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
CDavis7M
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:28 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:47 pm
Short-event can create triggerd actions. Greed does so.
They trigger is not passive condition.
With Greed, the character playing an item is the passive condition that triggers the modified corruption checks.

Why would Greed not establish a passive condition?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:05 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:12 am
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.
Joint action? What is that?

Even if these 2 sentences on Ready To His Will were combined into 1 sentence, the actions would resolve separately.

Either way, Ready To His Will is one card and all of its effects are resolved without interruption per Annotation 24. The creature would not be discarded during resolution of these effects.
Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is 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.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:09 am

Theo wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:23 pm
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.
I agree. The effects just resolve one after the other. Unless a trigger is defined, there is no active/passive condition. Most times, such conditions are not needed.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:17 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:28 am
With Greed, the character playing an item is the passive condition that triggers the modified corruption checks.

Why would Greed not establish a passive condition?
Playing an item at site is trigger of corruption checks.
The trigger is not stated by card in play.
So the (ccs) cannot be fizzled by removing Greed from active play by action declared in response, contrary from cc from Lure of Power that can be fizzled by removing Lure of Power from active play.
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:05 am
Joint action? What is that?

Even if these 2 sentences on Ready To His Will were combined into 1 sentence, the actions would resolve separately.

Either way, Ready To His Will is one card and all of its effects are resolved without interruption per Annotation 24. The creature would not be discarded during resolution of these effects.
Joint actions are executed simultaneously. Not in sequence, where another starts executing after previous ends its execution.

" The creature becomes an ally under the control of any character in the company that now taps. "
changes the result of cancelling of all creature's attacks, that would be normally a discarding the cfreature card.

Annotation 24 does not apply here.
No one states that something new may be declared in response to:
"All attacks of the creature are canceled."

Take A Malady without Healing.
If first cc will discard or eliminate the target character, then the following bc will not be performed.
1st cc, bc, and 2nd cc are not joint. They are executed in sequence, each next after completion of previous.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:07 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:17 am
Playing an item at site is trigger of corruption checks.
The trigger is not stated by card in play.
There is no rule that passive conditions require a card in play. An effect using passive conditions may be in play (eg until the end of the turn) even if the card that created that effect is not in play.

Presumably you were referring to this statement from the Annotations and CRF:
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
This statement is accurate of 99% of passive conditions. But this statement does NOT say that passive conditions are ONLY stated on cards in play. This descriptive statement does not say that triggered actions when the card is out of play are not passive conditions. Reading the entirety of the rules on Passive Conditions, it's clear that short events and creatures can also trigger actions by passive conditions when the card is not in play but it's effect is.
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play. Typical passive conditions involve forcing corruption checks and forcing the effects of environmental long-events. These are called passive conditions because the actions they satisfy come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by the player.
  • Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike sequence follow a different set of rules.
  • Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
  • Annotation 10: 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.
-------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:17 am
So the (ccs) cannot be fizzled by removing Greed from active play by action declared in response, contrary from cc from Lure of Power that can be fizzled by removing Lure of Power from active play.
Yes, the effect of greed has a set duration. Effects of long events are cancelled when the long event is discarded. The effects of short events are not cancelled in the same way. But both long and short events can establish a passive condition for triggering an action.

--------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:17 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:05 am
Joint action? What is that?

Even if these 2 sentences on Ready To His Will were combined into 1 sentence, the actions would resolve separately.

Either way, Ready To His Will is one card and all of its effects are resolved without interruption per Annotation 24. The creature would not be discarded during resolution of these effects.
Joint actions are executed simultaneously. Not in sequence, where another starts executing after previous ends its execution.

" The creature becomes an ally under the control of any character in the company that now taps. "
changes the result of cancelling of all creature's attacks, that would be normally a discarding the cfreature card.

Annotation 24 does not apply here.
No one states that something new may be declared in response to:
"All attacks of the creature are canceled."

Take A Malady without Healing.
If first cc will discard or eliminate the target character, then the following bc will not be performed.
1st cc, bc, and 2nd cc are not joint. They are executed in sequence, each next after completion of previous.
I see no basis in the rules for this interpretation of "joint actions". The rules only describe actions as being synonymous in certain situations. Actions on a card are not synonymous unless stated as such in the rule.

Annotation 24 says that the effects are implemented in order - not jointly.
Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is 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.
All actions created by events are implemented in order. There is no such thing as joint actions besides synonymous actions.

Annotation 24 applies to Ready to his Will. There is nothing in the rules allowing the creatures card to be discarded immediately upon cancellation of the creature's attack if it would be interrupting resolution of a card's effects.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3161
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 Oct 07, 2019 7:17 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:07 pm
Presumably you were referring to this statement from the Annotations and CRF:
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
This statement is accurate of 99% of passive conditions. But this statement does NOT say that passive conditions are ONLY stated on cards in play.
Or rather 99% of triggered actions is caused by passive conditions. For rest the passive conditions rules are not applicable.
Someone trying to apply passive conditions rules to them will discover (and/or deny) that some actions are working despite the same reason for which other does not work.
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:07 pm
But both long and short events can establish a passive condition for triggering an action.
Theorethically short-events can establish a passive condition for triggering an action.
But it will be short-living (unless the short-event is able to change a text of other card in play).
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:07 pm
Annotation 24 applies to Ready to his Will. There is nothing in the rules allowing the creatures card to be discarded immediately upon cancellation of the creature's attack if it would be interrupting resolution of a card's effects.
Which is both right and is meaningless.
Guess why.

If you think that result of action interrupts the chain of effects in which the action has been declared, then only one action, or doing nothing chains of effects are possible.
CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:07 pm
I see no basis in the rules for this interpretation of "joint actions".
Me too.
I say they exist anyway.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:42 pm

For Greed, Annotation 10 on passive conditions let's the resource player determine the order in which the characters take the corruption check.

If it were not a passive condition, then timing is unknown.

I see no issue with Greed or other cards using passive condition timing rules.

-----

I'd rather recognize that Greed establishes a passive condition and unserstand that descriptive statements are not restrictive rather than create a new idea (joint actions) to account for the discrepancy.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3161
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 Oct 07, 2019 2:59 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:42 pm
If it were not a passive condition, then timing is unknown.
Is unknown and interaction with other triggered actions is unknown.
It is matter of the following proposal:
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 145&t=3745
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:42 pm
I see no issue with Greed or other cards using passive condition timing rules.
I believe that you know:
CRF wrote:A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the
action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
and still you do not see the issue.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:42 pm
I'd rather recognize that Greed establishes a passive condition and unserstand that descriptive statements are not restrictive rather than create a new idea (joint actions) to account for the discrepancy.
Joint actions have nothing to do with triggered actions.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:13 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:59 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:42 pm
If it were not a passive condition, then timing is unknown.
Is unknown and interaction with other triggered actions is unknown.
It is matter of the following proposal:
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 145&t=3745
That thread discusses timing of the attack created by Ash Mountains and refers to another thread discussing Chill Douser and Uruk-lieutenant. These effects are implemented using passive conditions. The timing for passive conditions applies.

When the M/H phase begins, this is the passive condition for Ash Mountain's effect that triggers the attack.

When an Undead attack is created (in the same turn that Chill Douser was played), this is the passive condition that triggers the actions of +1 to strikes and +1 to prowess by Chill Douser's effect.

When an attack from Orc-Lieutenant is created (in the same turn that Uruk-Lieutenant was played), this is the passive condition that triggers the action of +3 to prowess by Uruk-Lieutenant's effect.

----------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:59 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:42 pm
I see no issue with Greed or other cards using passive condition timing rules.
I believe that you know:
CRF wrote:A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the
action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
and still you do not see the issue.
I see no issue in the RULES. This CRF clarification is not a rule and it is not intended to be one. The CRF clarifications just describe how the rules work in response to specific situations presented by Players (which are not provided in the CRF).

While this particular CRF clarification describes how passive conditions established by long and permanent events work (which have their effects canceled when they are removed from play), the CRF clarification does not accurately describe passive conditions created by Short Events and Creatures.

This CRF clarification on passive conditions is not the only misleading or situationally-incorrect statement in the CRF. Even the ICE Netrep has told players that the CRF clarifications are merely "secondary rules" and that the main rules need to be followed over the CRF (Digest 123).

Nothing in the Rules or the Annotations to the Rules indicate that short events and creatures cannot establish passive conditions for triggering actions (lasting until the end of the turn). And there is no requirement in the rules that short events or creatures still be in play for their lasting effects to trigger actions as a result of a passive condition. How could the short event or creature ever still in be play by the time that the passive condition is satisfied? It would never be able to happen. And so this clarification clearly doesn't apply to those situations.

CRF clarifications cannot create restrictions beyond the primary rules, nor were they intended to do so. A Player that doesn't understand the Rules can rely on the CRF clarifications 99% of the time. But when there is a conflict between the Rules and the CRF Clarifications the Player needs to think for themselves to identify the reason for the discrepancy. Presumably this CRF Clarification was made in response to a question about a long or permanent events.

The clarification "A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is cancelled" does not override the actual rules on Passive Conditions.

---------

This CRF Clarifications originated in CRF version 5 as:
A long or permanent-event (or other card) causing an action as a result of
a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the
action is cancelled. For example, you can play Twilight to discard Long
Winter before the effect of Long Winter causes your new site to tap. This
cancels this effect of Long Winter
From what I can see, Ash Mountains, Chill Douser, and Uruk-Lieutenant were not considered when making this statement.

Also interesting to note, the CRF v.6 modified the clarification and added another:
A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be
in play when the action resolves, or else the action is cancelled.

When something would be discarded by a passive condition, that
discard is considered simultaneous with the resolution of the the
One of these statements made it into the official rules annotations as Annotation 9a and the other statement didn't. Annotation 9a was actually a new rule, not a clarification, and so it was made into an Annotation. The other Clarification was already covered by the rules.

-------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:59 pm
Joint actions have nothing to do with triggered actions.
Right.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3161
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 Oct 07, 2019 7:02 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:13 pm
From what I can see, Ash Mountains, Chill Douser, and Uruk-Lieutenant were not considered when making this statement.
For this reason the proposal:
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 145&t=3745
has been created.

You can tree other approach - stating that:
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
is not accurate in 100%
A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
sometimes does not apply (does not apply to Ash Mountains's effect Chill Douser's effect, Uruk-Lieutenant's effect, Greed's effect).

What is moot point?
Whether to call Ash Mountains effect Chill Douser's effect, Uruk-Lieutenant's effect, Greed's effect the actions caused by passive condition and make exceptions for them?
Or whether to no call them the actions caused by passive condition and to state that their timing is the same as timing of actions caused by passive condition?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:11 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:02 pm
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
is not accurate in 100%
A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
sometimes does not apply (does not apply to Ash Mountains's effect Chill Douser's effect, Uruk-Lieutenant's effect, Greed's effect).
Right, but these are just clarifications. The rules are clear if the clarifications are not confused as being limitations on the rules:
Passive Conditions
  • A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
  • Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike sequence follow a different set of rules.
  • Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
  • Annotation 10: 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.
  • A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
----------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:02 pm
What is moot point?
Whether to call Ash Mountains effect Chill Douser's effect, Uruk-Lieutenant's effect, Greed's effect the actions caused by passive condition and make exceptions for them?
Or whether to no call them the actions caused by passive condition and to state that their timing is the same as timing of actions caused by passive condition?
If the CRF clarifications are misleading or inaccurate, they could be updated to reflect other situations. But that is different from making an exception for short-events and creatures.
Passive Conditions
  • A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card by an effect already in play.
  • A card An effect causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
This is not so different.

Or you could just remove these clarifications and instead refer directly to the rules that the clarifications were trying to clarify:
Passive Conditions
  • A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
  • Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike sequence follow a different set of rules.
  • Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
  • Annotation 10: 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.
  • A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
  • NOTE: The card and effects of a long-event remain in play until your next long-event phase or until otherwise discarded. The effects of a resource permanent-event last until the card is discarded (MELE p. 40 and 41).

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:27 am

Everything is possible.
Change a status of some texts from rule to clarification (or even do not change, consider it as clarification).
Remove the clarifications, that you consider as invalid.
You have the effect you want.

Bonus: you do not need long legislative procedure to do so.
In past NetRep Team practiced something similar: issuing the rulings that was contradicting with rules, but that were not erratas, but just rulings.
Everything happens in user mode, kernel is untouched (joke).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”