pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:28 pm

If an effect of short-event is not an attack, I do not see a method of canceling it other than canceling it as whole and before it will resolve.
But Tom Bombadil has no ability to cancel an effect merely declared.
In practice he is limited to canceling attacks (from hazard that targets company) and to canceling (discarding) hazard permanent-event on company (as whole, or on entity associated in 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 » Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:31 pm

Tap to cancel the effects of one hazard that targets any company
Tom cancel the effects of a hazard.

But the way it's worded, the *hazard* has to target the company. Its effects don't have to.

If they had written "cancel the effects of one hazard that target any company," then we could only worry about whether the effect targets the company, and not the hazard.

For example, Tom can cancel Lost in Borderlands because it is playable on a company (thereby targeting them) even though its effect does not target the company (it merely allows the playing of more hazards).
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: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:55 pm

Question is whether already applied result may be canceled at all.
If so, there is chance of returning to play eliminated characters.

(petition to change the name Tom Bombadil to The Necromancer...)
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 7:00 pm

I think "effects" is to be read as "direct effects." If a hazard had as its direct effect eliminating a character, then that could be canceled, but a hazard that causes a bc which might eliminate the character would have to be canceled before the bc is done.

In the case of hazard short-events, I think it is too late to use Tom after its effects are implemented, because it will cease targeting the player by then (usually).
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: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:48 pm

I think that canceled may be only ongoing effect (including a process, like an attack).
A result applied to some object may be reverted.

P.S. This means that I agree with you.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:55 pm

Thanks for clarifying. Now I see the interpretation - "Hazard" in Tom Bombadil is being interpreted as "Hazard Card" and this interpretation is excluding "effect of a hazard card." This differentiation seems like unnecessarily complex and unsupported by the rules and CRF.

Generally, the term "Hazard" could be interpreted as both "Hazard card" and "effect of a hazard card." Meaning that Tom Bombadil could cancel effects of a hazard that target a company as well as hazard cards themselves. So, then, Tom could cancel the effects of hazard-agent Baduila's effect which targets a company.

Are there any instances of the targeting of Hazard cards being divorced from the targeting of their effects like Baduila? It seems like targeting of effects of hazards are synonymous with the targeting of the hazard card itself.

I think the CRF entries for Tom Bombadil shed light on this matter.
Allows the cancelling of one creature or the cancelling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.

Cannot cancel non-targetted effects like Long Winter.
Later on there were other different clarifications on Tom:
Allows the canceling of one creature or the canceling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.
At another point, Tom's clarification indicated that he could discard already resolved permanent effects on characters:
Tom Bombadil
Card Erratum: Change "that targets a company" to "that targets a company, or an entity associated with a company."
Allows the canceling of a creature.
Can discard permanent-events on characters.
But then eventually these clarifications were removed as we were left with:
Tom Bombadil
Card Erratum: Change "that targets a company" to "that targets a company, or an entity associated with a company."
The final errata (👏👏👏) not containing the various previous clarifications. Nothing here suggests a differentiation between targeting effects vs cards. It seems like this was not an issue.

Regardless, given the lack of Rules/rulings indicating that "Hazard" = "hazard card" and excludes "effects of hazard cards," it seems clear that Tom can cancel effects of Hazards (but of course he is limited to canceling company/entity targeting effects).

Similarly, a "resource" is not limited to "resource cards" but also includes "resource effects."
You cannot target an opponent's character or resources with your own resources.
+1 Vote
(petition to change the name Tom Bombadil to The Necromancer...)
There is a fan conspiracy along these lines.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bosquet
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 8:12 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by bosquet » Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:10 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:08 pm
Oh, it was bosquet that resurrected this thread, not Konrad. My apologies. Bosquet is the Necromancer.
[-me_dh-] [-me_cp-]

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 10:27 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:55 pm
Thanks for clarifying. Now I see the interpretation - "Hazard" in Tom Bombadil is being interpreted as "Hazard Card" and this interpretation is excluding "effect of a hazard card." This differentiation seems like unnecessarily complex and unsupported by the rules and CRF.
Actually, it's just basic subject/verb agreement.
Tap to cancel the effects of one hazard that targets any company
The word "targets" is conjugated for a single noun. Therefore, it cannot be "effects." It has to be the hazard itself.

Permanent events on characters are targeting them by rule, and therefore valid for Tom's ability. Presumably, one of the effects that is canceled is its remaining on the character.

Last Child of Ungoliant has much better wording, but at the cost of being unable to do anything about short-events.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:44 pm

I see the point that "targets" is referring to "hazard" and not "effects" in the sentence "Tap to cancel the effects of one hazard that targets any company." I agree with that. My points aren't discussing this aspect.

But my point is that the term "Hazard" refers to both "effects of hazards" as well as "hazard cards" themselves. There is nothing in the rules to support a conclusion that an "effect of a hazard card" is not a "hazard" for purposes of Tom Bombadil or otherwise. Thus, there is nothing to indicate that "an effect of a hazard-agent" like Baduila's effect is not "hazard" that can be canceled by Tom Bombadil.

Plus, the term "resource" is often used to indicate both "resource cards" and "effects of resource cards."

Also, come on. "Remaining on the character" is not an "effect." You sound like someone else.

If hazard effects bypassing "hazard" cancelers actually was a mechanic of the game, there would be other documented examples.

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 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am

If that were the case, the entire phrase is redundant. If they had intended the two to be the same, they wouldn't have written out "effects of one hazard."
There is nothing in the rules to support a conclusion that an "effect of a hazard card" is not a "hazard" for purposes of Tom Bombadil or otherwise.
Other than MELE:
Hazards: Cards with a steel grey background. You may only play hazards during your opponent's movement/hazard phase.
Plus, the term "resource" is often used to indicate both "resource cards" and "effects of resource cards."
Examples?
Also, come on. "Remaining on the character" is not an "effect." You sound like someone else.
Ummm . . .
Permanent-event: A resource or hazard that stays in play indefinitely as stated in its text.
This certainly indicates that remaining on a character is indeed part of a card's effects.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:32 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am
If that were the case, the entire phrase is redundant. If they had intended the two to be the same, they wouldn't have written out "effects of one hazard."
The wording is just sloppy. At the time Tom and the Ents were written, there were no agents like Baduila. Name a hazard from METW that raises this issue.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am
There is nothing in the rules to support a conclusion that an "effect of a hazard card" is not a "hazard" for purposes of Tom Bombadil or otherwise.
Other than MELE:
Hazards: Cards with a steel grey background. You may only play hazards during your opponent's movement/hazard phase.
Of course a hazard is a card. That doesn't mean that an effect of a hazard card is not a "hazard." An introductory sentence from the MELE rules book stating that hazard cards have a grey background no way indicates that the effect of an Agent does not count as a "hazard." Is this your best?
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am
Plus, the term "resource" is often used to indicate both "resource cards" and "effects of resource cards."
Examples?
I gave one above.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am
Also, come on. "Remaining on the character" is not an "effect." You sound like someone else.
Ummm . . .
Permanent-event: A resource or hazard that stays in play indefinitely as stated in its text.
This certainly indicates that remaining on a character is indeed part of a card's effects.
This is a mechanic of playing the game, placing one card on another card for purposes of game play not "hazard effect" of the card itself.

I wonder why you are so adament.

Leaflock was intended to be able to cancel River (see METW PG). Clearly there is just sloppy wording here. There is nothing to indicate that a hazard effect targeting the company cannot be canceled.

I'm not saying that your analysis is incorrect, but the bottom line is that the arguments you and Konrad are presenting for why Tom Bombadil cannot cancel Baduila require a level of complexity and sophistication that is just not present in the rules of this game.

You look at the details in the rulesbook for the Strike Sequence, for site-paths, for playing characters, influencing characters, character attributes, and more. These are fundamental concepts and mechanics of the game.

Differentiating between an effect of a hazard agent targeting a company and a "hazard" targeting a company is not a concept of the game.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Theo » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:26 am

I'm of a similar mind as CDavis.

Baduila's return to site of origin is a hazard action (aside: not an Agent action). This action clearly specifies that it targets a company, and it is a hazard. The fact that it is a targeting action is irrelevant for Tom since Tom is not restricted to only canceling effects of hazard cards.

Also, historical guidance has repeatedly corroborated that Tom's action can cancel hazard actions on the chain of effects, bypassing Annotation 8, which seems reasonable because the rules never define "effects" as being "in play", but rather "affecting play". Otherwise Tom's action (targeting both "the effects" as well as "one hazard") would be useless.
(Actually CoE #54 ruled Tom/Leaflock could not cancel Pilfer, but then this was overruled by CoE #91.)
CRF wrote: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. An action may not be declared if its target is not in play. However, dice-rolling actions may always be targeted by other actions declared later in the same chain of effects.
--
CRF wrote:Hazards may only be played on a company whose movement/hazard phase is being resolved, or on the site they are moving to. Long-events and permanent-events may effect more than one company even though they are only played "on" one company.
This means that Tom can cancel the effects of e.g. Long Winter when its play is in the chain of effects (it does not target the resolving company's end site, so it must be 'played on a company" = target), but presumably he cannot cancel it after it is in play because of:
CRF wrote:Annotation 3: Long-events and certain other cards do not have targets because they are not played out through one specific entity, i.e., they generally affect an entire class of things.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:45 am

My understanding is "even though long/permanent event are played on a company during a particular M/H phase of a company, they can affect other companies."

Playing "on" is not precise language. But it doesn't mean "target." Certainly Long Winter does not target a specific company. I don't see how declared vs resolved matters as long winter doesn't target the company either way.

My point was, these METW cards have vague language and there is nothing in the rules to assume a narrower interpretation when a broader interpret fits.

Brandobras brought up Last Child of Ungoliant as a card with precise wording on canceling hazards facing a company. I Know Much About You is an example with precise wording on agent hazard effects. The METW Ents and Tom lack this specific limiting language.

Even with more precise language, I Know Much About You starts to have problems if you try to read to much into it.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:11 am

CRF wrote:Hazards may only be played on a company whose movement/hazard phase is being resolved, or on the site they are moving to. Long-events and permanent-events may effect more than one company even though they are only played "on" one company.
I appreciate the fact that last "on" is put between quotation marks.
If a card does not have a target, it cannot be played on anything.
It is good visible in case of some resources, like e.g. Gates of Morning, that may be played even if nothing is on play surface.
How different (in question of targeting) is Doors of Night?
Because hazard cards may be played only during M/H phase or during site phase of given company, some company is always involved in playing of hazard card*, but it means that hazard cards are always played against some company not always on company (without quotation marks).

*) Few exceptions, like Ire of The East have targets.
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 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:10 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:32 am
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am
If that were the case, the entire phrase is redundant. If they had intended the two to be the same, they wouldn't have written out "effects of one hazard."
The wording is just sloppy. At the time Tom and the Ents were written, there were no agents like Baduila. Name a hazard from METW that raises this issue.
As I said before . . .
For example, Tom can cancel Lost in Borderlands because it is playable on a company (thereby targeting them) even though its effect does not target the company (it merely allows the playing of more hazards).
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am
There is nothing in the rules to support a conclusion that an "effect of a hazard card" is not a "hazard" for purposes of Tom Bombadil or otherwise.
Other than MELE:
Hazards: Cards with a steel grey background. You may only play hazards during your opponent's movement/hazard phase.
Of course a hazard is a card. That doesn't mean that an effect of a hazard card is not a "hazard." An introductory sentence from the MELE rules book stating that hazard cards have a grey background no way indicates that the effect of an Agent does not count as a "hazard." Is this your best?
That is not an introductory sentence. That is the glossary, which provides the definitions of many terms used in the game. When the text refers to a hazard, it is referring to this definition, unless you can find another one from the rules. In no case that I'm aware of can an effect be a hazard. A hazard effect is an effect generated by a hazard, not a hazard itself.
Environment. All environment hazard cards in play are immediately discarded, and all hazard environment effects are canceled. Cannot be duplicated.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am
Plus, the term "resource" is often used to indicate both "resource cards" and "effects of resource cards."
Examples?
I gave one above.
I must confess to being mystified. Where exactly is this example of a card that clearly uses the term "resource" to indicate both "resource cards" and "effects of resource cards?"

Doors of Night isn't doing it.
All resource environment cards in play are immediately discarded, and all resource environment effects are canceled.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:55 am
Also, come on. "Remaining on the character" is not an "effect." You sound like someone else.
Ummm . . .
Permanent-event: A resource or hazard that stays in play indefinitely as stated in its text.
This certainly indicates that remaining on a character is indeed part of a card's effects.
This is a mechanic of playing the game, placing one card on another card for purposes of game play not "hazard effect" of the card itself.

I wonder why you are so adament.
You say that like the two are mutually exclusive.
Leaflock was intended to be able to cancel River (see METW PG). Clearly there is just sloppy wording here. There is nothing to indicate that a hazard effect targeting the company cannot be canceled.
That may, indeed, have been the intent. Given that neither River nor its effect targets the company, it's a bad example. Unless "may not do anything during the site phase" is an action. And even then, River can't actually target the company until they're at the site (the site phase), at which point it's too late to tap Leaflock, anyway.
I'm not saying that your analysis is incorrect, but the bottom line is that the arguments you and Konrad are presenting for why Tom Bombadil cannot cancel Baduila require a level of complexity and sophistication that is just not present in the rules of this game.
Please go look at the rules for passive conditions and tell me that again with a straight face.
Differentiating between an effect of a hazard agent targeting a company and a "hazard" targeting a company is not a concept of the game.
Of course it is. Gates and Doors establish the difference between cards and effects for both resources and hazards (the cards are discarded, the effects are canceled). Lost in Border-lands establishes that a card may target a different thing than its effect (you may subscribe to Konrad Klar's theory that the card acquires its effect's target, but the effect does not acquire its card's target).

A card and its effects are distinct (though related) entities.

As agents, when played as hazards, are hazards, they are not to be treated differently from other hazards.

And seriously, ICE eventually noticed how badly they had flubbed River.
You have until the beginning of the site phase to tap a ranger, and you may tap the ranger at the beginning of the site phase without entering the site. You must tap one ranger for each river played on the site.
That's the only thing that makes it possible to tap a Ranger for River at all, because until the site phase, no company has moved to the site. Leaflock doesn't get that allowance.

Assuming what ICE meant or didn't is nice, but ineffective (which is why I argued for years to get the CoE started on actually fixing cards rather than producing rulings off of terribly inconsistent logic). I'm merely arguing what the card says, not what it should say. That's for the erratum process.
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. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”