Passive Conditions

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

1.
Hypothetical example:

Something has Slipped on defending company.
Defending character has hypothetical shield with ability: "if bearer is wounded by strike discard one hazard permanent event in play of your choice".

Defender (not proceeding his turn) may prefer to discard Something has Slipped, then the effect of the card will not happen. Attacker may prefer to apply the actions from Something has Slipped, then let defender to choose one hazard permanent event in play to discard.

2.
Annotation 26 does not cover triggered actions. This covers effects in play that may produce different net result depending on order in which they are applied to play. Effect of Itangast at Home is not applied to any greater item. When Itangast at Home leaves active play, its effect disappears. Similarly effect of Bane of Ithil Stone that doubles CP of Palantiri.

Conversely result of action from Snowstorm is applied to a company. The company that has been returned remains at site even if Snowstorm will leave active play later.
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 Apr 20, 2020 6:48 am 1.
Hypothetical example:

Something has Slipped on defending company.
Defending character has hypothetical shield with ability: "if bearer is wounded by strike discard one hazard permanent event in play of your choice".

Defender (not proceeding his turn) may prefer to discard Something has Slipped, then the effect of the card will not happen. Attacker may prefer to apply the actions from Something has Slipped, then let defender to choose one hazard permanent event in play to discard.
There is no timing issue with applying the -2 prowess effect of Something has Slipped. In your 2 hypthetical examples, the end result is the same: the -2 prowess effect is no longer in play. This is true regardless of being the defender in CvCC or facing an attack as normal during your turn.

---------
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 6:48 am Annotation 26 does not cover triggered actions.
Uh what :?: Annotation 26 covers how to apply effects when there is a timing question. There is no timing question for non-triggered actions because they are declared separately in a specific order. Annotation 26 explicitly covers triggered actions and the examples given are triggered actions. There is no reason for Annotation 26 if it does not apply to triggered actions. Review Annotation 26 again:
Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 6:48 am 2.
Annotation 26 does not cover triggered actions. This covers effects in play that may produce different net result depending on order in which they are applied to play. Effect of Itangast at Home is not applied to any greater item.
Annotation 26 already covers the order of applying effects were the net result depends on the order. Annotation 26 covers the +1 CP effect of Itangast at Home and the doubling CP effect of Bane of the Ithil Stone.

If both effects were in play at the start of a M/H phase, then "the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied" per Annotation 26. If they were not both in play at the start of the last M/H phase, then "actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.."

The statement "for the rest of the turn" is NOT a limitation on the "interpretation established by the hazard player." If 2 effects are in play at the start of the last M/H phase that happened, the interpretation set does not expire at the end of the turn. "Further actions" are always "applied in the order they are resolved" except when the order is set by Annotation 26 or Annotation 10.

If the hazard player chose for Igantast At Home to apply first and Bane of the Ithil-stone to apply 2nd at the start of the last M/H phase, that same order of application would apply when it switches to that same players turn and they want to use a Palantir during their organization phase.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 6:48 am When Itangast at Home leaves active play, its effect disappears. Similarly effect of Bane of Ithil Stone that doubles CP of Palantiri.
Conversely result of action from Snowstorm is applied to a company. The company that has been returned remains at site even if Snowstorm will leave active play later.
This is because the effect of Itangast At Home is an on-going effect modifying an attribute of a card in play (modifying the CP of items) while the effect of Snowstorm is a non-on-going action that is performed once.

-----------

So yet again, there are no gameplay examples that are not already covered by the existing rules.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I have tried to explain how I understand a purpose of passive condition rules and a purpose of Annotation 26.
They do not overlap, their purposes are different.

I do not have an ambition of convincing everyone.
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

Unfortunately that understanding does not fit with the ICE rules, the ICE examples, or the ICE rulings. Annotation 26 describes timing and Annotations 9 and 10 also describe timing. Annotations 5-8 and 24 also describe timing. They all have the same purpose.

Annotation 9 explains that effects cannot be declared in the middle of resolving a chain of effects. Instead they are declared immediately after the same is resolved.
Annotation 10 explains that the order of such effects (e.g., those declared immediately after the previously resolving chain of effects) is set by the resource player and that those effects must be declared first before other effects.
Annotation 26 explains that if the order of such effects matters (e.g., those declared immediately after the previously resolving chain of effects), the order of applying the effects is set by the order that the effects came into play, unless they were both in play at the start of a M/H phase and then the hazard player decides the order.

All of these rules describe actions that come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by a player (i.e., Passive Conditions).

----------

Furthermore, the interpretation is based on a faulty premise:
Not all passive conditions are produced inside of a chain of effects.
End of phase that may be passive condition never happens in chain of effects.
The argument is that the end of the phase does not happen in a chain of effects. But there is no basis for this conclusion. There is no reason why why end of the phase would not follow the timing rules.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 5:50 pm I do not have an ambition of convincing everyone.
I don't think anyone would be convinced to spend their time trying to fix a supposed problem in the rules when there is no problem in actual gameplay.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:33 pm Furthermore, the interpretation is based on a faulty premise:
Not all passive conditions are produced inside of a chain of effects.
End of phase that may be passive condition never happens in chain of effects.
Distinguishing BETWEEN actions caused by passive conditions and their results AND effects in play is not based on the premise.
If I am allowed to speak myself about my reasoning.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:33 pm The argument is that the end of the phase does not happen in a chain of effects.
Imagine scenario:
There is long-event phase in which nothing has been declared and there are no long-events in play.
Where you see any chain of effects here?
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

ICE wrote:Question: In what order to the end-of-turn events resolve (for example, the optional discard event and the event of returning a Nazgul to your hand from the discard pile with 'The Nazgul are Abroad' and 'Doors of Night')?

Answer: The declaration that your turn is ending would be a passive condition for any end of turn cards. So by Annotation 10, if there are multiple end of turn effects, the person whose turn it is decided the order in which they are declared in the chain of effects starting immediately after the end of turn "declaration."

------ "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" ------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
Vegetarians Taste Better Praise "Bob"
--Self Proclaimed Most Mediocre Magic Player in the World--
Looks like the premise of this proposal is invalid.

There is no need to pretend that things happening in the game don't follow the timing rules for the game.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Question: In what order to the end-of-turn events resolve (for example, the optional discard event and the event of returning a Nazgul to your hand from the discard pile with 'The Nazgul are Abroad' and 'Doors of Night')?
Unless you know what is "the optional discard event" in question, I only can call your confidence to the ICE's answer as a blind faith.
I do not care about person of ICE's opinions, other than that included in rulebooks and CRF. For me this is a junk that can only paralize any effort of understanding and correcting rules.
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: Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:34 am Unless you know what is "the optional discard event" in question, I only can call your confidence to the ICE's answer as a blind faith.
It's right there in the rules if you look:
OptionalDiscardEvent.PNG
OptionalDiscardEvent.PNG (146.75 KiB) Viewed 4862 times
---------------------------

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:34 am I do not care about person of ICE's opinions, other than that included in rulebooks and CRF. For me this is a junk that can only paralize any effort of understanding and correcting rules.
This game was made by ICE. ICE made the game and they say how the game should be played. The ICE Netrep is the voice of ICE and he says how it should be played. The ICE Netrep knew more about the how the game should be played than anyone, and he changed the rules based on how he thought the game should be played. This same person wrote the CRF, wrote all of the later rule changes, and literally wrote the guidebook. ICE changed how the game was meant to be played based on their experience over time. Players of the game should care what ICE says.

I do not care about the opinion of someone who has misunderstood, misconstrued, and misinterpreted the rules of the game and misled others for years. Opinions of a person whose only purpose is to spread misinformation and pretend that the rules don't work despite no gameplay issues are junk. People who create their own incompatible rules to feel important because how they think they know this game better than the creators are paralyzing the understanding of the community and efforts to improve players game experience. But it is understandably hard to change how ones mind works after over 20 twisted years of misunderstanding, by self-admission.

Some people are still at the "bargaining" stage. "If only I could rewrite the rules, I could make this game work." "If only the community could understand my proposals they would see how to properly play this game." Some others think "If only i could rewrite every single card in the game, then it would be easier to understand." "If only I could ignore ICE's rulings and rules I don't like, then I could create a set of universal rules that actually works."

But willingness to understand the ICE Netrep's position, recognition of where and how the rules were changed, and comprehension of how the cards and rules actually are played can lead to the acceptance that ICE's "opinions" are correct and the right way to play the game.

--------------------

looking again at the premises of these proposals, there is no basis provided for them in the rules. And the examples of passive conditions provided in the METW Companion show how the premises are invalid. For instance, the proposal pretends that revealing the site at the start of the movement hazard phase is an action that doesn't happen in a chain of effects. And there is no reason why the end of the phase/turn cannot be declared. The 1st proposal is unnecessary.

Furthermore, being wounded is already covered by Annotation 16 so the 2nd proposal is not needed.

And cancellation of an effect IS preventing it from being resolved. Cancellation of attacks is different. So the 3rd proposal makes no sense.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Wed Apr 22, 2020 6:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Late to the party, but I'll just add my two cents... :)
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:21 pm Did you ever seen something declared in response to revealing of the site card? Or maybe it is special chain of effects, where nothing may be declared in response?
I think that's exactly the case.
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Movement/Hazard Phase wrote: Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes. No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company.

Annotation 25b: Players drawing cards when a new site is revealed is synonymous with the resolution of the new site being revealed. It happens immediately, not in the following chain of effects.
I would say that while technically not forbidden by the above passages, it would be wise to apply the same restriction to the very first movement/hazard phase as well, because...
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:41 pm The revealing of the site card is declared and resolved in a chain of events as with any action. There is no gameplay reason to declare actions in response to the site revealing declaration. It makes sense to just wait and see what the site is at resolution.
If you'd be allowed to play hazards in response to the declaration of revealing the site card, at least Many Sorrows Befall against certain long-events would be a good candidate.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

miguel wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:39 pm Late to the party, but I'll just add my two cents... :)
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:21 pm Did you ever seen something declared in response to revealing of the site card? Or maybe it is special chain of effects, where nothing may be declared in response?
I think that's exactly the case.
Let's be clear, we are talking about declaring something in response to declaration that the face down site card will be revealed. The actual flipping over of the site card only happens at resolution of the reveal-the-site-card action. This is the fundamental principle of the timing rules.

Of course, there is no point in declaring anything in response to a face-down site card because nothing has changed for the resource player and the hazard player cannot play anything at this point. There is no point in further regulating something that doesn't matter.

The restrictions on activating resource effects in Annotation 25a is to maintain the restrictions on playing resources in site phase -- no resources may be played until the automatic attack has been faced.

-------------
miguel wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:39 pm
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Movement/Hazard Phase wrote: Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes. No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company.

Annotation 25b: Players drawing cards when a new site is revealed is synonymous with the resolution of the new site being revealed. It happens immediately, not in the following chain of effects.
I would say that while technically not forbidden by the above passages, it would be wise to apply the same restriction to the very first movement/hazard phase as well, because...
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:41 pm The revealing of the site card is declared and resolved in a chain of events as with any action. There is no gameplay reason to declare actions in response to the site revealing declaration. It makes sense to just wait and see what the site is at resolution.
If you'd be allowed to play hazards in response to the declaration of revealing the site card, at least Many Sorrows Befall against certain long-events would be a good candidate.
First, the hazard player doesn't even know what the site card is if the revealing of the site card has only been declared. The site card is not revealed until resolution of revealing the site card. What would they even use Many Sorrows Befall for? There is no target for it.... Any long even could be canceled in response to its effect being triggered and any resource event that requires a moving company could not even be declared until resolution of revealing the site.

Second... let's go back to the basics. It is a fundamental concept of the game that the hazard player cannot play anything until after the resolution of the revealing of the site card. The site card is revealed at Step (1), cards are drawn at Step (2). Annotation 25b says that Steps (1) and (2) happen at the same time. And it is not until Step (3) that the Hazard Player could play Many Sorrows Befall.

So, where is the gameplay issue? Or are we just trying to needlessly complicate the rules because players think there needs to be limits on responding to a face down site card? Or because players cannot be bothered to read the Turn Summary?
m-h phase.PNG
m-h phase.PNG (304.83 KiB) Viewed 4883 times
----------------

Going back to the original post, the premise is that some passive conditions are not actions.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:48 pm Not all passive conditions are produced inside of a chain of effects.
End of phase that may be passive condition never happens in chain of effects.
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:21 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:41 pm Revealing a card is an action.

Revealing a site card is an action. This action may also be a passive condition.
Examples of an actions that are not declared/resolved.
Sometimes they may be a passive condition.
However:
miguel wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:39 pm
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Movement/Hazard Phase wrote: Annotation 25b: Players drawing cards when a new site is revealed is synonymous with the resolution of the new site being revealed. It happens immediately, not in the following chain of effects.
How is it not clear from Annotation 25b that the resolution of revealing a site happens along with resolution of drawing cards? What does "resolution" mean if not resolving in a chain of effects. A Chain of Effects is for resolving actions. Therefore, Revealing the site card is an action. Accordingly, the premise of this proposal is invalid.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Yes the case of Many Sorrows Befall was purely hypothetical, but since you asked, The Under-roads would make a good target. Just saying there could be gameplay reasons for playing something, if allowed. But fair enough, let's take a look at resources for a better example.

Annotation 25a states that no resources can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until both players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company (revealing of its new site has been resolved). So that annotation is clearly not only for maintaining the restrictions on playing resources in site phase. Why do you think that is?

Scenario is my first company moved to a Shadow-hold and I have Quiet Lands (GoM in play) that I'd like to use to treat that site Ruins & Lairs. My 2nd company moves next, and without Annotation 25a I'd be able to declare and resolve Quiet Lands for the 1st company's site in the 2nd company's site card reveal chain of effects without having to worry about my opponent's possible Doors of Night. Doing so will also potentially give me card advantage, depending on my draw and use of other cards during the 2nd company's move/haz phase.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

I get the impression that you are playing Doors of Night wrong because your scenario still doesn't make a difference on gameplay. Also, debating about whether or not there should be further restrictions on the resource player to prevent them from playing cards between the Long-event phase and the revealing of the site in the M/H phase is off topic. The discussion here is whether the revealing of the site is an action because it matters for whether passive conditions can be satisfied by non-actions (which is what this proposal is trying to regulate).

------------------
miguel wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:16 am Scenario is my first company moved to a Shadow-hold and I have Quiet Lands (GoM in play) that I'd like to use to treat that site Ruins & Lairs. My 2nd company moves next, and without Annotation 25a I'd be able to declare and resolve Quiet Lands for the 1st company's site in the 2nd company's site card reveal chain of effects without having to worry about my opponent's possible Doors of Night. Doing so will also potentially give me card advantage, depending on my draw and use of other cards during the 2nd company's move/haz phase.
This scenario doesn't work. Doors of Night still wins regardless of the whether Quiet Lands is played before or after drawing cards for the 2nd company's movement. Even without Annotation 25a, it's completely incorrect to think that the 1st company could play Quiet lands "without having to worry about my opponent's possible Doors of Night" because the effect of Quiet Lands is a resource environment effect. Doors of Night would cancel Quiet Land's effect because"all resource environment effects are canceled" by Doors.

Furthermore, I fail to see how there is any card advantage in playing a resource after reconciling your hand but before drawing cards for another companies movement. You would still have the same "advantage" whether Quiet Lands was played before or after drawing cards for the 2nd company's M/H phase.

---------------
miguel wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:16 am Yes the case of Many Sorrows Befall was purely hypothetical, but since you asked, The Under-roads would make a good target. Just saying there could be gameplay reasons for playing something, if allowed. But fair enough, let's take a look at resources for a better example.
ICE already thought of that. Which is why there is an exception for Reach of Ulmo.

-----------
miguel wrote: Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:16 am Annotation 25a states that no resources can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until both players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company (revealing of its new site has been resolved). So that annotation is clearly not only for maintaining the restrictions on playing resources in site phase. Why do you think that is?
The restriction is because of playing resources in the site phase. I don't have to think why because the ICE Netrep has said that is why.
Craig O'Brien wrote:There need to be limits on resource play while facing automatic-attacks to prevent abuse of certain cards.
People kept wanting to play We Have Come to Kill, Rebuild the Town, etc. before facing the automatic attack.

What IS clear is that no further restrictions are needed. There is no need to regulate the resource player responding to the revealing of their own face-down site card between the Long-event phase and the first M/H phase because there are no game play issues.
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”