Timing: Multiple attacks and chain of effects crossing them

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:24 am
Theo wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:37 amResolving the effects (some of which are actions) on a card in order are not actions actively made by a player. This is really the same point that Konrad already made: some actions (typically those not actively made by a player) are not declared in a chain of events.
.... So then the target of a resolving effect is not an active condition? But it is.

If the player plays a card with effects, they have actively made the choice to have those effects declared.

If you read the Companion you'd see that this statement on "actively" is in contrast to Passive Conditions which are discussed together with Active conditions. There is nothing to suggest that effects of playing a card are not choices actively made by the player.

Some people are masters of losing context.
You have extrapolated in error. Declaring the play of a card includes declaring the effects on that card, and card play is (normally) an action actively made by a player. Are conditional actions within an effect actively declared? Let's suppose they are. This would only serve to undermine your original claim, ""If Doors of Night is in play" is a prerequisite for many actions but it is not an active condition of those actions."---it would be an active condition for the conditional action.

However, I think it is wrong to say that the conditional action is actively declared. The entire effect (including condition) is actively declared, even if Doors of Night is not in play at declaration, and then whether or not the conditional action occurs is determined at resolution. No player actively declares the conditional action by stating that it will occur (or not), because whether or not it occurs depends on the condition at resolution.

Passive conditions are an exception explicitly made in the rules where no player states that such actions occur but they are still declared and use the chain of effects.

If you want to cite ICE motivations, try including some text next time. Regardless, motivations do not equate to literal rules text.

---

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:24 am ... Will of Sauron was always declared and resolved in a chain of effects and still is. Before Annotation 9a Will of Sauron would have been discarded in the following chain of effects and now it is discarded is the same chain of effects as Doors being removed from play.
"In" is a curious word. Resolving during the resolution of a chain of effects is different from being declared and resolving as one of the effects in the chain. Annotation 9a means that there is no chance to respond, which actively declared actions require.

---
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:15 pm In addition, "facing a corruption check" is not even a property of a character.
Huh? "Facing", a present participle verb, describes the state (a property) of the 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

Not all prerequisites and conditions are active conditions. You have extrapolated in error.

The term "actively" in the statement "these are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy" can only be referring to the actions of tapping, discarding, and targeting as these are the only player invoked actions that satisfy conditions on cards. "Actively" refers to the actual satisfying of the active condition by performing some action (tapping, discarding, targeting). "Actively" does not refer to the effect/action that has an active condition. Therefore, it makes no difference whether an effect of a card is "actively" declared or not as you argue. "Facing an automatic attack" is not an action that a player invokes to satisfy a condition. It is not an active condition.

Theo wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:15 pm If you want to cite ICE motivations, try including some text next time.
I realized the issue myself and then later saw the ICE discussion confirming my guess. The journey can be worth more than the knowledge.

Theo wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:15 pm Annotation 9a means that there is no chance to respond, which actively declared actions require.
There is nothing in Annotation 9a to suggest that "there is no chance to respond." All it says is that the discarding caused by a passive condition happens in the same chain of effects as the resolution of the action that is the passive condition. Whereas before Annotation 9a, the discarding caused by the passive condition would happen in the following chain of effects per original Annotation 9.

There is no reason that the discarding action of a first card as a result of a passive condition could not be declared along with the declaration of the action that is the passive condition.

There is at least one situation I can think of where the discarding of a card as a result of a passive condition would NEED to be declared (not resolved without declaration) in order for the play of other cards to work properly. But it relates to the example of Annotation 9a that I'm hoping others learn for themselves.
Theo wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:37 am Resolving the effects (some of which are actions) on a card in order are not actions actively made by a player. This is really the same point that Konrad already made: some actions (typically those not actively made by a player) are not declared in a chain of events.
So you're saying that the effects on a card are not actions actively made by a player and so they are not declared in a chain of effects? Sounds right. Silly me for thinking that effects of cards are resolved in a chain of effects.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:39 pm The term "actively" in the statement "these are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy" can only be referring to the actions of tapping, discarding, and targeting as these are the only player invoked actions that satisfy conditions on cards. "Actively" refers to the actual satisfying of the active condition by performing some action (tapping, discarding, targeting). "Actively" does not refer to the effect/action that has an active condition. Therefore, it makes no difference whether an effect of a card is "actively" declared or not as you argue. "Facing an automatic attack" is not an action that a player invokes to satisfy a condition. It is not an active condition.
"these are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy"
X - active conditions
Y - some action

Player actively decides to invoke Y, X satisfies Y.

Mistaking X as Y and Y as X results in the above quoted theory.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:39 pm There is no reason that the discarding action of a first card as a result of a passive condition could not be declared along with the declaration of the action that is the passive condition.
Main reason is that otherwise such action could never happen.
"all hazard long-events are discarded." could not happen because at resolution The Will of Sauron would not be in play so:
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.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Hopefully now it is more visible:
An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is
declared. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the
player invoking the action.
Underline and bold mine.

Player does not need (and is unable at declaration of some action) to establish the presences (or absences).
He is unable to establish Diplomat only, Scout only, bearing of some type of item at declaration.
The presences (or absences) need to be at declaration and player does not make anything to establish them at the moment.

"Active conditions serve as the price of an action."
is curious statement.
Who pays Diplomat only and in which currency?
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

Try to read it again.

There is a first action satisfying a condition and then a second action requiring the condition to be satisfied by the first action. The second action is declared in a chain of effects. The first action is declared and resolved immediately at declaration of the second action.

"An active condition must be in play or established" means the target of playing a card must be in play and targeted OR the target of the tapping/discarding must be tapped or discarded.


Also, just as conditional discarding of Will of Sauron is declared along with a declaration discarding Doors of Night, conditional discarding of the long events are declared along with the conditional discarding of Will of Sauron. Effects triggered by Passive Conditions are declared and resolved. Discarding of long events by Will of Sauron is a result of a passive condition and so it is declared and resolved. Annotation 9a only changes the which chain of events the triggered action is declared and resolved in.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:39 pm ...
I can only assume that you were mentally impaired when you made this post. I am out of patience. Good luck in your play endeavors! As always, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you and your opponents from deciding to play however you'd like.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:39 pm The journey can be worth more than the knowledge.
So much for forums of players helping players. At least CDavis7M has shown his merits.
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

Theo wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:08 am I can only assume that you were mentally impaired when you made this post.
As always, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your opponents from deciding you to play however you'd like.


By the way, even with Konrad mentioning the issue here and elsewhere you didn't pick up on it?
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”