Traitor

[CDavis7M]

Traitor discards itself so that the defending player cannot cancel Traitor's by discarding the Traitor permanent-event. The Unlimited card tex is similar to the Limited card with errata.

Just that.

A defending player cannot fizzle Traitor's attack by discarding the Traitor permanent-event in response to its declaration.
Because Traitor permanent-event discards itself earlier. HOWEVER this does not cause a fizzling of the attack.

Double standards.

You are ether misunderstanding the rules or misunderstanding what a "double standard" is, because there is no double standard here. There is only 1 standard provided in the rules and that rule can be override by specific card text just like any other rule. There is no secret agenda or unfair treatment in this scenario. Instead, the rules are explicit. This is not a "double standard."

The rule for Traitor is the same rule on permanent-events that I mentioned above: "The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded." Traitor's card effect specifically overrides this rule. During resolution of Traitor, the card effects specifically discard the Traitor Permanent event first, before the other effects are implemented. Just read the most recent printing of the card.

From your post in this thread and in others, it's clear that you misunderstand what the CRF is and how the rulings in it work. You assert that Traitor fizzles itself because the CRF states "A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled." However, you fail to recognize that this is merely a clarification of the actual rule on permanent-events above, despite the fact that the CRF mentions that this is how this ruling and other the Rulings by Term work.

The Rulings by Term are merely secondary rules and do not override the primary rules from the rulesbook. The author of the CRF specifically states this in the Introduction and has stated it in other rulings. The Rulings by Term do not override cards that specifically operate contrary to the rulings.

It's such a unthoughtful argument to suggest that Traitor's own card effects can fizzle itself. That alone should be an indicator that you need to rethink your understanding of the rules. The Designers knew how to design their game. You don't know the game better than the Designers did.

[Konrad Klar]

If you disagree, point to some rule that suggests otherwise. However, if there actually was a rule to support your position, you would have already mentioned it.

Set pieces of the game.

If an action caused by passive condition resolves it does no longer matters whether a card that caused the action is in play or not.

I cannot point to rules that (do not) check for presence ii play of a card that set an action caused by passive condition, because (AFAIK) they do not exist.
Only related rules I know check whether a card that set an action caused by passive condition is present in play when the action tries to resolve.

[CDavis7M]

If you disagree, point to some rule that suggests otherwise. However, if there actually was a rule to support your position, you would have already mentioned it.

Set pieces of the game.

If an action caused by passive condition resolves it does no longer matters whether a card that caused the action is in play or not.

I cannot point to rules that (do not) check for presence ii play of a card that set an action caused by passive condition, because (AFAIK) they do not exist.
Only related rules I know check whether a card that set an action caused by passive condition is present in play when the action tries to resolve.

...There are rules that check for presence of a card after an effect triggered by a passive condition has already resolved. They are the rules on permanent-events and long-events which I posted above and discussed at length. An effect triggered by a passive condition is still an effect of the long/permanent event. ALL EFFECTS of a long/permanent event, including effects triggered by passive conditions, only last while the corresponding card is in play. The rules are clear.

Your understanding of the game has no basis in the rules, contradicts the rules, and goes against ICE's rulings.

Here's how MECCG actually works: there is a difference between (A) an effect that changes the game state and (B) an that (i) modifies an attribute of a card, (ii) creates an on-going effect, or (iii) modifies a rule/allowance of the game.

No need to thank me.


(A) If an effect, triggered by passive condition or otherwise, is (A) an effect that changes the game state, then the effects are not un-done when the long/permanent event is discarded. This is because un-doing the action would require a second, different actions. The rules on long/permanent events state that their effects last until the card is discarded, they do NOT state "new effects are created to undo previous actions caused by this card when discarded." An attack does not change the game state. No card in the game has been moved or has its position changed. An attack is merely an on-going effect -- if the Ahunt is discarded, the attack goes away.

For example, if long-winter taps a site, un-doing this tapping action would require a second untapping action. When long-winter is discarded, its effects cease. So it will no longer tap sites. But discarding long-winter does not somehow declare untap actions for all of the sites that it tapped.

From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: [MELE] Winter, Plague questions
Date: 1997/07/12

>4. For Long Winter's second effect of tapping sites, does the site untap
>after the Long Winter goes or does it basically mean that any site that is
>or becomes face-up during your and your opponent's turn is tapped and
>that's it? Just seems really rough.

The site does not untap after Long Winter goes. Any site that meets
the requirements of Long Winter will tap when it is revealed, or
when Long Winter is played.

(B) If an effect, triggered by passive condition or otherwise, is (B) an effect that (i) modifies an attribute of a card, (ii) creates an on-going effect, or (iii) modifies a rule/allowance of the game, then the effect can easily be un-done by simply "forgetting" that the effect ever happened. This is because there has been no change to the game state. Nothing needs to be done in order for the effect to cease.

(Bi) For example, The Moon is Dead is an effect that modifies the strikes and the prowess of an undead attack. It also duplicates Undead automatic-attacks. If The Moon is Dead is in play, then an Undead attack will be duplicated and both attacks get +1 strikes and +1 prowess. If The Moon is Dead is discarded because the 1st undead automatic attack is defeated, then the +1 strike and +1 prowess ceases and the duplicate attack cease. If there was an undead creature on-guard, they would no longer get the +1 strike and +1 prowess.

From: ich...@cstone.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: [METW] The moon is dead question
Date: 1997/02/22

>This is probably an easy one, but it came up in a game
>last night.
>
>I play TMID. My opponent faces an undead auto-attack.
>(+1 prowess and attack doubled). What happens if he
>defeats the first attack (TMID is discarded), does he
>still have to face the second (even though TMID is gone)?

No.

(Bii) An attack is an ongoing effect. It merely creates one or more strikes that need to be resolved by characters in the target company. There is no change to the game state. So if an Ahunt Dragon creates an attack, and then its prowess is boosted, the player may discard the Ahunt with Marvels Told, thereby removing the Ahunt's attack from play. The attack does not need to be resolved.

From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 94
Date: 1998/06/12

>1) If an Ahunt Dragon is played during the m/h phase and its attack is
>triggered by the company's movement, will removing the Ahunt Long-event
>with Marvels Told stop the attack?

Yes. When a long or permanent event is discarded by another card, it
immediately ceases to have an effect on play.

Note that the ICE ruling applies the rules on long-events, not the other rule on passive conditions for long/permanent events (discussed above) from 1996, long before June 1998.

Similarly, Bane of the Ithil-stone has an on-going effect that "Automatically cancels any effects that causes a player to search through or look at any portion of a play deck or a discard pile outside of the normal sequence of play." There is no action triggered by a passive condition here, the effect simply negates declaration or resolution of any effect that causes a player to search/look at their deck/discard pile. Once Bane of the Ithil-stone is discarded, you just forget that it was ever in play. But you don't get to go back and re-search or re-look through your deck.

(Biii) Safe from the Shadow modifies a rule/allowance of the game during the End of Turn phase: "Hero characters may store resources (items and events) during the end-of-turn phase as though it were their organization phase." No actions are triggered by this effect. If the event is discarded when the deck exhausts, then you just forget that it was in play.



----------

The CoE Netrep also misunderstood how long and permanent-events work. This misunderstanding is the basis for several incorrect CoE rulings.

[Konrad Klar]

For example, if long-winter taps a site, un-doing this tapping action would require a second untapping action. When long-winter is discarded, its effects cease. So it will no longer tap sites. But discarding long-winter does not somehow declare untap actions for all of the sites that it tapped.

Just that.

The action may be "tap" or "an attack is faced".
Main difference between them is that the latter produces nested chains of effects in which other actions may be declared.

Results of the "tap" or "an attack is faced" actions are not tied to the cards that caused the actions.

[Konrad Klar]

And I do not think that after resolving and executing action from Rank upon Rank, discarding the card would remove the applied bonuses.
Thief's attack that before had 15 prowess and 1 strike has now 16 prowess and 2 strikes. Discarding Rank upon Rank at this point will not remove the bonuses. Rather it would allow to play another copy of Rank upon Rank and further increase the prowess and number of strikes of the attack.

[CDavis7M]

For example, if long-winter taps a site, un-doing this tapping action would require a second untapping action. When long-winter is discarded, its effects cease. So it will no longer tap sites. But discarding long-winter does not somehow declare untap actions for all of the sites that it tapped.

The action may be "tap" or "an attack is faced".
Main difference between them is that the latter produces nested chains of effects in which other actions may be declared.

There is no such thing as a "nested chain of effects." You took the "nested" phrase from the Annotations describing a chain of effects nested within the strike sequence, not nested within another chain of effects. There is no possibility for one chain of effects to be "nested" within another chain of effects. You simply misunderstood what the rules were saying.

Results of the "tap" or "an attack is faced" actions are not tied to the cards that caused the actions.

This is where you are confused. "Tap" is a single action that is implemented when resolved in its chain of effects. An attack is an on-going situation that is created when the attack's creation resolves (e.g., an attack created by an Ahunt Dragon). The attack is not resolved when it is created, the attack is resolved strike by strike. Just read the rules on Combat.

If Long winter triggers a tapping action, the tapping action ceases if Long-winter leaves play. If the tapping action has already happened, there is nothing to cease.

If Smaug Ahunt triggers creation of an attack, the creation of the attack ceases if Smaug Ahunt leaves play. But in addition, if the attack is created and being faced, the attack itself leaves play when Smaug Ahunt leaves play.

Tapping is not an ongoing effect. "Remains tapped" or "cannot untap" are ongoing effects.

Facing an attack is an ongoing effect. And it is an effect of the card that created the attack.

[CDavis7M]

And I do not think that after resolving and executing action from Rank upon Rank, discarding the card would remove the applied bonuses.
Thief's attack that before had 15 prowess and 1 strike has now 16 prowess and 2 strikes. Discarding Rank upon Rank at this point will not remove the bonuses. Rather it would allow to play another copy of Rank upon Rank and further increase the prowess and number of strikes of the attack.

You not only misunderstand how permanent-events work, as discussed above, but you also misunderstand how "cannot be duplicated" works. Rank Upon Rank says "cannot be duplicated", which means that "only one such card (or its effects) may be in play at a time." Only the effects of one Rank Upon Rank can be in play at a time. You cannot "further increase the prowess and number of strikes" as you asserted.

There is no basis in the rules for your assumptions about long/permanent events and you have yet to provide any. And the ICE rulings quoted above contradict your understanding.

[Konrad Klar]

1.
We are understanding an on-going effect, a triggered action in different ways.

An additional automatic-attack of Wolves at Border Hold created by Fell Winter is nothing what happens.
It appears when Fell Winter is in play and disappears when Fell Winter leaves active play.

Results of tapping and returning caused by Long Winter remain in play even if the card will leave active play. New copy of Long Winter may cause tapping and returning what yet has not been tapped and returned by previous copy.

That Long Winter is long-event and not permanent-event is not relevant for above. If an item card, a site card, or a character card causes an action activated by passive condition, the action and its result are treated uniformly.

2.
If you do not like a term "nested chain of effects", then OK.
Find another name for situation when cards are played during execution of Cruel Caradhras in middle of resolving other chain of effects.

[CDavis7M]

Results of tapping and returning caused by Long Winter remain in play even if the card will leave active play.

A "result" of tapping is a card is that card being moved to the tapped position. The state of a card being in the tapped position cannot "remain in play" as you suggest. This makes no sense -- there is nothing in the game that is "in play" when card is in the tapped position. Cards are "in play," their position and orientation is not "in play." The rules state that tapping is a record keeping mechanism, not something that is actually in play.

And I already explained how these cards work above. Tapping a card and moving a site card to the location deck are both changes to the game state (i.e., the position/orientation of cards in the game). The position and orientation of a card is not an "effect" that can be canceled by discarding a long/permanent events. And any attempt to revert the effects would require a new and different action to be declared (e.g., untapping, or moving of a card), and there is nothing in the rules about declaring such actions when a long/permanent event is discarded.

----------

If you do not like a term "nested chain of effects", then OK.
Find another name for situation when cards are played during execution of Cruel Caradhras in middle of resolving other chain of effects.

It's not that I don't like the term "nested chain of effects," it's just that you are misunderstanding what it is and misapplying it to other situations to create confusion. You pretend that a "nested chain of effects" is one chain of effects resolving within/during the resolution of a different chain of effects. But there is no basis for this. The phase "nested chain of effects is taken from Annotation 19 on the Strike Sequence:

Annotation 19: Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body). However, if the strike calls for any special actions to follow it (e.g., a character wounded by "William" may be required to discard his items), these special actions are resolved before the body check. The body check is the first declared action in a nested chain of effects that immediately follows the strike dice-roll and special actions resulting from the strike.

First of all, recognize that the body check is NOT declared within some other chain of effects. It is the only chain of effects happening at that time. The chain with the strike dice roll has already resolved. The special actions resulting from the strike have already resolved. There is no other chain of effects being resolved when "the body check is the first declared action in a nested chain of effects." So obviously the phrase "nested chain of effects" is not describing a situation where one chain of effects resolving within/during the resolution of a different chain of effects.

Instead, the body check is "nested" within the STRIKE SEQUENCE. This phrase "nested chain of effects" is found in Annotation 19 on the Strike Sequence. Annotation 19 comes after Annotation 17 and 18 which have numerous statements describing all of the special rules restricting actions that can be taken during the strike sequence:

Annotation 17: The only actions that may be declared during a strike sequence are those outlined in Annotation 18.

Annotation 18: When a defending player chooses to resolve a strike against a particular character, the only actions that may be taken by either player until the strike dice-roll is made are the following:

The phrase "nested chain of effects" in Annotation 19 specifically indicates that all of the same restrictions mentioned in Annotation 17 and 18 still apply to the body check because the body check is "nested" within the Strike Sequence. That's all it's saying.

----------

You are also misunderstanding how Cruel Caradhras works. There is no possibility for cards to be "played during execution of Cruel Caradhras" as you suggest. Your statements contradict the Timing Rules. And from your statement, I am guessing that you misunderstand how strikes works and how dice-rolls work in MECCG.

Here's how it works: a strike is just a dice roll. Declared dice rolls can be targeted by an effect played later in the chain of effects (METW p. 48 and MELE p. 50). So when your opponent plays Cruel Caradhras, the strikes are declared and the strike dice roll can be targeted by others cards in that same chain of effects. For example, Halfling stealth can be played in response to Cruel Caradhras to cancel a strike; Risky Blow can be played in response to Cruel Caradhras to give +3 to one of the strike dice rolls, etc. The fact that resources can be played in response to target declared strikes is further explained in The Wizard's Companion book. It would be helpful to read the rules.

Just to be clear for other readers, this discussion is based on a strict reading of Annotation 15 which would not apply since Cruel Caradhras's strikes are "not an attack" by its own text.

----------

The bottom line is that the attacks created by an Ahunt Dragon are "effects" of the long-event card BY DEFINITION -- the literal definition of "effect." The "effect" of playing the Ahunt Dragon long-event is causing companies moving in those regions must face an attack. The effect of having to face the attack only lasts until the Ahunt Dragon long-event is discarded. If the Ahunt Dragon long-event is discarded, then the effect of having to face the attack is no longer in play -- the company no longer has to face the attack.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest that facing the attack is somehow a "result" of the Ahunt Dragon long-event but not an "effect." The rules do not describes "results", they describe "effects." And there is nothing in MECCG that requires the distinction to be made.

[Konrad Klar]

1.

A "result" of tapping is a card is that card being moved to the tapped position.

Some action resolves, is executed, it causes some change in state of game. The change is not reverted, when the card that caused the action, or a card that causes action activated by passive condition leaves play.
If such change may not be named "result" then name it as you wish. I will name it a "result", because this name is distinctive from "effect" and "on-going effect".

2.

It's not that I don't like the term "nested chain of effects," it's just that you are misunderstanding what it is and misapplying it to other situations to create confusion. You pretend that a "nested chain of effects" is one chain of effects resolving within/during the resolution of a different chain of effects. But there is no basis for this. The phase "nested chain of effects is taken from Annotation 19 on the Strike Sequence:

Good point!
There is a difference between chain of effects between two other chain of effects AND a chain of effects declared/resolved/executed duringresolving other chain of effects.

From now I will name the latter "inner chain of effects", to avoid confusion.

3.

Here's how it works: a strike is just a dice roll. Declared dice rolls can be targeted by an effect played later in the chain of effects (METW p. 48 and MELE p. 50). So when your opponent plays Cruel Caradhras, the strikes are declared and the strike dice roll can be targeted by others cards in that same chain of effects. For example, Halfling stealth can be played in response to Cruel Caradhras to cancel a strike; Risky Blow can be played in response to Cruel Caradhras to give +3 to one of the strike dice rolls, etc. The fact that resources can be played in response to target declared strikes is further explained in The Wizard's Companion book. It would be helpful to read the rules.

It is not how Cruel Caradhras works, in my opinion.

[CDavis7M]

Well, since you are determined not to understand, I will give you my best effort beyond hope.

Lasting-Events.png (490.89 KiB) Viewed 3614 times

The rules on events specifically state that all effects of an event are either: (A) non-lasting effects that are implemented immediately or (B) on-going/lasting effects that last for a certain duration. This tells the reader that only some effects of an event are capable of "lasting," while other effects are implemented without any lasting effect. LOOK -- the "results" of an action are not necessarily a "lasting effect."

Long-events and permanent-events, including both (A) non-lasting effects and (B) on-going effects. However, the long/permanent event cards DO NOT list the duration of (B) on-going effects because the rules specify the duration.

However, the duration of (B) on-going effects IS written on short-events.

If you want to know whether the effect of a long-event or permanent-event is an on-going/lasting effect that is canceled when the long/permanent event leaves play, all you need to do is look at a short-event with the same type of effect and see if it includes a duration. It's that simple. To be fair though, some lasting-effects of short-events do not have their time-period specified when there is only one specific target that has its own inherent duration (e.g., Dragon's Desolation gives +2 prowess to a specific attack for the duration of that attack).

Do you want to know why the tapping effect of Long Winter does not get reverted when Long Winter leaves play? It's because tapping is a (A) non-lasting effect that is implemented immediately. Any reader can know that tapping is NOT an (B) on-going effect because short-events that tap do not indicate a specific period of time.

New Moon has a tapping effect and does not include a duration for the tapping effect (e.g., it does NOT state "tap one elf character until the end of the turn"). So tapping is NOT an on-going effect and is not reverted when a long/permanent event leaves play. Notice that the region-type changing effect does include a specific period, because such an effect is an on-going effect.


An effect that modifies the prowess attribute is an on-going effect. You can tell because short-events that modify duration will list a specific period (i.e., until the end of the turn. Except sometimes the cards do not do this where the duration is inherent as mentioned above). So if a long-event or permanent-event modifies a prowess attribute, then that modification goes away when the long/permanent event leaves play since the effect is a lasting effect. So you are wrong in stating:

And I do not think that after resolving and executing action from Rank upon Rank, discarding the card would remove the applied bonuses.
Thief's attack that before had 15 prowess and 1 strike has now 16 prowess and 2 strikes. Discarding Rank upon Rank at this point will not remove the bonuses. Rather it would allow to play another copy of Rank upon Rank and further increase the prowess and number of strikes of the attack.

Going back to Ahunt Dragon attacks. You incorrectly asserted:

Even if Ahunt would be discarded during facing an attack that it created, the attack would not be canceled, discontinued, or fizzled.
The same for Traitor or Earth-tremors.

However, if you looked at other cards and the rules on Combat you would recognize that attacks ARE on-going effects. Per the rules on Combat, strikes are not all resolved immediately. There is time to play other cards to cancel the attack, affect the strikes, etc.

It's also clear that attacks are on-going effects since the effect of Tidings of Bold Spies is merely to create an on-going attack, not to implement/resolve the strikes themselves. That is, resolution of the strikes of the attack does NOT happen at resolution of Tidings of Bold Spies. There is time for numerous chains of effects during this on-going attack.


That attacks are on-going effects is also clear from Riddling Talk. Creatures merely create on-going attacks are resolution of the creature card. If the creature card leaves play, it's on-going attack effect also leaves play. Note that in Riddling Talk and The Dragons rules, strikes/attacks that left play were considered "cancelled," but later this rule was changed because other cards affected "canceling."


----------

This was later clarified: All on-going effects of any card (regardless of type) leave play when that card leaves play.

If a card leaves active play, including being returned to a player's hand, it immediately ceases having an effect on play.

----------

If you still can't understand how some effects are non-lasting while other effects are on-going, that is on you.

[CDavis7M]

There is a difference between chain of effects between two other chain of effects AND a chain of effects declared/resolved/executed duringresolving other chain of effects.

From now I will name the latter "inner chain of effects", to avoid confusion.

There is no such thing as " a chain of effects declared/resolved/executed duringresolving other chain of effects." The Timing Rules are clear that effects are declared and then resolved in order. There is no possibility of other effects being resolved between those already declared effects.

[Konrad Klar]

1.

There is no such thing as " a chain of effects declared/resolved/executed duringresolving other chain of effects.

viewtopic.php?f=103&t=3450

When facing an automatic-attack, you may play resources that directly affect the attack or would otherwise be playable during the strike sequence.
The same applies for facing attacks created by cards with multiple actions.

Granted.
There is no such exception for a cards that merely creates strikes, but not attack.
I consider it as unintentional omission.

I will use a term "inner chain of effects" for concept of a chain of effects declared/resolved/executed during resolving other chain of effects.
Whether someone accepts such possibility or not.

2.

f you want to know whether the effect of a long-event or permanent-event is an on-going/lasting effect that is canceled when the long/permanent event leaves play, all you need to do is look at a short-event with the same type of effect and see if it includes a duration. It's that simple. To be fair though, some lasting-effects of short-events do not have their time-period specified when there is only one specific target that has its own inherent duration (e.g., Dragon's Desolation gives +2 prowess to a specific attack for the duration of that attack).

Just that.
Compare what Dragon's Desolation does with what Rank upon Rank does.
If a bonus from Rank upon Rank would be implemented immediately, not as action caused by passive condition, Ready for His Will would be unable to be played in response to the latter.

[CDavis7M]

You are misunderstanding which effects are non-lasting and which effects are on-going. And you're also making up confusing game-concepts that contradict the actual rules and go against ICE's ruling. Poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding is a common problem among second-language learners -- and even among first-language learners.

Also, you're not even providing arguments to support your own position -- which would be hard because there is no support in the rules for your position. And besides that, you're not even arguing against my position. You're just bringing up other rules and making tangential statements.

The discussion on the proposed changes to Traitor hinge on whether an attack is an on-going effect. I already explained why an attack is an on-going effect. Maybe at least address those points. Consider: if attacks were not on-going effects that could be negated by removing the attack-creating card from play, why would the Designers change Traitor to discard itself before the attack? -- They wouldn't have.


----------

When facing an automatic-attack, you may play resources that directly affect the attack or would otherwise be playable during the strike sequence.
The same applies for facing attacks created by cards with multiple actions.

Granted.
There is no such exception for a cards that merely creates strikes, but not attack.
I consider it as unintentional omission.

I will use a term "inner chain of effects" for concept of a chain of effects declared/resolved/executed during resolving other chain of effects.
Whether someone accepts such possibility or not.

If you read The Wizard's Companion you would see that certain cards are playable when facing an attack created within resolution of a card (e.g., Rescue Prisoners) by virtue of strikes being dice rolls, which are targetable when declared. An attack is just one or more strike dice rolls, which work just like all other dice rolls. The amendment to Annotation 24 creates an exception that allows for declaration of cards that require a character or company to be "facing an attack," even though the attack is merely declared. There is no "inner chain of effects" needed -- it's just a dice roll.

And there is no need to apply the reasoning in the amendment to annotation 24 to any other concept in the game.

Just that.
Compare what Dragon's Desolation does with what Rank upon Rank does.
If a bonus from Rank upon Rank would be implemented immediately, not as action caused by passive condition, Ready for His Will would be unable to be played in response to the latter.

You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between implementation of an effect (i.e., "resolution") and "declaration" of the effect (which may or may not be triggered by passive conditions). But neither declaration nor resolution of the effect have any bearing on whether or not the effect is a lasting/on-going effect.

Dragon's Desolation and Rank Upon Rank have similar on-going prowess-modifying effects. It's just that declaration of Rank Upon Rank's effect must first be triggered by a passive condition while the effect of Dragon's Desolation is declared when the card is declared.

Some effects are on-going/lasting effects and some are not. The card text of long-events and permanent-events do not tell you which effects are on-going and which are not. But ALL effects are immediately implemented when resolved. Whether an effect is triggered by a passive condition or just declared by play of a card makes no difference on whether the effect is a non-lasting effect or an on-going effect.

I already explained this above: Effects that change the game state (e.g., the position, location, or orientation of cards) are non-lasting effects and effects that modify attributes of a card without any change to the game state are on-going/lasting effects. I don't know why anyone else could not clearly articulate this in the past, but that is how it works and you can tell by looking at the short-events as I discussed above.

[Konrad Klar]

1.

Also, you're not even providing arguments to support your own position -- which would be hard because there is no support in the rules for your position. And besides that, you're not even arguing against my position. You're just bringing up other rules and making tangential statements.

I am replying to your post mainly because others may also read this thread.
Without intention of convincing you.
Everybody has access to rules texts and errata texts. Understanding them may differ.
I do not mind to remind each time when I describe how some rule works, that it is (merely) my understanding of how the rule works.
I am just speaking for myself and If I provide citations I provide them using quote tags.

And if I provide some references, like e.g. reference to viewtopic.php?f=103&t=3450 , the fact may be barefacedly negated by you.
I believe that if someone has radically different understanding of some things than I have, then any argument I make will look as not relevant for him.

2.

If you read The Wizard's Companion you would see that certain cards are playable when facing an attack created within resolution of a card (e.g., Rescue Prisoners) by virtue of strikes being dice rolls, which are targetable when declared. An attack is just one or more strike dice rolls, which work just like all other dice rolls. The amendment to Annotation 24 creates an exception that allows for declaration of cards that require a character or company to be "facing an attack," even though the attack is merely declared. There is no "inner chain of effects" needed -- it's just a dice roll.

Masterpiece.
At the moment when Rescue Prisoners is declared it is not even known how many strikes will have the attack that it creates.