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.