Annotation 8

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Annotation 8

Post by Konrad Klar »

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.
Proposed errata:

"Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active
condition that the target be in play (or in location specified by the action) 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."

Changes in bold.

Rationale:
Some actions specify that their targets are not in play. They may target an entity in discard pile, or in out-of-play pile. It is not realistic to require for them that their targets should be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2191
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Annotation 8

Post by CDavis7M »

Card effects can specifically override the rules. It makes no sense to edit rules to describe all the ways that they can be overridden.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Annotation 8

Post by Konrad Klar »

"or in location specified by the action" does not describe all the ways of altering default requirement for target (that is "being in play"). It merely creates a room for such possibilities.

There are many controversies about what is and what is not a target of an action.
The more precise will be the rules that describe a target, or that refer to a target, the less controversies about what is and what is not a target of an action will occur.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2191
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Annotation 8

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:41 pm
There are many controversies about what is and what is not a target of an action.
The more precise will be the rules that describe a target, or that refer to a target, the less controversies about what is and what is not a target of an action will occur.
You're looking in the wrong place. The rules on "active conditions" are not the place to be defining what a "target" is.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Annotation 8

Post by Konrad Klar »

Still they refer to a target, whatever is you are looking at.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2191
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Annotation 8

Post by CDavis7M »

If people are using a rule on active conditions to misunderstand how targeting works, that is a problem with their reading comprehension , not a problem with the rules on active conditions in Annotation 8.

If people do not already understand that card text can override the rules, this proposed change will not help them.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Annotation 8

Post by Konrad Klar »

My deduction tells me that if a target of an action must be specified at declaration and at resolution of the action, then anything specified in result of main effect is not an target of the action.

Someone's deduction may tell him that if something is not in play both at declaration and at resolution of an action, then the something is not a target of the action.
Not necessarily due his mental disabilities, but possibly due to precise reading of imprecise text.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2191
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Annotation 8

Post by CDavis7M »

You are missing the underlying rationale and misconstruing unrelated rules.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:39 pm
if a target of an action must be specified at declaration and at resolution of the action, then anything specified in result of main effect is not an target of the action.
There is no reason for such a deduction. It's misplaced. An understanding of "targets" does not rely on this active condition rule. Simply by definition a "result" of an action is not the "target" of the action. The "result" is the change that happens to the target. These are distinct concepts.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:39 pm
Someone's deduction may tell him that if something is not in play both at declaration and at resolution of an action, then the something is not a target of the action.
You can't play with something that's not in play. This is simple and should be obvious. This is how all games work. This has nothing to do with declaration and resolution of an action.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Annotation 8

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:29 pm
You can't play with something that's not in play. This is simple and should be obvious. This is how all games work. This has nothing to do with declaration and resolution of an action.
The purpose of this proposal is to allow for concept of targeting entities not in play. This is, after all, how Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent works.
Targeting has many to do with declaration and resolution of an action.
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:29 pm
There is no reason for such a deduction. It's misplaced. An understanding of "targets" does not rely on this active condition rule. Simply by definition a "result" of an action is not the "target" of the action. The "result" is the change that happens to the target. These are distinct concepts.
I do not believe that you are trying to understand what you read. But someone may do it.
I wrote about what may happen in result of main effect of an action i.e. not at declaration of the action.
If main effect of an action says that a player must choose something, then the choice is not done at declaration of the action.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2191
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Annotation 8

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:49 pm
The purpose of this proposal is to allow for concept of targeting entities not in play.
This exact rules specifically says that that is NOT allowed.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:49 pm
This is, after all, how Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent works.
You misunderstand how the game works. Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent does not work within Annotation 8. It overrides it.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Annotation 8

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:51 pm
This exact rules specifically says that that is NOT allowed.
With the errata it is allowed.
I think that the errata sanctions the practices that are used anyway.
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:51 pm
You misunderstand how the game works. Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent does not work within Annotation 8. It overrides it.
Without the errata Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent is not playable. Its target is not in play neither at declaration, nor at resolution.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2191
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Annotation 8

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:00 pm
With the errata it is allowed.
I think that the errata sanctions the practices that are used anyway.
It works regardless of your proposal.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:00 pm
Without the errata Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent is not playable. Its target is not in play neither at declaration, nor at resolution.
You misunderstand the game. Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent is "Playable on a stored item." End of discussion.

You misunderstand how card games work in general. Card text overrides the rules. That is the entire point of having cards instead of merely having rules list a set of available options. The cards do things that are not allowed by the rules. This is how the game was designed.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Annotation 8

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:51 pm
This exact rules specifically says that that is NOT allowed
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:43 pm
It works regardless of your proposal.
Feel yourself as being consistent, NAY-Man.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2191
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Annotation 8

Post by CDavis7M »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:51 pm
You misunderstand how the game works. Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent does not work within Annotation 8. It overrides it.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”