This discussion led to CoE Erratum #7. viewtopic.php?f=103&t=3456
Ringlore - CoE Erratum #7 wrote:Sage only - playable only during the site phase if a sage is untapped at an untapped site where ʺInformationʺ is playable, and only if a character in his company has a Gold Ring. Tap the sage and the site. Test the Gold Ring, no roll (or draw) is used, the player may discard the Gold Ring and play any ring to replace it (except for The One Ring).
The Erratum above borrows language from Far-sight and other cards where an "untapped character and untapped site" are part of the playability conditions. The language on these cards came BEFORE the rules on Active Conditions were published in the METW Companion, and the language on these cards was not changed. In fact, later cards used the same wording even after the rules on Active Conditions. And now this Erratum uses that same wording.
Before Active Conditions, "playable at an untapped site" was needed because if you played the same card twice, one in response to the other, the tapping of the site would happen at resolution of the 2nd declared card (because there active conditions rules did not exist), and then the conditions for the 1st declared card would be negated. Putting "untapped" in the playability conditions prevented abuse before the rules on Active Conditions were created to prevent abuse.
Many of the comments on Ringlore and Far-sight do not acknowledge that these cards were written before active conditions. So while tapping the site at declaration of the card per the rules on active conditions would actually negate the playability conditions at resolution, it should be recognized that these cards did not account for active conditions and at the very least it should be obvious that a resource cannot invalidate its own playability conditions. The card is at least fit for its intended purpose. So that CoE Erratum is fine on that basis. Some posts mention a "nested chain of effects." There is no basis for this in the rules. One chain of effects cannot be declared and resolved within another chain of effects. There is also no reason to contrive the rules to do so just so that Far-sight "works" under the rules on Active Conditions. Instead, just recognize that Far-sight was written before Active Conditions and that the active conditions for declaring the effects of Far-sight still technically invalidate the card's own playability conditions.
Anyway, with the "later" rules on Active Conditions, the playability conditions only need to say "playable at a site", without mentioning an untapped site or an untapped character because the tapping of the site and character ARE the active conditions for declaring whatever effect is being done with the card (playing a ring, searching for an item, etc.). Therefore, a 2nd copy of the same card could not even be played in response since (A) the site would be tapped upon declaration of the 1st copy, (B) the effect of the 2nd copy could not be declared since the site cannot be tapped. The attempted play of the 2nd copy has "no effect" and is not a legal play.
Accordingly, the Erratum could have said:
Ringlore wrote:Sage only. Playable only during the site phase if a sage is untapped at an untapped at a site where ʺInformationʺ is playable, and only if a character in his company has a Gold Ring. Tap the sage and the site. Test the Gold Ring, no roll (or draw) is used, the player may discard the Gold Ring and play any ring to replace it (except for The One Ring).
Tapping the sage and the site are active conditions that must be satisfied in order to declare the "test the gold ring" effect. An untapped sage and an untapped site are inherently required to play this card per the rules on Active Conditions.