pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:21 pm

Tom Bombadil" wrote:Unique. Playable at Old Forest. Tap to cancel the effects of one hazard that targets a company moving to a site in: Arthedain, Cardolan, Rhudaur, or The Shire. Discard Tom Bombadil if his company moves to a site that is not in: Arthedain, Cardolan, Rhudaur, or The Shire.
CRF, Errata (Cards), Tom Bombadil wrote:Card Erratum: Change "that targets a company" to "that targets a company, or an
entity associated with a company."
Baduila does not target a company, or an entity associated with a company.
Its effect (the action caused by discarding him) targets a company.
As such the action cannot be canceled by tapping of om Bombadil.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:57 pm

Ouch. You're right; Baduila himself is not played on a company/character (thereby targeting them), unlike most hazard events.

Of course, by that same logic, Tom can't cancel creature cards, either. They create attacks that the company has to deal with, but the creature cards don't actually target the company themselves.

What's your opinion on Seek Without Success?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:15 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:57 pm
They create attacks that the company has to deal with, but the creature cards don't actually target the company themselves.
They target.
They cannot be played in one M/H phase and attack in other M/H phase.
Some even specify conditions that company must met, without which the creatures cards cannot be declared and cannot resolve.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:57 pm
What's your opinion on Seek Without Success?
It targets company.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:17 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:15 am
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:57 pm
They create attacks that the company has to deal with, but the creature cards don't actually target the company themselves.
They target.
They cannot be played in one M/H phase and attack in other M/H phase.
Some even specify conditions that company must met, without which the creatures cards cannot be declared and cannot resolve.
That doesn't mean they target the company. After all, Baduila can't be discarded in one m/h phase and bounce somebody in another m/h phase. A target is an entity through which an action plays out, and the attack created by a creature card is not the creature card, just as the effect created by discarding Baduila is not Baduila.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:57 pm
What's your opinion on Seek Without Success?
It targets company.
Its effect targets the company. I'm talking about the card itself. If we divorce the effect of discarding Baduila from Baduila, we also have to divorce the effect of Seek from Seek. The card itself isn't playable on anything. It doesn't target anything. Only its effect does. (Assuming that discarding the Ranger Agent is the active condition of the bounce action.)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:06 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:17 pm
Its effect targets the company. I'm talking about the card itself. If we divorce the effect of discarding Baduila from Baduila, we also have to divorce the effect of Seek from Seek. The card itself isn't playable on anything. It doesn't target anything. Only its effect does. (Assuming that discarding the Ranger Agent is the active condition of the bounce action.)
We can divorce any action created by an short-event from the short-event itself.
And we can end with conclusion that no short-event targets anything, but only actions/effects that the short-event creates.
(And then we could freely use e.g. Look More Closely Later to untap minion sites).

Or we can acknowledge the fact that although particular actions created by short-event have targets, they cannot be declared in other way that along with declaration of the short-event.
And we can conclude that if particular action declared along with declaration of short-event has target, then the short-event itself has the target too.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:17 pm
That doesn't mean they target the company. After all, Baduila can't be discarded in one m/h phase and bounce somebody in another m/h phase. A target is an entity through which an action plays out, and the attack created by a creature card is not the creature card, just as the effect created by discarding Baduila is not Baduila.
Discarding action of Baduila is not declared along with declaration (playing) of Baduila.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:17 pm
(Assuming that discarding the Ranger Agent is the active condition of the bounce action.)
It is not the active condition of the bounce action. Discarding Ranger Agent is main effect - action created by Seek Without Success and bounce action is main effect of the card too.
Ranger Agent is target and company is target of the card.
(if it would be "Ranger Agent of your choice" then Ranger Agent would not be a target).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:20 pm

Petition to change user name "Konrad Klar" to "The Necromancer" [-me_dh-]

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:11 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:06 pm
Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:17 pm
Its effect targets the company. I'm talking about the card itself. If we divorce the effect of discarding Baduila from Baduila, we also have to divorce the effect of Seek from Seek. The card itself isn't playable on anything. It doesn't target anything. Only its effect does. (Assuming that discarding the Ranger Agent is the active condition of the bounce action.)
We can divorce any action created by an short-event from the short-event itself.
And we can end with conclusion that no short-event targets anything, but only actions/effects that the short-event creates.
We can, but we would be wrong. Any short event played on something targets that thing.
A card that is played on a card continuously targets the card it is on.
Or we can acknowledge the fact that although particular actions created by short-event have targets, they cannot be declared in other way that along with declaration of the short-event.
And we can conclude that if particular action declared along with declaration of short-event has target, then the short-event itself has the target too.
We can, but we would be wrong. A Dragon Ahunt creates an attack. The Long-event itself does not attack. Similarly, an action of a short-event may create a target, but that does not mean the short-event targets.

If we are going to say that a card targets just because an action created by it targets, then I think discarding a card is just as valid for that reasoning as playing one.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:26 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:11 pm
We can, but we would be wrong. A Dragon Ahunt creates an attack. The Long-event itself does not attack. Similarly, an action of a short-event may create a target, but that does not mean the short-event targets.
For this reason I say "they cannot be declared in other way that along with declaration of the short-event".

I do not think that Snowstorm targets a company. But returning action of Snowstorm does.
Snowstorm does not require a company moving through [-me_wi-] to be declared.
Seek without Success (or Beorning Skin-changers) requires moving (hero) company to be declared.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:38 pm

Even then, both are conditions, not actions (I still believe that discarding the Ranger is a condition of seek).

And even if they're actions and declared along with one another, that doesn't mean they're the same thing or inherit each other's targets.

You can't declare the attacks from Tempest of Fire without also declaring the tapping of the site, but that doesn't mean the attacks target the site.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:48 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:38 pm
Even then, both are conditions, not actions (I still believe that discarding the Ranger is a condition of seek)
Because you are ignoring a difference between "discard X" and "discard X to".
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:38 pm
You can't declare the attacks from Tempest of Fire without also declaring the tapping of the site, but that doesn't mean the attacks target the site.
Right.
Action "tap" targets a site, an attacks targets company.
Tempest of Fire targets both.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:48 pm

It's more that ICE ignored the difference. :)

So, as I understand it, you're arguing that in any case where actions have to be declared along with the play of the card, the card itself targets whatever the action targets.

But if an action does not have to be declared along with the play of the card, the card cannot target whatever the action targets. Is this what you're saying?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:09 am

Yes.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:45 pm

All right.

Is this based on a stated rule anywhere, or is it an inference?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:48 pm

Both, I think.
Inference.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:08 pm

Oh, it was bosquet that resurrected this thread, not Konrad. My apologies. Bosquet is the Necromancer.

I see a difference between a card and an effect of the card. But I am confused by the assertion that Tom can only cancel cards and not the effects. Especially since Tom says that it cancels the effects of a hazard (vs a hazard event or card or something).

Am I missing something in the sea of discussion?

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”