Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:50 pm
Dark Minions: Pale Dream-maker...
Proposed errata...
Purpose of the errata is a removing of a timing problem that happens when a player discards cards while reconciling his hand after completion of company's M/H phase; the period when no action may be normally declared.
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:36 pm
Forcing corruption checks when discarding cards over the hand size limit that is the entire point of this effect. Also, it's helpful to post the relevant rule since it clearly does
not establish a "period when no action may be normally declared" as asserted. Even if it did, this card text would clearly override it. And also, Ichabod already ruled on this topic -- "
each time", no exceptions. The card does what it says.
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:47 am
After reading the annotation again: I do not see a space for chain of effects during the described period.
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:35 pm
Some effects are declared in a chain of effects without a card being played or a resource effect being activated. Such effects are not proscribed by Annotation 25a.
Here I pointed out that declaration of effects of hazards are not proscribed by Annotation 25a. You did not respond directly. Obviously you can't point to something that doesn't exist. So like usual, you take a tangent and argue that since Reluctant Final Parting's effect must resolve without its effect being declared. This argument doesn't make sense and it doesn't support the argument that Annotation 25a prevents hazard effects from being declared. Even if RFP somehow worked without being resolved, that does not mean that Annotation 25a proscribes hazard effects from being declared. If it isn't there it isn't there.
---------
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 pm
Some hazard effects may be activated, e.g. discarding effect of Reluctant Final Parting (assuming that a company is at a site at this point of game).
But this effect is not declared.
Again, as I have stated above, the rules indicate that effects must be declared and there is nothing in the rules to suggest that effects can happen without being declared in a chain of effects such that your opponent can respond:
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:36 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 pm
But this effect is not declared.
There is no basis in the rules for this statement. The rules clearly state:
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... 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.'
A corruption check is an action. When the rules say "you must give your opponent a chance to respond" it is talking about the declared action. The opponent can respond to a declared corruption check. These declarations of actions are made in a chain of effects. The corruption checks of Pale Dream-maker are declared in a chain of effects.
Annotation 9a does NOT state that actions happen without being declared. The discarding action is declared in the same chain of effects as the action that is the condition. This must be the case because if the discarding action is to resolve in a chain of effects, it must have been declared in that chain of effects.
It's true that normally passive conditions are satisfied by resolved actions, not declared action. But even before Annotation 9a certain passive conditions were satisfied by declared, unresolved actions. For example, the passive condition of a declared and unresolve corruption check is the passive condition that triggers the +2 modifier of First of the Order in the same chain of effects as the declared corruption check.
Annotation 9a indicates certain passive conditions rely on the declaration of an action. There is no reason to guess that somehow actions can be resolved without being declared.