Leucaruth at Home On-Guard

[CDavis7M]

Seems like another case where it's important to recognize the difference between the rule and the clarification of that rule.

[Theo]

In short, I agree that Leucaruth at Home may not be revealed on-guard in response to the declaration of either an attempt to play a faction or an attempt to influence an opponent's faction.

Some other points that I want to correct:

--------

The relevant rules are:
1. If an on-guard card is revealed, treat it as if it had been played during the movement/hazard phase.

"retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed."

Note that the second is actually a quote of the CRF, and is the standing rule (according to Ichabod). The netrep stated that the spirit of the on-guard rules was the first, but that is different from it being what actually is implemented.

--------

If a player tries to play a card that is not playable, it is returned to their hand -- it was not allowed by the game and never happened within the game.

Actual report from the ICE netrep:

This is the way it actually works:

1) Company arrives at the site (w/ New Moon on Guard)
2) Company enters the site. Nothing happens.
3) Elrond taps to play some resource that would tap the site.
4) Now the on-guard card goes off. BUT, because of the rules for on-guard cards, New Moon is considered to have been declared and resolved before the chain of effects started in 3. That means that Elrond is tapped before 3, attempt to play the resource retroactively fails.
5) Since Elrond's attempt failed, the site is NOT tapped, and the resource is discarded.
6) Other characters in the party may attempt to play different resources.

Well, as it turns out neither do the designers. I brought it up over at ICE tonight, and while it was decided my ruling was correct, it was also decided that this is not desirable. The on-guard card should not be able to stop the play of the resource it is revealed in response to. That is the idea behind not being able to reveal a card that can remove a character from the company. So, add to the list of restrictions on revealing event cards that the revealed card may not tap a character in the company.

At least in this related on-guard case, a declared card not being playable meant it was discarded. In fact:

Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.

Is playability of a card an active condition for playing the card? I don't know whether ICE ruled on this explicitly. In my opinion, it satisfies the definition of active condition.

I bring this up mainly because of the impact on playing Balance Between Powers in response to an environment.

[Konrad Klar]

1.
"retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed."

creates possibility that an action that has been declared legally before revealing on-guard, turns into action declared illegally.

Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.

is not applicable at this point.

2.

In short, I agree that Leucaruth at Home may not be revealed on-guard in response to the declaration of either an attempt to play a faction or an attempt to influence an opponent's faction.

For case "an attempt to influence an opponent's faction" (with revealing duplicate).
Essential difference between Lure of Power and Leucaruth at Home is that action from Lure is triggered by successful attempt, Leucaruth at Home does not create any action; it may prevent a playing of Dragon faction if attempt is successful.

And the action from Lure of Power will not be triggered if successful attempt was made by Hobbit.

3.

Actual report from the ICE netrep:

Yet another scenario, quite different from Leucaruth at Home on-guard and Weariness of the Heart on-guard on untapped scout/bearer of 2MP item (conditions of Tower Raided).
The two work on current state (at time of revealing on-guard). New Moon on-guard in the scenario tries to tap currently tapped Elf. It tries to work on past state. Like trying to discard/eliminate by cc a character that was controlling Stolen Knowledge before it was discarded.

[CDavis7M]

This is the way it actually works:

1) Company arrives at the site (w/ New Moon on Guard)
2) Company enters the site. Nothing happens.
3) Elrond taps to play some resource that would tap the site.
4) Now the on-guard card goes off. BUT, because of the rules for on-guard cards, New Moon is considered to have been declared and resolved before the chain of effects started in 3. That means that Elrond is tapped before 3, attempt to play the resource retroactively fails.
5) Since Elrond's attempt failed, the site is NOT tapped, and the resource is discarded.
6) Other characters in the party may attempt to play different resources.

If Elrond is retroactively tapped then retroactively he would never have been able to tap to make the attempt in the first place. An attempt that was retroactively never made cannot fail. And there is no actual rule that would cause Elrond's attempt to fail. He is tapped and he remains tapped so that active condition is satisfied. There is a rule that would cause the resource to not be playable though. But who knows what was said with the Designers and which of them it was. Not to name names but someone had fun ideas that were thematic but problematic and either never implemented or reversed. What we do know is that it was that tapping was banned but corruption was not. I think because corruption is specified in the rules and its the the example given. Even with that there is no example of the character attempting to play an item being the one making the corruption check. It just doesn't make sense for the "on guard" mechanic to cause failure of an attempt to play a resource and then discard that resource because if the hazard had been played in the movement/hazard phase than the attempt would not have been made.

--------

Note that the second is actually a quote of the CRF, and is the standing rule (according to Ichabod). The netrep stated that the spirit of the on-guard rules was the first, but that is different from it being what actually is implemented.

It's not the "standing rule" (whatever that means). It's not even a rule. It's a clarification to the actual rule in the rulesbook and it does not take precedence over the actual rule -- as Ichabod himself has also explains with respect to such clarifications. Pretending that CRF clarifications are the "standing rule" has led to a lot of confusion around here.

The point of the CRF clarification is that the players do not need to perform record keeping to remember when the on-guard card was placed. It doesn't matter if resources or hazards were played after the on-guard card was placed that might have worked differently had the on-guard card been played instead. Let's keep it simple. Instead, just pretend that the on-guard card was resolved in the chain of effects before it was revealed. This also means that cards like Lure of Expedience work. Some cards might not have any effect in the site phase if they resolved in the same chain of effects as the resource being played.

[Konrad Klar]

Ichabod 1997-2-16 wrote:
This is the way it actually works:
[...]
4) Now the on-guard card goes off. BUT, because of the rules for on-guard cards, New Moon is considered to have been declared and resolved before the chain of effects started in 3. That means that Elrond is tapped before 3, attempt to play the resource retroactively fails.

And currently:

A card cannot be revealed that:
• Returns a company to its site of origin
• Taps a company's site
• Potentially removes a character from a company, besides combat or corruption
checks
• Forces a company to do nothing during its site phase
• Directly taps a character in the company
A card that potentially removes an ally from the company can be revealed, so long as
it otherwise is legal.

Underline mine.

Rules have been changed, but besides this explanation is OK.
It assumes that on-guard operates on past state.

"retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed."

neither means that on-guard operates on past state nor that it operates on current state.

If someone wants to reconstruct a past state, then he may encounter following problem: if some character did not tap to take some action in response to which an on-guard has been revealed, then how and when the on-guard has been revealed?

[Konrad Klar]

Maybe solution (if there is problem) is to forbid a revealing of on-guard that could potentially invalidate declared actions.

[Theo]

2.
For case "an attempt to influence an opponent's faction" (with revealing duplicate).
Essential difference between Lure of Power and Leucaruth at Home is that action from Lure is triggered by successful attempt, Leucaruth at Home does not create any action; it may prevent a playing of Dragon faction if attempt is successful.

And the action from Lure of Power will not be triggered if successful attempt was made by Hobbit.

Neither of those cards can be revealed in response to an attempt to influence an opponent's faction because revealing at that time normally requires the declaration of the play of a card that would tap the site, and influencing an opponent's stuff can not tap the site.

[Konrad Klar]

What about:

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.

?

[Theo]

For the first sentence, it doesn't change that the effect needs to be on the company or a character of the company. This rule covers the allowance to reveal Lure of Power.

For the second sentence, preventing the resolution of a declared attempt does not affect an actual attempt because the actual attempt would never exist. We would no more say that Choking Shadows alternate effect affects an attack when used to prevent the resolution of a creature keyed to Ruins & Lairs (nor say that it wouldn't be able to stop Drughu from working in CvCC because it affects attacks and should thus be ignored). This rule covers the allowance to reveal Scatha at Home, Lord of the Carrock, Times are Evil, Webs of Fear & Treachery, Mordor in Arms, and (perhaps unnecessarily) Fool's Bane and Something Else at Work.

At least, those are my thoughts.

[Konrad Klar]

OK. But, in your opinion, Scatha at Home, Lord of the Carrock, Times are Evil, Webs of Fear & Treachery, Mordor in Arms cannot be revealed in response to an influence attempt against a faction that does not tap a site?

[CDavis7M]

OK. But, in your opinion, Scatha at Home, Lord of the Carrock, Times are Evil, Webs of Fear & Treachery, Mordor in Arms cannot be revealed in response to an influence attempt against a faction that does not tap a site?

You're not looking for my opinion but if you're really asking about influence attempts against the opponent's faction (which do not tap the site) then it could be helpful to read those rules again (they work differently) and compare the words used to the words in the most recent On-Guard rules.

Even if you're not talking about influencing the opponent's faction, it might be helpful to read the most recent on-guard rules again. I think they answer your question.

[Konrad Klar]

I was asking for opinion of other participant of discussion. In my previous post: for opinion of Theo.
The post immediately follows the Theo's post.
I am not searching for a teacher of reading at this forum.

[Theo]

I am interpreting the CRF influence attempt allowances as modifying the CRF rule "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. " Specifically, both allowances are modifying the second sentence, and so still require that a resource is played, and that the play potentially taps the site. Influencing an opponent's faction does not satisfy either of those. (I'm trying to think of other ways one could play a faction without potentially tapping the site; maybe a non-unique hero faction at a site with No Strangers at this Time?)

If one instead interprets the influence attempt allowances as being a third option for revealing on-guard cards, then those other requirements don't apply. The reason I think this interpretation is less likely is that there would be no reason for the "even if" clause.

[Konrad Klar]

Thanks.

(I'm trying to think of other ways one could play a faction without potentially tapping the site; maybe a non-unique hero faction at a site with No Strangers at this Time?)

At minion The Worthy Hills?
Successful playing a faction at minion The Worthy Hills could potentially tap the site if not its special text.
The same for factions that can be played at tapped site. Playing them could potentially tap a site if the site would be untapped: can become untapped if something declared in response will untap it (and No Strangers at this Time may be played with Crown of Flowers*).

*) @CDavis7M: I'm looking for your opinions, but not always I am agreeing with them. The same for opinions of others.

EDIT: "wit" -> "with"

[CDavis7M]

...and so still require that a resource is played, and that the play potentially taps the site. Influencing an opponent's faction does not satisfy either of those. (I'm trying to think of other ways one could play a faction without potentially tapping the site; maybe a non-unique hero faction at a site with No Strangers at this Time?)

My understanding is that the wording in the On-Guard rules was specifically changed to clarify against this interpretation.