Govern the Storms

[Theo]

Old Friendship was declared to be played by Frodo.

I find no indication anywhere that this happens or is even necessary.

The CRF quote above doesn't work for you?

How would it make sense for the character playing a card to change part way through the play of the card? Just because you have a friendship with Frodo doesn't mean you have a friendship with Bilbo.

[Konrad Klar]

I agree with Bandobras here.

Additionally:

• A hero resource may not target an Orc or Troll character (e.g., Orc and Troll
characters may not use Block, Escape, etc.).
• A hero resource that requires a character with a specific skill may not use an Orc
or Troll character to fulfill that requirement (e.g., Concealment, Many Turns and
Doublings, etc.).

makes a distinction between a cards that target a character and a cards that require skills.

Sometimes the two groups of card are overlapping.

P.S.
To be fair: I have an objection to qualifying Escape as a card that targets a character.
But I'm not questioning a rules, but examples.

[Bandobras Took]

Old Friendship was declared to be played by Frodo.

I find no indication anywhere that this happens or is even necessary.

The CRF quote above doesn't work for you?

How would it make sense for the character playing a card to change part way through the play of the card? Just because you have a friendship with Frodo doesn't mean you have a friendship with Bilbo.

I confess to being mystified as to which quote I'm supposed to be looking at. At no point do the rules say you have to declare which Diplomat you are using for Old Friendship.

[Theo]

I confess to being mystified as to which quote I'm supposed to be looking at. At no point do the rules say you have to declare which Diplomat you are using for Old Friendship.

Sorry,

"(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill.

combined with the CRF quote you gave earlier:

A target is an entity that an action is played out through.

(underlines mine)

So I agree the rules don't explicitly state (as far as I know), "you have to declare/target which Diplomat you are using to satisfy a skill requirement," but there is an implicit need to target and thus declare which character is using the skill because skill cards are played "by"(through) a character with that skill.

The alternative---not declaring which Diplomat you are using---is that one character with the skill starts as the character that is playing the card, but then which character is playing the card changes part way through the play of the card. Absurd, in my opinion.

[Theo]

• A hero resource may not target an Orc or Troll character (e.g., Orc and Troll
characters may not use Block, Escape, etc.).
• A hero resource that requires a character with a specific skill may not use an Orc
or Troll character to fulfill that requirement (e.g., Concealment, Many Turns and
Doublings, etc.).

makes a distinction between a cards that target a character and a cards that require skills.

P.S.
To be fair: I have an objection to qualifying Escape as a card that targets a character.
But I'm not questioning a rules, but examples.

CRF supercedes.

P.S. how can you object to Escape targeting a character? "One character" is an entity that an action of the card is played out through.

Or can you share your definition of what "played out through" is restricted to such that these don't count?

[Konrad Klar]

P.S. how can you object to Escape targeting a character? "One character" is an entity that an action of the card is played out through.

Or can you share your definition of what "played out through" is restricted to such that these don't count?

"A target is an entity that an action is played out through." is a tautology. As long it is not sure what is "an entity that an action is played out through" it is also not sure what is "target" and vice versa.

Some chance of figuring out what is (and what is not) target of action gives:

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.
An action may not be declared if its target is not in play. However, dice-rolling actions
may always be targeted by other actions declared later in the same chain of effects.

If to add to above, that a target of an action must be specified at declaration of the action, then an entity specified in result of main effect of an action is not a target of the action.

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!'-LotRII

If text would be "Cancels an attack against a company. One unwounded character in the company is wounded (no body check is required).", then I would say that the "one unwounded character" is target, and as such must be specified at declaration of Escape.

But the "one unwounded character" must be chosen when an action of Escape are executed; choice is one of declared action of Escape.
If consider such character as target of Escape, then also minor item discarded by Rats! may be considered as the target of Rats! .

[Bandobras Took]

Thanks for clarifying.

Unfortunately, it still runs headlong into the other pair of rules quotes:

Condition, Active: A prerequisite for an action actively made by a player. Typically this involves tapping a character, discarding an item, or having a character of a particular skill in play.

Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions

Having a character with the proper skill is, by rule, an active condition for the play of a card. By rule, active conditions are not actions. Therefore, card play does not target the character with the skill, as targets can only exist when there is an action.

Being played by a character is an ambiguous term, anyway. It can refer to meeting a skill prerequisite, to tapping to play the card, to being discarded to play a card (Refuge), etc. I can't take it as an absolute statement that a skill card must of necessity be played out through a specific character chosen at declaration.

[Theo]

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!'-LotRII

If text would be "Cancels an attack against a company. One unwounded character in the company is wounded (no body check is required).", then I would say that the "one unwounded character" is target, and as such must be specified at declaration of Escape.

But the "one unwounded character" must be chosen when an action of Escape are executed; choice is one of declared action of Escape.
If consider such character as target of Escape, then also minor item discarded by Rats! may be considered as the target of Rats! .

I'm not sure I'm on board with this "your choice" vs not distinction... but I'll ponder it more. Certainly I don't think the other player's choices (as in Rats!) need be targets chosen by the card's player. The implications of this include that Escape could be used on a party consisting of only wounded characters... has this never been contentious?

Cannot be played on a wounded character.

Shouldn't this read: "Is not played on any character" under your interpretation?

[Theo]

Having a character with the proper skill is, by rule, an active condition for the play of a card. By rule, active conditions are not actions. Therefore, card play does not target the character with the skill, as targets can only exist when there is an action.

I would think the play of the card (by the character) is the action.

Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources, but may not be the targets for your resources.

Under your interpretation, my opponent's Diplomat satisfies the "Diplomat only" requirement of Old Friendship?

[Konrad Klar]

CRF Escape wrote:
Cannot be played on a wounded character.

Shouldn't this read: "Is not played on any character" under your interpretation?

Escape is not played on a character. It is played on an attack faced by company.

Some history of changes of this card:

Cancels an attack against a company. One 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!'-LotRII

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!'-LotRII

Seems like ICE authors make some changes, then forgot that the card is played on attack, not on character, and then are trying to repair an not existing problem.

[dirhaval]

This is quite an argument; I came here to talk about another storm - Crowned with Storm and affecting opponent's characters. But I need to find on this forum if that MEBA card was discussed. Back to Govern the Storms. I feel like a hobbit at the Councilf of Elrond so pardon my lack of quoting rules.

For what I gathered:
1) when is the corruption check made
2) who makes the corruption check
3) which company gains a benefit from the minion short-event



1) When is the corruption check made
Let me ask this: when is the corruption check made with those wizard spells?
Wizard's Voice and Wizard's Fire explictily states "for the rest of the turn." Wizard's River-horses is either a one-time effect or
is it ongoing? I like for one-time. Is not the card text sentences read backwards? That is the corruption check for Govern the Storms done first?
If the the corruption check can be delayed, then the effect will only be applied to the target sorcery-user just as a permanent-event is given to a company upon splitting (An Unexpected Party). Like at the hero counterpart: Goldberry. That ally taps after movement to cancel "any" effect. For me that corruption check is made when the event is resolved, IMHO. You get the benefit of being at a Darkhaven next to a Ringwraith for +2 corruption check.
Which Ringwraith is a great mover and can use sorcery...Khamual. I think it is no coincidence that Hador has Dol Guldur as a home site.

2) Who makes the Corruption Check
One can delay this from happening and apply the affect to all sorcery companies once the corruption check is made. Do you want to run the risk
of receiving a corruption hazard event before you need to make the corruption check unless you think you can draw White Light Broken in time.
I like to point to Goldberry for who taps and not allowing anyone else to do tap.

3) Which company gains a benefit from the minion short-event
Is "sorcery-using" the same as "sorcery?" Khamual is not a sorcery-using character?. He is allowed to use sorcery cards and when he does he becomes "sorcery-using" else all the characters in that company must make the corruption check. But that leads to reading Magic Ring of Weals. Remember that card space is expensive. Either the company that had the character makes the corruption check gains the benefit or all companies with a sorcery-using character. I like the latter to encourage movement by minions, especially Ringwraiths who are not Rangers.

My opinion:
Goven the Storms has one and only one corruption check, which is made upon resolution. Cards effects all companies with a character able to use sorcery. This interpretation encourages moving minion companies including Ringwraiths, use of Roadblock hazards against hero companies that are stuck and nice to visit by minons using this magic card. Govern the Storms is similar to Goldberry but has the benefit of not being limited to the map, no tapping, be played anytime during the turn, and has White Light Broken to help with the corruption check. Yes, I can be all wrong, but at least I can be pointed to the right direction.

edited: corrected expensive.

[Bandobras Took]

1) The corruption check is made when the cancellation happens. The difference between Govern and Goldberry is that Goldberry taps to initiate an effect, while playing the card initiates Govern.

2) Whether it's wanted is irrelevant. The corruption check is made when the cancellation happens.

3) So long as a company fits the conditions listed on the card, they gain the benefit.

[Konrad Klar]

CRF wrote:
Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources, but may not be the targets for your resources.

Under your interpretation, my opponent's Diplomat satisfies the "Diplomat only" requirement of Old Friendsh

Because Bandobras did not reply...

Yes.
Of course the Diplomat must be in your company (to affect cc).

[Theo]

I guess we have nothing more to discuss, then. I think you are missing the dots. The CRF clarification for Old Friendship would be uninterpretable if there was no Diplomat target. I suppose you'd say that my opponent controlling a Ranger would let me play Many Turns and Doublings to cancel an attack. How nice that their scent threw those wolves off of my company.

---

Is not the card text sentences read backwards? That is the corruption check for Govern the Storms done first?

Sentences are placed in the chain of effects backwards. This means that they resolve in the same order that they appear on the card.

[Konrad Klar]

"In order to cancel an attack or
to directly affect an attack, the character doing so must be in the company facing the
attack."

If not the fragment (of Annotation 15) then Dwarven Light-Stone could be used to modify an attack faced by other company, than a company of bearer.
Because a skill character is not enacting an actions that merely require its presence, then yes: Many Turns and Doubling may rely on a presence of Ranger anywhere (in other company, in company of opponent too).