What is the context for this? This is not a clarification, this completely changes the RAW.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:44 pmCRF, Rulings by Term, Timing wrote:The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.
Playing a card with Crown of Flowers that targets a character
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Context is Marvels Told.
If the actions should resolve in the order:
Marvels Told (card),
Discarding of event,
CC performed by sage.
they must be declared in order:
CC performed by sage,
Discarding of event,
Marvels Told (card).
If the actions should resolve in the order:
Marvels Told (card),
Discarding of event,
CC performed by sage.
they must be declared in order:
CC performed by sage,
Discarding of event,
Marvels Told (card).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm
I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood this rule:
"If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed." URD
The reason for the sentence in bold, which you quoted, is to harmonise with the basic RAW. Actions are resolved in the reverse order to declaration, yes, but not really. When you resolve the actions on a card you always do so in the order they appear on the card. They are considered to have been declared in the reverse order to which they appear on the card, in order to be legally resolved in the order in which they appear (i.e. in reverse order to which they were considered to have been declared). The actions are actually always declared (and can be challenged) and resolved in the order they appear on the card.
"If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed." URD
The reason for the sentence in bold, which you quoted, is to harmonise with the basic RAW. Actions are resolved in the reverse order to declaration, yes, but not really. When you resolve the actions on a card you always do so in the order they appear on the card. They are considered to have been declared in the reverse order to which they appear on the card, in order to be legally resolved in the order in which they appear (i.e. in reverse order to which they were considered to have been declared). The actions are actually always declared (and can be challenged) and resolved in the order they appear on the card.
Last edited by Yangtze2000 on Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Hopefully you read what you are writing yourself.
OK.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:04 pm They are considered to have been declared in the reverse order to which they appear on the card, in order to be legally resolved in the order in which they appear (i.e. in reverse order to which they were considered to have been declared).
Not OK.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The corruption check of Marvels Told is declared, targeting Bilbo, a Sage. Wrong order. The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is declared last. The cards in a chain are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on each card are resolved in the order in which they appear (p.30 The Wizard's Rulesbook).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm
I think you took out my colours Let me fix it. My comments are in green. The black text is an erroneous statement by CDavis7M:
Ok now?Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:10 pmNot OK.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The corruption check of Marvels Told is declared, targeting Bilbo, a Sage. Wrong order. The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is declared last. The cards in a chain are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on each card are resolved in the order in which they appear (p.30 The Wizard's Rulesbook).
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
No.
The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is declared last.
is wrong.
The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is first declared action.
would be correct.
The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is declared last.
is wrong.
The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is first declared action.
would be correct.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm
This is incorrect. Please read again:
"If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed." URD
Actions on a card are always declared in the order in which they are listed on the card. Cards are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on those cards are resolved in the order in which they are listed. However, they are considered to have been declared in the reverse order to which they appear on the card, in order to be legally (according to the RAW) resolved in the order in which they appear.
In effect, and quite simply, actions are always declared and resolved in the order in which they appear on the card. The cards themselves are resolved in reverse order.
In effect, when your opponent challenges your action, they challenge the entire card, not specific actions within it: "no actions may be declared to occur between those multiple actions".
"If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed." URD
Actions on a card are always declared in the order in which they are listed on the card. Cards are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on those cards are resolved in the order in which they are listed. However, they are considered to have been declared in the reverse order to which they appear on the card, in order to be legally (according to the RAW) resolved in the order in which they appear.
In effect, and quite simply, actions are always declared and resolved in the order in which they appear on the card. The cards themselves are resolved in reverse order.
In effect, when your opponent challenges your action, they challenge the entire card, not specific actions within it: "no actions may be declared to occur between those multiple actions".
Right, I understood your argument, that's why I was able to explain why it was wrong. If you were able to explain your position using the terms and phrasing of the rules you'd see why it was wrong.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm Not using the words you would prefer does not negate my argument, and besides, you understood my meaning, hence my phrasing is perfectly adequate. And nothing you have highlighted negates my argument.
Cards do NOT trump the rules. There is no such rule that states this. The rules allow actions to be taken and cards may also allow actions to be taken. Some cards and rules prohibit actions from being taken and those actions cannot be taken even if another card allows that same action to be taken. If the rules or a card prohibits a particular action from being taken, another card can allow that action to be taken by specifically referencing the restrictions.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The cards trump the rules, and I have explained exactly how it might be argued, in this case, that the card trumps the rules.
Hobbits can be played with A Chance Meeting because it references Hobbits restriction on their card, but We Have Come to Kill doesn't and so it can't. Thrall of the Voice allows a Fallen Wizard to play a 6-mind character because it references the mind restriction, but A Chance Meeting doesn't and so it can't.
Regardless, whether or not cards trump the rules or not is not even relevant to this this particular situation because there is no "rule" prohibiting this. This is a matter of (A) the fact that Fireworks must be played on a Sage and Crown of Flowers is not a Sage and (B) someone wanting to take the action of moving Crown of Flowers where the rules and card do not allow it.
Good catch but that isn't really relevant to the point. Any corruption check triggered by any permanent event is sufficient.
Wrong. Marvels Told is not "playable on Lure of Nature." Therefore, the action of playing Marvels Told has no target. Of course, I am understanding that when you say "Marvels Told has a target" you really mean "the action of playing Marvels Told" because Marvels Told is a card, not an action. Cards don't have targets, actions have targets.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm Marvels Told is declared, in response. The action of playing Marvels Told has no target. No, Marvels Told clearly has a target: Lure of Nature.
If you read my following post I already explained Annotation 24. But that was not relevant to my post and it doesn't make sense to describe a corruption check first out of context, and so I didnt. We were discussing negating targets by other actions, in which case it was irrelevant whether the corruption check was declared before or action the discarding action.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The corruption check of Marvels Told is declared, targeting Bilbo, a Sage. Wrong order. The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is declared last. The cards in a chain are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on each card are resolved in the order in which they appear (p.30 The Wizard's Rulesbook).
Same as above. It is irrelevant whether the discarding action is declared before or action the CC action since they are both actions of Marvels Told. The issue being discussion is the resolution of other cards negating one of the effects of Marvels Told.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The discarding action is declared, targeting Lure of Nature. Wrong order. The discarding and tapping of Bilbo action will happen first, when Marvels Told is declared, two paragraphs above, unless the opponent declares an action before it resolves.
First of all, I never said "Bilbo tapping is an action." Actions that satisfy active conditions might otherwise be actions, but when they are satisfying active conditions they are defined not to be actions by the rules I posted above. Read them.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The active condition is that the sage taps. And so Bilbo taps, satisfying the condition. Bilbo tapping and discarding Lure of Nature can only realistically be viewed as one action. If the opponent doesn't want this to happen then they have to declare another action designed to thwart it before it resolves. Either Bilbo taps and Lure is discarded, or the opponent declares another action in the chain, in which case neither Bilbo taps nor Lure discards, yet.
Also, you appear to be completely missing the the rules on active conditions based on your statement: "Either Bilbo taps and Lure is discarded, or the opponent declares another action in the chain, in which case neither Bilbo taps nor Lure discards, yet." Read Annotation 5: "If an action requires an entity to tap as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be untapped when the action is declared; else, the action may not be declared." A Sage is required to tap as a condition for MT's discarding action, therefore Bilbo is tapped when declaring MT in the chain of effects, before anything else is declared. Therefore, there would never be any case that "neither Bilbo taps."
Again, the Sage is not the target of the action of playing Marvels Told because Marvels Told is not "playable on a Sage." This is a clear design choice and other cards are similarly designed. Marvels Told is played in the play area, it is not played on the Sage. Marvels Told has 2 actions each with their own different target.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The conditions for the action of playing Marvels Told are verified. The only condition is that it must be the player's turn since Marvels Told is a resource. It is the players turn. The action of playing Marvels Told resolves. No, Marvels Told does not resolve any of its actions. It is negated because it no longer has a target. This very example is given on p.41 of The Wizards Rulesbook.
By your reasoning, your actual opponent would be the target of An Untimely Whisper and you would play the card on your opponent. That makes no sense.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This has been the case since 1995.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:47 pmWhat is the context for this? This is not a clarification, this completely changes the RAW.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:44 pmCRF, Rulings by Term, Timing wrote:The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.
If actions required by the play of a card are resolved in the order they appear, they must necessarily have been declared in the reverse order.METW Limited wrote:The actions in a chain of effects are resolved one at a time from last declared to first declared (i.e., the last declared action is resolved first, then the second to the last, etc.).
If the play of a card requires other actions (e.g., corruption checks), the actions are resolved in the order in which they appear on the card.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm
No Bilbo does not tap until the card is resolved, and the card cannot be resolved until cards higher up the chain of events have been resolved.
I didn't say it was. I said quite clearly that Lure of Nature was Marvels' target.
No, honestly, this has been the case since 1995:
"If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed." URD (my emphasis)
Actions on a card are always declared in the order in which they are listed on the card. Cards are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on those cards are resolved in the order in which they are listed. However, they are considered to have been declared in the reverse order to which they appear on the card, in order to be legally (according to the RAW) resolved in the order in which they appear.
In effect, and quite simply, actions are always declared and resolved in the order in which they appear on the card. The cards themselves are resolved in reverse order.
In effect, when your opponent challenges your action, they challenge the entire card, not specific actions within it: "no actions may be declared to occur between those multiple actions".
I will help you. Read Annotation 5 and then explain what you said again. And if you have the Companion or the CRF, or even the URD, read all of the Annotations in one go. And maybe read the rules I copied for you above since they further explain why tapping Bilbo doesn't wait until resolution (HINT: meeting an active condition is defined to not be an action, and so it is not declared and resolved in the chain of effects).Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:20 pmNo Bilbo does not tap until the card is resolved, and the card cannot be resolved until cards higher up the chain of events have been resolved.
Annotation 5: If an action requires an entity to tap as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be untapped when the action is declared; else, the action may not be declared. Tap the entity at this point; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration, i.e., it is not a separate action. When it comes time to resolve the action in its chain of effects, that entity must still be in play and tapped or the action is canceled.
How can Bilbo not be tapped until resolution if Bilbo's tapped status is checked before the action can resolve?
The statement you quoted is from 1996, not 1995. And it is not a rule, it is an annotation to the 1995 METW Limited rule I quoted. It does say "considered" but whatever it says, it definitely doesn't say "Actions on a card are always declared in the order in which they are listed on the card" as you've asserted. Perhaps actions are "considered" declared because actions (besides the action of playing a card) are only ever resolved--they are never truly declared by any (sane) player.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:20 pm No, honestly, this has been the case since 1995:
"If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed." URD (my emphasis)
And if you are quoting from the URD as your source maybe that is the root issue.
This is incorrect. Your opponent can negate a single action of a card without negating the entire card. Your opponent does so by playing a card, thereby declaring actions, AFTER your card has been declared completely, not in between declarations.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:20 pm In effect, when your opponent challenges your action, they challenge the entire card, not specific actions within it: "no actions may be declared to occur between those multiple actions".
Because you quoted Annotation 24 as support for your conclusion, you appear to be missing the point of Annotation 24 as well. An opponent challenging your actions is irrelevant to Annotation 24. Instead, it is describing you yourself attempting to declare actions in the middle of your own card's actions (e.g., declaring an untapping action using a card, cram or AFHH, or whatever, in the middle of the declarations of Rescue Prisoners such that your character is untapped after the attack and before they need to tap). Annotation 24 prohibits the cram/rescue prisoners example.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm
Let me quote from the URD in reference to Annotations 5 and 6:
Editor’s Note: Apparently, the NetRep team was going through a phase where they assumed that active conditions serve as the price of card play only. This is an official ruling, but is highly suspect, especially since if you discard the Wizard as an active condition, then there is no longer an attack against the Wizard’s company when the card resolves, and it fizzles itself.
Annotations 5 and 6 are disputed, but beyond that, are clearly bonkers. If you insist on playing by them, that's your prerogative, but I won't play by them, and nor will any 'sane' player imo.
Editor’s Note: Apparently, the NetRep team was going through a phase where they assumed that active conditions serve as the price of card play only. This is an official ruling, but is highly suspect, especially since if you discard the Wizard as an active condition, then there is no longer an attack against the Wizard’s company when the card resolves, and it fizzles itself.
Annotations 5 and 6 are disputed, but beyond that, are clearly bonkers. If you insist on playing by them, that's your prerogative, but I won't play by them, and nor will any 'sane' player imo.
Yes it does. Read it again....it definitely doesn't say "Actions on a card are always declared in the order in which they are listed on the card" as you've asserted.
No one is disputing that active conditions are satisfied at declaration (eg a sage is tapped at declaration of Marvels Told). CoE 110 and the URD Editor are disputing whether discarding the Wizard is an active condition of playing Sacrifice of Form.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:08 pm Let me quote from the URD in reference to Annotations 5 and 6:
Editor’s Note: Apparently, the NetRep team was going through a phase where they assumed that active conditions serve as the price of card play only. This is an official ruling, but is highly suspect, especially since if you discard the Wizard as an active condition, then there is no longer an attack against the Wizard’s company when the card resolves, and it fizzles itself.
Annotations 5 and 6 are disputed, but beyond that, are clearly bonkers. If you insist on playing by them, that's your prerogative, but I won't play by them, and nor will any 'sane' player imo.
Annotations 5 and 6 are not disputed. Who do you think the "Editor" of the URD is? Who do you think the "NetRep" team is? Who do you think wrote Annotations 5 and 6?
The Editor of the URD found several inconsistencies with Active Conditions. Do you know what point the Editor of the URD was missing? The point that explains the apparent contradictions in the Active Condition rules?
Regardless, the ICE Netrep spells out Annotation 5 in this example here:
Active conditions are satisfied at declaration.ICE Netrep Craig Ichabod O'Brien wrote:From: ich...@cstone.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: METW: Timing Questions
Date: 1996/08/22
[regarding Daelomin at Home/Marvels Told]
>In other words, if somebody puts it into play shouldn't the opponent have
>the opportunity to cancel it before it is tapped? Otherwise, you are
>dealing with a verbal race to see who can say their part first.
There is no verbal race. If it is your turn you always have the option
of declaring the first action in a chain of effects. So after your
opponent plays DaH on you, you get to play Marvels Told before they
can do anything. Unfortunately in this case it is irrelevant who goes
first. If you go first:
1. Declare Marvels Told, tap sage.
2. Declare DaH, discard DaH.
3. Resolve DaH, increase hazard limit.
4. Resolve Marvels Told, target gone.
-------------------
I went a read it again. It says "all of these actions are to be RESOLVED in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card." This statement doesn't say that actions are DECLARED in the order they are listed, it says the actions are RESOLVED in the order they are listed.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:08 pmYes it does. Read it again....it definitely doesn't say "Actions on a card are always declared in the order in which they are listed on the card" as you've asserted.
It also says "The actions listed on the card are considered to have been DECLARED in the reverse order as they are printed." This says the actions are considered to have been declared in REVERSE order. It doesn't say the actions were actually declared in not-reverse order.
What would be the point of having a rule stating that the declaration of actions are actually declared in order but are "considered" to have been declared in reverse order?
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm
Correct. But that's less than half of the statement.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:29 pm I went a read it again. It says "all of these actions are to be RESOLVED in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card." This statement doesn't say that actions are DECLARED in the order they are listed, it says the actions are RESOLVED in the order they are listed.
(I bet the OP is glad they asked this question! )
Are you honestly going to stand by this statement?...CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:29 pmIt also says "The actions listed on the card are considered to have been DECLARED in the reverse order as they are printed." This says the actions are considered to have been declared in REVERSE order. It doesn't say the actions were actually declared in not-reverse order.
You've emphasised the wrong bit (twice) and ignored the important part of this sentence here: "...are CONSIDERED to have been declared in the reverse order..." Why 'CONSIDERED' to have been? Because they actually weren't!, as per the rules. They're just 'CONSIDERED' to have been. Which means it's now legal for them to be resolved in the order listed on the card, and the clarification is harmonised with the RAW.
It's absolutely clear that our positions on this are cemented and that no further discussion will be fruitful. You're relying on Annotations 5 and 6, which I refuse to recognise because they're cumbersome, clanky, janky, counter-intuitive, brain-melty, unwieldy, turn the game into a hot mess, and will lead to all kinds of nonsense. IMO the rule quoted above, and again below, in the URD is sufficient and clear:
If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card is itself resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card’s chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.
It would be interesting to hear other viewpoints, if anyone else has been following along?
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Underline mine.Yangtze2000 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:02 am You've emphasised the wrong bit (twice) and ignored the important part of this sentence here: "...are CONSIDERED to have been declared in the reverse order..." Why 'CONSIDERED' to have been? Because they actually weren't!, as per the rules. They're just 'CONSIDERED' to have been. Which means it's now legal for them to be resolved in the order listed on the card, and the clarification is harmonised with the RAW.
Now I am curious how to target CC caused by Marvels Told (e.g. by New Friendship) if it is not actually declared at the point when Marvels told is declared.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.