Await the advent of allies and similar cards playability

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Manuel
Council Chairman
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:31 am

Playable on a non-Wizard character with a mind of six or less. Character must stay at its current non-Haven site until you play a resource that taps the site or a resource that requires the site. Target character does not count against general influence and its marshalling points do not count. Discard this card when you play a resource at the site, the character is discarded, or the character becomes wounded. Cannot be duplicated on a given character.
This text is extracted from the meccg.es remaster, however my question here is not related to the updated text from the CRF.

Sorry if this has been asked before, I've made a search around here but couldn't find the answers I was looking for:

I've seen this card being played not only on a stationary character on a non-haven site (this would be the "intended" play of this card) but also on a character staying at a haven, or on a moving character.

I know that you can't play a card for no effect in this game:
Unless stated otherwise, a card is playable only if its effect applies to an existing situation, hazard, attack, etc. (i.e., you may not play a card just to discard it). A card cannot be played for no effect. A card may be played if it has potential effect.
And then there's also this:
Permanent-event — The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented.
Both of these lines appear in the Playing and Drawing Cards from the MELE rules.

When you play AtAoA on a stationary character at a non-haven site, its effect is applied to its fully potential. But when you play it on a moving character, some of the effects of the card cannot be implemented at that moment.

My question here is, is this play legal at all?

Thanks in advance
www.meccg.com
User avatar
Manuel
Council Chairman
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:31 am

Similarly, we also have Open to the Summons:
Playable on a company. One agent character may be played with target company at a Darkhaven or in your starting company — place this card with the agent. -1 to his mind to a minimum of 1. This card may be played with a starting company in lieu of a minor item. When played as such, reveal it when starting companies are determined as if it were a character. Does not allow you to start with a character that says he cannot be in the starting company. Cannot be duplicated on a given character. Cannot be included in a Balrog deck
(Text also extracted from the remaster)

This has been a very traditional play in competitive decks playing Failthless Stewards: I play Open to the summons on a company in Dol Guldur, and then later at some point in the game I play an agent there.

However, at the moment I play Open to the Summons, I'm playing it for no effect, or at least not at this very moment. It will have a later effect in the game. But then it's true that in MECCG you play one card and then the other, you never play two cards at the same time, do you? So technically, even if I have Open to the summons AND the agent in my hand, I have to play Open to the summons first. So this is tricky for me.

I'm not sure if these are two questions or one, but to me both cards share some similarities. Looking forward to reading your thoughts on the matter.
www.meccg.com
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I think that this issue is similar to issue with Come at Need.

"Playable if you have an ally in your hand. When this card is played, place one ally from your hand "off to the side" with it (the ally gives no Marshaling points). The ally must be able to be attacked."

There is errata for the card aimed to fix the issue.
viewtopic.php?f=144&t=3412
Issue is that playability conditions are mixed with main effect.

Before/without errata it was/is legal to play Come at Need having only Goldberry in hand.
Similarly it is now legal to play Await the Advent of Allies on character at haven or in moving company.
Manuel wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:36 pm I know that you can't play a card for no effect in this game:
CRF wrote:• The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later (e.g., the
second use of Dragon's Desolation). Most permanent-events fall into this
category. Only those that are playable on or with a certain entity are restrictive.
For example, you cannot play a corruption card if no character exists that would
be affected by it.
Underlie mine.

So as long playability conditions are met, there is no basis for complains.
Sentinels of Númenor in end-of-turn phase of last turn of game is OK. If nobody knows how to play faction in end-of-turn phase or during Council, it does not matter.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Manuel
Council Chairman
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:31 am

Thanks for your answer Konrad, I see the similarities between these and Come at Need.

However, I haven't been able to find that paragraph you quoted in the CRF, which section is it from?

EDIT: I found it in the MELE rules: Part V Appendices, Conventions on Tournament Play, Legal Play of cards.

Not sure if it's in the CRF too but I couldn't find it.
www.meccg.com
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

In document I have (direct link):
http://meccg.tolkien.com.pl/forum/downl ... e.php?id=7
CRF, CRF v.3, Clarifications and Rulings, Legal Play of Cards
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

You can present people (local players, CoE Councilmembers, etc) with rule after rule and explanation after explanation, but if they have never/always seen it some way at Worlds or Lure than that's just the way it is. No rules explanation needed.

Nothing can overcome some player's trump card:
trump.PNG
trump.PNG (2.92 KiB) Viewed 1316 times

By the way, whenever I see this argument presented, that is how I know it's wrong even without looking into it.

So I just wonder, how to even argue against this position? Otherwise, what is the point in discussing the rules.

So much effort to teach the 5th grade only to get complaints about lack of brevity: https://www.khanacademy.org/ela/cc-5th- ... se-reading

Or worse: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/l ... de?modal=1
User avatar
Manuel
Council Chairman
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:31 am

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:47 am You can present people (local players, CoE Councilmembers, etc) with rule after rule and explanation after explanation, but if they have never/always seen it some way at Worlds or Lure than that's just the way it is. No rules explanation needed.
Well, I am one of those players who has attended to both worlds and lure for years and seen these cards played this way. And yet here I am, questioning the way we've played them traditionally and trying to find some basis for it in the rules. It also happens that I'm standing for election as a CoE member, and will offer my candidature to work on the rules, too. So maybe not all hope is lost, don't you think? ;)

I agree, this was clearly not the way this card was supposed to be played, but unfortunately, this is not the only situation where we are being strict with what the card and the rules say, despite the designer's purpose. I think Konrad is right on this one, and I also believe this is good material for the next ARV, so maybe we can get these cards to be played the way they should have been from the beginning.
www.meccg.com
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Manuel wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:49 pm Sorry if this has been asked before, I've made a search around here but couldn't find the answers I was looking for:
Maybe off topic, but...
"Search" function is for users, not users are for "search" function.
And whatever has been written earlier about searched phrase, it has not been written with any guarantee of validity.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

I don't see any issue with Await the Advent of Allies, Open to the Summons, or Come at Need.

But I agree that some players can't be bothered to read 2 sentences of rules on Events and fail to recognize tenents of reading comprehension. And so they play Await the Advent of Allies and Open to the Summons wrong.
  • Await the Advent of Allies cannot be played on a character who does not have a current non-haven site.
  • An agent cannot be played later with Open to the Summons. The agent can only be played when Open to the Summons is played.
From the discussions on these cards you can see that some players are either disingenuous or they deeply misunderstand MECCG's game design. There are very few questions that cannot be understood from finding and reading the rules, and none that cannot be understood from those in the context of the game design and mechanics.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Manuel wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:00 pm It also happens that I'm standing for election as a CoE member, and will offer my candidature to work on the rules, too. So maybe not all hope is lost, don't you think? ;)
Nice to see the word has gotten out and you've been reading the rules yourself. I've been pointing out these the rules on Events constantly and I don't know why no one else read these rules in past 14 years.

Though Await is more about reading comprehension. Which some people could figure out when you asked 14 years ago: viewtopic.php?f=68&t=916
User avatar
Manuel
Council Chairman
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:31 am

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:46 pm Which some people could figure out when you asked 14 years ago: viewtopic.php?f=68&t=916
Haha, I knew it was somewhere in the back of my head...
www.meccg.com
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Manuel wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:49 pm Similarly, we also have Open to the Summons:
Ichabod's earlier rulings were changed by:
ICE Rules Digest 125 wrote:>From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>
>
>>When OttS is played during the game it would hang around on the company it
>>is played on (as long as the company existed) until an agent was played
>>with the company at a Darkhaven, when OttS would be placed of the agent,
>>right?
>
>That is not clear.

After talking with mike, we decdied it did stick around. Therefore, if
it is played during the character draft, and you are unable to play
the agent with it, it will stick around until you can play an agent
with the company during the game.

The same applies to Thrall of the Voice.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Regarding Await the Advent of Allies:

As far as I know, ICE netreps never explicitly ruled on this.

I see nothing indicating a site requirement for playing the card (in contrast with the first response in the other thread). We have many examples of cards that do require their target characters to be at certain sites to play, so it's not like ICE was confused about how to do this.

There also does not seem to be any action of this card "played out through" the site, just actions conditioned on other actions taken there. So there is no need for the site to exist as a target.

Does Await the Advent of Allies have an effect when played on a character without a current non-haven site? This point is where I think things are ambiguous. My theory about the above quoted Open to the Summons decision is that OttS does immediately modify the rules the player is operating under and so changes the game in that way. One could make a similar argument for Await the Advent of Allies. The catch is that the modifications to the rules ("potential effect") the player would be operating under are phrased based on the existence of a current non-haven site. That is, they were not written as "If the character is at a non-haven site...". Again, we have many examples of ICE knowing how to do that sort of phrasing. This line of reasoning suggests to me that it could also be reasonable to say that Await the Advent of Allies does not have any (interpretable) effect or even (interpretable) potential effect when played on a character without a current non-haven site---and so would not be playable---even though it does have the potential to be an interpretable effect if the character moves. I don't know of any precedent for ICE handling this sort of ambiguity.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:18 am
Manuel wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:49 pm Similarly, we also have Open to the Summons:
Ichabod's earlier rulings were changed by:
ICE Rules Digest 125 wrote:>From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>
>
>>When OttS is played during the game it would hang around on the company it
>>is played on (as long as the company existed) until an agent was played
>>with the company at a Darkhaven, when OttS would be placed of the agent,
>>right?
>
>That is not clear.

After talking with mike, we decdied it did stick around. Therefore, if
it is played during the character draft, and you are unable to play
the agent with it, it will stick around until you can play an agent
with the company during the game.

The same applies to Thrall of the Voice.
My understanding is that this was a special exception for the character draft only, not an explanation of how the card usually words. Especially as that goes against the rules on Events. I also noted that this clarification never made it into the CRF. There are plenty of other clarifications and errata from the Designers, some which were even stated as being added to the CRF, which never made it into the CRF. Coleman's errata to Paths of the Dead, changes to Seige, etc etc. Of course, just because it didn't make it into the CRF doesn't mean that it was wrong. There were many factors.

Recognize that the entire point of the character draft and pool of potential starting characters is so that the players can have extra characters to start the game with in situations where the character is duplicated. If your favorite agent is duplicated and Open to the Summons is already selected as your minor item for a tournament, then good news -- the solution you need is already there without changing how Open to the Summons works.

Good call on not issuing a clarification otherwise there would be even more confusion about how events work.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 7:57 am My understanding is that this was a special exception for the character draft only, not an explanation of how the card usually words. Especially as that goes against the rules on Events.
As an exception, it couldn't have been a clarification but would have needed errata. No, what a card "did" is precisely "how the card usually works."

Regarding rules on events, I thought we'd been over this before. I see no problem here, other than presumably your desire to interpret an allowance effect that lasts until the the card is discarded as an allowance effect that only occurs the moment the card is played. I have to say presumably, because despite having had several opportune posts you still haven't actually managed to clarify your rationale in any way I can understand. At least, were it not for Ichabod's claim of having talked to Mike, I would agree either interpretation could be possible.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”