Skill cards target character with skill

[Konrad Klar]

According to my understanding of anything:
- no action creates an active condition,
- (similarly) a playing of card does not create a playability condition of the card,
- an action may be an active condition of other action (something must be done at declaration of the other action: something must be tapped, or discarded etc.).

For example, stated playability conditions (active conditions) for Secrets of Their Forging by itself does not target a ring, but the card as a whole does because other actions on the card are played out through a specific ring.

I would say:
"Sage only, only playable at a site where Information is playable, and only if a character in his company has a Gold Ring."
by itself does not target a(the) ring.

Unfortunately, what is "stated playability conditions (active conditions)" is debatable. It is so (or less) clear as what is object, or what is subject in a given sentence.

In contrast, play of a card is an action, which the CRF has stated requires a target for "skill only" cards.

Where exactly? I still think that this is the your thesis.

[Bandobras Took]

...

A Character playing a card is not an active condition; it is an action that (because it has A Target) creates active conditions that The Target be in play at declaration and at resolution of the card play action.

Similarly tapping A Card is an action,

This is already starting to be inaccurate. Tapping a card can be an action. It also can be an active condition. It is never both. New Moon taps a character as an action. Marvels Told taps a character as an active condition of discarding an event.

To target an entity, there must be an entity through which the action plays out. "Sage only" is a condition for card play. It is no more a target for a card than "Agent Only" targets the Agent when you make use of that agent's ability.

The required presence of a named card (e.g. Doors of Night) only creates active conditions without targeting because there is no action.

That won't wash. Card play is the action; by your logic, Doors of Night must be the target because you can only play Morgul Night by Doors being in play.

[Theo]

According to my understanding of anything:
- no action creates an active condition,
- (similarly) a playing of card does not create a playability condition of the card,
- an action may be an active condition of other action (something must be done at declaration of the other action: something must be tapped, or discarded etc.).

I think you are differing in what you are calling "create" an active condition. I'm using it to describe the need to satisfy a requirement that a moment before didn't need to be satisfied. When you decide you want to play a card, suddenly you need to check that the card can be played. There are rules for when cards can be played (not created by the cards, but by the rules)---resource long event being a fine example. There are also rules stated on the cards for when they can be played. Because the requirements that the card specifies wouldn't exist without the card specifying them, I'm using the language of the card "creating" the requirement. And for requirements that only exist when taking an action, such as requirements for the play of the card, I think it reasonable to say that it is the existence of the action which creates the requirement; if the action couldn't exist, there would be no requirement.

Hopefully we're on the same page now? I'm totally up for other language if you have a preferred alternative. [edit: I'll try to use "establish the need for" in place of "create" for now?]

[Theo]

For example, stated playability conditions (active conditions) for Secrets of Their Forging by itself does not target a ring, but the card as a whole does because other actions on the card are played out through a specific ring.

I would say:
"Sage only, only playable at a site where Information is playable, and only if a character in his company has a Gold Ring."
by itself does not target a(the) ring.

Right, this is what I meant to be alluding to in the first half of the sentence of mine that you quote.

Unfortunately, what is "stated playability conditions (active conditions)" is debatable. It is so (or less) clear as what is object, or what is subject in a given sentence.

Yet we try to work with what we're given?

In contrast, play of a card is an action, which the CRF has stated requires a target for "skill only" cards.

Where exactly? I still think that this is the your thesis.

Yes, this is my thesis. The locations:
(1) the play of a card is an action because it uses an action verb, as well as satisfying the "any activity in the game" MELE definition of action (it is one of the examples).
(2) CRF rule in original post specifies that a "(foo) only" skill card must be played by a skill character, which causes the character to satisfy "an entity that an action is played out through" CRF definition of target. In particular, the card play is the action which establishes the need for a target character that it is played out through.

[Theo]

Tapping a card can be an action. It also can be an active condition. It is never both.

This is where we differ. I say: tapping a card satisfies the definition for a action as given in the MELE: "any activity in the game". Thus tapping is always an action. There can also be active conditions that the character be untapped at the declaration of the action and tapped at the resolution of the action. That doesn't mean that the tapping is no longer an action.

"Sage only" is a condition for card play. It is no more a target for a card than "Agent Only" targets the Agent when you make use of that agent's ability.

"Sage only" is also a condition for card play. But you are throwing out the CRF rule specifying that it also means that the play of the card must be by a character if you think this is all.

The required presence of a named card (e.g. Doors of Night) only creates active conditions without targeting because there is no action.

That won't wash. Card play is the action; by your logic, Doors of Night must be the target because you can only play Morgul Night by Doors being in play.

The card play action is not "played out through" the Doors of Night entity. I would think normal card play actions (without a skill only card---because of the CRF rule) are only played out through the player playing it, and the actions that the resolution of the card creates also are not played out through Doors of Night. Doors of Night is no more a target than a ring would be if a card stated nothing but, "Sage only, only playable at a site where Information is playable, and only if a character in his company has a Gold Ring."

[Bandobras Took]

Tapping a card can be an action. It also can be an active condition. It is never both.

This is where we differ. I say: tapping a card satisfies the definition for a action as given in the MELE: "any activity in the game". Thus tapping is always an action. There can also be active conditions that the character be untapped at the declaration of the action and tapped at the resolution of the action. That doesn't mean that the tapping is no longer an action.

The rules specify that active conditions are not actions.

"Sage only" is a condition for card play. It is no more a target for a card than "Agent Only" targets the Agent when you make use of that agent's ability.

"Sage only" is also a condition for card play. But you are throwing out the CRF rule specifying that it also means that the play of the card must be by a character if you think this is all.

And you play Morgul Night by having Doors in play. So Doors must be the target, because it's the entity through which the card play action plays out. That's what "by" apparently must mean these days. Also, playing a new site card is the target of the commit to moving action ("A company commits to moving by playing a new site card"), the attacker is the target of strikes being assigned ("These strikes are then assigned by the attacker"), the defender is the target of gaining kill MPs ("for the creature's marshalling points to be received by the defender"), the dice roll is the target of defeating a creature ("defeats it by rolling a 7"), or maybe, just maybe, a skill card being played by a character merely means that the character permits it to be played.

[Konrad Klar]

I'm totally up for other language if you have a preferred alternative.

I prefer a language that serves a communication, not obfuscation.

There is a requirement of an action and there is a result/effect of the action.
First is needed by the action, second is created by the action.

In the game there are no effects that create "needs" (supply demands etc.).

[Konrad Klar]

Here is example of an action, that requires a character not having some skills.

Environment. May only be played if Gates of Morning is not in play. The hazard limit is increased by two for each moving company with a size of less than four that also contains a Wizard or a non-ranger character with a mind of 6 or more. Cannot be duplicated. Discard when any play deck is exhausted. ...a whole regiment of birds had broken away suddenly from the main host...-LotRII

There are two characters in moving company: one non-ranger (Elf) with mind 5, one non-ranger; sage with mind 6, bearer of a gold ring.
Eyes of the Shadow resolves and the action:

"The hazard limit is increased by two"

is declared as first action of new chain of effects.

In response Test of Lore is played on the gold ring.
In response Diminish and Depart is played on Elf.


Diminish and Depart resolves.
Test of Lore resolves (Magic Ring of Nature is played)
"The hazard limit is increased by two" resolves. Right?

Is it important that at resolution of "The hazard limit is increased by two" an only "non-ranger character with a mind of 6 or more" in company is not the same "non-ranger character with a mind of 6 or more" which was at declaration?
If no action is created on a "non-ranger character with a mind of 6 or more", why it would be important?

The idea of X skill card targeting character with X skill, by the mere fact of being a X skill card is against of idea of targeting at all.

The idea of targeting is simple: object on which main effect operates, specified at declaration, cannot be replaced at resolution by other object.

Main effect of many skill cards does not touch a character with given skill at all. Some skill cards are not even enacted by a character with given skill (the character does not make any activity at declaration).

[Theo]

The rules specify that active conditions are not actions.

I think the wording is, "Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions---they are declared and resolve immediately." In the sense of not being allowed to respond to an opponent declaring a tapping to satisfy an active condition, and Actions being defined as allowing players to respond to their declaration, I'm willing to consider calling tapping to satisfy an active condition not-an-action.

---

Back to the main point of the proposal...

"Sage only" is a condition for card play. It is no more a target for a card than "Agent Only" targets the Agent when you make use of that agent's ability.

"Sage only" is also a condition for card play. But you are throwing out the CRF rule specifying that it also means that the play of the card must be by a character if you think this is all.

And you play Morgul Night by having Doors in play. So Doors must be the target, because it's the entity through which the card play action plays out. That's what "by" apparently must mean these days. Also, playing a new site card is the target of the commit to moving action ("A company commits to moving by playing a new site card"), the attacker is the target of strikes being assigned ("These strikes are then assigned by the attacker"), the defender is the target of gaining kill MPs ("for the creature's marshalling points to be received by the defender"), the dice roll is the target of defeating a creature ("defeats it by rolling a 7"), or maybe, just maybe, a skill card being played by a character merely means that the character permits it to be played.

I didn't create the rule, "A target is an entity that an action is played out through" (CRF).

But I like going through these examples:

preposition: by
1. identifying the agent performing an action.
2. indicating the means of achieving something.

"A company commits to moving by playing a new site card" corresponds to definition 2. "A company" is already established as the entity performing the "commit" action.

• "These strikes are then assigned by the attacker." uses definition 1. So yes, "the attacker" is the entity performing the "assign" action.
• "for the creature's marshalling points to be received by the defender" uses definition 1. "The defender" is the entity performing the "receive" action.
• "defeats it by rolling a 7" uses definition 2. "rolling a 7" is not performing a "defeat" action.
• "'(Foo) only' cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill." is back to definition 1. "Characters with the (foo) skill" is not indicating a means of achieving a play action.

Or do you not like "through" corresponding to "by"? I'd base my argument off something like:

preposition: through; adverb: through
...
5. ...
- by means of (an intermediary or agent).

P.S. Doors of Night is still not an entity that the play action is played out through under this definition of through. A card having its existence checked is not contributing to the "means of" the checking.

[Bandobras Took]

When you have to jump through hoops to avoid "a condition is not an action," you're already on shaky ground.

You're also confusing the enactor of an action with the entity the action plays out through.

When driving a car, by law, a license is required, as is a driver, but neither is the entity through which the action plays out. The car is. In the parlance of the game, things like turning on the car, shifting gears, or stepping on the accelerator are not actions. They are active conditions for the action of driving the car. Having a license in your wallet wouldn't even be considered an action by most, simply a state that makes your driving either legal or illegal.

2. indicating the means of achieving something.

You've got it!
"(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill.

They enable the play of the card. The card does not play out through them.

[Konrad Klar]

A a side note (not an argument against/for thesis that skill cards always target character with a given skill):

Allies count as a characters for purposes of playing a skill cards.
It does not mean that they cease to be a resources for the purposes (or at any point).
So Gollum cannot be a target of Sneakin'.
If to assume that a skill cards always target character with a given skill, Stinker also cannot tap to Stealth.

[Theo]

You're also confusing the enactor of an action with the entity the action plays out through.

When driving a car, by law, a license is required, as is a driver, but neither is the entity through which the action plays out. The car is. In the parlance of the game, things like turning on the car, shifting gears, or stepping on the accelerator are not actions. They are active conditions for the action of driving the car. Having a license in your wallet wouldn't even be considered an action by most, simply a state that makes your driving either legal or illegal.

I would think that if there were no driver there would be no driving. Or maybe you normally say that your car is driving while you aren't in it? "Having" is a passive state, not an action/activity.
Need I remind you:

Action: Any activity in the game (card play, a corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses, etc.).

Interesting to note that card play is in there explicitly! This means that:

Some skill cards are not even enacted by a character with given skill (the character does not make any activity at declaration).

is just false.

2. indicating the means of achieving something.

You've got it!
"(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill.

They enable the play of the card. The card does not play out through them.

I'm afraid your parsing doesn't quite make sense to me. Example of definition (2) from Google is: "malaria can be controlled by attacking the parasite." Note that all of the examples above used this same form: "by" followed by a present participle verb ("-ing"). "characters" does not fit the pattern.

[the JabberwocK]

Quite the discussion guys!

Personally, I feel that ARV errata should focus primarily on making the game more enjoyable and approachable, while less confusing and frustrating for most players. I feel a large majority of players would be turned off by the idea that you can use an opponent's character or ally to satisfy the requirement to play your own skill resource card. Logically, this is clearly absurd.

Perhaps you guys could agree on a simple erratum/clarification that makes this crystal clear and prevents any such attempt/abuse?

[CDavis7M]

As discussed to some length starting around: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 660#p29613

I believe skills cards (particularly in the early sets) were created to implicitly require targeting a character with the skill as an active condition for playing the card.

I agree. But only for those early METW cards (and METD Many Turns) that say "<Skill> Only" but dont have any actions in the card text referencing the skill. I disagree for later cards that use "<Skill> Only" as a keyword. You can tell the difference by the way that they are.

This proposal (addition underlined) is to make the implicit rules explicit:

"(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill. This means that satisfying the skill requirement of a card requires targeting a character with that skill.

This is not needed and is already covered by the rules on active conditions. And if we did need to make such a rule, it doesn't make sense to create rules for active conditions on a generally descriptive statement about skills.

Some players have contested that Old Friendship and New Friendship can use your opponent's Diplomat to satisfy the "Diplomat only." requirement of the card. That is, according to the CRF, your card is being "played by" your opponent's character. Further, the CRF clarifications on these cards cannot be interpreted, since there is no "the diplomat" target. Another implication is that even though such cards are "played by"(existing CRF) certain characters when active conditions of the card are checked at play declaration, the cards can be "played by" entirely different characters when active conditions are checked at play resolution.

Similarly, you can use your opponent's Diplomat (anywhere) to satisfy Lordly Presence.

Similarly, Many Turns and Doublings can use your opponent's Ranger. See this alternative proposal to correct this particular situation by treating it as a one-off: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 145&t=3677

Similarly, Risky Blow can use the paired opponent's Warrior skill in CvCC to give presumably-anything-you-want (including your character) +3 to prowess and -1 to body against a strike.

Who are you playing with?

I'd say it comes down to:

You cannot target an opponent's character or resources with your own resources.

Diplomat only. Warrior only. Etc., in those early METW cards (and METD Many Turns) used the phrase as an active condition. As an active condition for the play of the card, the play of the card targets the character having that skill. And your resources can't target an opponent's character.

[Theo]

I agree. But only for those early METW cards (and METD Many Turns) that say "<Skill> Only" but dont have any actions in the card text referencing the skill. I disagree for later cards that use "<Skill> Only" as a keyword. You can tell the difference by the way that they are.

Wrong. I cannot tell the difference by the way that they are. I have no idea what you mean here. Please explain your basis for this conclusion based on indications in the rules texts, or I will conclude this is another of your opinions for which you falsely assume to be universal.

This proposal (addition underlined) is to make the implicit rules explicit:

This is not needed and is already covered by the rules on active conditions.

As evidence for its need, I present the above pages of disagreement, including your own idea that it only applies in certain cases. I don't know how you missed that one.