Miruvor: YES, it's usable after being wounded but before body check

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

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:18 pm Anyway, if you think that modifiers to dice-roll from cards in play are actions activated by passive condition (declaration of a dice-roll), then you have other answer:
Actions caused by Spawn of Ungoliant, Stabbing Tongue of Fire, Durin's Bane, Troth-ring in play.
We've already discussed this triggering of passive conditions before and I already discussed Stagging Tongue of Fire a few posts above.

If the +1 -1 to the body check dice roll happens at all then it must happen in the same chain of effects as the dice roll. Effects having no specific target (e.g., targeting some category) are brought into play using passive conditions. Therefore, actions triggered by passive conditions that cancel an action or target a dice roll MUST be declared in the SAME chain of effects as the triggering condition (not in the following chain of effects as usual).
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:53 am Stabbing Tongue of Fire - This is an item. Items are not played during the strike sequence. If it was already in play, it's body check modification would trigger.
Bottom line: Spawn of Ungoliant's body check modifier cannot target a declared body check. Therefore it cannot be played in response to the body check.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:06 am Body check is not part of a Strike Sequence.
I can understand why you might think that. Maybe because of a difference between "until" and "until after" -- The "strike sequence" is the time from when a player declares that one of his characters will resolve a strike until the strike dice roll is made and any associated body checks are made.

However, the Body Check rules in Annotation 19 are explicitly in the "Strike Sequence" section of the Companion Annotations and the CRF copies that organization. So the body check IS part of the Strike Sequence and the rules on the strike sequence apply to body check rolls. Blow Turned cannot be played in response to the body check.
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:06 am I wish you successes with playing Foolish Words in response to Riddling Talk.
If you think that modifiers to dice-roll from cards in play are actions activated by passive condition (declaration of a dice-roll).
You know the rules on Passive Conditions.

Foolish Words says "any riddling roll" not "a riddling roll" or "target ridding roll." Therefore, the -4 to the roll effect of Foolish Words has no specific target but instead targets a category. The rules on Passive Conditions govern the timing of effects that have no specific target (effects having specific targets are declared and resolved in a chain of effects per the normal timing rules).

So while Foolish Words may be played in response to Riddling Talk during the M/H phase, Foolish Words played in response to Riddling Talk will NOT give -4 to the Riddling Roll . The "-4" effect of Foolish Words is triggered by the declaration of the Riddling Talk dice roll and if it were played in response to Riddling Talk then the declaration of Riddling Talk has passed before Foolish words resolves. As mentioned above, effects triggered by passive conditions that target a dice roll must be declared in response to the declaration and in the same chain of effects.

Putting aside Riddling Talk, if Foolish Words is played on-guard, then it will be usable when a faction is revealed for an influence attempt because "A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed." So even though Riddling Talk on-guard is resolved after the influence check is declared, the "-4" effect of Foolish Words is treated as if it had already been resolved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:45 pm I can understand why you might think that. Maybe because of a difference between "until" and "until after" -- The "strike sequence" is the time from when a player declares that one of his characters will resolve a strike until the strike dice roll is made and any associated body checks are made
Maybe because:
Annotation 19: Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body)
And it is hard to be associated with X and be part of X.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:45 pm However, the Body Check rules in Annotation 19 are explicitly in the "Strike Sequence" section of the Companion Annotations and the CRF copies that organization. So the body check IS part of the Strike Sequence and the rules on the strike sequence apply to body check rolls. Blow Turned cannot be played in response to the body check.
There is time between the strike sequences to take actions that are otherwise legal.
is placed in "Strike Sequence" section of CRF, if it matters.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:45 pm Putting aside Riddling Talk, if Foolish Words is played on-guard
If placed on-guard, it may be revealed and played when a character in the company declares such an attempt.
Like Searching Eye, Foolish Words has different revealing condition and playing conditions than standard on-guard card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:30 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:45 pm Putting aside Riddling Talk, if Foolish Words is played on-guard
If placed on-guard, it may be revealed and played when a character in the company declares such an attempt.
Like Searching Eye, Foolish Words has different revealing condition and playing conditions than standard on-guard card.
Right, but the on-guard rules will let Foolish Words revealed on guard be treated as if it had been resolved already so that the -4 effect works. This is the same as an influence attempt for a faction I described above.

However, Foolish Words played during the M/H phase is resolved as normal and can't affect an already declared riddling roll.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:38 pm Right, but the on-guard rules will let Foolish Words revealed on guard be treated as if it had been resolved already so that the -4 effect works.
I do not know whether player has option of revealing Foolish Words according to default rules (in addition to revealing and playing according to card's text)
it may does not indicate so. It may just mean that revealing is not mandatory, as it can of Searching Eye, that absolutely could not be revealed according to default rules.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M, give some references or the "Alternative Game Format" subforums might be a better place for the rules you want to make up. This isn't to discourage throwing out ideas or other brainstorming, just to discourage flat refutations without counter evidence.

As far as I know, items must be played during the site phase after facing automatic attacks with an untapped character at an untapped site (by default). I know of nothing that restricts stabbing Tongue of Fire from being played during an attack when it is a resource that can affect the attack and these other criteria are met.

Body Checks are not part of a strike resolution, they are triggered by strike resolution.[revised: despite contradictory wordings in the official rules sources, it seems impossible for body checks to not be part of resolving a strike, since only by performing a body check against a hazard strike can one know if the strike is defeated.]
CRF wrote:Annotation 19: Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body).
Motionless Among the Slain & Adunaphel Unleashed: yes, they are played on an attack. I was assuming the body checks we were discussing might be caused by an attack. Obviously they could not be used on traps / Cruel Caradhras.

Spawn of Ungoliant: "all body checks" doesn't target any body check. Further, it doesn't matter if a body check has been declared, until it resolves it can still be modified. How would modifications to something that has not even been declared make any sense? Or maybe you play that the company already moving (its site path already declared) is not affected when a Snowstorm is played? Or, e.g.:
CoE #75 wrote:First I play an Assassin and afterwards Rank upon Rank. Does RuR affects this Assassin?

*** Yes.
Last edited by Theo on Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am CDavis7M, give some references or the "Alternative Game Format" subforums might be a better place for the rules you want to make up. This isn't to discourage throwing out ideas or other brainstorming, just to discourage flat refutations without counter evidence.
All of the rules have already been quoted here or referred to.

LOL@ alternative game format. I quote more rules than than most. Or did you miss the original post? I'm not making any of this up, it's all right there in the original post and it is literally the ICE ruling. And I also bother to actually read the rulings, unlike most of the posted in the ARV forum. How many 2018 ARV post were discussed and voted on without referring the Rulings that I later posted? There are many posts of yours that fail to reference the relevant ICE rulings. Will of Sauron and Doors of Night is my favorite one. Agent hazards is a recent one. Weird that you would try to call me out for making up the rules when you do it all the time without reading the rulings.
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am As far as I know, items must be played during the site phase after facing automatic attacks with an untapped character at an untapped site (by default). I know of nothing that restricts stabbing Tongue of Fire from being played during an attack when it is a resource that can affect the attack and these other criteria are met.
I was talking about playing in response. My post above says the effect would trigger if Stabbing Tongue were in play.
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am Body Checks are not part of a strike resolution, they are triggered by strike resolution.
CRF wrote:Annotation 19: Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body).
Motionless Among the Slain & Adunaphel Unleashed: yes, they are played on an attack. I was assuming the body checks we were discussing might be caused by an attack. Obviously they could not be used on traps / Cruel Caradhras.
Even if Motionless and Adunaphel Unleashed could be played in response to a body check, they operate using passive conditions and their effects would not take effect on that body check as explained below.
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am Spawn of Ungoliant: "all body checks" doesn't target any body check.
Yes. I already said this. It uses passive conditions to trigger effects targeting a body check.
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am Further, it doesn't matter if a body check has been declared, until it resolves it can still be modified.
No. Modifications can only be declared before the chain of effects including the body check starts resolving. The body check cannot be modified after the chain begins to resolved but before the body check resolves. This timing 101.
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am How would modifications to something that has not even been declared make any sense?
It doesn't. I didn't say this could happen. You are misunderstanding my post - I think because you misunderstand Passive Conditions based on your statements. Again, I am/was talking about effects declared in response to the body check. If a card creating effects triggered by a passive condition (e.g., Spawn of Ungoliant) is declared in response to the body check, there is no time between resolution of that card (Spawn) and resolution of the body check to trigger the effect of that card (there is no time to trigger Spawn's +1). Spawn of Ungoliant would need to be IN PLAY before the body check is declared so that it's effect would be triggered by the declaration of the body check.
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am Or maybe you play that the company already moving (its site path already declared) is not affected when a Snowstorm is played?
I do not. The effect of Snowstorm is the first declared action in the chain of effects after the chain in which snowstorm resolved.
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am Or, e.g.:
CoE #75 wrote:First I play an Assassin and afterwards Rank upon Rank. Does RuR affects this Assassin?
*** Yes.
Yes, an existing condition can trigger an effect using passive conditions. Creature attacks remain in play until the attack resolves and they can be targeted by effects triggered using passive conditions.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:06 am Body check is not part of a Strike Sequence.
Reviewing the MELE Companion, the strike sequence ends after the body check.

Image
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:12 am All of the rules have already been quoted here or referred to.
With this kind of response, should I reason that it is your interpretations/deductions that are amiss?
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:12 am There are many posts of yours that fail to reference the relevant ICE rulings.
The main meta-difference between us seems to be that I don't reference tentative rulings that were not deemed accurate enough to make it into the CRF as though they were the final word on the matter. That said, I'm persistently reading and re-reading rulings to update and revise my opinions; I try to do more of this when someone presents me evidence that my current hypotheses are incorrect.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:12 am Weird that you would try to call me out for making up the rules when you do it all the time without reading the rulings.
Not all those that wander are lost. I try to be clear about when I think I'm making up rules (and minimize those instances), but definitely call me out on it in those threads of discussion where I misrepresent.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:12 am
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am As far as I know, items must be played during the site phase after facing automatic attacks with an untapped character at an untapped site (by default). I know of nothing that restricts stabbing Tongue of Fire from being played during an attack when it is a resource that can affect the attack and these other criteria are met.
I was talking about playing in response. My post above says the effect would trigger if Stabbing Tongue were in play.
I'm referencing: CDavis7M - "Stabbing Tongue of Fire - This is an item. Items are not played during the strike sequence." Maybe I'm missing the great wisdom you posses, so it would help if you could provide a reference and the deductive process for "Items are not played during the strike sequence." As I was attempting to indicate before, Stabbing Tongue of Fire would meet all necessary criteria I know of for being playable during an attack.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:12 am
Theo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:33 am Further, it doesn't matter if a body check has been declared, until it resolves it can still be modified.
No. Modifications can only be declared before the chain of effects including the body check starts resolving. The body check cannot be modified after the chain begins to resolved but before the body check resolves. This timing 101.
I must have missed this class. Please give your references and deductive process. My suspicion is that you are mixing up "declared" and "actively declared (by a player)". As I posted before, it seems to directly contradict "limited to those actions that directly affect the body check dice- roll."---but then, your premise seemed to be that this sentence is vacuous. What about:
CoE #13 wrote:5. Can you respond to Flatter a Foe during the M-H phase with a Foolish Words?

*** Yes.
(Similarly CoE #15. The literal question seems too obvious to me---one could always respond (within the Hazard LImit)---so my interpretation is that the answer intends to respond to a different question, whether the Foolish Words can have an effect.)

Consider your statement: "The rules on Passive Conditions govern the timing of effects that have no specific target". This means that if Foolish Words worked as a Passive Condition, it could never work! The conditions that triggered it would already have been resolved before the passive condition triggered action resolves in the following chain. From this, I would conclude (as I have stated elsewhere before) that mechanics such as Foolish Words cannot be actions resolved through passive conditions; the alternative that I have put forward before is that they must be persistent modifications to the normal rules, which as far as I know has no internal inconsistencies.

However, I won't disagree with the complaint that several CoE rulings are internally inconsistent (or fail to uphold wider rules standards). I think the area of passive conditions in general has been vastly inconsistent through the years.
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: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:39 am The main meta-difference between us seems to be that I don't reference tentative rulings that were not deemed accurate enough to make it into the CRF as though they were the final word on the matter.
The fact that a specific ruling was not copied into the CRF is not evidence of its validity. The CRF too long as it is and not every ruling is copied into it. Some rulings were deemed too obvious to be put into the CRF. Especially those already described elsewhere. The Netrep stated this in the Digests. But I'll let you find it. Of course, there are certain people that don't find it as obvious as the Netrep.

----
Theo wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:39 am I'm referencing: CDavis7M - "Stabbing Tongue of Fire - This is an item. Items are not played during the strike sequence." Maybe I'm missing the great wisdom you posses, so it would help if you could provide a reference and the deductive process for "Items are not played during the strike sequence."
See MELE p. 43.
Otherwise maybe you can point to the rules where items would be playable during the strike sequence?

----
Theo wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:39 am I must have missed this class. Please give your references and deductive process. My suspicion is that you are mixing up "declared" and "actively declared (by a player)". As I posted before, it seems to directly contradict "limited to those actions that directly affect the body check dice- roll."---but then, your premise seemed to be that this sentence is vacuous.
Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects.
MELE p. 69: 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.).
MELE p.91: Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War)
METW/MELE Companion: 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 a player.
The METW/MELE Companion shows the non-targeting effects (e.g., Long Winter, Spawn of Ungoliant, Foolish Words, etc) operate by passive conditions.

Spawn of Ungoliant's effect operates using the rules on Passive Conditions because it does not have a specific target, but instead affects an entire class (all body checks for Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Dúnedain, and Men resulting from Spider attacks)

Timing:
1. Strike sequence modifications to the strike are made.
2. Dice are rolled for the strike. Character is wounded
3. DECLARE Body Check roll
4. DECLARE Spawn of Ungoliant (nothing else is declared)
5. RESOLVE Spawn of Ungoliant
(The effect of Spawn of Ungoliant which is triggerable using passive conditions is now in play. But the effect cannot be declared during a resolving chain of effects)
6. RESOLVE Body Check

The effect of Spawn of Ungoliant, which is triggerable by a passive condition, is not in play until step 5. It's effect can't be triggered/declared between step 5 and 6 since this is during a resolving chain of effects. Compare to Akhôrahil that targets a specific entity instead of an entire class and so the effect is declared and resolved immediately instead of being its declaration being triggered.

----
Theo wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:39 am What about:
CoE #13 wrote:5. Can you respond to Flatter a Foe during the M-H phase with a Foolish Words?

*** Yes.
(Similarly CoE #15. The literal question seems too obvious to me---one could always respond (within the Hazard LImit)---so my interpretation is that the answer intends to respond to a different question, whether the Foolish Words can have an effect.)
CoE 13 is incorrect. Foolish words operates on an entire class (Any riddling roll, offering attempt, or influence attempt by target character). Therefore it operates using Passive Conditions and effects triggered by passive conditions cannot affect declared cards when played in response as discussed above.

----
Theo wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:39 am Consider your statement: "The rules on Passive Conditions govern the timing of effects that have no specific target". This means that if Foolish Words worked as a Passive Condition, it could never work! The conditions that triggered it would already have been resolved before the passive condition triggered action resolves in the following chain. From this, I would conclude (as I have stated elsewhere before) that mechanics such as Foolish Words cannot be actions resolved through passive conditions; the alternative that I have put forward before is that they must be persistent modifications to the normal rules, which as far as I know has no internal inconsistencies.
I said above:
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:22 pm Effects having no specific target (e.g., targeting some category) are brought into play using passive conditions. Therefore, actions triggered by passive conditions that cancel an action or target a dice roll MUST be declared in the SAME chain of effects as the triggering condition (not in the following chain of effects as usual).
There is a rule enabling dice-roll modifiers to target declared-but-not-resolved dice rolls. There are rules governing triggering of effects upon a passive condition. There is no reason to not combine the rules -- dice roll modifiers affecting an entire class of dice rolls (e.g., using passive conditions) must be declared in the same chain of effects as the dice roll, just as dice-roll modifiers with specific targets are declared in the same chain of effects as the dice roll.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:48 pm Reviewing the MELE Companion, the strike sequence ends after the body check.
I do not care about MELE Companion and other companions.
Taking care about them undermines a sense of respecting CRF. The documents are not in sync.
Any statement in CRF potentially can be negated by other statement in companion.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:22 am I do not care about MELE Companion and other companions.
I know you don't. And you don't care about the digests. That is why you misunderstand so many ICE rules.
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:22 am Taking care about them undermines a sense of respecting CRF. The documents are not in sync.
Any statement in CRF potentially can be negated by other statement in companion.
That is not true. It's no wonder you have so many ill informed opinions. You haven't bothered to read the Companion books which are the source material for many statements in the CRF, and not all of the rules from the Companion made it into the CRF, and don't bother to consider the rulings and context from which the statements in the CRF were derived, and from your posts I can tell that you haven't bothered to consider change-history of the CRF. So it is not wonder that you can find 67+ supposed errors in the CRF.

Did you at least pick up a copy of the rulesbook yet? Last I heard you didn't even have one. So it's no wonder you haven't read any other the other ICE publications.
meaglyn
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:34 pm

Heh, I think this has gone down a rat hole ... I kind of hate to jump in here but for my 2 cents, CDavis7M is right.

From what I could find in Rules, Card spoilers, CRF and digests the _only_ place a phrase like "affect the body check" is used is in annotation19 mentioned in the first post .... so the only thing the later CRF clarification can possibly be talking about is that. And it's saying that both die roll modifiers and changes to character body count as affecting the body check.

Otherwise that statement is completely meaningless so one would have to ask why did it even get made if it doesn't apply to the one place it could. There is no other reason that I can see to have defined what "affecting the body check" means.

Some of the cards I think could be used in this way (depending on other things like having hazard limit , being Beorn etc - and barring card specific rulings which I have not looked up for these cards):
Akhorahil, Subltey of Guile, skin changer, Dwar the ringwraith, Miruvor/orc-liquor, spawn of ungoliant.

Cheers,
Mealgyn
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:31 pm Did you at least pick up a copy of the rulesbook yet? Last I heard you didn't even have one.
I still do not have one in printed form. Or I have but I cannot find.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:31 pm So it's no wonder you haven't read any other the other ICE publications.
I have read Casual Companion and I am treating it as a product only for collectors.
I do not see informational value in statements like "New site is entity associated with company".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:27 am
Theo wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:39 am I'm referencing: CDavis7M - "Stabbing Tongue of Fire - This is an item. Items are not played during the strike sequence." Maybe I'm missing the great wisdom you posses, so it would help if you could provide a reference and the deductive process for "Items are not played during the strike sequence."
See MELE p. 43.
Otherwise maybe you can point to the rules where items would be playable during the strike sequence?
Surely you didn't read your own reference page. I see no restrictions based on strike sequence (nor allowances based on not-strike-sequence) on that page. Or perhaps you could quote specific lines for something I missed?

---

Thanks for explaining the rest of your reasoning. Your framing of everything as a passive conditions explains a lot. At the end of the day I suppose we each have our own opinions about which of contradicting rules to preserve and which to revise, and play groups will do what they like, including how they rank the rulings hierarchy.

Through the conflicting language, I reason that body checks must be part of resolving a strike because one cannot know if a creature's strike is defeated until resolving the strike's body check.

An attempt to summarize CDavis7M bottom lines:
* Ignore "dice-roll" in Annotation 19.
Why:
1) No card exists that modifies a target body check dice-roll.
2) "The METW/MELE Companion shows the non-targeting effects operate by passive conditions."
3) Effects triggered by passive conditions during the resolution of a chain of effects cannot themselves resolve before the end of that chain of effects.
4) There being no cards that exist that could be played during the body-check chain of effects, conclude that Annotation 19 as literally written must be in error.
5) Furthermore, the intent must have been for "dice-roll" to be ignored. For that matter, ignore "nested" while we're at it.

Issues:
1) We do not know what might have been the current conception for future cards when the rule was added circa CRF 4. MELE was published a few months later.
2) Short-events cannot use passive conditions as you have defined them ("METW/MELE Companion: A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play."), as these cards are never in play. CoE #124 finally ruled "Even though the corruption checks from Greed are not triggered by a passive condition, they are treated that way for the purposes of timing." This is a rather inconsequential distinction from your statement, though.
3) The actual rule is that all effects in a chain are resolved from last to first. This has historically been interpreted to mean that new effects cannot be added to a chain that has begun to resolve. This does not prevent non-action effects triggered by passive conditions from resolving outside of chains of effect (passive condition rules only state that actions are declared in the next chain of effects... although the passive condition wordings are "action" biased). We know that not everything declared resolves within a chain of effects (e.g. active conditions, choosings made by players), and not every persistent effect works through passive conditions (e.g. corruption points, item modifiers, and other directed rule modifications).
4) This is personally my strongest disagreement. The CRF entries seem to me to be reinforcing the generic rules of the time for the very purpose of preventing players from playing other cards:
METW wrote:Dice Roll Timing
Before a roll is made for combat or a check, cards may be played that will modify the result of the roll. ... This modified result is used to determine effects of the combat or check before any other actions are taken.
That is, Annotation 19 clarifies that body checks are NOT an exception to the Dice Roll Timing statement that cards may be played that will modify the result of the roll (even if no such cards exist), and the Body Check entry clarifies that body checks are NOT an exception to the Dice Roll Timing statement that the modified result of the roll is distinct from determining the effects of the roll. If the intent of the CRF was to add additional allowances during the body check chain of effects than the generic Dice Roll Timing allowances, we might see that reflected in the MELE rules (either this Dice Roll Timing portion or perhaps the Body Check portion if it was meant to be an exclusive exception) published a few months later "with a refinement of language". Instead, we see the exact same language.
5) That intent could always have been a possiblity regardless of the above, but the rules are as written and years of CoE rulings have upheld the greater restrictiveness.

Granted, Blow Turned has ambiguity about the adjective (state) vs. verb (event) of "wounded" such that I don't care to argue about it. "Successful" language has no such ambiguity---it is an adjective, and until a successful strike is resolved with a body check the strike continues to exist and be deemed successful. Your interpretation of the rules would allow Like The Crash of Battering Rams to be interpreted (immediately-resolved short event) to be playable after the strike roll is determined. As far as I know, such an interpretation has never been considered (as it needn't be if Annotation 19 stands as written).
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”