what is the deffinition of "affect"?
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
This is wrong. This is my point.
Explained above why.
There are cards that may be revealed on-guard because they affect a company or character in the company, there are are cards that may be revealed on-guard because they have an effect if attempt against faction is successful or they affect such attempt itself, and there are cards that may be revealed on guard for reasons and according to the conditions described in their texts.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
There are not two different rules for revealing on guard cards in response to a resource being played There is 1 rule. That a card can be revealed in response to an influence attempt is not a separate rule. It's an explanation of the existing rule.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 7:36 pmThis is wrong. This is my point.
Explained above why.
There are cards that may be revealed on-guard because they affect a company or character in the company, there are are cards that may be revealed on-guard because they have an effect if attempt against faction is successful or they affect such attempt itself, and there are cards that may be revealed on guard for reasons and according to the conditions described in their texts.
The rule is: The card must affect the company or a character in the company that site phase.
Lure of Power affects a character. It uses the word "character." Lure of Power discards or eliminates the character (or not) depending on a corruption dice roll. But this effect is contingent on an influence attempt. So if there is an influence attempt by a character that site phase then Lure of Power DOES affect a character that site phase. Contingent effects are considered to "affect".
Spanish forum , spanish whatsapp group and spanish whatsapp rules group, spanish discord, argentinian facebook group. Mainly spanish forum and whatsapp groups are the most actives.
This is probably the best deffinition given so far, and if ever is going to be an official deffinition propposal, i suggest this one.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
There are two.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:31 pm There are not two different rules for revealing on guard cards in response to a resource being played There is 1 rule. That a card can be revealed in response to an influence attempt is not a separate rule. It's an explanation of the existing rule.
The rule is: The card must affect the company or a character in the company that site phase.
Otherwise Times Are Evil of Scatha At Home could not be revealed in response to an influence attempt. The cards do not affect a company or a character in the company that site phase.
Lure of Power (or hypothetical similar card) could cause quite different action activated by successful influence attempt. Even the action that does not affect a character or company. The card could be revealed in response to an influence attempt against a faction because it would have an effect if the action would be successful.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
You cannot reveal an on-guard card in response to an influence attempt unless it affects the company, a character, or the attempt that site phase. There is only 1 rule for revealing on-guard cards in response to the play of a resource.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:24 am Lure of Power (or hypothetical similar card) could cause quite different action activated by successful influence attempt. Even the action that does not affect a character or company. The card could be revealed in response to an influence attempt against a faction because it would have an effect if the action would be successful.
The CRF ruling "You may reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction even if the on-guard card only has an effect if the attempt is successful. You may also reveal a card in response to such an attempt that affects the actual influence attempt." is a clarification this same rule.
The CRF Rulings are secondary rulings and do not override the primary rules. This is mentioned in the Introduction to the CRF and the author has repeated this.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
If you do not see a contradiction between treating the two discussed rules as non-separate and a possibility of playing the Times are Evil, then sorry.
If I do not see an actual consistency in treating the two discussed rules as non-separate and a possibility of playing the Times are Evil, then even more sorry.
If I do not see an actual consistency in treating the two discussed rules as non-separate and a possibility of playing the Times are Evil, then even more sorry.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Times are Evil affects influence attempts and can be revealed on-guard. The clarification ("you may also reveal a card in response to such an attempt that affects the actual influence attempt") indicates this. Influence is an attribute of characters, influence attempt bonuses and penalties are special abilities of characters, and influence attempts are made by characters. The clarification makes sense.
The hypothetical card you suggested having an effect that does not affect a character or company, or influence attempt, but which is triggered by a successful influence attempt, could not be revealed on-guard because it does not satisfy the actual rule. Neither the company, a character, or the influence attempt is being affected. You cannot "reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction even if the on-guard card only has an effect if the attempt is successful" unless "it is a hazard that affects the company or a character in the company that site phase."
The hypothetical card you suggested having an effect that does not affect a character or company, or influence attempt, but which is triggered by a successful influence attempt, could not be revealed on-guard because it does not satisfy the actual rule. Neither the company, a character, or the influence attempt is being affected. You cannot "reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction even if the on-guard card only has an effect if the attempt is successful" unless "it is a hazard that affects the company or a character in the company that site phase."
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
If the two rules are not separate then also the condition "may be revealed when the company plays a resource that potentially taps the site." should be respected when you "reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction".
Right?
If so, there is no chance for revealing on guard in response to an influence attempt against an opponent's faction.
Unless the on guard has special conditions of revealing.
Right?
If so, there is no chance for revealing on guard in response to an influence attempt against an opponent's faction.
Unless the on guard has special conditions of revealing.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Nothing in the CRF is a separate rule. All of the clarifications and errata are with respect to an existing rule.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:38 am If the two rules are not separate then also the condition "may be revealed when the company plays a resource that potentially taps the site." should be respected when you "reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction".
Right?
If so, there is no chance for revealing on guard in response to an influence attempt against an opponent's faction.
Unless the on guard has special conditions of revealing.
The secondary rule "You may reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction even if the on-guard card only has an effect if the attempt is successful" does not override the primary rule "The card will remain on the site until either: The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack... The company plays a card that potentially would tap an untapped site. If the on-guard card is a non-creature hazard, it may be revealed if it is a hazard that affects the company or a character in the company that site phase."ICE wrote: From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 123
Date: 1998/08/21
Before you confuse anyone, that is actually the secondary rule of
playability. The main rules of playability are:
1) You may reveal an on-guard card in response to an automatic-attack.
It must be a creature keyable to the site, or affect the automatic-
attack.
2) You may reveal an on-guard card in response to the play of a resource
keyed to the site. It must directly affect the company or a character
in the company.