Helm of Her Secrecy

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:25 pm "Permanently" does not mean "infinitely" . Effect of Alliance of Free Peoples is permanent but disappears when the card leaves active play.
According the errata proposal the Éowyn gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence until end of turn. So not permanently.
Yeah, but your word choices are incongruous with other cards and the rules. If you want to propose a change to Helm of Her Secrecy so that it actually works with multiple copies, why not make that fact clear? Why does your version requires the player to declare 3 copies in response to each other and then wait until the last one resolves? It makes no sense for the player to do that. Which is why it's clear that the card is not intended to work that way.

I already quoted the ICE Netrep and play tester in the other thread. The Netrep's ruling is a result of failing to describe the timing in the chain of effects, and ICE wasn't going to issue errata for a non-mechanical issue like this.

But since Helm doesn't actually work with multiple copies as I've explained, why would the community want to errata a card to work differently than the Designers intended?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

It is possible to play multiple copies of Cloudless Day and have them in play, even if their effects do not cumulate, by their nature.
Values printed on border and in corner of a copy of Helm of Her Secrecy not resulting in playing of Éowyn could have no meaning, could be applicable to target company (untli placed on Éowyn or discarded), or could mean something else.

Regardless, Helm of Her Secrecy may be played not resulting in playing of Éowyn and multiple copies of the card may be on Éowyn.
I am not trying to accommodate the text of Helm of Her Secrecy to make the above possible.
I am trying to accommodate the text of Helm of Her Secrecy to make clear what the values mean and what they do not mean.
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 Sep 19, 2020 8:32 am It is possible to play multiple copies of Cloudless Day and have them in play, even if their effects do not cumulate, by their nature.
You are making this statement as if it is a point. I've already explained why there is no issue with Cloudless Day and it's clearly spelled out in the rules. Your misunderstanding comes from failure to read the rules.

Cloudless Day is a long-event. Playing multiple copies of Cloudless Day is a "legal play of cards" because it satisfies criteria 2. Resolving a copy of Helm of Her Secrecy without Eowyn in play is not a legal play of cards because it does not satisfy criteria 1 (nothing immediately happens within the game at resolution of Helm of Her Secrecy if Eowyn is not played) and it does not satisfy criteria 3 (moving a card from the company to Eowyn does not give her the bonuses and so it has no effect on game play).
Tournament Policy. wrote:Legal Play of Cards-A player may not play a card just to discard it (i.e., just get it out of his or her hand). Specifically, a card may only be declared if it meets at least one of the following criteria.
  1. The card must have an immediate effect on the game.
  2. The card is a long-event. Long-events can always be played, even if ultimately they will not affect play.
  3. The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later (e.g., the second use of Dragon's Desolation). Most permanent-events fall into this category. Only those that are playable on or with a certain entity are restrictive. For example, you cannot play a corruption card if no character exists that would be affected by it.
----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:32 am Values printed on border and in corner of a copy of Helm of Her Secrecy not resulting in playing of Éowyn could have no meaning, could be applicable to target company (untli placed on Éowyn or discarded), or could mean something else.
There is no basis for this statement in the rules. Why do you insist on making things up instead of just following the rules?
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:32 am Regardless, Helm of Her Secrecy may be played not resulting in playing of Éowyn and multiple copies of the card may be on Éowyn.
There would never be multiple copies on Eowyn because only 1 copy would meet the criteria of Legal Play of Cards.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:32 am I am not trying to accommodate the text of Helm of Her Secrecy to make the above possible.
I am trying to accommodate the text of Helm of Her Secrecy to make clear what the values mean and what they do not mean.
Except that if you followed the rules, or even just read my explanation here and in the other thread on Helm of Her Secrecy you would see why your "improved" card text fails to allow for multiple copies of Helm of Her Secrecy to be played.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:27 pm Therefore I change my proposal to:

"If Éowyn is in your hand, this card is playable on a company facing an attack (before strikes are assigned)-the company must contain a character with Edoras as a home site. If enough influence is available to control her, Éowyn may be played with (i.e., joins) the company. She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence until end of turn. If the attack is a Nazgûl, place Helm of Her secrecy with Éowyn following the attack; she receives the bonuses permanently. Otherwise, discard this card following the attack. Regardless, Éowyn remains in play."
The effect "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence until end of turn" resolves immediately and (apparently) it lasts until the end of the turn. However, if the Eowyn character card is not in play, then the prowess attribute of Eowyn is not in play, the body attribute of Eowyn is not in play, and the direct influence attribute of Eowyn is not in play. If there is no attribute then it is not possible to increase that attribute. Therefore, when this effect resolves, nothing happens. The effect does not "last until the end of the turn" if there is no modification to the attribute in the first place. Accordingly, "she receives the bonuses permanently" also does nothing if Eowyn was not in play when Helm of Her Secrecy was resolving. An effect cannot become "permanent" if there is no effect in play at all.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

It may make a sense to compare Helm of Her Secrecy with Hour of Need and Come at Need.
Helm of Her Secrecy does not force to play Éowyn.
3. The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later (e.g., the second use of Dragon's Desolation).
Helm of Her Secrecy has such effect- placing the card on Éowyn. From where the Éowyn has come to play - Helm of Her Secrecy, other copy of Helm of Her Secrecy, A Chance Meeting - is irrelevant.

Dragon's Desolation does not create a potential effect on play that could be triggered later. Playability is not triggered.

Gates of Morning does not create a potential effect on play that could be triggered later. There may be nothing to discard or cancel when it comes in play. There may be also nothing in play what checks for its presence.

It is no one's fault but ICE's decision that e.g. text of A Chance Meeting does not require to have an eligible card on hand, nor does not require a company at site of listed type.
Site type may change and character may appear/disappear in hand, free DI may change too. between declaration and resolution. A Chance Meeting that initially could have an effect on play when declared, may have not such effect when resolves, and vice versa.
1. The card must have an immediate effect on the game.
actually does not enforce anything.

Actual effect of preventing from playing a card just get it out of his or her hand is achieved by Active Conditions.

Once again. The proposal does not discus the above. Even if it would not be possible to have multiple copies of Helm of Her Secrecy, it still make some sense. Just less required. It tries to make clear what is correlation between values given in text and values printed on side and in corner.
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

This failure arises from a lack of reading compression. Understanding of the rules does not come from making things up to fit how you want them to be. It comes from reading the rules in their entirety and understanding how one rule fits in the context of the others.

------------------
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:52 am
3. The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later (e.g., the second use of Dragon's Desolation).
Helm of Her Secrecy has such effect- placing the card on Éowyn. From where the Éowyn has come to play - Helm of Her Secrecy, other copy of Helm of Her Secrecy, A Chance Meeting - is irrelevant.
No.... I've already explained this before. MECCG has the hand-filling card draw mechanic. Because of this, it may be advantage to get cards out of your hand. The entire point of the restrictions in Legal Play of Cards is to prevent a player from getting cards out of their hand if there is no effect on game play besides getting a card out of your hand.
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:52 am Helm of Her Secrecy has such effect- placing the card on Éowyn
Merely moving a card around on the table have NO EFFECT on PLAY. Nowhere do the rules suggest that there is any change in game play when Helm of Her Secrecy is moved from the company to Eowyn. Instead, they clearly state that the cards effects have already resolved and that the symbols in the border are just a reminder for emphasis. Merely placing the card on Eowyn does not give her bonuses that failed to resolve when she was not in play. The only effect on gameplay is that a card has been removed from a player's hand. This is not a legal play of cards.

And I have already explained this:
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:40 am Conversely:
"If the attack is a Nazgûl, place Helm of Her secrecy with Éowyn following the attack" is effect on play that could be triggered later.
"Otherwise, discard this card following the attack." is such effect too.
Merely placing or discarding a card is NOT an effect on play. You are completely misunderstanding what Legal Play of Cards is. The first sentence of Legal Play of Cards states "A player may not play a card just to discard it (i.e., just get it out of his or her hand)." The entire point of the restrictions in Legal Play of Cards is that you cannot place a card on the table unless there is an effect on the game or on play. Merely putting a card on the table or even moving it around to different spots has no effect on the game or play by itself. Merely discarding a card has no effect on the game or on play. The entire point is to prevent a player from getting a card out of their hand and onto the table or into the discard pile without that card having any effect on the game or play.

It would have been better time spent to just read the first sentence than the argue about Gates of Morning.
I've already addressed your confusion. So instead of raising the same point again, why not try to find a RULE that supports your conclusion that moving a permanent-event around on the table has an effect on game play.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:52 am Dragon's Desolation does not create a potential effect on play that could be triggered later. Playability is not triggered.

Gates of Morning does not create a potential effect on play that could be triggered later. There may be nothing to discard or cancel when it comes in play. There may be also nothing in play what checks for its presence.
I've already explained this. Do you think that you have a better command over the game terms than the Designers? The Designers are not entitled to be their own lexicographer -- but you are? If the Designers specifically state that Dragon's Desolations effect counts for criteria 3, then it counts. The term "triggered" in this context clearly does not require use of passive conditions. Gates of Morning counts for Criteria 3 by the same reasoning as I've alreadt explained:
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:40 am
Legal Play of Cards...
The above does not give the Gates of Morning a chance to be played if there are not hazard environment cards in play, nor hazard environment effects, nor cards/effect that check for presence in play the Gates of Morning.
Gates of Morning does not have an effect on play that could be triggered later.
First of all, Gates of Morning has nothing to do with Helm of Her Secrecy. Second, you seem to be confused about what "triggered" means in this context. "Trigger" does not necessarily mean that the effect is "triggered by a passive condition." You know that different words have different meanings in different contexts.

In the context of Legal Play of Cards, "trigger" includes any later action taken by the player or by the game, not just actions triggered by passive conditions. If you read the Tournament Policy you will see what "trigger" means in this context: "The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later (e.g., the second use of Dragon's Desolation)." The second use of Dragon's Desolation is not "triggered" by a passive condition -- it merely allows the player to take an action that could not otherwise be taken: "one Dragon hazard creature may be played on a company at that site this turn." Likewise, Gates of Morning also allows the player to take actions that could not otherwise be taken -- any of the numerous actions requiring Gates of Morning to be in play. So Gates of Morning has a potential effect on play even if there are no hazard environments in play or any cards that check for presence of Gates of Morning -- Gates of Morning would have an effect when such cards are played later. It should be obvious that Gates of Morning is always a legal play of cards.

Other cards played later would cause Gates of Morning to have an effect on play. There are no cards or effects that could be played later to cause Helm of Her Secrecy to have an effect on play. Helm of Her Secrecy could never satisfy Option (3). It could only ever satisfy Option (1).
-------------
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:52 am It is no one's fault but ICE's decision that e.g. text of A Chance Meeting does not require to have an eligible card on hand, nor does not require a company at site of listed type.
Site type may change and character may appear/disappear in hand, free DI may change too. between declaration and resolution. A Chance Meeting that initially could have an effect on play when declared, may have not such effect when resolves, and vice versa.
What are you even talking about? There is no "fault" with A Chance Meeting. The playability conditions for playing a card do not need to have requirements if those same requirements are built into the card's effects. A Chance Meeting has 1 single effect. If that effect is not legal, then the play of the card is not legal.

-------------

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:52 am
1. The card must have an immediate effect on the game.
actually does not enforce anything.

Actual effect of preventing from playing a card just get it out of his or her hand is achieved by Active Conditions.
It does enforce something beyond Active Conditions. Again, you are misunderstanding how this game works. It IS possible to satisfy all active conditions for a card and STILL be able to play a card without an immediate effect on the game. This is the entire point of the restrictions in Legal Play of Cards. This can happen when an the action of playing the card does not have a target and it has a non-targeted effect without a duration. Think about it -- many permanent events work this way.

It should be obvious from this discussion: Imagine playing 1 copy Helm of Her Secrecy WITH Eowyn in your hand, but then without playing Eowyn at all that turn. In this case, all Actice Conditions have been satisfied but a card has been played without an immediate effect on the game, and with no possibility of satisfying Criteria 3 even by your own misunderstandings of the rules.

Furthermore, you also appear to be confused about the difference between the action of playing the card and the effects within the card's text. The action of playing the card must have different active conditions compared to the card's effects. Some cards have no active conditions for playing the card. For example, there are no active conditions for playing A Friend or Three. However, the dice roll modification effect has the active condition of targeting a dice roll. Were it not for Legal Play of Cards (and the related rules in the Rulesbook) it would be possible to play A Friend or Three without any declared dice roll.



-------------

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:52 am Once again. The proposal does not discus the above. Even if it would not be possible to have multiple copies of Helm of Her Secrecy, it still make some sense. Just less required. It tries to make clear what is correlation between values given in text and values printed on side and in corner.
Once again, your proposal does not make sense because (1) it does not address any issue in the game, (2), it's poorly worded and is incongrous with the game, (3) it is already clear from the rules on Events that the prowess/body/DI values printed on the side of Events has no effect on gameplay, and (4) if your intention with changing the card text was to somehow make it clear how the values printed on the side work, you failed because "they become permanent" is just more confusing.

Maybe just read the rules and follow them. The prowess/body/DI values printed on Helm of Her Secrecy have no effect on the game. Only the card text affects the game. This supports the understanding that Helm of Her Secrecy cannot be duplicated.
RULES wrote:(MELE p. 9) Clarification: For emphasis, a value used during play is often provided both in a card's text and in another place on the same card. For example, a character's corruption check modifier is stated both in the text and the lower right corner of the character's card.

(MELE p. 87) Action: Any activity in the game (card play, a corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses, etc.). Each action is not immediately resolved when it is declared. An opponent and yourself have the opportunity to declare other actions in response. Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions--they are declared and resolve immediately.
(MELE p. 88) Chain of Effects: A series of actions declared in response to one another before any of them resolve. Actions in a chain of effects are resolved in the reverse order from which they were declared (last in. first out).
(MELE p. 88) Declaring an Action: Stating that an action is being played, though the actual effects of the action are not implemented until both players have had the chance to respond with the declaration of other actions. Each time you play a card, you are declaring an action.
(MELE p. 90) Resolving an Action: Carrying out the actual effect on the game of an action. Multiple actions are resolved in a chain of effects in the opposite order they are declared.

(MELE p. 40) 10 · PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS
EVENTS
There are both resource events and hazard events. Each event falls into one of three classifications based upon how long it stays in play.
Permanent-event - The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded. Certain effects can cause a permanent-event to be discarded: these effects are given in the text of specific cards.

(MELE p. 50)ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY
The various activities that you and your opponent can perform during play are called actions.
If the play of a card requires other actions (e.g., corruption checks), the actions are resolved in the order in which they appear on the card.

(MELE Companion / CRF) Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card.

(MELE p. 69)TIMING RULES
A series of declared actions is called a chain of effects. You always have the option of declaring the first action in a chain of effects during your turn. The actions in a chain of effects are resolved one at a time from last declared to first declared (i.e., the last declared action is resolved first, then the second to the last, etc.).
An action in a chain of effects is negated if the conditions required to perform it are negated by another action that is resolved before it in the chain of effects.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Any person who proposes an errata dare to have a better understanding of given issue that understanding of designer.
So yes. I think that I would design the Helm of Her Secrecy better than ICE.

Active Conditions stuff provides objective criteria that regulate when an action may be declared and when it cannot be declared.
Three copies of Marvels Told in row against the same hazard event are legal, even if it is wasteful (when first resolved will not fizzle).
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: Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:24 pm So yes. I think that I would design the Helm of Her Secrecy better than ICE.
:lol: Wow!

...I'll wait for someone else to agree with you.

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:24 pm Active Conditions stuff provides objective criteria that regulate when an action may be declared and when it cannot be declared.
Three copies of Marvels Told in row against the same hazard event are legal, even if it is wasteful (when first resolved will not fizzle).
Again, you just misunderstand the rules. And you also failed to address my points above. I have already explained why active conditions alone are insufficient to regulate card play in a game having the hand-filling card mechanic. An active condition of an action may still be met even if that action has no effect on game play. The simplest example are some of the METW corruption cards that are playable on certain characters even though they "do not effect" such characters. Also, Biter and Beater! played on a company without the proper sword, Bridge played on a company that does not then play a new site, Incite Defenders/Denizens/Minions played on a site that does not have an automatic attack to duplicate, Lost in the ____ cards played on a moving company that does not have the proper site path for an effect, Praise to Elbereth played without tapping to cancel a Nazgul and without the Doors effect, Many Turns and Doublings played on a Ranger that is not facing an attack, without Gates of Morning in play, Helm of Her Secrecy played without playing Eowyn, and so on. It goes on and on.

Legal Play of Cards serves a purpose. Playing Helm of Her Secrecy without playing Eowyn violates Legal Play of Cards -- it has no immediate effect on the game and it has no ability to cause any effect on the game later.

By the way, playing 3 copies of Marvels Told may be a legal play of cards because Marvels Told has 2 effects: (1) discarding a hazard, and (2) causing a corruption check. The corruption check can resolve even if the hazard-discarding effect cannot resolve. And so it could have an effect on game play and be legal.
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”