New to the game and have some questions.

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:34 pm
Bandobras Took wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:42 pm The corruption check of Nenya targets Galadriel, so you can't play it using your opponent's Galadriel.
I think the other reference Bandobras is going for is:
CRF wrote:A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Enitities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type. Note that "the foo" counts as specifying one "foo."
Does "Galadriel" count as specifying an entity "by number and type"? Eh...
If only it had been "The Galadriel". But this is probably implied. :roll:
These posts are misleading or wrong.

The issue is not the target of the corruption check made by Galadriels (yes, she is the target). If that was the issue, then only Galadriels CC would fail at declaration (lack of active condition because you cannot target opponent's character). But the automatically successful CC would still be able to be declared and resolved because you can target your own character.
MELE Glossary wrote:Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the "target" of the action. Some possible targets are: characters, corruption checks, strike dice rolls, items, sites, and companies. A card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets that entity. Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g .. Wake of War)
Here the action is playing a card. The target is Galadriel.
MELE Glossary wrote:Condition, Active: A prerequisite for an action actively made by a player. Typically this involves tapping a character, discarding an item. or having a character of a particular skill in play. Active conditions are declared and resolved with no time for response by an opponent or yourself.
CRF - Terms - Active Condition wrote: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.

Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources, but may not be the targets for your resources.
Instead, the issue is that the play of the Nenya card itself targets Galadriel (making the targeting an active condition of the action of playing the card). Here, the phrase "Galadriel only" is the active condition for playing Nenya. You can think of "Galadriel only", as used here, as equivalent to "Playable on Galadriel only."

You can tell that "Galadriel only" is the active condition for playing Nenya because it is not an action, nor is it describing some other action of the card or the rules. So, this statement can really only be an active condition or a keyword. It looks like a keyword, but in the earlier METW and METD cards, the "only" statements were used as active conditions. Typically active conditions are in bold italics and come after the keywords (unique often gets to be bold too).

"Galadriel only" cannot be a keyword because it would not be true if it was. If it was only a keyword and not an active condition, the automatically successful CC would be playable without Galadriel at all, and so the card would not really be "Galadriel only."

Events with active conditions will have a target for their playability active conditions. "Galadriel only" has no other conditions listed in this statement of active conditions. Some other active conditions have many more conditions. Like I said, you can think of this as equivalent to "Playable on Galadriel only." You can see that Vilya was originally "Elrond only" but when the card received errata, and when it was printed for the Challege decks, they used "Playable on Elrond only" instead.

So, Galadriel is not merely an active condition for playing Nenya, she is the Target for playing the Nenya. And so Nenya cannot be played using an opponent's Galadriel.

(see how Earth of Galariel's Orchard is merely an active condition for Mallorn but it is not the target of Mallorn)
DuncanNeeds2Shave
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:51 pm

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:50 pm Rank upon Rank by its text does not affect agent's attacks.
DuncanNeeds2Shave wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:46 pm For example, if Chill Them With fear is in play, and Golodhros attacks as an agent, does his attack receive +2 prowess and +2 strikes?
Yes.
So then for each of Golodhros' three strikes there would be made a separate 2d6 roll?
DuncanNeeds2Shave
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:51 pm

@CDavis7M

Everything you're just now explaining I thought was already understood.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

DuncanNeeds2Shave wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:37 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:50 pm Rank upon Rank by its text does not affect agent's attacks.
DuncanNeeds2Shave wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:46 pm For example, if Chill Them With fear is in play, and Golodhros attacks as an agent, does his attack receive +2 prowess and +2 strikes?
Yes.
So then for each of Golodhros' three strikes there would be made a separate 2d6 roll?
Yes.
Unless some effect limits the attack to "against the same character" (then any strike above 1 will be applied as -1 to defender's prowess); I do not know such effect applicable for agent.
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

DuncanNeeds2Shave wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:39 pm @CDavis7M

Everything you're just now explaining I thought was already understood.
From what I could see, the rule was understood (you can't use an Opponent's Galadriel) but the underlying reasoning was not.

There is a difference between the target of playing Nenya (which would prevent your Opponent's Galadriel from being used to play Nenya) and the target of the corruption check caused by Nenya (which would not prevent an Opponent's Galadriel from being used to play Nenya as long as there were other effects that still worked).
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:31 amInstead, the issue is that the play of the Nenya card itself targets Galadriel (making the targeting an active condition of the action of playing the card). Here, the phrase "Galadriel only" is the active condition for playing Nenya. You can think of "Galadriel only", as used here, as equivalent to "Playable on Galadriel only."
That's too much of an assumption. It's as least as valid to think of it as "Playable only if you have Galadriel in play."
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

I see no difference in this case. But at least "playable on a character" is a convention of this game. "Playable if some character is in play" is not a convention of this game.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

The difference is that active conditions do not have targets, since they are not actions, by definition. A card that is played on another card targets that card by rule. The argument is valid only so long as one assumes that Nenya is played on Galadriel.

As I said, I think that's too much of an assumption. There is at least one card that requires characters to be in play in order to be played: Await the Onset.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bandobras Took wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm As I said, I think that's too much of an assumption. There is at least one card that requires characters to be in play in order to be played: Await the Onset.
It also requires having the characters.

Alliance of Free Peoples requires a presence of some factions in play but does not require a having (controlling) them.

If not anything else then "Galadriel makes a corruption check..." targests Galadriel.
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

Bandobras Took wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm The difference is that active conditions do not have targets, since they are not actions, by definition.
This statement is so confused. Read the rules on active conditions and targets a few times.
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:46 pm If not anything else then "Galadriel makes a corruption check..." targests Galadriel.
Yes, Galadriel is the target of the corruption check action. And so the entity of Galadriel is the active condition for the corruption check.

But Galadriel is not the target of "Any one corruption check made by a character not in a Shadow-hold or Dark-hold is automatically successful." The corruption check itself is the target. Since this automatic-success action does not also have Galadriel as an active condition, then the card must have some other active condition targeting Galadriel in order to require Galadriel in order to play the card. And the card does have this playability requirement -- "Galadriel only." The playability conditions (Galadriel only) of Nenya targets Galadriel and so as the target, she becomes an active condition for playing the card.


Await the Onset has no active condition for the action of playing the card.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:59 pm Await the Onset has no active condition for the action of playing the card.
CRF wrote:An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is
declared.
Having something in play is example of former.
Contrary to the what "active condition" name may suggest a having something does not look especially active.
But you cannot declare Await the Onset without having some number of characters, factions, protected Wizardhavens, stage points.
And it will not be successfully played if at resolution you will not have them.
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:59 pm But Galadriel is not the target of "Any one corruption check made by a character not in a Shadow-hold or Dark-hold is automatically successful." The corruption check itself is the target.
Such interpretation is possible. This means that Nenya may be only played in response to cc.

Other interpretation is analogy to Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees.
Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees cancels all attacks of the next non-unique hazard creature.
So it makes operation on entity that may potentially exist in future.
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

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:59 pm Await the Onset has no active condition for the action of playing the card.
Looking at Await the Onset again, I realize that I was not looking at this same card before.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:07 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:59 pm But Galadriel is not the target of "Any one corruption check made by a character not in a Shadow-hold or Dark-hold is automatically successful." The corruption check itself is the target.
Such interpretation is possible. This means that Nenya may be only played in response to cc.
It means that the automatically successful corruption check can only happen in response to a corruption check. You can't play it up front and see what happens. If you do that you only get the attribute bonuses.

Nenya has other effects. Different effects can have different targets.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:07 pm Other interpretation is analogy to Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees.
Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees cancels all attacks of the next non-unique hazard creature.
So it makes operation on entity that may potentially exist in future.
For Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees - Attacks are first resolved and then they can be canceled. So the effect can be triggered by a passive condition.

How would Nenya's effect be triggered later? Would the corruption check declaration be the passive condition to trigger the automatic success? If so, the automatically successful action would be declared in the chain of effects after you already failed the check (or not).
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:15 pm How would Nenya's effect be triggered later?
"Any one corruption check..."

If the cc would be target then "Corruption check..." would be sufficient.
Nenya's effect could be use later, not triggered, just like Master of Esgarroth's effect can be used later, but is not triggered.
"Any one" may be read as "of your choice".
Adunaphel the Ringwraith can tap to cancel one hazard creature attack not played at a site against any one of your companies.
If in this case "any one" would not extend possible targets, then this ability would be limited to attack against Adunaphel's own company.
How many hazard creature attacks not played at a site may be faced by company at Darkhaven?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:59 pm
Bandobras Took wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm The difference is that active conditions do not have targets, since they are not actions, by definition.
This statement is so confused. Read the rules on active conditions and targets a few times.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy.

By definition:
Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions
A target is an entity that an action is played out through.
No action, no target.

Now kindly shut up.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Brandobras, instead of picking and choosing two line out of context, go back and read "Events" (MELE p. 40, 41) "Actions and Card Play" (MELE p. 50), "Timing Rules" (MELE, p. 69), and the Glossary on Action, Declaring an Action, Resolving an Action, Chain of Effects, Targeting, Active Condition, and Passive Condition (MELE 87-91). It's only a few pages but it is dense.

-----
Bandobras Took wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm The difference is that active conditions do not have targets, since they are not actions, by definition.
Bandobras Took wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:36 pm By definition:
Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions
A target is an entity that an action is played out through.
No action, no target.
Now kindly shut up.
By your statement -- an active condition of discarding a card does not target the discarded card :?:

Discarding Card_B is a typical active condition for some other Action_A of Card_A. If you can't choose Card_B for the discarding action to be played out through (i.e., target Card_B), how would Card_B ever be discarded?

It's clear that active conditions can have targets. Tapping a card, discarding a card, targeting a card -- these Active Condition activities are all actions. ALL active conditions either HAVE targets or ARE targets.

Also, Active conditions ARE actions except they are defined to not be actions for the purpose of declaring and resolving actions in a chain of effects. Instead, the Active Conditions for Action_A are declared and resolved immediately out side of the chain of effects containing Action_A. This enables the games to create a "cost" for an action while also providing last-in-first-out timing rules. Taking one action is often the "cost" for another action (i.e., the active condition for some other action).

Merely requiring presence of some card "in play" without targeting the card can be a condition, but it is not an active condition. This means that the "in play" condition is not declared and resolved immediately outside of the chain of effects like an active condition would be.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”