Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post your decks, discuss strategy, ask for tips, etc.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

There are a lot of rules on timing, active conditions, and passive conditions that can be confused. However, there are only a few gameplay situations where two or more cards are in apparent conflict and the players need to trace the timing to determine which card "beats" the other card (which card works and which doesn't). I have outlined two simple rules for determining how the timing plays out and then given examples. By design I have avoided specifics of active/passive conditions and instead focused on their effects on gameplay timing. I hope beginners think "this is helpful" and that veterans think "I knew this."

SUPER SIMPLIFIED TIMING RULES:
  1. When playing cards/effects in response to each other, playing last wins except (A) an earlier effect discarding or tapping a card as a cost cannot be beaten by a later effect attempting to discard or tap that same card (the cost), and (B) an earlier effect with a specific target cannot be beaten by a later non-targeting non-cancellation effect. Of course, (C) a card cannot be affected by later cards played in response unless they cancel it or modify it's dice roll and (D) you cannot interrupt the implementation of the effects played in response to each other.
  2. The order for applying effects already in play is the same as the order in which those cards/effects were originally played unless (A) each of those effects were already in play at the start of the Movement/Hazard phase -- then the Hazard Player decides the order. (B) If the order doesn't matter, the Resource Player can decide.
SIMPLIFIED TIMING RULES:

To determine which card beats which, use Rule 1 if the cards are being played in response to each other and use Rule 2 if the cards were already in play. For Rule 1, decide which category the cards fall into (e.g., a specific target effect vs a non-targeted effect applying to future cards or effects), and then see if any exception applies (e.g., cancellation or dice rolls). For Rule 2, figure out the order the effects were played and if the effects were already in play at the start of the Movement/Hazard phase.

1. When an effect is played in response to another effect, the subsequently played effect beats the earlier played effect. Tapping a Nazgul beats Marvels Told.
EXCEPTIONS:
  1. An effect to discard a card played in response does not beat an earlier played effect that had a prerequisite to discard that same card. The same goes for tapping. Marvels Told cannot beat Daelomin At Home or Nazgul sideboarding. Adunaphel cannot beat Concealment.
  2. A non-targeting effect played in response does not beat a targeted effect, unless the subsequent non-targeting effect cancels/prohibits the earlier targeted effect. Rank Upon Rank does not beat Ready to His Will. Morgul Night does not beat The Evenstar. The Balance of Things played in response does not affect Vilya's corruption check. But Magical Harp cancels a corruption check that discards.
  3. An effect played in response cannot directly affect an earlier played card or effect, unless the subsequent effect specifically cancels an earlier effect or modifies a dice roll. Gates of Morning played in response to Doors of Night does not stop Doors because Gates does not specifically cancel Doors. Twilight played in response to Doors of Night can specifically cancel Doors. Tom Bombadil tapped in response to Call of Home can specifically cancel it.
  4. An effect cannot be played in response if it depends on the result of an earlier effect. You cannot use Dark Tryst in the hopes of Twilight to cancel Doors of Night. You cannot use Daelomin at Home to increase the hazard limit in order to play Many Sorrows Befall to cancel a short-event.
2. If multiple effects already in play would happen at the same time, those effects are applied in the order that they were originally brought into play, except:
  1. The Hazard Player decides the order of applying the effects if the order matters, but only if those effects were in play at the start of a Movement/Hazard phase.
  2. The Resource Player decides the order of applying effect if the order does not matter.
Bottom-line: The order that triggered effects (mostly long/permanent events) are applied is determined by the order they are played, except that the hazard player can re-decide the order at the start of the M/H phase.

GAMEPLAY EXAMPLES:

1. When an effect is played in response to another effect, the subsequently played effect beats the earlier played effect. Last in, first out. "Played" includes playing a card or using/activating an ability of a card. This simplified rule is based on the Timing rules using Chains of Effects.
  • Canonical Example: Marvels Told is played to discard Adûnaphel. In response, Adûnaphel can be tapped for its effect, beating Marvels Told. Note that Marvels Told cannot beat a tapped Adûnaphel per Rule 1C.
  • Adûnaphel is tapped to cause Gandalf to tap. In response, Gandalf can tap to test a ring. Exception 1A does not apply because Adûnaphel's tapping effect is not a prerequisite for some other effect.
  • Slip Treacherously is played to tap all items in play. In response, Magical Harp can be tapped for its effect. If Magical Harp were tapped first, Slip Treacherously could not be played in response to tap Magical Harp because of Rule 1A.
  • Flatter a Foe is played to possibly cancel an attack and also reduce the hazard limit. Non-attack and non-corruption hazard effects may be played in response before the hazard limit is reduced. (See rules on Attacks and Corruption cards needing to start a Chain of Effects).
  • Withdrawn to Mordor is played on Golodhros, who was played as an agent hazard. Golodhros can be tapped in response in order to attempt to influence a faction.
  • Golodhros, played as an agent hazard, taps to attempt to influence a faction. Withdrawn to Mordor can be played in response to return Golodhros to its owner's hand. Rule 1A does not apply because Withdrawn to Mordor does not tap Golodhros, it returns him to hand.

1A. An effect to discard a card does not beat an earlier played effect that had a prerequisite to discard that same card. The same goes for tapping a card. In fact, the subsequent effect cannot be played at all. A "non-targeting" effect is one that applies to a category of cards or effects as they come into play (or as they are declared for cancellation), as found on most long-events, many permanent-events, and even some short-events and Chill Douser and Uruk-lieutenant. A "targeting" effect specifically applies to a defined number cards or effects already in play, such as a particular character or a set of characters in a company." This simplified rule is based on the Active Condition rules including Annotations 5 and 6.
  • Canonical Example: Daelomin At Home was in play and is discarded to increase the hazard limit. Marvels Told cannot be played in response to discard Daelomin at Home because the hazard limit increasing effect of Daelomin at Home has a prerequisite of Daelomin At Home being discarded.
  • Foul-smelling Paste is discarded to heal a character. Rats! cannot be played in response to discard Foul-smelling Paste because Foul-smelling Paste has prerequisite of that card being discarded.
  • A Scout taps to play Concealment. Darkness Under Tree cannot be played in response to tap the Scout because Concealment's effect has a prerequisite that the Scout tap.
  • Gandalf taps to test a ring. Adûnaphel cannot be tapped in response in order to tap Gandalf because Gandalf's ring testing effect has the prerequisite that Gandalf tap.

1B. An effect that applies to a category of cards or effects when they come into play does not beat an earlier played effect applying to specific cards or effects already in play (whether in that category or not), unless the subsequent effect is an on-going cancellation effect that cancels a category including the earlier effect. Such effects still potentially work but they don't win the timing race. This simplified rule is based on the Passive Condition rules including Annotation 9.
  • Canonical Example: Ready to His Will is played on Assassin to cancel the 1-strike attack and make him an ally. Rank Upon Rank cannot be played in response to increase Assassin's strikes from 1 to 2 in order to beat Ready to His Will, which requires a 1-strike attack. Rank Upon Ranks effect applies to any non-agent Man attack that comes into play while Ready to His Will specifically applies to the Assassin creature card already in play. Note that if Assassin comes into play when Rank Upon Rank is already in play, then Ready to His Will can still be played in response to Rank Upon Rank's triggered effect, beating Rank Upon Rank per Rule 1. Note that neither Ready to His Will nor Rank Upon Rank can be played in response to the Assassin per Rule 1C. The same reason goes for Ready to His Will vs. Minions Stir on an Orc-lieutenant, etc.
  • Canonical Example of the Exception:Call of Home is played to potentially cause Bilbo to be returned to his owner's hand. Tookish Blood can be played in response in order to cancel Call of Home's effect. Even though Tookish Blood applies to a category of effects when they come into play (i.e., any future effect this turn for discarding Bilbo or returning Bilbo to his owner's hand), Tookish Blood's effect is an on-going cancellation effect.
  • Smoke Rings is played. Bane of the Ithil-stone CAN be played in response to beat Smoke Rings. While Bane of the Ithil-stone's effect does apply to any future searching or looking effect that comes into play, Bane of the Ithil-stone's cancels such effects and so it is able to beat Smoke Rings.
  • Gandalf is moving to Mount Doom in Gorgoroth and he plays Test of Form, requiring a Sage, to test a Precious Gold Ring. In the Heart of His Realm cannot be played to beat Test of Form by removing Gandalf's sage skill because In the Heart of His Realm's sage skill removing effect applies to any current or future Sage that moves with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in their site path. Non-targeted effects do not beat specific target effects.
  • Gandalf is moving to Mount Doom in Gorgoroth and he plays Wizard's Test, a Spell, to test a Precious Gold Ring. In the Heart of His Realm CAN be played to beat Wizard's Test because even though In the Heart of His Realm's cancellation effect applies to any current or future Spells, this effect CANCELS spells played by characters moving with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in their site path. Cancellation beats other effects.
  • Master of Wood, Water, or Hill is played to change Cardolan from a Wilderness to a Border-land. Morgul Night cannot be played in response to change Cardolan from a Wilderness to a Shadow-land before Master of Wood, Water, or Hill changes it to a Border-land. This is because Morgul Night's effect applies to any Wilderness region type that comes into play while Master of Wood, Water, or Hill specifically applies to the Cardolan region card already in play. The earlier played Master of Wood, Water, or Hill beats the later played Morgul Night.
  • Beorning Skin-changers is played on Fallen Saruman to return him to his site of origin. Govern the Storms CAN be played in response, beating Beorning Skin-changers. Even though Govern the Storms is a categorical effect and Beorning Skin-changers is a specific effect per Rule 1B, the effect of Govern the Storms is an on-going cancellation effect.
  • First of the Order cannot be played on Saruman to help with the corruption check caused by Govern the Storms. First of the Order applies to all corruption checks made by Saruman when they come into play. The effect of First of the Order is not a cancellation effect, it is a dice roll modification effect. Therefore, First of the Order cannot be used in response to Govern the Storms, it would have to be played beforehand. The dice roll exception for Rule 1C does not apply because First of the Order applies to all future corruption checks made by Saruman, it does not specifically target a dice roll from Govern the Storms.

1C. An effect played in response cannot specifically apply to an earlier played card or effect, unless the subsequent effect specifically targets a dice roll of the earlier effect or specifically cancels the earlier effect. This is because earlier cards are not in play yet. Note that if a card in play is tapped to play an effect, another effect can be played in response that specifically applies to the card (but not to the effect of the card). This simplified rule is based on the rules on Targets, including Annotation 1.
  • Canonical Example: Adûnaphel is tapped in order to tap a Gandalf. Marvels Told cannot be played in response to discard Adûnaphel before Gandalf is tapped. Note that Adûnaphel becomes a short-event immediately when tapped (it is no longer a permanent-event in play per the rules on Nazgul and Active Conditions). Still, Gandalf could tap to play Marvels Told to discard a different event besides Adûnaphel before he gets tapped per Rule 1.
  • Canonical Example of the Exception: Gates of Morning is played to discard Shadow of Mordor. Twilight can be played in response to beat Gates of Morning, saving Shadow of Mordor, because the Twilight's effect was specifically played to cancel Gates of Morning.
  • The Roving Eye is played to cause Pippin, who bears the Palantír of Orthanc, to make a corruption check. Halfling Strength can be played in response in order to have Halfling Strength's +4 effect apply to the corruption check since it specifically targets the corruption check dice roll of The Roving Eye.
  • Daelomin at Home is played. Marvels Told cannot be played in response to specifically apply its discarding effect to Daelomin at Home. Marvels Told only discards cards, it does not cancel them.
  • Gates of Morning is played to discard Shadow of Mordor. Doors of Night cannot be played in response to beat Gates of Morning, saving Shadow of Mordor, because the first discarding effect of Doors of Night is not a cancellation effect, and the second cancellation effect of Doors of Night is not an on-going cancellation effect. The second effect of Doors of Night only happens once -- "when Doors of Night is played."
  • Call of Home is played on Frodo. Tom Bombadil can tap in response to cancel Call of Home because Tom Bombadil's cancellation effect was specifically played to cancel Call of Home.
1D. An effect cannot be played in response if it depends on the result of an earlier effect. This simplified rule is based on the rules for Chains of Effects. The reason is because the chain of effects is still resolving.
  • If Dark Tryst is played in response to an effect, the effects of the cards drawn using Dark Tryst cannot be used to beat that effect.
  • If there is no hazard limit left to use, Many Sorrows Befall cannot be played in response to Daelomin at Home's hazard limit increasing effect, which was played in response to an attack cancellation resource.

2. If multiple effects already in play would happen at the same time, those effects are applied in the order that they were originally brought into play. This simplified rule is based on the the ICE rulings applying Annotation 26 to these situations.
  • Canonical Example: Plague of Wights, doubling the strikes of Undead attacks, is already in play when a company starts their Movement/Hazard Phase. The Moon is Dead, giving +1 strike and +1 prowess to Undead attacks, is played during the Movement/Hazard phase. Then a Barrow-wight is played against that company after Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead are already in play. The order of applying Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead matters because the Barrow-wight will have 3 strikes if Plague of Wights is applied first, but 4 strikes if The Moon is Dead is applied first. However, since both Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead were NOT in play at the start of this company's Movement/Hazard phase, then Rule 2A does not apply. Accordingly, Barrow-wight will have 3 strikes because Plague of Wights was originally brought into play before The Moon is Dead was brought into play, and so Plague of Wights' doubling effects is applied before The Moon is Dead's +1 strike effect.
  • Awaken Minions, doubling strikes at Shadow-holds, is in play when a company enters the Moria site, a shadow-hold, to face its automatic-attack. Minions stir, giving +1 prowess and +1 strike to the automatic-attack is revealed on-guard. Because Minions stir was revealed on-guard it is treat as if it were already in play. Therefore, the effects are applied in the order they were originally brought into play, meaning that the effect of Awaken Minions is applied before the effect of Minions stir. Accordingly, the automatic-attack at Moria is doubled from 4 strikes to 8 strikes and then it is given +1 strike to 9 strikes. But if both Awaken Minions and Minions stir were already in play at the start of the last Movement/Hazard phase, then the hazard player would have been able to choose the order for applying these effects per Rule 2A.

2A. The Hazard Player decides the order of applying the effects if the order matters, but only if those effects were in play at the start of a Movement/Hazard phase. This simplified rule is based on the the ICE rulings applying Annotation 26 to these situations.
  • Canonical Example: Plague of Wights, doubling the strikes of Undead attacks, AND The Moon is Dead, giving +1 strike to Undead, are both already in when a company starts their Movement/Hazard Phase. The order of applying Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead matters because if an Undead Barrow-wight is played, the Barrow-wight will have 3 strikes if Plague of Wights is applied first, but 4 strikes if The Moon is Dead is applied first. Rule 2A lets the Hazard Player decide the order since the order matters and both Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead were already in play at the start of this company's Movement/Hazard phase. Accordingly, Barrow-wight will have 4 strikes because the Hazard player would decide to apply The Moon is Dead's +1 effect first before applying Plague of Wights' doubling effect.
  • A company enters Moria, a shadow-hold with an orc automatic-attack. Awaken Minions, doubling strikes at shadow-holds, and Minions stir, giving +1 prowess and +1 strike to Orcs and Trolls, were both in play at the start of the last Movement/Hazard phase. The order of applying the effects of Awaken Minions and Minions stir was already decided by the hazard player at the start of the last Movement/Hazard phase. This order of application still holds during the site phase. Meaning that the effect of Minions stir would be applied to the automatic-attack before Awaken Minions. Accordingly, the automatic-attack at Moria is given +1 strike to 5 strikes, and then the strikes are doubled to 10.
  • Both Fell Winter and Morgul Night are in play at the beginning of a company's Movement/Hazard phase when the company moves to Beorn's House in Anduin Vales, which is a border-land. Here the order of applying the effects matters. If Fell Winter's effect is applied first, then Anduin Vales will become a wilderness, and then Morgul Night's later effect will change Anduin Vales into a shadow-land. If Morgul Night's effect is applied first, then Anduin Vales will not be affected by Morgul Night and it will instead become a wilderness by Fell Winter's later effect. Therefore, Anduin Vales will either become a shadow-land or a wilderness depending on the order of effects. So the Hazard Player can decide the order.
  • If Fog was in play with Crown of Flowers while Morgul Night was also in play with Doors of Night at the start of a Movement/Hazard phase, then hazard player would still decide the order of applying these effects even though Fog is a resource.
  • Both Snowstorm and Smaug Ahunt are in play when a company starts its Movement/Hazard phase, moving to The Lonely Mountain. The order of applying Snowstorm and Smaug Ahunt matters because if Snowstorm is applied first then the company will be returned to its site of origin, immediately ending the Movement/Hazard phase before Smaug can attack. Since both of these effects were already in play and the order matters, then the Hazard Player decides the order that they are applied. If the company is not likely to defeat Smaug Ahunt then the Hazard Player may decide to let Smaug Ahunt attack the company before Snowstorm returns the company to their site of origin.

2B. The Resource Player decides the order of applying effect if the order does not matter. This simplified rule is based on the Annotation 26 and the ICE Rulings applying Annotation 10 on Passive Condition rules to these situations.
  • Doors of Night, The Nazgûl are Abroad, and The Pits of Angband are in play at the end of the turn. The order of applying the effects does not matter because retrieving the Nazgûl using The Nazgûl are Abroad doesn't preclude retrieving the Dragon using The Pits of Angband.
  • If a company has a tapped character with Covetous Thoughts and an untapped character with Covetous Thoughts that would both make a corruption check at the end of the turn, the order does matter because the untapped character could support the tapped character's corruption check before they make their own check (which may remove them from play preventing them from supporting). However, supporting a corruption check is not an effect that was already in play. The Resource Player decides the order because the order does not matter when considering only the effects already in play. The Resource Player would also decide the order of corruption checks when 2 of his characters in the same company have Lure of Nature for similar reasons.

COMPLETE TIMING RULES:

The simplified rules should apply to any situation where one player is trying to play an effect to beat another effect, but they don't cover every possibility. Here is the complete list of timing rules for your enjoyment:
  • The MELE and METW rulesbooks, in section 10 · PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS of the Starter Rules, especially the subsection ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY.
  • The MELE and METW rulesbooks, in section 10 · PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS of the Standard Rules, especially the subsections on DICE ROLL TIMING and TIMING RULES.
  • The different timing examples in the METW Rulesbook and the MELE rulesbook (they have different examples), and the METW Companion and the MELE Companion.
  • The MELE Glossary on: Action, Chain of Effects, Condition Active, Condition Passive, Declaring an Action, Resolving an Action, and Targeting.
  • The Annotation to the rules found in the METW and MELE Companion books and the Collected Rulings File (CRF), including Annotation 1-4 on Targets, Annotations 5-8 on Active Conditions, Annotations 9, 9a and 10 on Passive Conditions, Annotation 24 on resolving actions within the same card, and Annotation 26 on resolving actions in play at the start of a movement/hazard phase where the order changes the net effect.
  • Also, the Legal Play of Cards section in the Council of Lorien tournament policy, and in the CRF tournament rulings.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat May 30, 2020 5:58 am, edited 13 times in total.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

Very nice work, just a few comments. :)

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:39 pm
1B. An effect that applies to a category of cards or effects when they come into play does not beat an earlier played effect applying to specific cards or effects already in play (whether in that category or not), unless the subsequent effect is an on-going cancellation effect that cancels a category including the earlier effect. Such effects still potentially work but they don't win the timing race. This simplified rule is based on the Passive Condition rules including Annotation 9.
  • Gandalf is moving to Mount Doom in Gorgoroth and he plays Test of Form, requiring a Sage, to test a Precious Gold Ring. In the Heart of His Realm cannot be played to beat Test of Form by removing Gandalf's sage skill because In the Heart of His Realm's sage skill removing effect applies to any current or future Sage that moves with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in their site path. Non-targeted effects do not beat specific target effects.
  • Gandalf is moving to Mount Doom in Gorgoroth and he plays Wizard's Test, a Spell, to test a Precious Gold Ring. In the Heart of His Realm CAN be played to beat Wizard's Test because even though In the Heart of His Realm's cancellation effect applies to any current or future Spells, this effect CANCELS spells played by characters moving with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in their site path. Cancellation beats other effects.
The card text of In The Heart of His Realm doesn't say cancel, so why are those two scenarios treated differently?

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:39 pm

2. If multiple effects already in play would happen at the same time, those effects are applied in the order that they were originally brought into play. This simplified rule is based on the the ICE rulings applying Annotation 26 to these situations.
  • Snowstorm is already in play and Smaug Ahunt is played later when a company reveals The Lonely Mountain as their new site at the start its Movement/Hazard phase. The order of applying Snowstorm and Smaug Ahunt matters because if Snowstorm is applied first then the company will be returned to its site of origin, immediately ending the Movement/Hazard phase before Smaug can attack. Since both of these effects were NOT already in play at the start of the Movement/Hazard phase, then Rule 2A does not apply. Therefore,Snowstorm is applied first because it was originally in play first. Meaning the Movement/Hazard phase will end before Smaug Ahunt attacks.
Snowstorm triggers and its action gets declared before Smaug Ahunt can even be played. But for 2A the pair makes a nice example for sure.


And just so people are aware, these simplified timing rules don't take into account CoE digests, which is why the second section isn't entirely applicaple as such for CoE tournaments. For them the below is in effect (Annotation 26 still applies for start of move/haz phase).
CoE Rulings Digest #51 wrote: *** The debate about how creature enhancing effects are combined is now at an end. This should answer all the "How many strikes does an undead get with all those events in play..." questions.
- The player who's turn it currently is (the resource player) gets to choose what order passive effects from hazards are applied. - The resource player may choose differently each time the situation applies.
For example, in the case of an undead attack where The Moon is Dead, Plague of Wights and Doors of Night are all in play, the resource player may choose to apply the doubling effect from Plague of Wights first before any strike adding effect is applied. Note this follow Annotation 10 which reads:
If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:34 pm
Very nice work, just a few comments. :)
Thank you for reviewing. I have updated the original post as noted below.

--------
miguel wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:34 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:39 pm
1B. An effect that applies to a category of cards or effects when they come into play does not beat an earlier played effect applying to specific cards or effects already in play (whether in that category or not), unless the subsequent effect is an on-going cancellation effect that cancels a category including the earlier effect. Such effects still potentially work but they don't win the timing race. This simplified rule is based on the Passive Condition rules including Annotation 9.
  • Gandalf is moving to Mount Doom in Gorgoroth and he plays Test of Form, requiring a Sage, to test a Precious Gold Ring. In the Heart of His Realm cannot be played to beat Test of Form by removing Gandalf's sage skill because In the Heart of His Realm's sage skill removing effect applies to any current or future Sage that moves with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in their site path. Non-targeted effects do not beat specific target effects.
  • Gandalf is moving to Mount Doom in Gorgoroth and he plays Wizard's Test, a Spell, to test a Precious Gold Ring. In the Heart of His Realm CAN be played to beat Wizard's Test because even though In the Heart of His Realm's cancellation effect applies to any current or future Spells, this effect CANCELS spells played by characters moving with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in their site path. Cancellation beats other effects.
The card text of In The Heart of His Realm doesn't say cancel, so why are those two scenarios treated differently?
In the Heart of His Realm doesn't say "cancellation" but it means cancellation -- it negates the conditions for Spells, Rituals, and Light enchantments from resolving. "No character can use___ Spells, Rituals, and Light enchantments" means those effects are cancelled. Just like "cannot be discarded" in Tookish blood means "cancels discarding effects" or "discarding effects are negated", same difference. Accordingly, such effects prevent other effects from resolving even without the need to target such effects (see rules and example below).

Removing the sage skill is an action that modifies an attribute of a card, just like how +1 prowess, +5 Direct Influence, or +1 corruption point are actions modifying card attributes. Modifying an attribute of a card requires targeting. This is different from negating the conditions of another action. Therefore, preventing Spells, Rituals, and Light enchantments from resolving can happen immediately while removing the sage skill would need to wait for the following chain of effects after the chain of effects in which In the Heart of His Realm resolved.

Image

Image

I recognize that there are CoE Netrep rulings on this issue. But the rules and example in the rules are clear. Also, its clear that the CoE Netrep's ruling on ItHohR is wrong because its rationale would prevent Bane of the Ithil-stone's effect from ever working. And it should be clear to all players that Bane of the Ithil-stone actually works. I've discussed this point further in the "URD Errors" thread.

----------------
miguel wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:34 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 19, 2020 9:39 pm

2. If multiple effects already in play would happen at the same time, those effects are applied in the order that they were originally brought into play. This simplified rule is based on the the ICE rulings applying Annotation 26 to these situations.
  • Snowstorm is already in play and Smaug Ahunt is played later when a company reveals The Lonely Mountain as their new site at the start its Movement/Hazard phase. The order of applying Snowstorm and Smaug Ahunt matters because if Snowstorm is applied first then the company will be returned to its site of origin, immediately ending the Movement/Hazard phase before Smaug can attack. Since both of these effects were NOT already in play at the start of the Movement/Hazard phase, then Rule 2A does not apply. Therefore,Snowstorm is applied first because it was originally in play first. Meaning the Movement/Hazard phase will end before Smaug Ahunt attacks.
Snowstorm triggers and its action gets declared before Smaug Ahunt can even be played. But for 2A the pair makes a nice example for sure.
I think the example is correct but it's not really an example of Rule 2 since both effects were not already in play. So I'm going to remove it. Thank you for your comment.

------------
miguel wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:34 pm
And just so people are aware, these simplified timing rules don't take into account CoE digests, which is why the second section isn't entirely applicable as such for CoE tournaments. For them the below is in effect (Annotation 26 still applies for start of move/haz phase).
CoE Rulings Digest #51 wrote: *** The debate about how creature enhancing effects are combined is now at an end. This should answer all the "How many strikes does an undead get with all those events in play..." questions.
- The player who's turn it currently is (the resource player) gets to choose what order passive effects from hazards are applied. - The resource player may choose differently each time the situation applies.
For example, in the case of an undead attack where The Moon is Dead, Plague of Wights and Doors of Night are all in play, the resource player may choose to apply the doubling effect from Plague of Wights first before any strike adding effect is applied. Note this follow Annotation 10 which reads:
If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
My simplified rules are based on ICE's rulings, not the CoE Ruling. Especially since the ruling from CoE Digest #51 was invalid under the contemporary CoE Charter because it was a modification to ICE's existing rules of play without assent of two thirds majority vote by the Council members. The ruling from CoE Digest #51 is also incongruous with the existing CoE charter. This is not a situation like CoE Errata 1 where the ICE rulings were explicitly laid out and then overturned by the CoE. From what I have seen, CoE Errata 1 on playing resources against the Automatic-attack is the only example of the CoE explicitly overturning the ICE rulings.

The ICE Netreps constantly and consistently governed any situation involving a different net effect using Annotation 26, regardless of whether the effects were triggered at the start of the Movement/Hazard phase or not. I recognize that Annotation 10 is maybe a better fitting rule compared to Annotation 26. However, Annotation 26 can legitimately be interpreted to cover these situations where 2 effects are triggered by the same passive condition that was NOT at the start of the M/H phase. Furthermore, I have read enough of the ICE Netreps rulings to recognize that he understood passive conditions and how to apply Annotations 9 and 10, and that he understood Annotation 26. Regardless of whether Annotation 26 in the METW Companion was originally intended to apply to such situations or not, over the following years ICE always decided that Annotation 26 governs instead of Annotation 10. Meaning, ICE always ruled that the Hazard player decides where the order matters, not the Resource player (per Annotation 10).

Historically, the ICE Netrep changed the rules many times based on how the game should be played. Whether or not Annotation 10 was originally intended to be used instead does not matter because it's clear from ICE rulings that the way to play the game is to have Annotation 26 govern such situations. ICE made the game and ICE stated that the hazard player should decide. I also recognize that Annotation 26 is the better rule, which is maybe why ICE Ruled this way. It just makes more sense for the hazard player to decide the order of applying Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead. Annotation 26 is also easier to understand and avoids intricacies of the timing rules. No clarification is the rules or CRF is needed because Annotation 26 is already in the CRF and rules and it has been interpreted to cover such situations.

I've also read enough CoE Netrep rulings to identify many CoE rulings that were ignorant the existing ICE rulings. Many CoE rulings also blatantly disregard simple rules that are clear in the rulesbook. So, the CoE interpretation was not my choice for these simplified rules. Here is a list of easy to identify errors in the CoE Netreps rulings: viewtopic.php?p=34989#p34989. I found many more when typing these up but there is only so much time.

Since it's clear that ICE's intended Annotation 26 to be interpreted in this way, and given that the CoE ruling is invalid, that is the way I went for the simplified rules.
Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
Here are a few ICE rulings deciding to apply Annotation 26 instead of ANnotaitn 10.

ICE Netrep Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien ruling that Annotation 26 governs the order of applying The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights:
ICE Netrep wrote:Question: When you have multiple hazard strike enhancers in play (permanently, with Will of Sauron) like The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights, which takes place first? This is important since the Plague doubles the attacks (which is even worse after you play Chill Douser).

Answer: If both are in play at the begining of the movement/hazard phase, the hazard player decides what order they take effect in. For the rest of the phase, effects are applied in the order they resolved.

------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien Remove spamblock to reply by email
Assistant Editor, Iron Crown Enterprises Me:CCG Official Netrep
http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod/ Alternate Official Me:CCG Website
------- "We shall pick up an existence by its frogs" -Fort -------
Subsequent ICE Netrep Van Norton also ruling that Annotation 26 governs the order of applying The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights:
ICE Digest 528 wrote: Question: If all three of these cards are in play: The Moon Is Dead, Doors Of Night, and Plague Of Wights; then Stirring Bones is played, in what order do the three cards take effect for the purpose of calculating strikes?

Player Comment: The other guy was partially right. At least, back in the day, if they were both in play at the beginning of the *phase* the hazard player chose the order. In any other case they were applied in the order they were resolved.

ICE Netrep Answer: Sounds good to me! The CRF under Turn Sequence - Movement/Hazard Phase - General - Annotation 26 says if at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase there are multiple effects in play such that there net effect depend on the order that they are applied, the
player who is not currently taking his turn (hazard player) decides the order in which they are applied. Once that is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
ICE Netrep Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien ruling that Annotation 26 governs the order of applying Dragon attacks from Ahunts and Roused factions:
ICE Digest 27 wrote: Question: When Dragon factions are out, and a player moves through their affected regions, in what order are events resolved? Does the dragon attack first, before anything else in the M/H phase, or do the hazard creatures played by the non-moving player come first, or does the hazard player have the option of choosing the order of play, as in "effects already in play at the start of the M/H phase?"

Answer: The attack from a Dragon faction counts as an effect already in play at the start of the M/H phase. Therefore, it is the first declared action in the first chain of effects after the new site has been revealed and cards have been drawn. If there are multiple such effects, the hazard player decides the order in which they resolve.
ICE Netrep Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien ruling that Annotation 26 governs the order of applying the CP doubling from The Balance of Things:
ICE Digest 53 wrote: Question: Suppose a character bears a 3-corruption point Palantir and no other items. If both The Roving Eye and The Balance of Things are in play (each of which would cause the corruption points of the Palantir to double), how many corruption points does the character have? 6? 9? 12? (Does it matter which hazard was played first?)

The Roving Eye would not cause the corruption to double. I am assuming you mean Bane of the Ithil-stone, which would double the CPs. In that case
it doesn't matter which was played first, he has 12 corruption points. Ouch. When the play would matter is with Rumor of the One, The Balance of Things and a character with only a 2 CP ring item. If they were both in play at the start of the movement/hazard phase the hazard player would decide the order they were applied in, otherwise they would be applied in the order they resolved. If Rumor of the One is applied first, the CPs would be 6, if Balance is applied first, the CPs would be 5.
ICE Netrep Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien ruling that Annotation 26 governs the order of applying The Black Enemies Wrath and Master of Shapes. ICE used Annotation 26 everywhere
ICE Digest 40 wrote:Question: Master of Shapes says that Radagast's prowess is only modified by -1 when not tapping to face a strike. How does this interact with Black Enemy's Wrath and other hazards that have their own penalty for not tapping?

Answer: The second one to resolve, unless they were both in play at the start of the movement/hazard phase, in which case the hazard
player determines the order in which to apply them
, the last on being applied taking effect.
I have never seen an ICE ruling where the Resource player gets to decide the order of applying effects when the order matters. So, it's clear to me that ICE decided that Annotation 26 should govern when "multiple effects already in play would happen at the same time" (as in my simplified rule), whether or not Annotation 26 was originally intended to be applied to such situations.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

I played at a time when ICE was still around, and while I wasn't internationally active back then, I played with people who were. ICE also had some sort of ambassador program, so one of the local guys was very close to ICE. We had tournaments quite often back then, and I can tell you that in none of the games I played, was the order for application of effects from cards like The Moon Is Dead and Plague of Wights ever verbally announced at the start of movement/hazard phases. Yet according to Annotation 26 it should have been, and again and again for every single movement/hazard phase in perpetuity. Only effects from cards like Snowstorm, that have an immediate impact, were dealt with according to Annotation 26 in our games. Instead for the other hazards where order of application made a difference, the hazard player chose the order when effects from those hazards became relevant.

So obviously our games weren't played exactly according to ICE rules, maybe that's on us or at least the main guys running tournaments here back then, but I completely understand taking the shortcut with hazards that have no immediate effect at the start of the movement/hazard phase. The Annotation 26 system can start feeling unnecessarily cumbersome, and I think it's just human nature to look for a better solution. On a side-note, ICE's system of using region cards for movement was especially cumbersome, and in my opinion cost them a lot of momentum early on and MeCCG would probably have been a much bigger success if they just had maps from the get-go.

Since I wasn't internationally active back then, I can't really say how well Annotation 26 was adhered to in games elsewhere in the world, but perhaps the earlier CoE rulings digests regarding The Moon Is Dead / Plague of Wights up until the change to use Annotation 10 are an indication of the way the game was played.
CoE weekly Rulings/Clarifications 11
11. How cards effect applies in the game? For example, I have {The Moon is Dead} and {Doors of Night} in the game and then next turn play {Plague of Wights} and play some hazard, for example {Stirring Bones} - the 9/- undead creature with 1 strike. So, it'll be 11/- with 6 strikes or 11/- with 5 strikes?
***The answer to your question is that, in general, the hazard player may choose the order of application of effects. If the order in which multiple hazard effects are applied affects the final result, the hazard player chooses the order.

Rulings Digest #49

I have both The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights in play plus Doors of Night. I play a Chill Douser. Do I get to add one strike first then double or double first then add one? Following the above, if the Chill Douser is not cancelled, subsequent
undead gets how many extra strikes? *** You wouldn't think that this would be too tough to answer, but the NetRep team has had a bit of a time digging through the rules to find the correct rulings and whatnot. We'll get you an official answer as soon as we have one.

Rulings Digest #50
I have both The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights in play plus Doors of Night. I play a Chill Douser. Do I get to add one strike first then double or double first then add one?
*** It's the hazard player's choice.

Rulings Digest #51
*** The debate about how creature enhancing effects are combined is now at an end. This should answer all the "How many strikes does an undead get with all those events in play..." questions.
- The player who's turn it currently is (the resource player) gets to choose what order passive effects from hazards are applied. - The resource player may choose differently each time the situation applies.
For example, in the case of an undead attack where The Moon is Dead, Plague of Wights and Doors of Night are all in play, the resource player may choose to apply the doubling effect from Plague of Wights first before any strike adding effect is applied. Note this follow Annotation 10 which reads:
If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
It looks like the way we played in Finland was also in use elsewhere, at least the US, UK and the Netherlands (the netrep team consisted of well established players from those countries), and probably in many more countries as well. As for why the change to use Annotation 10 happened, I wasn't in the team then so I don't know for sure, but I am familiar with how the team works and its inner guidelines, so I can certainly speculate. They probably realized that there isn't actually any rule to support the way people had been playing for years (letting the hazard player choose). They weren't able to issue any new rules to the game or change the existing ones back then, so they had to either apply Annotation 10 or strictly follow the cumbersome Annotation 26. They faced a catch-22, and I believe as far as the enjoyment of the game goes, the right call was made.

I would still much rather have the old way of doings things, letting the hazard player decide as it really does make more sense, which brings up an interesting point... We do have the means to change the rules now, through the CoE Issued Erratum, and perhaps this matter should go to the top of the to-do list! :idea:

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:24 am
I can tell you that in none of the games I played, was the order for application of effects from cards like The Moon Is Dead and Plague of Wights ever verbally announced at the start of movement/hazard phases. Yet according to Annotation 26 it should have been, and again and again for every single movement/hazard phase in perpetuity.
Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead doesn't have to be announced because it's obvious that the hazard player would choose the more punishing option. The best example where the Hazard Player might choose is the one given in the Companion: Fell Winter and Morgul Night are alternatives, one result not necessarily better than the other, and surely hazard players have chosen the order in this case.

Calling Annotation 26 cumbersome is unfair. I once tried to assign -1 prowess modifiers for excess strikes during the strike sequence according to the rules (playing Morgul Rats) but everyone plays that the -1s are assigned before resolving any strikes. I was told by a veteran that he has played thousands of games and no one has ever individually assigned -1 modified during the strike sequence. There are many aspects to the game that would be cumbersome if followed strictly: "Dear Resource player, would you like the begin the chain of effects or may I?"; "Dear Resource player, you may now assign the strikes"; "Dear Hazard player, would you like to play more hazards or can I end this M/H phase?" "Dear Hazard player, would you like to sideboard in my untap phase or may I continue?"
miguel wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:24 am
I would still much rather have the old way of doings things, letting the hazard player decide as it really does make more sense, which brings up an interesting point... We do have the means to change the rules now, through the CoE Issued Erratum, and perhaps this matter should go to the top of the to-do list! :idea:
That would be a good idea except: (A) ICE already ruled that Annotation 26 governs and (B) the CoE's 2019 Annual Rules Vote has been bombarded dozens of with completely bogus proposals that solve no gameplay issues or disuputes, and other questions that have already been decided by ICE long ago or that fail to understand the rules: viewtopic.php?f=68&t=4077

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:55 pm
Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead doesn't have to be announced because it's obvious that the hazard player would choose the more punishing option. The best example where the Hazard Player might choose is the one given in the Companion: Fell Winter and Morgul Night are alternatives, one result not necessarily better than the other, and surely hazard players have chosen the order in this case.
I guess you could always assume someone would choose a certain order, but then you're not following the rule anymore. And I did say that cards with an immediate impact (in this case Fell Winter / Morgul Night) we dealt with according to Annotation 26.

As for assigning excess strikes as -1 prowess modifiers, clearly your opponent wasn't following the rules. I know this behavior regarding excess strikes is widespread, but personally I always wait until each strike sequence to assign the modifiers. The more competitive the level of play gets, the more closely people are going to know the rules to take every advantage possible.

So what the exact rules are matters considerably less to casual players, than it does for competitive play. For that reason I believe we should look at the rules / any changes to them mostly from the perspective of competitive play.
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:55 pm
That would be a good idea except: (A) ICE already ruled that Annotation 26 governs...
Well, that's the whole purpose of CoE Issued Erratum. I mean, what else would it be good for? :wink:

MeCCG wasn't a finished product when ICE left the scene. They made many changes to the game over the years, and I have no reason to believe the changes would have stopped, had ICE not gone under. Especially The Balrog expansion never got the fixes it would have needed. Some other things have also come up in the last 20 years that ICE would certainly have responded to (e.g. Carambor 1-turn deck).

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:24 am
The Annotation 26 system can start feeling unnecessarily cumbersome, and I think it's just human nature to look for a better solution.
We are not looking at Annotation 26 in a vacuum. We are comparing it to Annotation 10, which is way more cumbersome than Annotation 26.

If you have never seen the Hazard player say "When I play undead creatures this phase, they'll get +1 strike and then their strikes will double, obvi"

Than surely you have never and will never see the Resource player say "I will let your undead creature card resolving, thereby creating an undead attack which will trigger the effects of both The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights as the first declared effects in the following chain of effects, and then I will set the order of declaration such that the effect of The Moon is Dead is declared first and the effect of Plague of Wights is declared second so that they will resolve in reverse order, doubling strikes first and then giving +1 strike."

But if you or anyone sees another player recite Annotation 10 to declare effects, please post let us know about it so that we can send for help and medical attention.

--------------------
miguel wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:18 pm
So what the exact rules are matters considerably less to casual players, than it does for competitive play. For that reason I believe we should look at the rules / any changes to them mostly from the perspective of competitive play.
There is no argument for Annotation 10 being better than Annotation 26 for competitive play, let alone casual play. And there is doubt whether Annotation 10 would be properly applied at high levels of competition -- doubt because if the players at a high level of play have such a great understanding of the rules, none of them have not bothered to lend us their understanding here as shown in the lack of their guidance in the 2018 and 2019 ARV posts. Perhaps they are sick and tired of bad apples. Regardless of the existing competitive players, at least ICE thought that Annotation 26 was better for ICE tournaments.

Update: Actually, I don't have to doubt whether the rules would be misapplied because the bunk Carambor Machine, which is clearly not viable under the rules, somehow passed muster at numerous "high level competitions" like Worlds.

--------------------
miguel wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:18 pm
MeCCG wasn't a finished product when ICE left the scene.
I'll have to go back and find it, but there is an old post from ICE Netrep Van Norton at "The End" in September 1999 or so, where he says something like "I'll still be around to providing rulings for the immediate future, but all MECCG questions are covered in the rules and CRF." And no one disagreed with him at the time.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:24 am
Some other things have also come up in the last 20 years that ICE would certainly have responded to (e.g. Carambor 1-turn deck).
I have looked at your rulings and seen a good understanding of the rules and common sense. Take a look at the Carambor 1-turn deck again and the rules and let me know if you still think it actually works.

If you carefully read the cards and then explain precisely how and when the effects are declared, and what their targets and conditions are according to the rules, you can see that it doesn't work like how people think it does. And it surely is not a 1-turn deck.

Posts by people that think the Carambor deck works: viewtopic.php?f=68&t=1701&hilit=carambor. Interesting how much I learned in a year since my last post there April 2019.

Update: Ha! Maybe I just put my foot in my mouth, originator? Or perpetrator?
Ringbearer wrote:
Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:05 pm
2nd: Ban Carambor.
This is the sole card that I refuse to play myself. It leads to a certain decktype that is such a huge negative play experience that its existence should not be tolerated. I know that the deck isnt foolproof but Mikko took it to worlds to show its strength and obliterated several top players with it. This card needs either an errata but more likely a ban.
Shocking that none of the top players in the world actually know the rules well enough to explain why the Carambor machine doesn't work. This actually blows my mind more than when I recognized certain bad apples.
Smaug wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:55 am
As always, was very hard to reach the Finals. In the last round I needed a 6-0 win against Joe. He was playing a carambor deck (very annoying, just sitting there for half an hour drawing cards and laying them on guard).

Heiner

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:52 pm
We are not looking at Annotation 26 in a vacuum. We are comparing it to Annotation 10, which is way more cumbersome than Annotation 26.

If you have never seen the Hazard player say "When I play undead creatures this phase, they'll get +1 strike and then their strikes will double, obvi"

Than surely you have never and will never see the Resource player say "I will let your undead creature card resolving, thereby creating an undead attack which will trigger the effects of both The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights as the first declared effects in the following chain of effects, and then I will set the order of declaration such that the effect of The Moon is Dead is declared first and the effect of Plague of Wights is declared second so that they will resolve in reverse order, doubling strikes first and then giving +1 strike."

...

There is no argument for Annotation 10 being better than Annotation 26 for competitive play, let alone casual play.
Agree to disagree? :lol:

The application of Annotation 26 vs. 10 in the case of The Moon Is Dead, Plague of Wights and an undead attack is similar in that there would always be a chain of effects. The only things that change are who decides the order of declaration, and whether it's done at the beginning of every single movement/hazard phaze when those two hazards are in play (busywork), or when it actually matters because there is an undead attack.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:17 pm
Shocking that none of the top players in the world actually know the rules well enough to explain why the Carambor machine doesn't work. This actually blows my mind more than when I recognized certain bad apples.
What you don't seem to be taking into account, is that these tournaments were governed by CoE, and CoE Rulings were the official interpretation in those tournaments. Whether or not a player agreed with them, is irrelevant. Also not all players are fluent in English, which is the official language of the game (even ICE's own translations to other languages are not always accurate).

On a personal note, I don't appreciate your style of calling out people and basically shitting on them, pardon my French. I have seen it in multiple threads now. Please stop. Discussing issues is fine, and you might be surprised by just how similar views we actually have on how the game should be played. I just fear your confrontational style and tendency to personify matters may get in the way of achieving things. What good is having the best ideas, if no one is willing to listen?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

I get the impression that certain players deliberately (or at least negligently) misinterpreted or ignored rules for their own gain, directly resulting in confusion and the harm of the player community. Also any criticism from me is towards players is not personal, they are the Public Faces of Middle-Earth CCG. These people have put themselves out in the player community of their own doing. They are the Netreps and the tournament winners. I have no criticism of these people personally, beyond the game. Most everyone who plays this game is nice and I would suspect they are too. However, it should be fair to criticize the Netrep for bunk rulings and failure to refer to ICE rulings, and it should be fair to criticize players at tournaments who win games based on misinterpretations of the rules that are not easy to track down in the middle of a game or tournament.
  • The ICE rulings were readily available online for years after The End. They were available on ICE's websites and on numerous fan websites. And they are still available now.
  • "Ctrl+F" text search functionality existed in 1999.
  • The CoE changes to the ICE rules everyone knew began only 2-3 years after The End. (Eg Mr. "No Cheese" ruled that Thrall let's you play Orcs and Trolls, when ICE cleared ruled that it doesn't.)
  • The CoE rulings never referenced or acknowledged the ICE rulings.
  • The people making the rulings were the top players.
Did certain players deliberately ignore the ICE rulings for competitive advantage? Or maybe they forgot or they thought they remembered? Regardless, numerous veterans online have stated their discontentment with the ruling situation. Also many average/normal players have mentioned getting strife for their own supposed lack of rules understanding from "top players". And pretty much everyone has stated their discontentment with the difficulty of the rules since 1996. The situation is worsened by the differences between the CoE rulings compared to the ICE age wisdom of local players.

I came to the community as a beginner. How I feel about the mess of rules and rulings is how hundreds of other beginners have felt. So forgive me if I'm frustrated because it seems like people deliberately thwarted efforts to maintain this game's player base just so they could win games at tournaments. And unfortunately other efforts to supposedly help beginners seem to be deliberately tainted and manipulated for personal preference.

It would be nice if beginners didn't have to feel like top players were surprising them with unknown rules. This is my effort here.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by Theo »

miguel wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:44 am
Discussing issues is fine, and you might be surprised by just how similar views we actually have on how the game should be played.
Here here! (and whole post)

Quite honestly, I feel as though perhaps half of the bitterness in discussions comes from a simple mismatch between what people are even trying to discuss, from the set of:
  1. how the game "is" played, or perhaps "rules as known"
  2. how the game "should" be played in terms of desired play experience
  3. how the game "should" be played in terms of consistently following rules as written
---
CDavis7M wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:39 pm
However, it should be fair to criticize the Netrep for bunk rulings and failure to refer to ICE rulings
Might I offer a softening of this? I am, rather, disappointed that the Netreps of Old or tournament officials didn't do more thorough research before making inconsistent rulings. But for organizers I get it, some ruling needs to be made immediately; one does their best. My bigger criticism is then not checking back over the decisions more thoroughly afterward.

But from the minimal exposure I get from reading the old lists, there also seemed to be a lack in the community of people challenging such an on-the-fly approach to handling things. There were some, but not enough. Then I remember that, after ICE, none of those involved were getting paid. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for double-checking these were presumably balanced with other life. That seems reasonable to me, just not my ideal.

Going back to my breakdown above; why should anyone care about the rulings following (3)? Tournament goers only needed to care about (1), and those that got frustrated with the meta-scene thought about (2), but (3) I only saw brought up when someone's friend got scared off from trying to learn to play. Why? (3) is work!

So rather than believing that Netreps were ruling based on how they wanted to win at tournaments; I optimistically imagine their motives to have been approximately a random sampling from the above three. And this seemed to work just fine until those of us that weren't in the tournament boat of (1) stuck around long enough to make a stink about the inconsistencies. Or rather, it's still working just fine; making a stink doesn't, itself, change anything but the local weather.

Is the ARV going to "solve" this stink? I can't foresee how, in its current form. At best it caters to the population motivated by (2) for progressives and (1) for entrenched conservative players. When the options are "pick something you like (1 or 2), even if its wrong" vs. "do the correct* thing (3, and only under that banner 2), but it'll cost you months of your life and an aneurysm" for an almost-entirely casual game, should we be surprised?
*: in my opinion

---

I had an idea for how to modularize the rules by representing ideas non-linearly---essentially a URD but better flexibility in being able to "turn off", e.g., CoE rulings or present only "Simplified Timing Rules" (that are more complicated than the original LIFO + revealing agents), as well as layer rules sources with modern, adaptable rules interpretations. But it's work. Even a linear URD seems uncertain.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

Except that the CoE's charter explicitly stated that they would uphold the ICE rulings and that they would vote on changes to the rules, and then the CoE Netrep never bothered to check or reference the ICE rulings and they made many inconsistent rulings without a vote. The ICE Digests were available on several well known fan websites at the time. Plus, the older CoE netrep was in direct correspondence with the ICE netrep for years. You can see their conversations on the newsgroup. The older CoE Netrep knew about the ICE rulings. I find it hard to believe that they could forget 2 years later. I get some people are supposedly providing a service to the community, but at least they should not act negligently to the detriment of the player base. Ctrl+F is below the bare minimum. Plus, I have yet to see a real gameplay issue (not a balance issue) decided by the CoE that was not already clear from the rules or decided by ICE.

Another problem is that there are many ICE age veterans that aren't following the CoE, who still playing by the ICE rules which are different from the CoE rules. The negligence of the CoE has segmented the community, seemingly deliberately. Which is why my frustration and discontentment is valid.

----------

Anyway, this is my post about the simplified timing rules. I'd appreciate anyone's input on them. But I have already explained why the CoE rulings on Plague of Wights are invalid per the CoE's own contemporary Charter and how they also against the ICE rulings.

I'm happy to start another thread to discuss CoE Netrep rulings: viewtopic.php?f=68&t=4170&p=35151#p35151

User avatar
kober
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:31 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by kober »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:38 am
The ICE Digests were available on several well known fan websites at the time.
Are the Digests available somewhere nowadays?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post by CDavis7M »

You can find a PDF of the ICE Digests (and the CoE Digests) at https://cardnum.net/rules labeled "Ichabod", "Gnome", and "Van". Ichabod is ICE Netrep Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien, the main ICE Netrep over the games development, the guy who wrote the player guides, and the guy that directed numerous ICE Tournaments, the guy that changed the rules overtime, the guy that created and maintained the CRF. "Gnome" and "Van" is Van Norton, the ICE Netrep that took over for Ichabod while he worked on the 2nd edition. You can see that Van defers to Ichabod. Some people on the net pretend that they know more about the rules than Ichabod. Also, Scott Frazer was an earlier ICE Netrep in the beginning.

You can click the links in the PDF to see other discussion. You can see certain people correspond with the ICE Netreps, asking questions and responding to discussions over several years. And then you can look in the CoE Digests and see how people completely forgot that an ICE Netrep existed only 3-4 years later.

The original CoE mailing list (the 2nd "original", apparently the 1st original died) used to be available online but it no longer is. However, I haven't seen anyone else mention it or care.

Post Reply

Return to “Decks, Strategy, Tips, Ideas”