Council of Elrond

The question is that on the topic's title. Most rules questions comes down to what is to "affect" or not to "affect" something. So i would like to know the official definition.

I can't seem to find it

There is no such definition within this game.

i guess that explains why there are so much rules doubts then

I think so.
Anything what happens in game has some impact on all players.

marcos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:25 pm Most rules questions comes down to what is to "affect" or not to "affect" something. So i would like to know the official definition.

Really? Which questions? I've only seen "affect" matter for "Off to the Side" cards (hardly ever mentioned, except recently) and Fallen-wizards playing cross-alignment resources. And the answers are obvious because the player wouldn't question the rules if nothing was affected.

marcos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:25 pm I can't seem to find it

It's in the dictionary, not the rules. The word "affect" is not a term of the game having any different meaning. It just means to change something or cause an effect.

Lidless Eye wrote: Again, it is up to your playgroup to
decide if these cards have an effect on Ringwraith players:

A word "affect" is not used here, but I think that "having an effect" has the same meaning.

EDIT: "thing" > "think".

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:08 pm Really? Which questions? I've only seen "affect" matter for "Off to the Side" cards (hardly ever mentioned, except recently) and Fallen-wizards playing cross-alignment resources. And the answers are obvious because the player wouldn't question the rules if nothing was affected.

The fact that they are not written on this forum doesn't imply that they doesn't exist. There are many platforms for social interaction nowadays, and a lot of groups about this game (and many other themes).

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:08 pm It's in the dictionary, not the rules. The word "affect" is not a term of the game having any different meaning. It just means to change something or cause an effect.

Unfortunately, the dictionary is not a part of the rules set, so it gives room to different interpretations. That is why i wanted an official game-deffinition.

For example: to "affect" an automatic attack at a site, is equivalent to "affecting" the site? some might argue yes, and some might argue no. Rules say that a minion permanent event can't "affect" a hero site and viceversa, does it means that forewarned is forearmed has no effect on minion sites?

Then there is also the rule about affecting automatic attacks, or cards with multiple actions, or even multiple attacks. For example, i play lucky search with my Strider and find an item in the last card of my deck, so he would have to face a strike of a thousand prowess, but then in response to the attack i replace him with Aragorn and the strike fizzles. Some might argue that the fizzling the strike does affect the attack making it loose its target, and some might argue that it does not affect the attack.

Just some examples of how the diverse interpretations of "affect" could actually affect the game.

Until translated to more concrete rules, the word "affect" will be vague and will not have any concrete meaning.

I propose the following interpretation: an affecting of X means a changing of state or properties of X.

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:31 pm The fact that they are not written on this forum doesn't imply that they doesn't exist. There are many platforms for social interaction nowadays, and a lot of groups about this game (and many other themes).

You first said "most rules questions," not mere existence of such questions. But that's interesting that the word "affect" commands most of the non-English rules questions on MECCG, because only a small fraction of English language rules questions discuss the word "affect" on Council of Elrond, the MECCG facebook group, the MECCG discord, the Card Num chat, the MECCG.net forum, the METW silent-tower/yahoo mailing list, and the trading-card.misc newsgroup.

----------

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:31 pm Unfortunately, the dictionary is not a part of the rules set, so it gives room to different interpretations. That is why i wanted an official game-deffinition.

I think it is fortunate that the dictionary is not copied into the rulesbook, because it is long enough as is. But of course the game relies on understanding of English definitions because the Designers wrote the rules and cards in English. This game does not give definitions for term that have their ordinary meaning. No game does this. I gave the definition of "affect." What about it was unclear? I don't see any conflicting definitions. Usually any conflicting definitions can be resolved by recognizing the context.

----------

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:31 pm For example: to "affect" an automatic attack at a site, is equivalent to "affecting" the site? some might argue yes, and some might argue no.

I don't see any room for argument. I find that the answer is often clearly in the rule being questioning, so it helps to quote it.

CRF, Turn Sequence, Site Phase: "A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack. Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does."

An automatic-attack is an attribute of a site card that can create an attack against a company. Removing an automatic-attack from a site card affects the site card's attributes, not the attack against the company. This is the reason that the rule above states that removing an automatic-attack from a site card does not affect the automatic-attack being faced by the company entering the site. Of course the removal of an automatic attack would mean that the company no longer has to face an attack. But whether the company would have to face an attack is not a consideration under this rule. The rule states "unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack" and so the question is specifically whether a particular RESOURCE affects the ATTACK being faced.

The rule was even clarified:
CRF, Turn Sequence, Site Phase: "The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence."

Affecting a site card does not cancel an attack, cancel a strike, or affect a strike.

So to your question: No, to "affect" an automatic attack at a site is not equivalent to "affecting" the site.

----------

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:31 pm Rules say that a minion permanent event can't "affect" a hero site and viceversa, does it means that forewarned is forearmed has no effect on minion sites?

The be clear, the MEWH rules, with errata, state "A hero resource event card may not target/affect a minion site card or a minion resource card."

Forewarned is Forearmed states "Any non-Dragon Lair site with more than one automatic-attack is reduced to having one automatic-attack of the hazard player's choice (this attack cannot be canceled)." That is, the non-selected automatic-attacks of the site card are removed. This effect does not "target" the site (it's a non-targeting effect), but it clearly affects the site.

A Fallen-wizard's hefore Forewarned is Forearmed does not reduce the automatic-attacks of minion site cards. Just like a Fallen-wizard's minion Rumor of the One does not give +1 corruption to hero rings. And so on.

----------

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:31 pm For example, i play lucky search with my Strider and find an item in the last card of my deck, so he would have to face a strike of a thousand prowess, but then in response to the attack i replace him with Aragorn and the strike fizzles. Some might argue that the fizzling the strike does affect the attack making it loose its target, and some might argue that it does not affect the attack.

Strider cannot be used to play Aragorn to avoid Lucky Search's strike. There are 2 reasons why this doesn't work. First, recognize that playing Aragorn II with Strider's ability would negate the active conditions of Lucky Search (the target Scout, and the Scout being tapped) because Strider, the scout, is removed from the game at declaration of the play of Aragorn II as an active condition.

Second, there is a difference between affecting an attack/strike and affecting the target of the strike. Playing Aragorn affects the Strider card, the cards on Strider, and the Aragorn card, but it does not affect the attack or any strike. Strider's card text doesn't include the work "attack" or "strike." Using Strider's ability to remove the target of an attack/strike does not cancel the attack/strike itself. And Strider is not a resource card.

CRF, Terms, Active Conditions: An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the player invoking the action.
CRF, Terms, Active Conditions: Annotation 5: ... When it comes time to resolve the action in its chain of effects, that entity must still be in play and tapped or the action is canceled
CRF, Terms, Active Conditions: Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved.
CRF, Turn Sequence, Combat: Annotation 18: When a defending player chooses to resolve a strike against a particular character, the only actions that may be taken by either player until the strike dice-roll is made are the following: playing hazard cards that affect the strike, the attacker may decide to use any or all of his remaining -1 modifications due to strikes in excess of the company's size, a target untapped character may take a -3 modification so that he will not automatically tap, and the defending character may play resource cards that affect the strike. An action that has the condition that a target character tap, but which otherwise has an effect not outlined here, may not be declared at this point. This is true even if the recipient of the strike would be the target character tapping and thus receive -1 to his prowess.
CRF, Terms, Timing: 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 (amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation 18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).

(1) Targeting a scout and tapping the target scout are active conditions of the action of playing Lucky Search. These active conditions must still be satisfied when Lucky Search resolves. However, Strider's ability negates Lucky Search's active conditions when satisfying its own active conditions.

Removing Strider from the game is an active condition for the action of bringing Aragorn II into play. It's clear that the action of removing Strider from the game is an active condition because the player actively decides to remove Strider from the game as the condition for playing Aragorn II. And removal of Strider is a restriction preventing the player from invoking Strider's special ability again. Removal of Strider is the price for declaring the play of Aragorn II. As an active condition, Strider is removed from the game when Strider's the play of Aragorn II is declared.

So if Strider's ability is declared (assuming that it could be resolved during resolution of Lucky Search per Annotation 24), then Strider is removed from the game before it comes time to resolve Lucky Search, thereby negating the active conditions of Lucky Search. So it doesn't work.

(2) Since one of the actions listed on Lucky Search is an attack per the amendment to Annotation 24, you suggest using Strider's ability to interrupt the declaration of Lucky Search's actions by the declaration of the action of playing Aragorn II. In general, activating an ability of a card follows the same rules as playing a card. However, Activating Strider's ability affects the Strider character card, the cards on Strider, and the Aragorn II card. Nothing in Strider's card text mentions anything about cancelling an attack, cancelling a strike, and Strider is not a resource that affects a strike per Annotation 18.

Strider cannot be used to play Aragorn to avoid Lucky Search's strike.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:46 pm I propose the following interpretation: an affecting of X means a changing of state or properties of X.

Sure. But the proposal is not needed. While it's consistent with the definition of "affect," formalizing the interpretation appears to create a restriction that is not present in the game.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:01 pm

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:31 pm The fact that they are not written on this forum doesn't imply that they doesn't exist. There are many platforms for social interaction nowadays, and a lot of groups about this game (and many other themes).

You first said "most rules questions," not mere existence of such questions. But that's interesting that the word "affect" commands most of the non-English rules questions on MECCG, because only a small fraction of English language rules questions discuss the word "affect" on Council of Elrond, the MECCG facebook group, the MECCG discord, the Card Num chat, the MECCG.net forum, the METW silent-tower/yahoo mailing list, and the trading-card.misc newsgroup.

Well i've been around the online community for over 15 years now, and i just realized that those sites are the only existing ones. Surprise, I guess other nations/lenguages doesn't have oppinion on the game. You know there are also very active forums and whatsapp groups about meccg that aren't the ones you are mentioning. But instead of just being annoying one could just stick to replying to the rules questions being asked.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:01 pm

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:31 pm Unfortunately, the dictionary is not a part of the rules set, so it gives room to different interpretations. That is why i wanted an official game-deffinition.

I think it is fortunate that the dictionary is not copied into the rulesbook, because it is long enough as is. But of course the game relies on understanding of English definitions because the Designers wrote the rules and cards in English. This game does not give definitions for term that have their ordinary meaning. No game does this. I gave the definition of "affect." What about it was unclear? I don't see any conflicting definitions. Usually any conflicting definitions can be resolved by recognizing the context.

Most games actually gives deffinitions about key aspects of it. Even MELE rules has a glossary, but the term "affect" wether it is directly or indirectly, is not included there, yet it is a word that it is repeated a lot in different contexts. And since this game is not only played by native-english-speakers, hence might appear different interpretations of the rules.

The rest of your rules quoting for the different examples made a lot of sense, thanks for them.

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:22 pm You know there are also very active forums and whatsapp groups about meccg that aren't the ones you are mentioning.

Great! I'd appreciate it if you shared where to find them.

marcos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:22 pm Most games actually gives deffinitions about key aspects of it. Even MELE rules has a glossary, but the term "affect" wether it is directly or indirectly, is not included there, yet it is a word that it is repeated a lot in different contexts. And since this game is not only played by native-english-speakers, hence might appear different interpretations of the rules.

The glossary was there in METW Limited. But yes, nowhere in the rules was "affect" defined. Likely because use of "affect" is mostly as a result of rulings and clarifications. Both "affects" and "directly affects" are used in the rulings. The term "indirectly affects" is not used. From everything I've seen, in order for an effect to be considered as affecting something, that something must be specifically referenced and must either be moved, rotated, or have its attributes modified, etc. Even conditional effects are considered as "affecting" -- as in Lure of Power.

Forewarned is Forearmed affects site cards because it states: "Any non-Dragon Lair site with more than one automatic-attack is reduced." And so a Fallen-wizard's FiF cannot affect a minion site card.

Lure of Power affects a character card because it states: "The next non-Hobbit character to make a successful influence attempt (e.g., against a faction, an opponent's character, etc.) must immediately make a corruption check modified by -4." The movement of the character card to the discard pile or out of play pile is contingent on passing the influence check and failing the corruption check. Lure of Power affects a character and so it may be revealed on guard.

Ruse does not affect the attack because it states: "No strikes of the attack may be assigned to the scout." The attack is specified but no attributes of the attack (strikes, prowess, body) have changed. The change is to the strike assignment process with respect to the scout, not to the attack itself. So ruse may not be played against an automatic-attack.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:05 am Lure of Power affects a character card because it states: "The next non-Hobbit character to make a successful influence attempt (e.g., against a faction, an opponent's character, etc.) must immediately make a corruption check modified by -4." The movement of the character card to the discard pile or out of play pile is contingent on passing the influence check and failing the corruption check. Lure of Power affects a character and so it may be revealed on guard.

Lure of Power does not create any immediate action.
"must immediately make a corruption check modified by -4."
is action activated by passive condition
"The next non-Hobbit character to make a successful influence attempt (e.g., against a faction, an opponent's character, etc.)"

As such it may be revealed on guard only in response to declaration of influence attempt against a faction.
The cards that affect a character may be revealed in response to any action that would potentially tap a site, even if they are irrelevant to the action.
E.g. Lure of Senses may be revealed in response to declaration of an item and may target other character than that playing the item.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 7:19 am

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:05 am Lure of Power affects a character card because it states: "The next non-Hobbit character to make a successful influence attempt (e.g., against a faction, an opponent's character, etc.) must immediately make a corruption check modified by -4." The movement of the character card to the discard pile or out of play pile is contingent on passing the influence check and failing the corruption check. Lure of Power affects a character and so it may be revealed on guard.

Lure of Power does not create any immediate action.
"must immediately make a corruption check modified by -4."
is action activated by passive condition
"The next non-Hobbit character to make a successful influence attempt (e.g., against a faction, an opponent's character, etc.)"

Cards that are revealed on guard in response to a resource do not need to have an "immediate action". They just need to affect the character or the company. Many effects of hazard permanent events don't have an immediate action (activity in the game) but they can be revealed on guard.

The On Guard rulings explicitly state that Lure of Power can be revealed in response to an influence attempt. I assumed the reader had this knowledge. I was just pointing out that the reasoning behind this is that contingent effects satisfy the "directly affects" requirement for revealing an on guard card. This is the same reason why you can reveal a card that causes a corruption check. Lure of Power only has a contingent effect on a character if there is a declared influence attempt, so one must exist for it to be revealed.

My main point is, I see no basis in the rules or rulings for asserting that indirect effects count as "affecting". For example, playing a character by the effect of We Have Come to Kill does not affect combat, it affects a character card (the one that is played). So We Have Come to Kill cannot be played during CvCC by the defender.

CRF wrote:You may reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction even if the
on-guard card only has an effect if the attempt is successful. You may also reveal a
card in response to such an attempt that affects the actual influence attempt.

CRF wrote:An on-guard card may be revealed when the company plays a resource that
potentially taps the site. The card must affect the company or a character in the
company that site phase. Note that this clarification is looser than the rule printed on
p.61 of the Unlimited Rules book

CRF wrote:Only declared or on-going cards and effects can be considered when determining the
validity of revealing an on-guard card. Potential effects that have not been triggered
cannot be considered.

Underlines mine.

So yes. Greed may be revealed on guard in response to declaration of item. Declared effect (the item played at site) may affect the characters in company.
Greed cannot be revealed in response to declaration of faction or ally. Potential effect on company that could be triggered later by playing extra minor item is not considered.

Lure of Power may not be revealed in response to declaration of item or ally, even if its effect could be triggered later.
Lure of Senses may be revealed in response to any resource that potentially taps the site. It affects a character in company anyway. A character in company is on-going card.