That thread discusses timing of the attack created by Ash Mountains and refers to another thread discussing Chill Douser and Uruk-lieutenant. These effects are implemented using passive conditions. The timing for passive conditions applies.
When the M/H phase begins, this is the passive condition for Ash Mountain's effect that triggers the attack.
When an Undead attack is created (in the same turn that Chill Douser was played), this is the passive condition that triggers the actions of +1 to strikes and +1 to prowess by Chill Douser's effect.
When an attack from Orc-Lieutenant is created (in the same turn that Uruk-Lieutenant was played), this is the passive condition that triggers the action of +3 to prowess by Uruk-Lieutenant's effect.
----------------
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:59 pm
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:42 pm
I see no issue with Greed or other cards using passive condition timing rules.
I believe that you know:
CRF wrote: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.
and still you do not see the issue.
I see no issue in the
RULES. This CRF clarification is not a rule and it is not intended to be one. The CRF clarifications just describe how the rules work in response to specific situations presented by Players (which are not provided in the CRF).
While this particular CRF clarification describes how passive conditions established by long and permanent events work (which have their effects canceled when they are removed from play), the CRF clarification does not accurately describe passive conditions created by Short Events and Creatures.
This CRF clarification on passive conditions is not the only misleading or situationally-incorrect statement in the CRF. Even the ICE Netrep has told players that the CRF clarifications are merely "secondary rules" and that the main rules need to be followed over the CRF (Digest 123).
Nothing in the Rules or the Annotations to the Rules indicate that short events and creatures cannot establish passive conditions for triggering actions (lasting until the end of the turn). And there is no requirement in the rules that short events or creatures still be in play for their lasting effects to trigger actions as a result of a passive condition. How could the short event or creature ever still in be play by the time that the passive condition is satisfied? It would never be able to happen. And so this clarification clearly doesn't apply to those situations.
CRF clarifications cannot create restrictions beyond the primary rules, nor were they intended to do so. A Player that doesn't understand the Rules can rely on the CRF clarifications 99% of the time. But when there is a conflict between the Rules and the CRF Clarifications the Player needs to think for themselves to identify the reason for the discrepancy. Presumably this CRF Clarification was made in response to a question about a long or permanent events.
The clarification "
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 cancelled" does not override the actual rules on Passive Conditions.
---------
This CRF Clarifications originated in CRF version 5 as:
A long or permanent-event (or other card) causing an action as a result of
a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the
action is cancelled. For example, you can play Twilight to discard Long
Winter before the effect of Long Winter causes your new site to tap. This
cancels this effect of Long Winter
From what I can see, Ash Mountains, Chill Douser, and Uruk-Lieutenant were not considered when making this statement.
Also interesting to note, the CRF v.6 modified the clarification and added another:
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 cancelled.
When something would be discarded by a passive condition, that
discard is considered simultaneous with the resolution of the the
One of these statements made it into the official rules annotations as Annotation 9a and the other statement didn't. Annotation 9a was actually a new rule, not a clarification, and so it was made into an Annotation. The other Clarification was already covered by the rules.
-------------
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:59 pm
Joint actions have nothing to do with triggered actions.
Right.