MECCG Discussion Forum
https://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/
https://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=287
(by mistake of course, soooorry)
).(3) The playability of Ready to his Will has been brought into question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapping a character is an active condition of the play of Ready to his Will. Therefore, it is not possible to play this card if there are no untapped characters in the company. Furthermore, it is not possible to play this card and refuse to tap a character in the hopes that all the attacks will be canceled and that no ally will be created.
I disagree here. "May tap to..." would clearly indicate that RtHW can cancel the attacks and taking the ally would be optional. I don't see any reason to overturn the previous ruling.Jon wrote:It says "character who NOW taps..." because tapping is a manditory condition of taking the creature as an ally. It doesn't say "may tap" because then people would claim they can take the ally and not have to tap since the tapping part is optional.
I disagree. "character who NOW taps..." means that action is mandatory, not optional. However there are other situations where mandatory action may not performed. e.g. corruption check from Marvels Told may not be performed if target sage is ally. This does not mean the Marvels Told may not be played on ally.miguel wrote:Despite having a great mousehand, I managed to salvage what I wanted:I disagree here. "May tap to..." would clearly indicate that RtHW can cancel the attacks and taking the ally would be optional. I don't see any reason to overturn the previous ruling.Jon wrote:It says "character who NOW taps..." because tapping is a manditory condition of taking the creature as an ally. It doesn't say "may tap" because then people would claim they can take the ally and not have to tap since the tapping part is optional.
SWOOSH! That's how we take care of business here.zarathustra wrote:Nice one, slick
Hmm. I think that was indeed his main point, apart from "this is how it was played before". All active conditions just aren't marked in bold.zarathustra wrote: I agree with you. Is there anything we can say to Jon, though, beyond, "Sorry, you just don't understand"? I guess the "does" vs. "may" distinction is the key....
Yepo. I get where you're coming from, but as I said in my previous post, not all active conditions are marked in bold. That doesn't mean all non-bold text is considered an active condition. This ruling was closely related to the Sac of Form one saying that discarding the wizzie is the active condition, which makes a lot of sense.Konrad Klar wrote:I disagree. "character who NOW taps..." means that action is mandatory, not optional. However there are other situations where mandatory action may not performed. e.g. corruption check from Marvels Told may not be performed if target sage is ally. This does not mean the Marvels Told may not be played on ally.
I'd say that Wizards (as target) is active condition. Discarding it is action (main effect).miguel wrote:[This ruling was closely related to the Sac of Form one saying that discarding the wizzie is the active condition, which makes a lot of sense.
Only one main effect? Discrading Wizard, controled non-item cards, placing items off to the side are not parts of main effect?zarathustra wrote:I'm pretty sure that blowing the creature up is the main effect of Sac of Form.
The somewhat obvious reason is that -- except in very bizarre circumstances -- a player does not initiate Marvels Told at the cost of a long-/-perm event. Rather, he initiates MT with that as his goal. Hence, discarding the event is not an active condition.Why discarding of target non-enviroment hazard long-/permanent-event is main effect, not active condition?
Because ICE had no idea how complex the rules they wrote really were.Why "discard this item to" is printed on e.g Healing Herbs and "discard Wizard" (but not "discard Wizard to") is printed on Sacrifice of Form?