to be determined at declaration. Meaning, if the player is given a choice ("search for a card", etc) then the target cannot be determined until resolution.

Not every persistent effect works through passive conditions. But every effect without a specific target that affects a category of targets IS governed by the rules on passive conditions.

An effect that gives a modifier to "all" dice rolls of a particular type without targeting a specific dice roll uses the timing for passive conditions. An effect may be triggered in a resolving chain of effect (in fact this is how it normally happens), but the effect triggered by the passive condition may not declare and resolve its effect during resolution of another chain of effects.

The difference with Miruvor is that "all characters in bearer's company" has specific targets. All of the characters in the company are known and they are the target of the +2 to body. This resolves in the chain of effects and does not use passive condition timing. Spawn of Ungoliant uses passive condition timing and so it must have already been in play.

-------

4) This is personally my strongest disagreement. The CRF entries seem to me to be reinforcing the generic rules of the time for the very purpose of preventing players from playing other cards:

The rules on dice-roll timing simply means that dice-roll modifiers can target non-resolved cards. Besides dice-roll modifiers and cancelers you cannot target non-resolved effects.

-------

Your interpretation of the rules would allow Like The Crash of Battering Rams to be interpreted (immediately-resolved short event) to be playable after the strike roll is determined. As far as I know, such an interpretation has never been considered (as it needn't be if Annotation 19 stands as written).

Did you not even read the Strike Sequence? Hazards affecting the strike, such as Like the Crash of Battering Rams, are played before the resources affecting the strike and they are all played before the strike dice roll. There is no way for Like The Crash of Battering Rams to be played after the strike dice roll. I never suggested that it could.

Also, read Annotation 19 again... LtCoBR's body-modifying effect is a "special action" of a strike.

[CDavis7M]

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.

Underline and bold mine.

For anyone who believes that modifiers from card in play to dice-roll are applied as actions caused by passive condition (here: declaration of dice roll).
Anyone who believes so has problem connecting a beginning with end. He/she does not notice that so activated action will (try to*) be declared after the dice-roll is performed. He/she is expecting that the declaration will be appended to the current chain of effects (still at its declaration stage).

*) at the moment a target of the action does not exist anymore.

Annotation 9 is not all-inclusive. It does not describe how an effect triggerable by a passive condition my trigger if the condition is already in play. Say, a company is already moving to a site and Snowstorm is played. The revealing of the site has already resolved in a chain of effects long ago.

It's not described in the rules, but I think that since dice-roll modifications effects MUST be declared in the same chain of effects as the dice roll then they even though they are triggered by a passive condition, they are declared in the same chain of effects (not the following chain of effects).


A person believing that a dice-roll modifier effect not having a target specifically may be creating a target at resolution may be having a problem* with one or more understandings of rules created for a timing.
*) at least a plurality of a problems

[CDavis7M]

You know, maybe you guys are right. Maybe I am the one with totally bogus interpretations who is out of touch with the design of the game.




Oh wait....



It's been nice chatting with you all though.

[Theo]

Rather, I have complained that your subjective beliefs in the intent of the game obstruct your ability to read the literal rules and synthesize their implications.

5) That intent could always have been a possiblity regardless of the above, but the rules are as written and years of CoE rulings have upheld the greater restrictiveness.

---

... the CRF Ruling on "Body Checks" says that you can modify the body in addition to the body check dice roll.

Body Check - "Affecting the body check" includes modifying the die roll or the body of the character making the check.

I'm not making this up.

Yes, you can modify the body in addition to the body check dice roll in situations when you are permitted to affect the body check generally. We are not in such a situation, as Annotation 19 says that you can only "affect the body check dice-roll. Maybe math language will help?

Let B be a subset of A. Suppose C and D are subsets of B. It is incorrect to reason that C and D must also both be subsets of A. In this case, A is in fact defined as C, and the CRF Body Check entry clarifies that C and D are disjoint, so we CAN conclude definitively that D and A are disjoint.

---

Consider this -- if eliminating the character is not a separate action from the failed body check (i.e., the eliminating action is declared but contingent on the dice roll) then why would you be able to modify the dice roll but not the body?

I don't understand the relevance of asking whether eliminating the character is or is not a separate action from the failed body check. Dice-roll Timing rules only stipulate that players be entitled to modify the dice-roll, a conceptually distinct concept from affecting how to resolve the (modified) roll (for which the body attribute is used).

---

How else would the timing work? Consider The Evenstar short-event "the prowess of each Elf is modified by +1 (until the end of turn)" and Star of High Hope long-event "The prowess of each Elf and Dúnadan is modified by +1." Both of these effects have no specific target at declaration. The +"1 prowess" cannot be implemented until after these non-targeting effects are in play. The rules on passive conditions cover the timing of this situation.

Underlined phrasing seems problematic. But to answer your question, it could work by normal short-event rules: "A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded." That is, when The Evenstar resolves, each Elf in play (right then) has it's prowess modified by +1. This change reverts at the end of the turn.

-----

Not every persistent effect works through passive conditions. But every effect without a specific target that affects a category of targets IS governed by the rules on passive conditions.

Perhaps everything could be governed by passive conditions, but there is no rule saying they are, and there are alternatives that seem more reasonable to me. I'll Report You: "+1 prowess to all characters in his company." What mash up would you need implement this using passive conditions?
---

The difference with Miruvor is that "all characters in bearer's company" has specific targets.

Enitities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type.

"all" is not specifying by number. Miruvor discard effect has no targets.

---

Did you not even read the Strike Sequence? Hazards affecting the strike, such as Like the Crash of Battering Rams, are played before the resources affecting the strike and they are all played before the strike dice roll. There is no way for Like The Crash of Battering Rams to be played after the strike dice roll. I never suggested that it could.

Also, read Annotation 19 again... LtCoBR's body-modifying effect is a "special action" of a strike.

Except that Annotation 19 also allows actions (as an exception to the restrictions in the Strike Sequence rules, following the Dice Roll TIming rules) during the body check chain of effects. If you are arguing that those actions can be actions that affect the body and not just those that affect the dice-roll, LTCoBR could be played.

LTCoBR is currently interpreted as a special action of a strike because it cannot be played during the body check chain of effects. Relax "affect the body check dice-roll" to just "affect the body check", and there is no need for it to be a special action of a strike.

[CDavis7M]

Rather, I have complained that your subjective beliefs in the intent of the game obstruct your ability to read the literal rules and synthesize their implications.

Except that my subjective beliefs on this game are founded on ICE rulings and publications and so they are consistent with ICE. I'm not here pushing English 101 as the framework for this game.

Underlined phrasing seems problematic. But to answer your question, it could work by normal short-event rules: "A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded." That is, when The Evenstar resolves, each Elf in play (right then) has it's prowess modified by +1. This change reverts at the end of the turn.

This is an entirely different ability then. Miruvor affects all characters in the company and only characters in the company. They targets are known and so the effect happens at resolution. The Evenstar affects all elves whether they are in play now or come into play some time later in the turn. So it uses passive conditions rules to trigger the effect.

I'll Report You: "+1 prowess to all characters in his company." What mash up would you need implement this using passive conditions?

This doesn't use passive conditions it is an immediate effect on the company ("his company"). Effects on companies have their own separate rules company composition can change and the effects can be applied. See CRF on "Organizing Companies" and the various ICE Rulings on splitting companies.

Enitities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type.

"all" is not specifying by number. Miruvor discard effect has no targets.

That CRF statement is not universally correct and here it is taken out of context. All characters in the company may be specified at discarding of Miruvor. This is not some effect without specific targets.

LTCoBR could be played.

No. Even if LtCoBR could be played in response to a body check it would have no effect because how can a strike roll in the past become "the strike is successful"?

[Konrad Klar]

Annotation 9 is not all-inclusive. It does not describe how an effect triggerable by a passive condition my trigger if the condition is already in play. Say, a company is already moving to a site and Snowstorm is played. The revealing of the site has already resolved in a chain of effects long ago.

It's not described in the rules, but I think that since dice-roll modifications effects MUST be declared in the same chain of effects as the dice roll then they even though they are triggered by a passive condition, they are declared in the same chain of effects (not the following chain of effects).

Say, a company is already moving to a site and Snowstorm is played. The revealing of the site has already resolved in a chain of effects long ago.

If by "Snowstorm is played" you mean "Snowstorm resolves", then it is a simple case.
If in chain of effects a situation occurs when Snowstorm is in play AND company is moving through , then return action is declared as first action of next chain of effects.

Revealing of new site is not moment when a company starts moving. It is visible in Under-deeps movement.

I agree that Annotation 9 is not all-inclusive. It does not cover a situations when a passive condition occurs outside of chain of effects (you may disagree that e.g. end of phase does not happen in chain of effects).
It also does not provide a mechanism of appending a declaration of action caused by passive condition to the current chain of effects, that would be needed if the passive condition would be declaration of a dice-rolling action and the action caused by the passive condition would affect the dice-rolling action.

It does not mean that such mechanism should be provided. It may be indication that such modifications are not applied as actions caused by passive condition.
Modification to prowess against Drake from Wormsbane does not need to be applied as action caused by facing a Drake attack.

Rules covering Passive Conditions (are trying to) solve the problems of triggered actions. Treating the things that are not triggers as triggers and their modifiers as actions triggered by them creates a new problem and a need of accommodation of Passive Conditions rules to solving it.

If someone cannot live with situation that Fellowship declared in response to declaration of a cc may affect the cc, the go on - add to Passive Conditions rules a clause like:
"If some passive condition is a declaration of action then action caused by the condition is declared as next action of the chain of effect in which the passive condition has been produced".

[from perspective of a person who sees 67+ problems in rules (not counting Companions that the person does not want to see)]

[CDavis7M]

Revealing of new site is not moment when a company starts moving.

Unfortunately, your interpretation of the rules on Passive Conditions are not consistent with the source on Passive Conditions.
Fortunately, I scanned and posted the source for you months ago.

Modification to prowess against Drake from Wormsbane does not need to be applied as action caused by facing a Drake attack.

Wormsbane is an item... item effects have their own rules.

Fellowship declared in response to declaration of a cc may affect the cc

Fellowship doesn't work that way because Fellowship doesn't target a corruption check.


Also, your interpretation of the rules on Miruvor was incorrect... So why would I give consideration to the rest.

[Konrad Klar]

So why would I give consideration to the rest.

There is no reason. I'm writing for all readers.

[CDavis7M]

Hm... I wonder what happened.

[Theo]

I am generally in agreement with Konrad.

Since each playgroup/reader decides for itself; we can only hope that some value deductive reasoning over subjectivity. At some point I imagine pointing out more holes in arguments does no additional service.

Not that I mean to criticize subjectivity for play groups that want to use it! I just don't think it allows a peacefully navigable means of global play when there are no global judges to officiate.

---

Modification to prowess against Drake from Wormsbane does not need to be applied as action caused by facing a Drake attack.

Wormsbane is an item... item effects have their own rules.

Is your copy of Troth-ring not an item?

---

This is an entirely different ability then. Miruvor affects all characters in the company and only characters in the company. They targets are known and so the effect happens at resolution. The Evenstar affects all elves whether they are in play now or come into play some time later in the turn. So it uses passive conditions rules to trigger the effect.

You seem to have some reasoning that Miruvor affects all characters in the company up front and only those characters, such that if a character joins or leaves the party they gain or lose the +2 body? Why not apply that same reasoning to The Evenstar?, as in fact both short events and actively declared abilities must have their effect implemented when they resolve. You say immediate modification that then lasts until end of turn would be an entirely different ability, but it still matches the wording given on the card! Or do you play that e.g. A Chance Meeting allows you to drop a character at a site any time you want for the rest of the turn, because its permission could be be implemented as a passive effect?

An interesting view on The Evenstar, a short-event, given:

I'll Report You: "+1 prowess to all characters in his company." What mash up would you need implement this using passive conditions?

This doesn't use passive conditions it is an immediate effect on the company ("his company"). Effects on companies have their own separate rules company composition can change and the effects can be applied. See CRF on "Organizing Companies" and the various ICE Rulings on splitting companies.

1) In fact, I'll Report You is not played on a company, but rather on one leader. It has an effect that affects all characters in the leader's company, but it is not an effect played on a company.
2) So even though you argue that cards in play affecting a group must use passive conditions, for some reason I'll Report You is an immediate effect on the company? Maybe you could unravel this apparent contradiction.

---

Enitities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type.

"all" is not specifying by number. Miruvor discard effect has no targets.

That CRF statement is not universally correct and here it is taken out of context. All characters in the company may be specified at discarding of Miruvor. This is not some effect without specific targets.

Explain how "the action specifies those entities by number and type" becomes "the players can determine the number and type of affected entities". I suppose in light of this reinterpretation, the above differences between Miruvor and The Evenstar would fall out naturally. But no, I cannot see how the action affecting "all" specifies entities by number and type.

If you think that the Miruvor discard effect targets all individuals in the company, one implication would be that if a character in the company left play before the effect resolution (say, Call of Home) then the effect would fizzle. Was that really your intent?

[edit: remove needless person reference]

[Konrad Klar]

The Balrog: Spawn of Ungoliant
Hazard: Permanent-event

Unique. Spawn. The Pûkel-deeps and The Gem-deeps each have an additional attack: Spawn-3 strikes with 15/8 prowess. In addition, +1 to all body checks for Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Dúnedain, and Men resulting from Spider attacks. "...such as once of old had lived in the Land of the Elves in the West that is now under the sea..." -LotRIV

The Wizards: Fellowship
Resource: Permanent-event

Only playable at a Haven during the organization phase on a company that has four or more characters and allies. +1 to prowess and +1 to corruption checks for all characters and allies in the company. Discard this card if a character or ally joins or leaves the company for any reason.

Significant difference between methods of applying the modifiers? Due to "all" before " body checks" and lack of "all" before "corruption checks"?

All underilnes mine.

[Konrad Klar]

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑25 Jan 2020, 11:30
Fellowship declared in response to declaration of a cc may affect the cc
Fellowship doesn't work that way because Fellowship doesn't target a corruption check.

I never said that it targets a cc. I believe that it modifies a cc made by character in company with Fellowship. And (according to me) to does not matter whether the Fellowship was in play at declaration of the cc or not. Likewise it does not matter whether Emerald of the Mariner was in possession of character performing of cc at declaration of the cc; it is enough that Emerald of the Mariner is in possession at resolution of the cc.

[CDavis7M]

Since each playgroup/reader decides for itself; we can only hope that some value deductive reasoning over subjectivity. At some point I imagine pointing out more holes in CDavis7M's arguments do no additional service.

As far as I know, all play groups play by ICE rulings or would if they knew them.

Sorry your reasoning on Miruvor was wrong.

I was going to say that I don't understand why you keep pretending that I'm making up stuff, but then I do understand why someone would do that.

[CDavis7M]

1) In fact, I'll Report You is not played on a company, but rather on one leader. It has an effect that affects all characters in the leader's company, but it is not an effect played on a company.

If you read the card again you'll the that the effect is on "his company" (the leader's company).



Any argument against ICE's statement in Orc-Liquor? Affecting body affects the body check roll.



Otherwise, feel free to start a new discussion and I can continue explaining to you how this game works.