Escape

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

The Wizards: Escape
Resource: Short-event

Cancels an attack against a company. One unwounded character of your choice in the company is wounded (no body check is required). "'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!'"-LotRI
CRF, Errata (Cards), Escape wrote:Cannot be played on a wounded character.
For comparison:
Resource: Short-event

Playable on an unwounded character facing an attack. The attack is canceled and the character is wounded (no body check is required). "When the battle was over, we found that Gollum was gone..."-LotRII
Only target of Escape is "an attack against a company".
CRF entry for Escape does not make a sense. Escape is not played on a character.

According to current text of Escape, nothing prevents a player from playing the card even if there is no unwounded character in defending company.
There is no reason to expect that such character should be present in defending company, as there is no reason to expect that an item will be in company targeted by Drowning Seas (played for its primary use). In both cases choice of affected entity is made as part of main effect of the cards.

I do not think that this state of things is intended but CRF does not address the issue correctly.

Proposed errata:

"Playable if a company facing an attack contains an unwonded character. Cancels an attack against a company. One unwounded character of your choice in the company is wounded (no body check is required). "'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!'"-LotRI"

Changes in bold.
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

There are many METW cards with better wording in their MELE counterparts. Escape is hardly special in this respect.


By the way, it's misleading to say "Only target of Escape is "an attack against a company"."

Escape (the playing of Escape) has no target. And the character is the target of the wounding effect, which is separate from the attack which is the target of the cancellation effect.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:34 pm There are many METW cards with better wording in their MELE counterparts. Escape is hardly special in this respect.
Minion cards often are not carbon copies of hero counterparts. Sneakin does not work in the same way as Stealth does, for instance.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:34 pm By the way, it's misleading to say "Only target of Escape is "an attack against a company"."
"Only target of Escape is "an attack against a company"" is exactly what I think.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:34 pm Escape (the playing of Escape) has no target. And the character is the target of the wounding effect, which is separate from the attack which is the target of the cancellation effect.
I have heard something like that many times.
Answer is still the same:
If something has to be specified at declaration of an action, then it is not specified when the action is executed.
If something has to be specified at execution of an action, it is not a target of the action. Target of an action must be specified at declaration of the action.
"Choice" may be part of the main effect. Choices made at declaration are never reflected in text of a card.

EDIT:
"a carbon copies" -> "carbon copies"
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

The Target is anything that an action is played out through, whether it is a required target specified at declaration per Annotation 8 or a target decided during resolution.

And why not suggest that Sneakin be "fixed"
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:18 am The Target is anything that an action is played out through, whether it is a required target specified at declaration per Annotation 8 or a target decided during resolution.
As before (in other threads):
as long there is not agreement what is [the entity] an action is played out through, so long there is no agreement what is target.
"The Target is anything that an action is played out through" is tautology.

Annotation 8 says something more about nature of target. And it allows to suspect what is a purpose of the term.
I think that main purpose is: no permission for backup.
What has been specified at declaration must be present at resolution. It cannot be replaced by other eligible entity at resolution.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:18 am And why not suggest that Sneakin be "fixed"
Did you mean: why not to fix Sneakin?
Because there is no problem with Sneakin?

Or did you mean: why not to fix Sneakin in such way that it would be exact counterpart of Stealth?
Because it is nothing wrong that Sneakin works differently that Stealth.

It is not problem that Drowning Seas does not cause discarding of item if there is no item in a company's possession.
It is problem if Escape can be played on an attack against a company without unwounded character. There are a cards that cancel attack of some type for no cost, there are cards that cancel of attack of any type at cost of wounding, tapping character, tapping resource card, performing cc.
Escape that can be played on an attack against a company without unwounded character makes it the card that can cancel an attack of any type for no cost.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
meaglyn
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:34 pm

I don't think this card needs to be fixed.

It does 2 things and has 2 targets. It does not say "A then B". It says "A. B." You cannot do "A or B". You must do both. if you can't do A you don't do B. But also, if you can't do B you don't do A.

The argument that it does not target a character is mistaken. By that logic I suppose you could play it just to wound one of your characters and not have an attack to cancel (not sure why you would want to but that's beside the point...).
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

meaglyn wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:03 pm It does 2 things and has 2 targets.
As in one of previous posts.
Answer is still the same:
If something has to be specified at execution of an action, it is not a target of the action. Target of an action must be specified at declaration of the action.
"Choice" may be part of the main effect. Choices made at declaration are never reflected in text of a card.
meaglyn wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:03 pm It does not say "A then B". It says "A. B." You cannot do "A or B". You must do both.
As in case of Marvels Told, it does not say " discard of a hazard non-environment permanent-event or long-event, then sage makes cc-2", it says " discard of a hazard non-environment permanent-event or long-event. Sage makes cc-2."
You must both, but in order, not simultaneously.
meaglyn wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:03 pm if you can't do A you don't do B. But also, if you can't do B you don't do A
As in case of Marvels Told, if sage is unable to make cc-2, discarding of event happens anyway. If hypothetical event would be not discardable, sage still would be forced to making cc-2.
meaglyn wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:03 pm The argument that it does not target a character is mistaken. By that logic I suppose you could play it just to wound one of your characters and not have an attack to cancel (not sure why you would want to but that's beside the point...).
Not sure what a logic. If some card has a target "an attack against a company" and mandatory wounds a character of defender's choice (i.e. choice is main effect, the character is not specified at declaration), I do not see a way to play the card without "an attack against a company".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Kjeld
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:40 pm

The proposed errata seems unnecessary. A clarification would be sufficient.

However, if you insist on errata, why not just use the same wording as Diversion? You could even amend both to be correctly worded in that the company faces the attack, not the character:

"Playable on an unwounded character in a company facing an attack. The attack is canceled and the character is wounded (no body check is required).
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Kjeld wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:43 pm However, if you insist on errata, why not just use the same wording as Diversion?
Because I do not want to make anything more than a fix, that should address an issue.
There is nothing wrong that Escape is working differently than Diversion.
Likewise there is nothing wrong that Darkness Under Tree is working differently than Waiting Shadow.

You can fizzle Diversion by Call of Home on target character in response. You cannot (without proposed errata) fizzle Escape by making all characters in company wounded, before Escape will resolve.
You can fizzle Darkness Under Tree by tapping a target character for some effect in response. You can fizzle Waiting Shadow by tapping for effect all eligible characters in response.

Each card has has pros and cons in comparison to its counterpart.
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:16 am Annotation 8 says something more about nature of target. And it allows to suspect what is a purpose of the term.
I think that main purpose is: no permission for backup.
What has been specified at declaration must be present at resolution. It cannot be replaced by other eligible entity at resolution.
You assumed too much. The term "target" was in the game long before Annotation 8. Prior to Annotation 8, any entity that an action was played out through is the target of that action. Annotation 8 does not change this. There is no need or suggestion to limit the meaning of "target" based on Annotation 8.


Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:16 am Escape that can be played on an attack against a company without unwounded character makes it the card that can cancel an attack of any type for no cost.
Why are you ignoring the CRF "Cannot be played on a wounded character" that you posted. Are you trying to argue that because Escape is not "playable on a character" that somehow how "Cannot be played on a wounded character" has no meaning?

And you wonder why no one wants to read your proposals anymore?
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:18 pm If something has to be specified at execution of an action, it is not a target of the action. Target of an action must be specified at declaration of the action.
He has made up a defense, repeating it to himself over and over again, as he gnawed bones in the dark, until he almost believe it.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:35 pm You assumed too much. The term "target" was in the game long before Annotation 8. Prior to Annotation 8, any entity that an action was played out through is the target of that action. Annotation 8 does not change this. There is no need or suggestion to limit the meaning of "target" based on Annotation 8.
I do not think that active conditions did not exist before formalized.
"The Target is anything that an action is played out through" is tautology.
Like "X is Y".
One equation with two variables. Good luck with determining of value of any of them.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:35 pm Why are you ignoring the CRF "Cannot be played on a wounded character" that you posted. Are you trying to argue that because Escape is not "playable on a character" that somehow how "Cannot be played on a wounded character" has no meaning?
I am not ignoring the CRF "Cannot be played on a wounded character". Like I am not ignoring your posts.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:52 am CRF entry for Escape does not make a sense. Escape is not played on a character
An assumption that everything from ICE is correct makes whole concept of errata senseless.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:35 pm And you wonder why no one wants to read your proposals anymore?
Some of the ones who do not want to read my proposals anymore, still like to write replies.
This lies in their nature, like not speaking for themselves.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:35 pm Why are you ignoring the CRF "Cannot be played on a wounded character" that you posted. Are you trying to argue that because Escape is not "playable on a character" that somehow how "Cannot be played on a wounded character" has no meaning?

It has no relevant meaning. This is called "logical deduction" from common written rules, a rather important concept for promoting compatibility of play between players.
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:35 pm Why are you ignoring the CRF "Cannot be played on a wounded character" that you posted. Are you trying to argue that because Escape is not "playable on a character" that somehow how "Cannot be played on a wounded character" has no meaning?
I do not ignore it, but I do no consider it as correct.
A card does not need to say "is playable on X" to target X.
Many short-events that have a target omit the phrase, e.g. And Forth He Hastened.
The phrase is necessary when a card remains in play on target.

I am trying to treat a word "choice" in text of cards consistently.
If Drowning Seas would target an item of "choice", then the card could not be played for 1st use on company without an item. And discarding the item for effect before resolution of Drowning Seas would easily fizzle the card.
Similarly for Rats! against company with multiple minor items.
And dunno why Waiting Shadow is played on company, not directly on untapped character in the company.

If however to understand a target of an action as any entity on which the action operates, whether the entity is specified at declaration, or not, then yes: any object on which the action operates may be considered as target of the action.
But then we have a defined term that does not carry any practical meaning. We have "targets" than must be specified at declaration, and we have "targets" that do not must be specified at declaration of action.
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:50 am I am trying to treat a word "choice" in text of cards consistently.
If Drowning Seas would target an item of "choice", then the card could not be played for 1st use on company without an item. And discarding the item for effect before resolution of Drowning Seas would easily fizzle the card.
Similarly for Rats! against company with multiple minor items.
We have discussed this before. "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." I don't see how Annotation 8 could require a specific target at declaration when the specific target cannot be known until resolution (e.g., based on a player's choice, etc.). Of course, actions affecting an entity "target" that entity. But the entity is not always a "required" target of the action.

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:50 am But then we have a defined term that does not carry any practical meaning. We have "targets" than must be specified at declaration, and we have "targets" that do not must be specified at declaration of action.
There is the definition of Targets and then there is the Rules Annotations on Active Conditions. You are defining what a Target is exclusively based on the rules on Active Conditions (which are not the rules on "Targets.")

Instead of excluding what can be a Target based on the rules for Active Conditions, consider what the rules on Targets state:
Targets -- An action that is played out through one or more specific entities as stated on a card or in the rules is considered to "target" the entities. A targeted entity is said to be a "target" of the action. Possible targets include characters, sites, companies, regions, items, factions, corruption checks, and combat dice-rolls.
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”