Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:21 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:58 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:
I agree. Passive Conditions establish one action as the cause (trigger) for another action. One action referencing another action in the same chain of effects does not establish a passive condition.
It was not me.

P.S.
I think that I know what causes this misquoting error. I will report it in respective sub-forum.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Theo » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:41 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:58 pm
Theo wrote:If I put on my shoes and then I go outside, it does not mean that putting on my shoes caused me to go outside.
Thrall tells you to go outside once you put on shoes. There's no other way to go outside using Thrall.
This again implies that you believe that a later effect in a series of effects has the passive condition that the previous effect resolved. I do not see this supported in the rules. Rather, series of effects are declared in the reverse order from how they are written in the same chain of effects, with each resolving after the other has resolved because they were declared in series, not because of passive conditions triggering one after the other.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:35 pm

@ Theo: Not quite. I believe that an action that is impossible to take without a previous action, both of which are declared and resolved after the card is already in play, constitute a passive condition.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:02 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:35 pm
@ Theo: Not quite. I believe that an action that is impossible to take without a previous action, both of which are declared and resolved after the card is already in play, constitute a passive condition.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:39 pm
Repeating this doesn't make it true.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Theo » Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:44 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:35 pm
@ Theo: Not quite. I believe that an action that is impossible to take without a previous action, both of which are declared and resolved after the card is already in play, constitute a passive condition.
Ok, so there is more specificity. But I don't think this is any less problematic.
Saruman wrote:At the beginning of each of his end‐of‐turn phases, he may tap to take one ʺspellʺ card from his discard pile and return it to his hand.
If I understand your belief correctly, the returning to hand action would occur in a separate chain of effects after the chain of effects in which the take action occurred. This would mean a Saruman player could take a card in response to playing Sacrifice of Form and then in the following chain of effects the card would no longer be able to be returned to hand. It would just remain in a taken state indefinitely.

Wizard's Staff would additionally allow a Wizard to return a Wizard's Test to hand and then play it (in the "next" chain of effects) before having to make the corruption check for having returned it.

I suspect there are other cards that would be similarly affected.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:52 pm

I believe the "and" there indicates the two are considered a single action. This is in contrast to Thrall. If Thrall stated, "Play X and place this card with X," I would be more inclined to consider it a single action, and therefore for it to be impossible to place multiples with one character.

I see no particular problem with that interpretation of Wizard's Staff. The corruption check is caused by the spell-grabbing action. An action that causes another action to take place is the definition of a passive condition.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Theo » Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:56 pm

How about this one?
PALANTÍR OF ANNÚMINAS wrote:Unique. Palantír. With its bearer able to use a Palantír, tap Palantír of Annúminas to search through your play deck and discard pile for a ʺsage onlyʺ card. Put this card in your hand. Reshuffle your play deck. Bearer makes a corruption check.
If I understand your opinion correctly, the reshuffling occurs in a new chain of effects, in response to which I can play a Dark Tryst and draw whichever 3 cards I left on the top of my deck during the search.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:46 pm

That would be an implication of such, yes. Doesn't seem too bad for a four-card combo that removes one of the cards from the game.

The alternative, that each of these is declared as its own action, results in the following:

1) Declare Corruption Check.
2) Declare shuffling.
3) Declare putting currently nonexistent card in hand.
4) Declare searching through play deck and discard for Sage Only card.

The problem comes in step three. That one clearly relies on step 4 having been performed (and completed) first. Otherwise, the theoretical target doesn't exist yet, so the action can't be declared.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:39 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:46 pm
That would be an implication of such, yes. Doesn't seem too bad for a four-card combo that removes one of the cards from the game.

The alternative, that each of these is declared as its own action, results in the following:

1) Declare Corruption Check.
2) Declare shuffling.
3) Declare putting currently nonexistent card in hand.
4) Declare searching through play deck and discard for Sage Only card.

The problem comes in step three. That one clearly relies on step 4 having been performed (and completed) first. Otherwise, the theoretical target doesn't exist yet, so the action can't be declared.
Your action (3) actually CAN be declared. The declared action is more like: "Declare putting chosen card in your hand"

There is no rule requiring the target "sage only" card to exist at declaration. The only rule that is close is Annotation 8. But Annotation 8 doesn't apply to all targets, only targets that are in play and can be specified at declaration. If Annotation 8 applied to targets that could not be specified at declaration, how could the requirements of Annotation 8 ever be met?

Clearly a "sage only" card in your play deck or discard pile is not in play at declaration of the Palantir effect. Furthermore, the target cannot be established until the player has made a choice. Therefore, the chosen Sage only card is not subject to Annotation 8. There is no general rule that all targets are active conditions at both declaration and resolution.
Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved. An action may not be declared if its target is not in play. However, dice-rolling actions may always be targeted by other actions declared later in the same chain of effects.
Here is how the Palantir's effect would resolve:
  • Declare corruption check.
  • Declare reshuffle.
  • Declare putting chosen card in your hand (targeting of chosen card is not active conditions).
  • Declare choosing a "sage only" card.
  • Declare Searching play deck and discard pile (resolve active condition of tapping of the Palantir).
  • Search play deck.
  • Choose a sage only card.
  • Put chosen card in your hand (targets the card, which was unknown at declaration).
  • Reshuffle.
  • Roll the corruption check.
As shown, the chosen card is only established as the target at resolution. Therefore, it doesn't need to be specified at declaration. Annotation 8 does not require it to be specified. There is no rule requiring the Sage Only card to be specified at declaration.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Theo » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:42 am

Why would declaring the multiple effects in reverse from "actively engaging" an ability on a card already in play be any more or less prone to problems than from playing a card? E.g.:
All Thought Bent Upon It ‐ Short-event wrote:Sage only. Playable during the site phase on an untapped sage at a site where Information is playable. Tap the sage and the site. Search your play deck and choose a item you must reveal to your opponent. Place the item in your hand and reshuffle your play deck. The sage makes a corruption check.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:49 pm

Declare putting chosen card in your hand (targeting of chosen card is not active conditions).
An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved. An action may not be declared if its target is not in play.
You can't target the chosen card because because there isn't one. There hasn't even been a declaration that a card is going to be chosen, and if there were, that still isn't legal. The choosing action has to complete before you can declare a put to hand action.

:roll:

@ Theo: I'm not sure what you're trying to say, there. A Short-Event's effects are immediately implemented, per rule. The Short-Event is then discarded. There's no real way for them to establish a passive condition, as the card doesn't remain in play. If All Thought is unplayable due to ICE's wording and rules, it joins a host of other cards. But I don't think it helps in understanding passive conditions.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:19 pm

Short events can create passive conditions. Like, The Evenstar and anything saying "each/all" for the rest of the turn. Uruk Lieutenant also establishes a passive condition.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:47 pm

Short-event can create triggerd actions. Greed does so.
They trigger is not passive condition.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Theo » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:23 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:49 pm
@ Theo: I'm not sure what you're trying to say, there. A Short-Event's effects are immediately implemented, per rule. The Short-Event is then discarded. There's no real way for them to establish a passive condition, as the card doesn't remain in play. If All Thought is unplayable due to ICE's wording and rules, it joins a host of other cards. But I don't think it helps in understanding passive conditions.
I thought you were saying that the alternative to passive conditions would be problematic as an argument for why passive conditions were needed. I was pointing out that if passive conditions weren't being used one would instead be left with the normal notions of resolving multiple effects when a card is played. (Your description of the effects being declared in reverse order relied on this parallel, otherwise there is no grounds for the order reversal.) Passive conditions are no more needed for actively declared effects of cards already in play than they are for short event card play; in short: they aren't needed.
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!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:12 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:46 pm
That would be an implication of such, yes. Doesn't seem too bad for a four-card combo that removes one of the cards from the game.

The alternative, that each of these is declared as its own action, results in the following:

1) Declare Corruption Check.
2) Declare shuffling.
3) Declare putting currently nonexistent card in hand.
4) Declare searching through play deck and discard for Sage Only card.

The problem comes in step three. That one clearly relies on step 4 having been performed (and completed) first. Otherwise, the theoretical target doesn't exist yet, so the action can't be declared.
I do not see a consistency in methods of notation of joint and separate actions.
Ready to His Will wrote:Playable on an Orc, Troll, Giant, Slayer, or Man hazard creature with one strike for each of its attacks. All attacks of the creature are canceled. The creature becomes an ally under the control of any character in the company that now taps. It has a mind of 1, 1 ally , prowess equal to its normal prowess minus 7, and a body equal to 8. Place this card with the creature.
If:

"All attacks of the creature are canceled."
" The creature becomes an ally under the control of any character in the company that now taps. "

would be separate, then after executing the first action there would be no creature in play that would become an ally.
The actions need to be joint to work sensibly.
The same for (4) and (3) in your example.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”