Council of Elrond

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:58 am

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:02 am You've emphasised the wrong bit (twice) and ignored the important part of this sentence here: "...are CONSIDERED to have been declared in the reverse order..." Why 'CONSIDERED' to have been? Because they actually weren't!, as per the rules. They're just 'CONSIDERED' to have been. Which means it's now legal for them to be resolved in the order listed on the card, and the clarification is harmonised with the RAW.

Underline mine.

Now I am curious how to target CC caused by Marvels Told (e.g. by New Friendship) if it is not actually declared at the point when Marvels told is declared.

I don't see the problem? You just declare New Friendships after you declare Marvels Told. Now your opponent has the chance to declare something in response to New Friendships.

I believe. Not seeing a problem is an one of methods of dealing with the problem.

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.

And the problem is...?

I don't see the problem. You just declare New Friendships after you declare Marvels Told. Now your opponent has the chance to declare something in response to New Friendships.

If at the point at which Marvels Told is declared, the CC performed by sage would not be declared, then there would not be a target for New Friendship.
New Friendship may not target a card. It may not target the Marvels Told, for instance. It may target a CC. So CC must be declared at point at which Marvels Told is declared. Otherwise New Friendship has no condition; it may not be declared.

Konrad, this is covered by The Wizards Rulesbook:

"A required or declared dice roll is an action and can be the target of another action or effect declared later in the same chain of effects."

This is in harmony with annotation 1. You just declare New Friendships after you declare Marvels Told.

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:08 pm This is in harmony with annotation 1. You just declare New Friendships after you declare Marvels Told.

Yes.
But only if at the point when Marvels Told is declared, the actions created by Marvels Told - cc, discarding of event - are declared.

Correct. And yes, they are declared.

Because "No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions." all of Marvels Told main and required actions are clearly (considered) declared before any opposing action can be declared in response to them.

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:23 pm Correct. And yes, they are declared.

OK.

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:23 pm Because "No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions." all of Marvels Told main and required actions are clearly (considered) declared before any opposing action can be declared in response to them.

No. Not for the reason.
New Friendship is not declared between multiple actions of Marvels Told.

Chain of effects is

Declaration of:

CC performed by Sage.
Discarding hazard event.
Marvels Told
Modifier to CC from New Friendship.
New Friendship.

According to my copy of CRF:

Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card
itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the
card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions
may be declared to occur between these multiple actions.

The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.

The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.

is not part of Annotation 24.

It is in force regardless of whether a card lists one or multiple actions.

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:02 am You're relying on Annotations 5 and 6, which I refuse to recognise because they're cumbersome, clanky, janky, counter-intuitive, brain-melty, unwieldy, turn the game into a hot mess, and will lead to all kinds of nonsense. IMO the rule quoted above, and again below, in the URD is sufficient and clear:

It's supported by the original Limited rules that I quoted above. I'm not relying on Annotation 5 and 6. But don't worry. I used to think that Active Conditions were cumbersome and counter-intuitive too. You can read more about it, study examples, begin to understand the gameplay problems, see why these rules they were needed, and find that they just make sense given the games design.

1. denial.
2. anger.
3. bargaining.
4. depression.
5. acceptance.

Active Conditions are best explained by the Wizard's Companion. But even that is a bit lacking. Consider the game's design from a design perspective to understand Active Conditions.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:11 pm According to my copy of CRF:

Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card
itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the
card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions
may be declared to occur between these multiple actions.

The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.

The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.

is not part of Annotation 24.

It is in force regardless of whether a card lists one or multiple actions.

This statement actually is part of Annotation 24 (in my copy of the CRF and as originally published in the books). But yes, I agree.

The statement:

Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card
itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the
card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions
may be declared to occur between these multiple actions.

is not relevant to:

The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.

I we all agree that order of declarations is:

CC performed by Sage.
Discarding hazard event.
Marvels Told

and that the all declarations are made at declaration of Marvels Told.

then we are fighting for nothing.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:29 pm I we all agree that order of declarations is:

CC performed by Sage.
Discarding hazard event.
Marvels Told

and that the all declarations are made at declaration of Marvels Told.

then we are fighting for nothing.

Well, even if we disagree (I don't disagree) -- it makes no difference on gameplay...

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:34 pm

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:29 pm I we all agree that order of declarations is:

CC performed by Sage.
Discarding hazard event.
Marvels Told

and that the all declarations are made at declaration of Marvels Told.

then we are fighting for nothing.

Well, even if we disagree (I don't disagree) -- it makes no difference on gameplay...

I'll agree that the order of declaration is considered to be as stated by Konrad, as per the rules, because nobody's going to sit there and read out their cards in reverse order

We weren't fighting, by the way, we were having a discussion about an example earlier in the thread

I still disagree regards Annotation 5 and 6. They come from the ill-conceived idea that active conditions are a card's 'cost to play'. That way lies madness.

And as CDavis7M rightly says, whichever order you want to consider the declarations were made, it actually has no effect on gameplay.

And we all agree that order of resolution for Marvels Told will always be:

Sage tapped.
Discard hazard event.
CC performed by Sage (check possibly modified by an opponent's card successfully played after Marvels Told).

The only mystery now is why CDavis7M was trying to counsel me regarding the loss of a loved one. When nobody's died. Maybe it was just:

6. Rudeness

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:39 pm I still disagree regards Annotation 5 and 6. They come from the ill-conceived idea that active conditions are a card's 'cost to play'. That way lies madness.

This is "denial." But notice that there is no mana in this game. No force, no resources, no gold coins, nothing to use to pay for a cost. But this is a game? There must be some inherent limitations to the actions of the players.

And there is. And those limitations on performing actions are the "cost." And the cost must be paid before the action can be taken. And given the design decision to allow for interrupting and delaying the taking of the action, the costs are paid before the interruptions. This is the only acceptable design choice. Otherwise, the player could attempt to take actions without paying.

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:39 pm The only mystery now is why CDavis7M was trying to counsel me regarding the loss of a loved one. When nobody's died. Maybe it was just:
6. Rudeness

It was not counsel, just an observation on understanding of the rules. But you might be on to something with point 6.

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:39 pm And as CDavis7M rightly says, whichever order you want to consider the declarations were made, it actually has no effect on gameplay.

If it does not translate on order of resolutions, then yes.
I think that it does translate.

Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:39 pm And we all agree that order of resolution for Marvels Told will always be:

Sage tapped.
Discard hazard event.
CC performed by Sage (check possibly modified by an opponent's card successfully played after Marvels Told).

I do not agree.

Order will be:

Marvels Told (if it will be unable to resolve, the two next actions will not resolve too)
Discard hazard event.
CC performed by Sage.

Seem like you have quite different (than mine) understanding of Active Conditions.