Old to the game and have some questions

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:20 am

Continuing from: New to the game and have some questions.

----------------
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. 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.
-------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:46 pm
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.

--------------------
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.
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.
--------------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:07 pm
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.

--------------------
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:15 pm
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).
------------------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:29 am
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?

-----------------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:36 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.
---------------------------
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:15 pm
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.
---------------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:15 pm
By your statement -- an active condition of discarding a card does not target the discarded card
I would say so.
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:15 pm
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?
You can choose Card_B (if there are multiple eligible) to discarding as condition of Action_A.
Without associated babble [for the discarding action to be played out through (i.e., target Card_B)].
If something is target of Action_A it must be present both at declaration and at resolution of Action_A.
If something must be both discarded at declaration of Action_A and is target of Action_A then you have a recipe for defunct Action_A (mission impossible).
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:15 pm
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.
It's clear that you are not trying (even briefly) to check what sense make the things you are writing, before posting them.
-----------------------
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:04 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pm
an active condition of discarding a card does not target the discarded card
I would say so.
That's just incorrect. There is no way to perform any action without a target.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:15 pm
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?
You can choose Card_B (if there are multiple eligible) to discarding as condition of Action_A.
Without associated babble [for the discarding action to be played out through (i.e., target Card_B)].
I guess you didn't go back and read the sections that I mentioned. Otherwise you would have noticed the official "babble" on targeting.

Image

Image

If Card_B is discarded by a discarding Action_B, then Card_B IS the target of the discard Action_B. This is true whether the discarding action is an active condition of another action or if the discarding action is declared and resolved in the chain of effects.

This is a basic principle of the game. This is it is incorrect to say "discarding a card does not target the discarded card."
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pm
(1) If something is target of Action_A it must be present both at declaration and at resolution of Action_A.
(2) If something must be both discarded at declaration of Action_A and is target of Action_A then you have a recipe for defunct Action_A (mission impossible).
You must be referring to Annotation 8. But you are missing an important detail from the Annotations on Active Conditions that will explain your "mission impossible." Just read it a couple times. Let me know if you notice an important detail.

HINT: check the list of sections that I posted.Even Brandobras knows it
--------------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:15 pm
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.

By your statement -- an active condition of discarding a card does not target the discarded card :?:
Exactly.
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?
Discarding is not an action. It is an active condition. You choose the card to be discarded by the active condition by . . . choosing the card. It is not a target.
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.
No.
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.
I'll even go further:
Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).
Spell. Wizard only. All Nazgul events are discarded
Wizard's River Horses, explicitly, by rule, discards events without targeting them.

Targeting is not required to affect any entity in the game. An action which affects an in-game entity likely targets it, according to the restrictions on targeting. But active conditions are explicitly not actions.
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.
No. They are prerequisites for actions. The definition for actions explicitly says they are not actions by noting the key difference.
Merely requiring presence of some card "in play" without targeting the card can be a condition, but it is not an active condition.
CRF, Active Conditions wrote:An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared.
The requirement that a card be in play most assuredly is an active condition. Or we can just go to the definition of a 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.
Please stop making up rules. Active conditions are specifically stated not to be actions in the definition of Action. Having a particular card in play is listed as an example of an active condition. Cards can be affected without being targeted.
-----------------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:00 pm
Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out.

This means as along it is not known what is "entity through which a card or effect will be played out", it is not known what is Targeting. And vice versa.

If someone is seeing everywhere entities through which a card or effect will be played out, he is seeing everywhere targets.
If each entity associated with action (tapped, discarded at declaration) is perceived as entity through which a card or effect will be played out, each will be considered a target.

Someone may not care that conditions "discard X at declaration" and "X must be present both at declaration and at resolution" cannot be reconciled. Maybe seldom ask himself about purpose in game of some terms.

-------------------------

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:12 pm
With how you guys understand the rules its no wonder you guys see so many issues in the cards.

There is consistency. Try to find it. You can do it!
-----------------------
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:12 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:.
If each entity associated with action (tapped, discarded at declaration) is perceived as entity through which a card or effect will be played out, each will be considered a target.


Only the one that gets tapped or discarded is THE target. Of course, there maybe be more than one valid target.
Konrad Klar wrote:.
conditions "discard X at declaration" and "X must be present both at declaration and at resolution".
They can be reconciled. Don't summarize. Read the Glossary on Active Conditions and the CRF Annotations on Active Conditions again.

--------------------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:58 am
Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.
Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.
Reconcile away. There isn't much reconciliation there that I can see.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:35 am

Is it not a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt for so small a thing?
MELE Starter Rules - 10 Playing and Drawing Cards - Events wrote:
EVENTS

There are both resource events and hazard events. Each event falls into one of three classifications
based upon how long it stays in play.

Short-event – A short-event’s effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: “until the end of the turn”).

Permanent-event – The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded. Certain effects can cause a permanent-event to be discarded; these effects are given in the text of specific cards.

If one of your companies splits into 2 or more companies, you may place any resource permanent events that were on the original company (as a whole) with any of the resulting companies.

Long-event – The effects of a long-event are immediately implemented when it is played. Long-events last approximately two turns, one of yours and one of your opponent’s.

You may only play a resource long-event during your long-event phase. Its card and effects remain in play until your next long-event phase or until otherwise discarded.

You may only play a hazard long-event during your opponent’s movement/hazard phase. Its card and effects remain in play until your opponent’s next long-event phase or until otherwise discarded.
MELE, ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY, starter wrote:
ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY

The various activities that you and your opponent can perform during play are called actions. Typical actions include playing a card, making a corruption check, revealing a card, etc. The following general guidelines apply to resolving actions: more detailed guidelines can be found on pages 69-70.
  • You must give your opponent a chance to respond to every action, and vice versa. If you perform an action and move on to another action without giving your opponent a chance to respond, you must "back up" if he indicates that he wants to respond. A series of declared actions made in response to one another is called a "chain of effects." You always have the option of declaring the first action in a chain of effects during your tum. 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.
  • A required or declared dice roll is an action and can be the target of another action or effect declared later in the same chain of effects. Otherwise, a card cannot be targeted until it resolves.
  • When the effects of a dice roll require further actions (e.g., a roll for a strike requires a body check), those actions become the first actions (any further rolls come first) in the next chain of effects after the roll.
MELE Standard Rules - 10 Playing and Drawing Cards - Timing wrote:
TIMING RULES

You and your opponent may both want to perform actions at the same time or actions that are sequenced with respect to other actions. This can happen during your movement/hazard phase (or during your site phase if your opponent has a card on-guard). Such actions often include playing a card, tapping a character already in play, and revealing an on-guard card.

Your opponent may always declare an action in response before your action is resolved. Then, you may respond to his action, and he can respond to your second action, and so on until neither player can (or wants to) perform an action.

You must give your opponent a chance to respond to every action, and vice versa. If you perform an action and move on to another action without giving your opponent a chance to respond, you must "backup" if he indicates that he wants to respond.

Such a series of declared actions is called a chain of effects. You always have the option of declaring the first action in a chain of effects during your turn. 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.).

You may follow one of your declared actions with another of your declared actions in the same chain of effects, so long as you give your opponent a chance to respond to your first action. An action in a chain of effects is negated if the conditions required to perform it are negated by another action that is resolved before it in the chain of effects.

Creature hazards may not be played in response to other actions. They must always start a chain of effects.
MELE Glossary wrote:
GLOSSARY
  • Action: Any activity in the game (card play, a corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses, etc.). Each action is not immediately resolved when it is declared. An opponent and yourself have the opportunity to declare other actions in response. Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions -- they are declared and resolve immediately.
  • 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 an entity. Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).
  • Chain of Effects: A series of actions declared in response to one another before any of them resolve. Actions in a chain of effects are resolved in the reverse order from which they were declared (last in, first out).
  • Declaring an Action: Stating an action is being played, though the actual effects of the action are not implemented until both players have had the chance to respond with the declaration of other actions. Each time you play a card, you are declaring an action. Actions triggered by passive conditions are declared as the first action following the chain of effects which produced the passive condition.
  • Resolving an Action: Carrying out the actual effect on the game of an action. Multiple actions are resolved in a chain of effects in the opposite order they are declared.
  • 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.
  • Condition, Passive: An action that causes another action to take effect. The triggered action will be the first declared action in the chain of effects immediately following the chain of effects that contained the passive condition.
Annotations from the Companion book wrote:
TARGETS

An action that is played out through one or more specific entities as stated on a card or in the rules is considered to "target" the entities. A targeted entity is said to be a "target" of the action. Possible targets include characters, sites, companies regions, items, factions, corruption checks, and combat dice-rolls. A card that acts on a class of entities, however, does not target them (e.g., Foul Fumes).
  • Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions declared in the same chain of effects. An exception to this is a dice-rolling action; e.g., a corruption check.
  • Annotation 2: A corruption check or any dice-rolling action can be targeted in the chain of effects during which it was declared.
  • Annotation 3: Long-events and certain other cards do not have targets because they are not played out through one specific entity, i.e., they generally affect an entire class of things.
  • Annotation 4: An action may not target a face-down card nor any element of a face down card. Face down cards include unrevealed new site cards and on-guard cards.
ACTIONS AND ACTIVE AND PASSIVE CONDITIONS

There are two types of conditions for actions in MECCG: active and passive.

An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Typical active conditions are tapping a card and discarding a card. For example, Magic Ring of Stealth can cancel a strike against its bearer if two particular active conditions are met: the bearer must be a scout and Magic Ring of Stealth must tap. These are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions to the player invoking the action. In the case of Magic Ring of Stealth, the player cancelling the strike must have provided a scout and he must tap the ring, which renders the ring unable to be used again until his next turn.
  • 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.
  • Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.
  • Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.
  • 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.
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.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:52 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:58 am
Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.
Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.
Reconcile away. There isn't much reconciliation there that I can see.
I'll wait and see if Konrad has any other thoughts.

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:06 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:29 am
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?
I disagree. Nenya's effect could not be used later without some active/passive condition to trigger it. Active conditions ARE the means by which the player can trigger another action.

With Master of Esgaroth, the ending of the first M/H phase is the passive condition that triggers the 2nd movement/hazard phase (it can take a second movement/hazard phase immediately following its first movement/hazard phase).

With Adunaphel, the tapping of Adunaphel is the action condition that triggers the cancellation of an attack. (she may tap to cancel one hazard creature attack).

The phase "any one" has nothing to do with the triggering. It just limits the target of the action to "one" target.

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:25 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pm
Discarding is not an action. It is an active condition. You choose the card to be discarded by the active condition by . . . choosing the card. It is not a target.
.

Discarding is an action. An action is "Any activity in the game" (MELE, Glossary, Action). Discarding is an activity in the game. In some cases, the action of discarding is defined to be an active condition for another action. Active conditions are declared and resolved outside of a chain of effects while all other actions are declared and resolved inside a chain of effects. So, in cases where discarding is an active condition, it is defined not to be an action for purposes of resolving a chain of effects. But it is still an action.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pm
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.
No.
No? Why not? Targeting is "Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out." (MELE, glossary, targeting. Tapping a character targets the character because the character is the entity through which the tapping is played out (moving a card 90 degrees to a sideways position) (MELE, glossary, tapped).
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pm
I'll even go further:
Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).
Spell. Wizard only. All Nazgul events are discarded
Wizard's River Horses, explicitly, by rule, discards events without targeting them.
The action of playing Wake of War does not target a specific entity. But when the "+1 prowess" action is triggered by the creation of a Spider attack, the Spider attack is definitely the target of the "+1 prowess" action.

Similarly, the action of playing Wizard's River Horses does not target a Nazgul event (it is not "playable on" a Nazgul event). And the effect of "All Nazgul events are discarded" does not target specific Nazgul events. But the action individual discarding actions for each individual Nazgul event does target the Nazgul.
[/quote]
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pm
Targeting is not required to affect any entity in the game. An action which affects an in-game entity likely targets it, according to the restrictions on targeting. But active conditions are explicitly not actions.
Active conditions are actions but are defined to not be actions for purposes of declaring and resolving a chain of effects. This is clear because the same actions that are active conditions are used elsewhere without being active conditions.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pm
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.
No. They are prerequisites for actions. The definition for actions explicitly says they are not actions by noting the key difference.
They are both prerequisites and actions and defined-as-not-actions. An active condition is an ACTION that is a prerequisite for another action.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pm
Merely requiring presence of some card "in play" without targeting the card can be a condition, but it is not an active condition.
CRF, Active Conditions wrote:An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared.
The requirement that a card be in play most assuredly is an active condition. Or we can just go to the definition of a 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.
I'll admit, my statement was a little sloppy because there are 2 tiers of active conditions but the rules do not provide 2 different terms to differentiate between them. Discarding and tapping active conditions are different from "other" active conditions (having cards in play, in your hand, etc). So while a card being "in play" is an active condition, it is more like a "playability condition", a subset of "active conditions."
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pm
Please stop making up rules. Active conditions are specifically stated not to be actions in the definition of Action. Having a particular card in play is listed as an example of an active condition. Cards can be affected without being targeted.
Anything that happens in the game is an action and all actions that affect cards have targets.

Active conditions are only defined to not be actions for purposes of declaring and resolving a chain of effects.

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:33 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:00 pm
Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out.

This means as along it is not known what is "entity through which a card or effect will be played out", it is not known what is Targeting. And vice versa.

If someone is seeing everywhere entities through which a card or effect will be played out, he is seeing everywhere targets.
If each entity associated with action (tapped, discarded at declaration) is perceived as entity through which a card or effect will be played out, each will be considered a target.

Someone may not care that conditions "discard X at declaration" and "X must be present both at declaration and at resolution" cannot be reconciled. Maybe seldom ask himself about purpose in game of some terms.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:58 am
Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.
Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.
Reconcile away. There isn't much reconciliation there that I can see.

Context plays a very important role in understanding the rules. When you read all of the the Annotations on Active Conditions as a whole, the rules become clear and cards work as intended.
ACTIONS AND ACTIVE AND PASSIVE CONDITIONS

There are two types of conditions for actions in METW: active and passive.

An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Typical active conditions are taping a card and discarding a card. For example, Magic Ring of Stealth can cancel a strike against its bearer if two particular active conditions are met: the bearer must be a scout and Magic Ring of Stealth must tap. These are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions to the player invoking the action. In the case of Magic Ring of Stealth, the player cancelling the strike must have provided a scout and he must tap the ring, which renders the ring unable to be used again until his next turn.
  • 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.
  • Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.
  • Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.
  • 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.
Active conditions (which are prerequisites for another action) that require tapping or discarding an entity are declared and resolved immediately upon declaration of the other action. Tapping is checked at resolution. "Other" (besides tapping and discarding) active conditions are checked at resolution (also outside of the chain of effects). For instance, the target is confirmed again at resolution.

When an active condition is a "target," the target itself is the active condition. The conditions (e.g., untapped, having ___, at a ___ site, etc) for selecting an appropriate target are NOT active conditions themselves. Only the target has to be in place at declaration and resolution. The conditions for targeting the target have to be met at declaration. But the conditions for selecting the target do not have to be met again at resolution because the target has already been established.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:09 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:13 pm
Not to derail further but:
Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent.
Tapping the sage/site are clearly active conditions of declaring the search the deck action. That means they have to tap before resolution, but Far-sight needs an untapped sage/site at resolution for card play. :)
This is not correct. Far-sight does NOT need an untapped sage and an untapped site at RESOLUTION of Far-sight, it only needs them at DECLARATION. Resolution of Far-sight only needs a Sage character. This is because the site is not the target of playing Far-sight and the "untapped-ness" of the Sage is merely a condition for targeting the Sage (where Targeting IS the active condition) and is not an active condition itself.

Yes, tapping the sage/site are clearly active conditions of declaring the search the deck action. But these are not active conditions for the action of PLAYING Far-sight.

------------
Far-sight wrote:Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where "Information" is playable. Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent. This item is placed in your hand and the play deck is reshuffled. The sage makes a corruption check.
Here is how Far-sight is played in order, showing actions both inside and outside of the chain of effects. Actions occurring INSIDE the chain of effects will be bulleted. Actions occurring OUTSIDE of the chain of effects will have a * and will not be bulleted.

CHAIN OF EFFECTS:

(Declaration of Far-sight)
  • DECLARE action of playing Far-sight (move the card from your hand to the play area)
*At declaration, you need to establish the TARGET (Annotation 8 ). The target is a sage character. "Sage only" means "playable on a sage" and so the targeted Sage is the only active condition for playing Far-sight. Being at an untapped site where information is playable is merely a condition for selecting the target sage. The site is not a target (Far-sight is not "playable on" a site) and so it is not an active condition.
  • DECLARE corruption check by TARGET sage
  • DECLARE place chosen item in hand
  • DECLARE reveal chosen item to opponent
  • DECLARE choose item from play deck
  • DECLARE "tap the sage and the site" (ACTIVE CONDITION) to search play deck for item
*When declaring "search play deck", resolve the ACTIVE CONDITIONS for the searching action: (1) Tap TARGET character and (2) Tap the site that TARGET character is at.

Now all of the actions are declared and we can proceed to resolution.

*At resolution of Far-sight, confirm the TARGET (the sage character). The target of playing Far-sight must be in play when the action of playing far-sight is resolved (Annotation 8 ). If the sage character is not in play, resolution will fail here.
*You do NOT check for an untapped sage or an untapped site at resolution of Far-sight. These conditions are NOT active conditions for playing Far-sight.
  • RESOLVE search play deck for item (having active conditions of tapping the sage and the site)
*When it comes time to resolve the searching action, the Sage entity and the site entity must still be in play and tapped or the action can't resolve (Annotation 5). So check that the sage and site are still tapped BEFORE resolving this action. Again, there is no requirement to confirm that the site or the sage is untapped.
  • RESOLVE search play deck for item
  • RESOLVE choose item from play deck
  • RESOLVE reveal chosen item to opponent
  • RESOLVE place chosen item in hand
  • RESOLVE corruption check by TARGET sage
  • play of Far-sight is RESOLVED

As shown above, you CAN reconcile the Annotations on Active Conditions. But it is dense and you must actually read all of the words. You must determine each of the separate actions and determine which active conditions correspond to which actions. And then you must determine what needs to be established at resolution (and what doesn't).

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:40 pm

Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions -- they are declared and resolve immediately.
When the rules state that a couple of activities in the game are not actions, that does, in fact, mean they are not actions. It does not mean that they are. It means they are not. They are not still actions except for this one part where they are not. They are not.
A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Entities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type.
Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).
When the rules say a card does not target, that does, in fact, mean it does not target. The error you're making here is assuming that the only way an action can affect a card is if it targets that card. This is incorrect.
You do NOT check for an untapped sage or an untapped site at resolution of Far-sight. These conditions are NOT active conditions for playing Far-sight.
If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.
You do check for an untapped site, because Far-sight is "Sage only at an untapped site where Information is playable." It specifies an untapped site.
Targeting is "Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out."
CRF, Targets wrote:A target is an entity that an action is played out through.
But when the "+1 prowess" action is triggered by the creation of a Spider attack, the Spider attack is definitely the target of the "+1 prowess" action.
No. Wake of War never defines the attack by number. It affects all attacks, so it does not target.
CRF, Targets wrote:Annotation 3: Long-events and certain other cards do not have targets because they are not played out through one specific entity, i.e., they generally affect an entire class of things.
Again, you're assuming that any action which affects something must be targeting it. This is untrue.
Active conditions are actions but are defined to not be actions for purposes of declaring and resolving a chain of effects. This is clear because the same actions that are active conditions are used elsewhere without being active conditions.
That's nothing. The number 6 shows up as Prowess, but it also shows up as Mind, so clearly Prowess is Mind. Either that, or a given activity may be an action or an active condition, depending on card text.
Discarding and tapping active conditions are different from "other" active conditions (having cards in play, in your hand, etc). So while a card being "in play" is an active condition, it is more like a "playability condition", a subset of "active conditions."
Making up rules in order to say that the rules mean the opposite of what they actually say is shaky interpretation, at best.

Active conditions are not "only defined to not be actions for purposes of declaring and resolving a chain of effects."

The are defined as not being actions -- and a principle difference is given. Else the rules would have stated "Active Conditions are actions, but they declare and resolve immediately."
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: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:01 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:40 pm
Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions -- they are declared and resolve immediately.
When the rules state that a couple of activities in the game are not actions, that does, in fact, mean they are not actions. It does not mean that they are. It means they are not. They are not still actions except for this one part where they are not. They are not.
Read that rule in context and you will see how discarding can be both an action (which targets an entity) and not-an-action (for purposes of resolving actions in a chain of effects).

--------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:40 pm
A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Entities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type.
Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).
When the rules say a card does not target, that does, in fact, mean it does not target. The error you're making here is assuming that the only way an action can affect a card is if it targets that card. This is incorrect.
The playing of the card does not target. That does not mean that triggered actions created by effects of the card cannot target. The (A) card's target and the (B) target of the card's effects are different things.

------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:40 pm
You do NOT check for an untapped sage or an untapped site at resolution of Far-sight. These conditions are NOT active conditions for playing Far-sight.
If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.
You do check for an untapped site, because Far-sight is "Sage only at an untapped site where Information is playable." It specifies an untapped site.
Far-sight does specify an untapped site. But this is merely a non-active condition for targeting the Sage. Targeting can create an active condition. Far-sight is played on the sage and so it targets the sage. The sage as the target is an active condition. Far-sight is not played ON the site and so it does not target the site. So the site is not an active condition of playing Far-sight. Requiring a Sage to be an untapped site does not make the untapped site an active condition. And so while Far-sight specifies an untapped site, the site does not need to be untapped at resolution.

(A) Playing Far-sight targets the Sage. It is the (B) search action that has active conditions requiring entities to tap.

"Sage at an untapped site" is different from "Sage and an untapped site in play." If the untapped site were an active condition, Far-sight would say "and an untapped site in play".

------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:40 pm
Targeting is "Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out."
CRF, Targets wrote:A target is an entity that an action is played out through.
But when the "+1 prowess" action is triggered by the creation of a Spider attack, the Spider attack is definitely the target of the "+1 prowess" action.
No. Wake of War never defines the attack by number. It affects all attacks, so it does not target.
This statement is confusing the CRF Targeting statement (Entities 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."). This statement describes targets. It does not create a requirement of what a target is. This statement does not say that effects of a long-event triggered passive conditions does not have targets.

This confusion is the result of not differentiating between (A) the target of playing a card and (B) the target of effects created by the card.

--------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:40 pm
CRF, Targets wrote:Annotation 3: Long-events and certain other cards do not have targets because they are not played out through one specific entity, i.e., they generally affect an entire class of things.
Again, you're assuming that any action which affects something must be targeting it. This is untrue.
It is true. Any action which affects something must be targeting it. It is true that: (A) the action of playing a card may not target anything AND (B) the actions created by a card's effects may target something.

(A) The action of playing a long-event does NOT target anything and it does not AFFECT anything. (B) The effects of long-events can be triggered, and when the effects are triggered, they will target an entity and affect that entity.

----------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:40 pm
Discarding and tapping active conditions are different from "other" active conditions (having cards in play, in your hand, etc). So while a card being "in play" is an active condition, it is more like a "playability condition", a subset of "active conditions."
Making up rules in order to say that the rules mean the opposite of what they actually say is shaky interpretation, at best.

Active conditions are not "only defined to not be actions for purposes of declaring and resolving a chain of effects."

The are defined as not being actions -- and a principle difference is given. Else the rules would have stated "Active Conditions are actions, but they declare and resolve immediately."
I get what the rules say, but you need to read the rules in context. Clearly "tap" can be both an action and an "active condition."

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:32 pm

The specific example to which I was responding is as follows:
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?
Discarding Card_B is not an action because it is an Active Condition. The rules explicitly state, in the definition for Actions, that meeting Active Conditions is not an action.

The rules do not say meeting Active Conditions is an action except for their declaring and resolving immediately. It says it is not an action.

So, if you're going to speak of context, do be good enough to remember your own examples.
The playing of the card does not target. That does not mean that triggered actions created by effects of the card cannot target. The (A) card's target and the (B) target of the card's effects are different things.
That's true.

However, since Wake of War's effect plays out through an entire class of things, it's also irrelevant.
Far-sight is played on the sage and so it targets the sage. The sage as the target is an active condition.
This is also true. A card played on an entity targets that entity. But if there is no longer a sage at an untapped site when the card attempts to resolve, it no longer has a valid target.
This statement describes targets. It does not create a requirement of what a target is. This statement does not say that effects of a long-event triggered passive conditions does not have targets.
Of course it creates a requirement. Entities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type.

The only way an entity can be the target of the action (and note that this refers to actions, not card play) is if the action specifies those entities by number and type. If an action does not so specify, then whatever it affects is not a target, because the only way you get to be a target is if the action specifies by number and type.
It is true. Any action which affects something must be targeting it.
No. The rules explicitly state that affecting an entire class of other cards does not target any of the things it affects, and uses Wake of War as an example. Since the play of Wake of War itself affects nothing, it must be referring to the action created by Wake of War.
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: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:40 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:32 pm
The specific example to which I was responding is as follows:
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?
Discarding Card_B is not an action because it is an Active Condition. The rules explicitly state, in the definition for Actions, that meeting Active Conditions is not an action.

The rules do not say meeting Active Conditions is an action except for their declaring and resolving immediately. It says it is not an action.

So, if you're going to speak of context, do be good enough to remember your own examples.
Under one interpretation, the cards and the rules work as ICE said they do.

Unfortunately, the interpretation of the rules presented in your post creates discrepancies and causes Far-sight not to work according to the rules on Active Conditions.

If two interpretations are mutually exclusive to one another, I will accept the interpretation that provides consistency with the statements made by the designers of the Game.

-------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:32 pm
Far-sight is played on the sage and so it targets the sage. The sage as the target is an active condition.
This is also true. A card played on an entity targets that entity. But if there is no longer a sage at an untapped site when the card attempts to resolve, it no longer has a valid target.
ICE disagrees with your interpretation. Far-sight works within the rules as written.

The untapped site is a requirement for targeting the sage (a valid target sage cannot be at a tapped site). As an active condition, the target sage is declared and resolved outside of the chain of effects when declaring the play of Far-sight. And so "at an untapped site" has already been resolved.

However, "at an untapped site" is not an active condition that needs to be checked again at resolution of Far-sight. It was already resolved at the declaration of Far-sight. Only the target (i.e., the Sage) needs to be checked (in play and still a sage).

------------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:32 pm
This statement describes targets. It does not create a requirement of what a target is. This statement does not say that effects of a long-event triggered passive conditions does not have targets.
Of course it creates a requirement. Entities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type.

The only way an entity can be the target of the action (and note that this refers to actions, not card play) is if the action specifies those entities by number and type. If an action does not so specify, then whatever it affects is not a target, because the only way you get to be a target is if the action specifies by number and type.
Ok, I agree that it is a requirement for the actual action being taken. But my point is that the card-text itself does not need to literally state a number and type, it can be inherent to the triggered action as a result of a passive condition. For example, when Wake of War states "The number of strikes and prowess of each Wolf, Spider, and Animal attack are increased by one (by two for Wolves if Doors of Night is in play)" this is short-hand for creating the following passive condition:
  • WHEN a wolf/spider/animal attack-creating-action is resolved in a chain of effects, THEN trigger declaration of:
  • +1 strike to "the Attack" and +1 prowess to "the attack" in the following chain of effects
And so, the triggered action created by Wake of War does inherently state "the attack" even if the card-text does not actually state "the attack."

------------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:32 pm
It is true. Any action which affects something must be targeting it.
No. The rules explicitly state that cards affecting an entire class of other cards does not target any of the things it affects, and uses Wake of War as an example. Since the play of Wake of War itself affects nothing, it must be referring to the action created by Wake of War.
The ICE statements are consistent if you can interpret them properly and in context. Unfortunately, the interpretation of targeting presented in your posts creates inconsistencies among the rules. I prefer the interpretation that provides consistency.

The rules statement on Wake of War is NOT referring to the +1 strike and +1 prowess action triggered as a result of a passive condition, it is referring to the play of the CARD itself, not the actions created by the card's effects. The rules are dense, you have to read every word.
MELE Targeting wrote: A card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets an entity. Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).
"+1 prowess" is an activity in the game, meaning it is an action. The wolf/spider/animal attack is a specific entity in the game through which the "+1 prowess" action will be played out, meaning that the attack is the target of the "+1 prowess" action.

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:18 pm

Any interpretation that relies on claiming that things are what the rules say they are not and that things do what the rules say they don't is inconsistent with ICE, given that ICE wrote the rules.
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: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:30 pm

There is consistency if you read each word and understand the context as I explained.

Simply being mentioned in the playability conditions does not make something an active condition. The Annotations on Active Conditions define what they are.

"Sage only at an untapped site" targets the Sage character, not the site. The condition "at an untapped site" only limits the targeting of the Sage. The validity of the sage is done at declaration.
Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded
"At an untapped site" is not an active condition. When Far-sight resolves, the site does not need to be untapped, but the character still needs to be a sage.

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

Re: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:09 pm

A Sage at an untapped site is the target.

The rules that you have explained are imaginary. The ones that are actually written are that meeting active conditions are not actions and that cards may be affected without being targeted.

The particular target of Far-sight is a Sage at an untapped site. If that target does not exist at resolution, the card fizzles. Likewise, a card that is playable on a moving company will fizzle if the company stops moving before the card resolves, even if the company continues to exist. The target must be valid according to all of the text at both declaration and resolution.
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: Old to the game and have some questions

Post by CDavis7M » Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:01 pm

Where in the rules does it state that "at an untapped site" is an active condition? Sure it is a condition of targeting the Sage character. But it is not defined to be an active condition.

Even just look at the normal rules for playing cards.
A faction card, ally card, or item card must be played during your site phase and requires an untapped character

If one of your characters is at the site specified on a faction card, he may tap during the site phase to attempt an influence check in order to play the faction card.

A character may tap during the site phase to play an ally card

he may tap during the site phase to bring an item of that type into play.
Therefore, the play of items, allies, and factions have 2 active conditions: (1) a target character and (2) tapping the character. In order to be a valid target, the character must be untapped. However, the state of the character being untapped is NOT an active condition itself. At declaration of playing an item, the target character is determined and the character is tapped. Resolution of playing the item doesn't fail as a result of the character no longer being an "untapped character."

----------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:09 pm
cards may be affected without being targeted.
The actual rule is:
MELE wrote:Targeting: 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)
The core mechanics of the game are declaring/resolving actions and targeting entities for actions. Everything that happens in the game follows these same mechanics. I don't understand how there could be any possibility of things happening within the game without following the mechanics of the game.

Wake of War is not playable on any particular company or entity. Therefore, the action of playing Wake of War has no target. But the action of playing Wake of War is not the only action. Wake of War includes the action of increasing strikes and increasing prowess. Increasing prowess is an activity of the game and such activities are called "actions." An action that is played out through an entity is considered to "target" the entity. So the attack is the "target" of Wake of War's actions even if playing the Wake of War card does not target the attack.

The game already defines these mechanisms. There is no reason to pretend that activity in the game can happen without being an "action" and that activity in the game can be played out through an entity without the entity being "targeted." The game mechanics do not allow for the possibility that "cards may be affected without being targeted" by some action.

---------------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:09 pm
The particular target of Far-sight is a Sage at an untapped site.
The only "target" of Far-sight is a character card. The Sage character attribute is not the target of Far-sight. The site card is not the target of Far-sight. The phrase "at an untapped site" is a condition of the targeting action, and not a condition of the action of playing Far-sight. When you you declare play of Far-sight, you actually place the Far-sight card with a character card until it is discarded. You do NOT move the character card next to the site and lay the Far-sight card across both the character card and the site card.

Since play of Far-sight targets the character card, the action of playing Far-sight is considered to have the active condition that that target character be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved (Annotation 8 ). Thus, the targeting active condition is declared and resolved twice. Annotation 8 says what happens at declaration: "An action may not be declared if its target is not in play." Annotation 8 does not say what happens if the target is not in play at resolution, but Annotation 7 does: "If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect." Thus, only the character card (the target) needs to be in play. The selection of the target and the conditions for targeting that character were already resolved at declaration.

Nothing in the rules makes "at an untapped site" in Far-sight an active condition that would need to be checked at resolution.

----------------
Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:09 pm
Likewise, a card that is playable on a moving company will fizzle if the company stops moving before the card resolves, even if the company continues to exist.
The fizzling is not related to active conditions. The fizzling is a result of the rules on returning-to-origin, which immediately ends the M/H phase. The declared-but-not-resolved actions cannot resolve because the M/H phase is over, not because the company is no longer moving.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”