Pale Dream-maker

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

Dark Minions: Pale Dream-maker
R3 Hazard: Permanent-event

Corruption. Dark Enchantment. Playable on a non-Wizard character wounded by an Undead attack this turn.; does not count against the hazard limit. Target character receives 2 corruption points and makes a corruption check each time a player discards a card from his hand during his turn. His direct influence is zero while bearing this card. Cannot be duplicated on a given character. During the organization phase, a sage in target character's company (other than character) may tap to attempt to remove this card. Make a roll (or draw a #): if the result is greater than 6, discard this card.
Proposed errata:

"Corruption. Dark Enchantment. Playable on a non-Wizard character wounded by an Undead attack this turn.; does not count against the hazard limit. Target character receives 2 corruption points and makes a corruption check each time a player discards a card from his hand during his turn (except when a hand is reconciled after completion of company's M/H phase). His direct influence is zero while bearing this card. Cannot be duplicated on a given character. During the organization phase, a sage in target character's company (other than character) may tap to attempt to remove this card. Make a roll (or draw a #): if the result is greater than 6, discard this card."

Purpose of the errata is a removing of a timing problem that happens when a player discards cards while reconciling his hand after completion of company's M/H phase; the period when no action may be normally declared.

EDIT: changed "(except when a hand is reconciled)" to (except when a hand is reconciled after completion of company's M/H phase)"
changed "discards cards while reconciling his hand" to "discards cards while reconciling his hand after completion of company's M/H phase"
Last edited by Konrad Klar on Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:50 pm Proposed errata:

"Corruption. Dark Enchantment. Playable on a non-Wizard character wounded by an Undead attack this turn.; does not count against the hazard limit. Target character receives 2 corruption points and makes a corruption check each time a player discards a card from his hand during his turn (except when a hand is reconciled). His direct influence is zero while bearing this card. Cannot be duplicated on a given character. During the organization phase, a sage in target character's company (other than character) may tap to attempt to remove this card. Make a roll (or draw a #): if the result is greater than 6, discard this card."

Purpose of the errata is a removing of a timing problem that happens when a player discards cards while reconciling his hand; the period when no action may be normally declared.
Forcing corruption checks when discarding cards over the hand size limit that is the entire point of this effect. Also, it's helpful to post the relevant rule since it clearly does not establish a "period when no action may be normally declared" as asserted. Even if it did, this card text would clearly override it. And also, Ichabod already ruled on this topic -- "each time", no exceptions. The card does what it says.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:36 pm Also, it's helpful to post the relevant rule since it clearly does not establish a "period when no action may be normally declared" as asserted.
Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving
company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down
to/draw up to) their hand sizes. No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be
played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both
players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company.
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:36 pm Forcing corruption checks when discarding cards over the hand size limit that is the entire point of this effect.
That may happen also during end-of-turn phase. Good catch.
Therefore I am changing the phrase "(except when a hand is reconciled)" to "(except when a hand is reconciled after completion of company's M/H phase).

Cards may be discarded from hand also according to result or condition of hazard or resource, plus 1 card during end-of-turn phase.
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

Read the annotation again.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

After reading the annotation again: I do not see a space for chain of effects during the described period.
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: Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:47 am After reading the annotation again: I do not see a space for chain of effects during the described period.
Try to point out which part of Annotation 25a prohibits chains of effects.
No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played
This is just a restriction on playing cards. Not a restriction against a chain of effects.
no resource effects can be activated
This is a restriction against activating resource effects (of resources in play) where a card is not played.

Some effects are declared in a chain of effects without a card being played or a resource effect being activated. Such effects are not proscribed by Annotation 25a.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:35 pm Try to point out which part of Annotation 25a prohibits chains of effects.
None.
Some hazard effects may be activated, e.g. discarding effect of Reluctant Final Parting (assuming that a company is at a site at this point of game).
But this effect is not declared.

Even if there would be any space for declaration, this would mean that cc from Pale Dream-maker could not be responded by a card that targets it.

I perceive the two points of game (term "period" is not accurate) - drawing cards for movement and revealing a new site AND reconciling a hand and discarding site of origin as atomic operations. With exception of exceptions, like Reach of Ulmo, nothing can be declared at the points.

The proposal is in accordance to the perception. If the perception is invalid then the proposal is invalid too.
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: Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 pm But this effect is not declared.
There is no basis in the rules for this statement. The rules clearly state:
The various activities that you and your opponent can perform during play are called actions. Typical actions include playing a card, making a corruption check, revealing a card, etc... You must give your opponent a chance to respond to every action, and vice versa. If you perform an action and move on to another action without giving your opponent a chance to respond, you must "back up" if he indicates that he wants to respond. A series of declared actions made in response to one another is called a 'chain of effects.'
A corruption check is an action. When the rules say "you must give your opponent a chance to respond" it is talking about the declared action. The opponent can respond to a declared corruption check. These declarations of actions are made in a chain of effects. The corruption checks of Pale Dream-maker are declared in a chain of effects.

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 pm Even if there would be any space for declaration, this would mean that cc from Pale Dream-maker could not be responded by a card that targets it.
The rules specifically state: "A required or declared dice roll is an action and can be the target of another action or effect declared later in rhe same chain of effects" and the rulings state "Of course, the character's player can play resources to modify the corruption checks."

Of course the player can respond to the corruption checks declared by Pale Dream-maker by playing/activating resources, tapping characters in support, etc. The hazard player can even play cards in response to affect those actions.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 pm I perceive the two points of game (term "period" is not accurate) - drawing cards for movement and revealing a new site AND reconciling a hand and discarding site of origin as atomic operations. With exception of exceptions, like Reach of Ulmo, nothing can be declared at the points.
Just like reach of Ulmo, there is an exception made for corruption checks made at the end of the Movement/Hazard phase. This is described in the CRF under Lure of Nature and it is discussed in further detail in beginning The Dragons Players Guide.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:36 pm There is no basis in the rules for this statement.
I had in mind the effect of Reluctant Final Parting.
Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the
card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain
of effects.
Dark Minions: Reluctant Final Parting
U2 Hazard: Permanent-event

Discard any ally if its current site is an Under-deeps site or if its current site's nearest Haven is not the same as the nearest Haven for the site at which the ally can be played. Discard this card when any play deck is exhausted. Cannot be duplicated. "A deep loneliness and sense of loss was on them. They stood silent, reluctant to make the final parting..."-LotRI
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: Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:50 pm Dark Minions: Pale Dream-maker...

Proposed errata...

Purpose of the errata is a removing of a timing problem that happens when a player discards cards while reconciling his hand after completion of company's M/H phase; the period when no action may be normally declared.
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:36 pm Forcing corruption checks when discarding cards over the hand size limit that is the entire point of this effect. Also, it's helpful to post the relevant rule since it clearly does not establish a "period when no action may be normally declared" as asserted. Even if it did, this card text would clearly override it. And also, Ichabod already ruled on this topic -- "each time", no exceptions. The card does what it says.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:47 am After reading the annotation again: I do not see a space for chain of effects during the described period.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:35 pm Some effects are declared in a chain of effects without a card being played or a resource effect being activated. Such effects are not proscribed by Annotation 25a.
Here I pointed out that declaration of effects of hazards are not proscribed by Annotation 25a. You did not respond directly. Obviously you can't point to something that doesn't exist. So like usual, you take a tangent and argue that since Reluctant Final Parting's effect must resolve without its effect being declared. This argument doesn't make sense and it doesn't support the argument that Annotation 25a prevents hazard effects from being declared. Even if RFP somehow worked without being resolved, that does not mean that Annotation 25a proscribes hazard effects from being declared. If it isn't there it isn't there.

---------
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 pm Some hazard effects may be activated, e.g. discarding effect of Reluctant Final Parting (assuming that a company is at a site at this point of game).
But this effect is not declared.
Again, as I have stated above, the rules indicate that effects must be declared and there is nothing in the rules to suggest that effects can happen without being declared in a chain of effects such that your opponent can respond:
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:36 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 pm But this effect is not declared.
There is no basis in the rules for this statement. The rules clearly state:
The various activities that you and your opponent can perform during play are called actions. Typical actions include playing a card, making a corruption check, revealing a card, etc... You must give your opponent a chance to respond to every action, and vice versa. If you perform an action and move on to another action without giving your opponent a chance to respond, you must "back up" if he indicates that he wants to respond. A series of declared actions made in response to one another is called a 'chain of effects.'
A corruption check is an action. When the rules say "you must give your opponent a chance to respond" it is talking about the declared action. The opponent can respond to a declared corruption check. These declarations of actions are made in a chain of effects. The corruption checks of Pale Dream-maker are declared in a chain of effects.
Annotation 9a does NOT state that actions happen without being declared. The discarding action is declared in the same chain of effects as the action that is the condition. This must be the case because if the discarding action is to resolve in a chain of effects, it must have been declared in that chain of effects.

It's true that normally passive conditions are satisfied by resolved actions, not declared action. But even before Annotation 9a certain passive conditions were satisfied by declared, unresolved actions. For example, the passive condition of a declared and unresolve corruption check is the passive condition that triggers the +2 modifier of First of the Order in the same chain of effects as the declared corruption check.

Annotation 9a indicates certain passive conditions rely on the declaration of an action. There is no reason to guess that somehow actions can be resolved without being declared.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

It's not OK to propose to make a card inoperable for its purpose because you think the rules say something that they don't say.

The purpose of the card is clear. It works. The rules work.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:50 pm Here I pointed out that declaration of effects of hazards are not proscribed by Annotation 25a. You did not respond directly.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 pm CDavis7M wrote: ↑11 Dec 2020, 18:35
Try to point out which part of Annotation 25a prohibits chains of effects.
None.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:50 pm So like usual, you take a tangent and argue that since Reluctant Final Parting's effect must resolve without its effect being declared. This argument doesn't make sense and it doesn't support the argument that Annotation 25a prevents hazard effects from being declared. Even if RFP somehow worked without being resolved, that does not mean that Annotation 25a proscribes hazard effects from being declared. If it isn't there it isn't there.
I did not say that no hazard effect may be activated at point of game described by Annotation 25a.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:50 pm Annotation 9a does NOT state that actions happen without being declared. The discarding action is declared in the same chain of effects as the action that is the condition. This must be the case because if the discarding action is to resolve in a chain of effects, it must have been declared in that chain of effects.
Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the
card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain
of effects.
Do you suggest something like "inner chains of effects" ?
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 game does not allow for "inner chain of effects" (presumed to be one chain inside another chain) and there is no reason for such a thing. Both effects are declared in the same chain of effects.

The rules specifically allow First of the Order's corruption check modification effect, which is triggered by the passive condition of a declared corruption check, to be declared in the same chain of effects as the passive condition. This works and it's allowed by the rules. Not only is it allowed by the rules, it's required by the rules. This is how dice rolls work.

By Annotation 9a, this same game mechanic is used for discarding cards: the declaration of an effect satisfying the passive condition triggers the declaration of the discarding in the same chain of effects.

----------

Here's how it works:

Situation: Pippin controls Quickbeam and moves to Bag End from Rivendell. Reluctant Final Parting is played during the M/H phase. Quickbeam can be played at Wellingall, which has Lorien as the nearest Haven. Bad End has Rivendell as it's nearest haven.

Reluctant Final Parting's effect: Discard an ally contingent on a passive condition.
Passive Condition: If its current site is an Under-deeps site OR if its current site's nearest Haven is not the same as the nearest Haven for the site at which the ally can be played.

Given Annotation 9a, discard of Quickbeam is declared in the same chain of effects if movement of Rivendell back to the location deck (in Step 3) is declared in that chain. So when the Hazard player states that they are done playing hazards to end Step 2 of the M/H phase (referring to the most recent rules), this causes declaration of Step 3, discard of Quickbeam, and Step 4 in reverse order. It's that simple.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Out of curiosity: what happens if Doors of Night is discarded in middle of resolving chain of effects and The Will of Sauron is in play?
The order of declaration is:
Call of Home
Gates of Morning
Rank upon Rank
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

I am wondering what you think the problem might be.

In play: Doors of Night and Will of Sauron
1. Declare hazard short-event Call of Home and its effects
2a. Declare the effect "all hazard environment effects are canceled" of Gates of Morning.
2b. Declare the effect "all environment hazard cards in play are discarded [along with all cards eventually discarded by this passive condition and its resulting actions per Annotation 9a]".
2c. Declare the action of bringing resource permanent-event Gates of Morning into play.
3. Declare hazard permanent-event Rank Upon Rank and its effects.
4. Resolve hazard permanent-event Rank Upon Rank and its effects.
5a. Resolve the action of bringing resource permanent-event Gates of Morning into play.
5b. Resolve the effect the effect "all environment hazard cards in play are discarded [along with all cards eventually discarded by this passive condition and its resulting actions per Annotation 9a]". Thereby discarding Doors of Night, Will of Sauron, and any other hazard long-events in play.
5c. Resolve the effect "all hazard environment effects are canceled" of Gates of Morning.
6. Resolve hazard short-event Call of Home and its effects

Per Annotation 9a, every action that would eventually result certain cards being discarded also includes declaration of an effect that will discard those cards. Such declaration is inherent to achieving "if a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves."
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”