Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Post your decks, discuss strategy, ask for tips, etc.
Ford84
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:54 pm

I’m fairly new but reading annotation 9 it seems like the problem started by not defining what was an appropriate response to an effect.

It’s seems to me that when an effect is going to apply you can either cancel that effect or it happens. It doesn’t seem right to me that you continue your normal play sequence (as in the example in annotation 9), as a response to an effect, until the effect no longer applies.

Playing test of lore does not directly effect Foul Fumes so should not be an acceptable response to its effect. Long events played with conditional effects should be treated as interrupting the payers normal play sequence with the only response to that interrupt being to cancel it.

Once the interrupted effect has been resolved normal play sequence resumes.

I also think events effects apply in the order they were played regardless of whose turn it is. Why would the order of play change because you passed the turn over to your opponent? Unless the effect is conditional, then it would apply as the condition was met.

Also attacks are resolved one at a time and the sequence for the individual attack is clearly laid out in the challenge deck rule book.

As I said I’m new so feel free to explain why this doesn’t make sense.
Attachments
image.jpg
image.jpg (3.28 MiB) Viewed 2134 times
image.jpg
image.jpg (3.31 MiB) Viewed 2134 times
image.jpg
image.jpg (3.64 MiB) Viewed 2134 times
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Hi Ford. It seems like you want to discuss the game decision decisions rather than my notes on "what beats what" under the timing rules. I am glad to discuss but just checking. I think there is some sense to be made by considering the original game design decisions in METW Limited. Of course, I don't know all of the considerations and what the designer's rationale was, but I have tried to explain the mechanics a bit and provided some discussion of alternative game design.
Ford84 wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:13 pm I’m fairly new but reading annotation 9 it seems like the problem started by not defining what was an appropriate response to an effect.
The designers defined that any valid action is an appropriate response, even to your own actions. It's silly but there is no harm and so no foul. I think the Foul Fumes example is a legitimate response to allow the player to take an action to beat their opponent's action. But what other problems do you see arising from Annotation 9? The only one that I can think of is Ready to His Will, which could have been solved by stating "hazard creature with one strike for each of its attacks normally."

The timing definition goes back to the original Limited rules, over a year before active/passive conditions were added:
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 always have the option of declaring the first action in a chain of effects during your turn.
. . .
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 first action.
There is no reason to declare the first action yourself or to follow one of your actions with another action declared in response unless you are bluffing your opponent. Even then, it would not be possible to bluff an opponent understanding the timing rules, so it is silly. There is no reason for these rules but they are there.

The Designers are RPGers and Tolkien Geeks. Card game mechanics and design principles were just not there like they are today.
Ford84 wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:13 pm It’s seems to me that when an effect is going to apply you can either cancel that effect or it happens. It doesn’t seem right to me that you continue your normal play sequence (as in the example in annotation 9), as a response to an effect, until the effect no longer applies.
The thing is, the timing rules are already established: "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.)" This means that Foul Fumes does not have "time" to take place in the middle of a currently resolving chain of effects. And if the timing rules did allow this, then there would be no time for the player to take an action in response to it. I think that would have been a much worse design choice. Better to continue play and allow the player to respond to the effect.
Ford84 wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:13 pm Playing test of lore does not directly effect Foul Fumes so should not be an acceptable response to its effect. Long events played with conditional effects should be treated as interrupting the payers normal play sequence with the only response to that interrupt being to cancel it.
But playing Test of Lore did cancel the effect of Foul Fumes in the example. You don't have to directly cancel the effect (Twilight, well even then technically Twilight doesn't technically directly cancel the triggered effect). The timing rules allow the player the "cancel" an effect by negating it with a different effect: "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." In the Ring Test/Foul Fumes example, having Ranger skill negates the conditions for Foul Fumes. The conditions are checked at declaration AND at resolution in the chain of effects. There is also the Tookish Blood example in the METW Limited Rules.

If something totally random was played in response to the effect of Foul Fumes, like discarding Potion of Prowess, that seems like an unacceptable response. But again, no harm no foul.
Ford84 wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:13 pm I also think events effects apply in the order they were played regardless of whose turn it is. Why would the order of play change because you passed the turn over to your opponent? Unless the effect is conditional, then it would apply as the condition was met.
It makes sense to use Annotation 26 to change the order of effects for environment region-type changing effects. Say your opponent plays Morgul Night (makes Shadow-lands) along with your copy of Fell Winter (makes Wilderness) so that they can play Foul Fumes and Shadowland creatures on you. This fits well with your opponents strategy as they have companies in Border/Free-domain Rohan/Gondor, using Will of Sauron to keep things going while they are unaffected by all the Shadowland madness. But when it comes back to your turn, you want to be able to play your wilderness drake creatures, which could hit Rohan if Morgul Night was applied first and Fell Winter were applied second.

Of course, this requires that the environments only apply once, not continuously. But if it were continuous then that would cause the short events to lose some of their value.

There really is no record keeping in this game beyond the current turn. There are a handful of examples caused by rules changes and only 1 card that I can think of. So changing the order of apply effects might seem a bit odd, but it reduced the record keeping that players need to do. Otherwise, what? Do you line up the cards? Not a bad solution but not part of the original game design.
Ford84 wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:13 pm Also attacks are resolved one at a time and the sequence for the individual attack is clearly laid out in the challenge deck rule book.
I'm not quite sure why you made this point. Is this about attacks triggered by passive conditions? Those attacks are still resolved (the strikes of that attack rolled) one at a time. Of course. But if 3 Ahunt Dragon attacks are triggered at once then 3 attacks are created at resolution of the triggered effects, that is no different than 3 drake attacks of a Nameless Thing being created at resolution of the Creature Card. Attacks are created and stay in play, they are not "resolved" in the chain of effects (You might notice that the words "resolve" and "cancel" are used a lot and mean different things in different contexts.). That is why you can target an attack and cancel it after other cards have been played to modify the attack. Even the rules say "one or more attacks". Of course, multiple attacks in play are only faced one at a time (strikes assigned and rolled).

Just to be clear, Creature cards (and other attack cards) just create an attack (which is now sitting in play) when they resolve in their chain of effects. This is not the same as "resolving" an attack (rolling/resolving all of the strikes). And attacks do not have to be "canceled" at declaration in the chain of effects (and they cannot be canceled in this way). The attack must be created by resolving the creature and then the attack (but not the creature) can be canceled. The creature can only be negated (canceled) in the chain of effects, and this would be done using hazard limit reduction or an environment effect to invalidate the "keying", not by canceling the attack using a normal attack canceler.
Post Reply

Return to “Decks, Strategy, Tips, Ideas”