Icy Touch (errata + clarification)

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Sam.Gamdschie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

I think it's a bit tricky that we have to different effects on the card:
+1 prowess AND corruption

Only the last effect has the restrictions for corruption cards / effects.
Co-founder of the Hamburg Scenarios and Former Slave of Lure's Price Ceremonies
User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Ex Council Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Sam.Gamdschie wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:00 am I think it's a bit tricky that we have to different effects on the card:
+1 prowess AND corruption

Only the last effect has the restrictions for corruption cards / effects.
Right, any suggestion concerning the submission proposal?

==

Here's a new try. Would you be ok to combine both proposals into 1 submission or would you rather have them as two submissions?
Part 1: wrote: The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1. This modification is +2 or +3 if two or three cards are played on an attack, respectively.
Part 2: wrote: Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character). If a second or third card is in play, also the second or third character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receive 2 corruption points.
Discard any copy of Icy Touch that is not played with a character.

During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Khamul the Easterling wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:38 pm
Part 2: wrote:... If a second or third card is in play, also the second or third character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receive 2 corruption points. ...
I would not believe anyone misunderstanding how you want it to resolve, but I don't think this would actually resolve the way you want it to. One detail is that another character having an Icy Touch (even on another player's character) would count. O_o

How about a simpler:
Part 2: wrote:... Ignore characters that receive another Icy Touch when determining the "next character." ...
[Edit: removed extra "The"]
Last edited by Theo on Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Ex Council Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Theo wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:03 am
Khamul the Easterling wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:38 pm
Part 2: wrote:... If a second or third card is in play, also the second or third character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receive 2 corruption points. ...
I would not believe anyone misunderstanding how you want it to resolve, but I don't think this would actually resolve the way you want it to. One detail is that another character having an Icy Touch (even on another player's character) would count. O_o

How about a simpler:
Part 2: wrote:... The ignore characters that receive another Icy Touch when determining the "next character." ...
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're pointing at: What do you mean by "another character having an Icy touch would count"?
And "The ignore characters that receive..." is not clear to me.

Anyway, would this be more specific: ?
Part 2: wrote:Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character). If a second or third card is played with the attack, also the second or third character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receive 2 corruption points (place this card with the character).
Discard any copy of Icy Touch that is not played with a character.

During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Reading the text literally, one might conclude that each of three played Icy Touch cards should be ripped into three pieces to be able to place each on all three wounded characters. Or (if they think that ripping cards is abnormal), that each Icy Touch should follow their effects in order and be moved among the three characters to eventually end up with all three Icy Touches placed on the third wounded character. Or since permanent events placed with another card are not normally movable to new cards via their own effects (nod to Thrall of the Voice), all three would be placed on the first character and stay there.

(Meanwhile these kinds of approaches cannot solve the "placement is different from play" issue without something like this proposal.)
Khamul the Easterling wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:07 am And "The ignore characters that receive..." is not clear to me.
Sorry, I removed the extra "The" above. Does that clarify?
... Ignore characters that receive another Icy Touch when determining the "next character." ...
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

The "playing" vs "placing" of corruption cards is one issue. Probably better addressed in the other post: http://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewto ... 145&t=3703


The issue of multiple copies of Icy Touch is a different issue.
Icy Touch wrote:The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1.
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character). Discard Icy Touch if it is not played with a character. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.
CRF, Errata (Cards), Icy Touch wrote:If two of these are in play, they both trigger at the same time, and the second one is
discarded without effect.
This CRF statement is actually a complete sentence and it also describes how similar cards like Lure of Power and Traitor work, which also have similar CRF. This is explained in the ICE Digests below.

If 2 copies of Icy Touch are played on an attack (giving +2 prowess), and a character (on whom corruption was not played this turn) gets wounded, both copies will trigger (as a result of the passive wounding-condition) but only 1 copy will have effect (i.e., only 1 Icy Touch will be placed with the character, the other gets discarded). This failure of multiple effects is a consequence of the triggering of the passive condition and not a consequence of multiple corruption cards being played/placed with the same character.

As with Icy Touch, if 2 Traitors are in play and a corruption check is failed, both Traitors trigger (as a result of a passive condition) and will be discarded but only 1 has effect. If 2 Lure of Powers are in play and an influence check succeeds, then only 1 corruption check is made.

CRF rules on Passive Conditions:
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.
Now, the 3 ICE Digests:
ICE Digest 79 wrote:From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>If two Rivers are played on a site during the M/H phase, when the
>resource player decides to tap a ranger to satisfy ONE are they BOTH
>then satisfied? It would seem so, because the conditions for both were
>met simultaneously. Compare this to Lure of Power (multiples go away
>when one is checked) and Traitor (same thing.)


No, you have to tap two rangers.

>Second part of the question: What is the underlying rule/mechanism that
>causes secondary Lures and Traitors to go away like this, and if River
>is not the same, why not?


The underlying mechanism for Traitor is that it is an effect triggered
by a passive condition. Since they are not numerical effects that
could be done cumulatively, they are both discarded, and the effect
only applies once.

River is different. It is an effect (the company can't do anything)
that can be cancelled (by tapping a ranger). If two are having an
effect on play, they must be canceled individually, by tapping two
rangers
.
ICE Digest 80 wrote: >From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>To: me...@tower.ml.org
>Subject: Re: METW digest 79: River Revisited
>Message-ID: <354DEC...@popmail.vnet.net>
>
>I guess I don't understand the subtle semantics. Could you help me
>better understand? Consider the text of River:
>
>Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn
>does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase.
>
>(No mention of cumulative in the text.)


If it is assumed that in order to have a cumulative effect the card
must state it is cumulative, then two Fellowships would give a +1
to prowess. A card does not have to mention that it is cumulative
to have a cumulative effect.

Generally the opposite is true. If a card can't have a cumulative
effect on play, it will be unique or cannot be duplicated. Passive
conditions are a little different, since if there are two in play,
both will get triggered at the same time, for no extra effect. But
since River is a short-event, and not a card in play, it does not
work as a passive condition. Even if it did what would it be? "If
you tap a ranger, then you may do something during the site phase?"
But you can already do something during the site phase, so that
is meaningless.


>Order of play: my opponent plays two Rivers during the M/H phase. They
>are played and resolve seperately. They are short events, so once
>played they are discarded, they do not stay on the site (Wizard's
>Companion p 29) as a long event or permanent event would. The site now
>has a "memorized" condition, tap a ranger or you can't do anything here.
>Since there is no mention of a cumulative effect on River in its text
>the site shouldn't "remember" the need for two rangers to be tapped,
>only that "If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not
>tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase." If I tap a
>ranger, one ranger, that condition has been met. Since there is no
>mention of "cumulative" in River's text, he could play three on the site
>and it wouldn't matter: so long as I tapped a (singular) ranger I have
>met the "conditon" placed on the site.


This is all based on the fact that River doesn't say cumulative.
Since River is cumulative, the site should remember the need for
two rangers to be tapped.

And again, what river does is put an effect that you can't do
anything on a site. If you tap a ranger, it gets rid of the
effect. But if there are two such effects on the site, the
second one will still have an effect on play, until you tap
a second ranger
.
ICE Digest 81 wrote: From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>Ok, I follow you in that there is no "cumulative" text in the game; if
>two cards are not prohibited from being in play simultaneously then
>their effects are assumed to be cumulative. This still leaves the
>question of why Lure of Power is not cumulative?


Because that's the way passive conditions work. If two of the same
effect trigger at the same time, only one of them applies, but they
are both considered to have triggered for purposes of discarding
them.


>Traitors not having an effect I can see, mainly due to the resolution
>text on the card, but I still don't understand why a "duplicate" Traitor
>card goes away: why doesn't it wait for the next failed corruption
>check?


Because the next corruption check has already happened.
I'm still trying to work out how this all plays out. But I believe it hinges on the fact that the all 3 copies of Icy Touch are triggered by the same "next character wounded." But when the triggered actions are declared in the following chain of effects, the "next character wounded (next character wounded after the last character wounded)" can't be determined for the later copies because it hasn't happened yet.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:06 pm This CRF statement is actually a complete sentence and it also describes how similar cards like Lure of Power and Traitor work, which also have similar CRF. This is explained in the ICE Digests below.
Eventually I could agree that "next" may be only single entity (i.e. there is no 2nd, 3rd, an so on "next").
But single "next" my trigger actions from multiple copies of the same card already in play.
Placing one copy of the card on "next" may exclude placing of other copy of the card on the "next". Although the reason for which multiple corruption cards cannot be placed on the same character in the same turn did not exist at time of issuing "The Dragons".
Formally it still does not exist. https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 145&t=3703 did not passed voting yet.

However there is no reason for which next non-Hobbit character to make a successful influence attempt would not make multiple cc if multiple copies of Lure of Power are in play.
There is no reason for which next failed cc would not activate multiple attacks if multiple Traitors are in play.

The reasons must be added by errata.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:17 pm However there is no reason for which next non-Hobbit character to make a successful influence attempt would not make multiple cc if multiple copies of Lure of Power are in play.
Well, there is the CRF. And this statement is consistent with the explanation given in the Digest.
CRF - Card - Lure of Power wrote:
  • If two instances of Lure of Power are in play and are triggered, only force one check at -4, and both are discarded.
-------------------
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:17 pm There is no reason for which next failed cc would not activate multiple attacks if multiple Traitors are in play.
Traitor also has CRF. And it's also consistent with the explanation given in the Digest.
CRF Card - Traitor wrote:
  • Card Erratum: Replace the last paragraph with "This card is discarded when a character fails his corruption check."
  • Two instances in play of Traitor have no extra effect and are both discarded with the next failed corruption check.
----------------
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:17 pm The reasons must be added by errata.
What part of the rules conflicts with the CRF statements and the reasoning in the ICE Digest?

I'm not saying I'm completely on board with the Digest. But there have been several times where I was confused by the ICE Digest and then later agreed once I had a better understanding.

Lure of Power, Traitor, and Icy Touch all use the same "next character" language and all have similar CRF statements regarding the failure of duplicate copies to take effect.

I think there is a difference between "next character" and "any character." Compare to METD Black Breath:
Black Breath wrote:Corruption. Place with any wounded character in a company that just faced a Nazgûl attack; the character receives 3 corruption points. Target character makes a body check during each of his organization phases.
Whenever target character would normally heal, he instead makes a roll (or draws a #); if this result is greater than 10, he heals normally and this card is removed. This roll is modified by +2 if the character is at a Haven and by +2 for each sage in his company that taps in support.
3 copies of Black Breath could be in play and those copies could all be triggered by the same time. Multiple characters attacked by a nazgul could be wounded, and other characters could have already been wounded before the attack. When the 3 copies of Black Breath are declared, there could be 3 characters that are wounded and so all 3 copies can be placed.

By the reasoning in the Digest, presumably "any character" allows for cumulative effects while "next character" cannot have a cumulative effect (the character can only be the next character once).
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

An intention (how the card should work) is not a reason (for which the card should work in such way).

The cards was intended to work in some way, but nor their texts nor rules supported the intentions.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:45 pm The cards was intended to work in some way, but nor their texts nor rules supported the intentions.
Easy to say but hard (impossible?) to prove.

The ICE Digest says that is how the rules work. From what I have seen, the Rulings are almost never wrong, and they were corrected when they were. And here, it was 3 separate digests all on the same topic. There was plenty of time to reconsider.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Indeed, I think at this point overruling the CRF and allowing multiple to end on different characters should probably make it an errata, not a clarification.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Ex Council Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

How about making 2 proposals out of it?

First: Clarification
The prowess modification is cumulative if multiple copies of this card are played with an attack.
Second: Erratum:
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character). Any additional copies of this card played with the attack are then discarded. Discard Icy Touch if it is not played with a character. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.
(relevant part bolded)
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1.
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character). Any additional copies of this card played with the attack are then discarded. After attack discard Icy Touch if it is not placed on a character. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

It is not clear from the rules that when the passive condition is triggered for multiple copies that subsequent copies will not have a valid declaration and so will be discarded without effect. Most (all?) Players can only know this from the CRF and the digests above.
CRF wrote: If two of these are in play, they both trigger at the same time, and the second one is
discarded without effect.
But I think the CRF entry itself IS clear. It is clearly not describing the +1 to prowess as that is not "triggered." Only the card placing action is triggered.

If others are confused by the CRF, my inclination is to update the CRF.
Proposal wrote: If two of these are in play but have not yet been placed with a character, they both trigger at the same time when the next character is wounded, and the second one is discarded without implementing the card-placing effect.
-----
Previous Proposal wrote:"Any additional copies of this card played with the attack are then discarded
The previously proposed statement could be false in some cases.

Let me explain.
CRF Strike sequence wrote: There is time between the strike sequences to take actions that are otherwise legal.
MELE combat wrote:You and your opponent must play any cards that modify the number of strikes before you assign the strikes.
While there are restrictions on changing the strikes of an attack after the strike a have been assigned, there is no restriction on changing the prowess of an attack after strikes have been assigned. So Icy Touch can be played after strikes of the attack have resolved. (Or is there a rule that I'm missing?)

If that's the case, then 1 Icy Touch was played on the attack, and then it wounded a character, it would be placed with the character before the next strike resolves. So a 2nd copy of Icy Touch could be played on the attack after the 1st copy was placed with a wounded character and the 2nd copy would be able to be placed with a 2nd wounded character.

The issue of multiple copies only becomes an issue when they are all triggered at once by the same action that is the passive condition for all of them.

This change would seem to discard the first already placed copy. Or it would seem to make the 2nd copy not placeable. But 2 copies can work on the same attack as long as they are not triggered by the passive condition (wounding action) together.

-------

If we'd rather errata, here are some changes from Konrad's proposal
The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1.
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character). Any additional copies of this card played on the attack (that are triggered at the same time as a result of the next character being wounded) are discarded. After the attack, discard Icy Touch if it is not placed on a character. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.
Consequences: none. It is still the case that if two of these are in play, they both trigger at the same time, and the second one is
discarded without effect (CRF).
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Yes to the logic, except the CON is that it wouldn't actually fit on the eventual reprint of the card. ;) I'd prefer Konrad's underlines on the card, and implementing CDavis7M's "Any additional copies of this card played on the attack (that are triggered at the same time as a result of the next character being wounded) are discarded." in a CRF clarification revision.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”