Dragon's Hunger question

[Gamling the Old]

Situation is :

Hazard Limit is 2

Opponent Plays a Dragon Creature

I Play Dragon's Hunger in same chain of events

Opponent in response a on-guard card on my site (so still in same chain of events).
[For now assume that the opponent will play a creature and thus the HZ reduce by 1, as that actually happened]

In site phase opponent reveals the on-guard card later.

I also posted the question of Facebook, so some discussion has taken place there https://www.facebook.com/groups/6301243 ... 6809938472

The question I have is which hazard will take full effect when they are resolved.

Each card is legally played (the on-guard is played as 4th hazard, before Dragon Hungers effect has triggered).

But each hazard also has a 2nd check against the Hazard limit when it actually is being resolved (as by rules, all conditions to play the card must be met also at that stage).

to me both hazards are actually resolved after the DH effect (-1 on Haz Lim) has been triggered. So one of them doesnt meet its criteria.

Or do both hazards get their full efffect (as was decided in the game). And if so, why?

[Gamling the Old]

From the CoE rulings digest on Dragon Hunger I found this ruling (not quite the same but related)..


CoE WEEKLY RULINGS/CLARIFICATIONS #11
NetRep: Brian Wong Source
QUERY 8
Let’s suppose my moving company has a hazard limit of one (all hazards but one have been played) and my opponent plays a dragon. I respond —to the play of the dragon— with Dragon's Hunger. He discards a hazard creature and the hazard limit is reduced by one (to zero). Since the hazard limit is now zero, is the dragon creature discarded for no effect? Or must the playing of the dragon creature card resolve (and thus be unaffected by a reduced hazard limit) before I can play Dragon’s Hunger?
CRF (Playing hazards): You check the hazard liimit at declaration and resolution. At declaration there must be less hazards already declared than the hazard limit. At resolution there must be no more hazards declared than the hazard limit.
The Rain-drake has not yet resolved. The Dragon’s Hunger is resolved first. When we get back to the rest of the Rain-drake, there’s no more hazard limit left and is thus cancelled.

[Theo]

Both hazards resolve.

Hopefully there is no confusion about the Dragon Creature resolving. If it hadn't resolved, you would not have been able to play Dragon's Hunger which must be played on an attack. The attack itself hasn't resolved by the time Dragon's Hunger resolves, but the play of the hazard has.

The on-guard card can be successfully placed because the placement resolution occurs prior to the reduction in hazard limit.

There is no meaning of hazard limit outside of the movement hazard phase, and the on-guard card can be revealed under the normal on-guard rules.

There could be an exception that doesn't apply to the scenario you gave, but perhaps worth bringing up. Because the CRF states that the on-guard card must have been playable during the movement/hazard phase to be revealed, this could prevent creatures and corruption cards from being revealed if the hazard limit was lowered prior to the hazard player being able to start a chain of effects. E.g., Flatter a Foe on a previously-played Dragon Ahunt.

[Gamling the Old]

Thanks

think the 'Hazard limit has no meaning outside movement hazard phase' is what I was missing in my thinking.

[Theo]

P.S. That CoE netrep makes a blatantly incorrect statement. The play of the Rain-drake must have resolved, otherwise there would be no attack for Dragon's Hunger to cancel.

CoE reverts this:

Now if I've gotten a yes there, let's say that I'm trundling along with
a H.L. of 2 and an Assassin jumps out, since I have a diplomat in the
party I slap Flatter a Foe on the bad guy and if I make my roll I'm
home free (because the H.L. drops to zero), right? More specifically,
when the Assassin fizzles, all 3 of his attacks go bye-bye, correct?

*** Ah, but the Assassin doesn't fizzle. Flatter a Foe is played when
facing an attack, so by the time you play Flatter a Foe, the Assassin
has already resolved. Lowering the hazard limit has no effect on
hazards that have already resolved.

[CDavis7M]

There's been a big discussion about this on the Facebook. I think the main points were reiterated already by Theo (1. the on-guard card is placed before the HL is reduced. 2. the hazard limit mechanic only applies to the M/H phase).

Just for referencing, I'll add the rules about this that I posted to FB.

[CDavis7M]

this could prevent creatures and corruption cards from being revealed if the hazard limit was lowered prior to the hazard player being able to start a chain of effects. E.g., Flatter a Foe on a previously-played Dragon Ahunt.

Your point is more about the errata to the on-guard rules so I'll copy it below. There is the argument that an on guard creature (placed on-guard before the hazard limit were reduced) could have been played IF the hazard limit were not reduced, or a corruption card could have been played if the hazard player were allowed to start a chain of effects, or if, if, if. There is no limit to what "could" happen if possible at all. Well, some cards could not have been playable at at all -- like when the target does not exist. I think this is why the errata bothers to explain that:

Rules Erratum: An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.

MECCG will use phrases like "never" or "in all cases" if that is what is meant. If "could" depending on timing, the Designers would have mentioned that.

----------

Also, I think it comes down to a question of how much record-keeping the game asks the players to do. I think that if the game wanted the reveal of on-guard cards to depend on which cards were played in response to other cards and whether the resource player allowed the hazard player to being a chain of effects between resolution of an attack's creation and a hazard limit reduction effect, then it might give the player a mechanic to keep records. But there is no mechanic. Of course, there are a handful of situations in MECCG (only cards I think) that ask the player to remember something beyond the game state.

It's telling to me that the other clarification to the on-guard rules say that record keeping isn't needed, just pretend to resolve the revealed card right before it was revealed.

A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.

[Konrad Klar]

Situation is :

Hazard Limit is 2

Opponent Plays a Dragon Creature

I Play Dragon's Hunger in same chain of events

Opponent in response a on-guard card on my site (so still in same chain of events).
[For now assume that the opponent will play a creature and thus the HZ reduce by 1, as that actually happened]

In site phase opponent reveals the on-guard card later.

I also posted the question of Facebook, so some discussion has taken place there https://www.facebook.com/groups/6301243 ... 6809938472

The question I have is which hazard will take full effect when they are resolved.

Each card is legally played (the on-guard is played as 4th hazard, before Dragon Hungers effect has triggered).

But each hazard also has a 2nd check against the Hazard limit when it actually is being resolved (as by rules, all conditions to play the card must be met also at that stage).

to me both hazards are actually resolved after the DH effect (-1 on Haz Lim) has been triggered. So one of them doesnt meet its criteria.

Or do both hazards get their full efffect (as was decided in the game). And if so, why?

You cannot play Dragon's Hunger in response to Dragon Creature.
Dragon's Hunger may be played if attack of Dragon Creature is in play, i.e. when Dragon Creature is already resolved and its attack is faced; in separate chain of effects.

For any actions declared in response to Dragon's Hunger, HL reduction caused by the card is not obstacle; they resolve before Dragon's Hunger (or not resolve for other reasons).

[Gamling the Old]

Konrad Klar

If I get you right. If opponent plays his creature card, I cant play DH and I have to wait until it resolves (aka I get an attack on my party) to then play the DH? This is a matter of timing of the effects. But does it matter?

What I think you tell me:
opponent plays creature.
I wait (no response)
Creature resolves
I play DH

vs.
Do it as we all do..
opponent plays creature.
I play DH straightaway.

[CDavis7M]

Konrad Klar

If I get you right. If opponent plays his creature card, I cant play DH and I have to wait until it resolves (aka I get an attack on my party) to then play the DH? This is a matter of timing of the effects. But does it matter?

What I think you tell me:
opponent plays creature.
I wait (no response)
Creature resolves
I play DH

vs.
Do it as we all do..
opponent plays creature.
I play DH straightaway.

This is covered by ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY in the rules. The rule is: "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."

Its OK if you play Dragon's Hunger straight away because by doing so you have let your opponent know that you did not wish to respond to their action (that is, you let their action resolve). However, by playing Dragon's Hunger straight away you did not give your opponent a chance to respond to their own action. In this case they could ask you to "back up" if they wanted to. You would then have to take Dragon's Hunger back to your hand and let your opponent continue declaring actions in the previous chain of effects.

One of the few times that these timing rules matter was mentioned already (playing a Hazard Limit reducing card as the first action in the chain of effects). But these other timing rules almost never matter. I think they are more the timing thesis for the game.


The more common (and actual) timing issue is trying to bait out creature pumpers before canceling the attack. The dividing line is strike assignment. The strikes of the attack cannot be increased and the attack cannot be canceled once strikes are assigned. So if the defender assigns as normal they can ask "May I assign strikes?" and this forces the hazard player to either play their strike booster or not. If they play it, the defender can still cancel. But if the attacker say "Yes, you may assign strikes" then the defender assigns the strikes and cannot cancel.

[Konrad Klar]

Its OK if you play Dragon's Hunger straight away because by doing so you have let your opponent know that you did not wish to respond to their action (that is, you let their action resolve). However, by playing Dragon's Hunger straight away you did not give your opponent a chance to respond to their own action. In this case they could ask you to "back up" if they wanted to. You would then have to take Dragon's Hunger back to your hand and let your opponent continue declaring actions in the previous chain of effects.

In short: it is not OK.

Fused: "I do not respond to the actions declared in current chain of effects" AND "I am declaring Dragon's Hunger as my first action in next chain of effect".
At the point it is not known whether the Dragon Creature will resolve (even hazard player may declare action that effectively will fizzle the Dragon Creature). Or hazard player may tap Khamûl the Easterling in response to a creature and resource player will not have Dragon's Hunger in hand at the point when the creature is resolved.

[CDavis7M]

Its OK if you play Dragon's Hunger straight away because by doing so you have let your opponent know that you did not wish to respond to their action (that is, you let their action resolve). However, by playing Dragon's Hunger straight away you did not give your opponent a chance to respond to their own action. In this case they could ask you to "back up" if they wanted to. You would then have to take Dragon's Hunger back to your hand and let your opponent continue declaring actions in the previous chain of effects.

In short: it is not OK.

Fused: "I do not respond to the actions declared in current chain of effects" AND "I am declaring Dragon's Hunger as my first action in next chain of effect".
At the point it is not known whether the Dragon Creature will resolve (even hazard player may declare action that effectively will fizzle the Dragon Creature). Or hazard player may tap Khamûl the Easterling in response to a creature and resource player will not have Dragon's Hunger in hand at the point when the creature is resolved.

Right. I mean that it is OK from the resource player's perspective because they are the only one giving up options and revealing information, and that is their choice. The hazard player has not lost anything because they can always ask the resource player to back up.

Like I said, these discussions mostly come to "baiting" the opponent. If the hazard player has Khamul in play, they might try to bait the resource player like you mentioned. Maybe this scenario is actually the best reason for the "resource player can start first" mechanic. Good one.

[Konrad Klar]

Konrad Klar

If I get you right. If opponent plays his creature card, I cant play DH and I have to wait until it resolves (aka I get an attack on my party) to then play the DH? This is a matter of timing of the effects. But does it matter?

What I think you tell me:
opponent plays creature.
I wait (no response)
Creature resolves
I play DH

vs.
Do it as we all do..
opponent plays creature.
I play DH straightaway.

Such (latter) playing style may lead to confusion.
Observer (that may be a novice player) may be under impression that Dragon's Hunger is played in response to creature, in the same chain of effects.
As it was stated in first post of the thread, if I understand.

If under such impression, the observer may in turn think that it is OK to play Many Sorrows Befall on Dragon's Hunger at the point, that may be wasteful but otherwise legal if the creature finally will not resolve (e.g. due to reduction of Hazard Limit). All "in the same chain of effects".

So it does matter.

[CDavis7M]

If under such impression, the observer may in turn think that it is OK to play Many Sorrows Befall on Dragon's Hunger at the point, that may be wasteful but otherwise legal if the creature finally will not resolve (e.g. due to reduction of Hazard Limit). All "in the same chain of effects".

So it does matter.

From reading the discussion on Facebook and seeing this same confusion I guess it does matter.