Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar »

"Instead of a normal character, during your organization phase you may bring into play one character (including a minion agent) with up to a 6 mind."

I doubt whether you have asked yourself "why Thrall of the Voice says during your organization phase if it creates immediate action and may be played only in your organization phase"?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M »

Because it refers to and replaces the normal play of a character during your organization phase.

The action is play a character. The organization phase is merely a regular (non-active, non-passive) condition.
Screenshot_20190917-171410~2.png
Screenshot_20190917-171410~2.png (68.06 KiB) Viewed 1620 times
How would Thrall's character playing action not happen immediately?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:01 am
Because it refers to and replaces the normal play of a character during your organization phase.
Or during draft.
Thrall of the Voice may be played only in your organization phase or during draft.

Hopefully you are using consistently the Whispers of Rings, placing ring special item "off to the side" immediately with playing Whispers of Rings.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Bandobras Took »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:30 pm
Putting aside the issue of whether or not Thrall let's you play more than 1 character a turn, a 2nd copy of Thrall cannot even be played at all unless it brings a 2nd character into play.

Read the rules on playing cards and events again.

Thrall cannot be played to just sit around like some permanent events. It lists actions, which are immediately implemented. The only lasting effect is the -1 mind which depends on the other character playing and the placing actions. Thrall is a permanent event due to the need to maintain the -1 mind effect.
Instead of a normal character, during your organization phase you may bring into play one character (including a minion agent) with up to a 6 mind.
It doesn't say "during your organization phase, bring into play."

It says "you may."

The play of Thrall gives the player a new option for character play. The player chooses which, if any, organization phase he wants to use it. Thrall absolutely can be played to sit around. However, adding an alternate means of playing a character is clearly an effect on the game in and of itself. One does not actually have to play a character at that time.

Likewise, Lost in the Border-lands doesn't *force you* to play one additional hazard per region type, it *permits* you to do so.

Bill the Pony doesn't force you to discard him the moment your small company moves to a non-haven site.

You don't have to discard Daelomin at Home the moment you play him.

You don't have to cancel a given Dragon/Drake attack after playing Dragon-feuds -- you merely have the option to do so if you wish.

You don't have to discard Folco Boffin the moment you play him.

Bade to Rule would be pointless if you automatically had to do whatever a card text says you "may" do.

So, no. Thrall doesn't make you play anything of the sort.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M »

I think there is a difference between Thrall and listed cards. But I can concede the point about Thrall's effects occurring later vs immediately because that is a side topic here.

Letting Thrall be played to "sit" doesn't enable Thrall to be placed with a character that is not brought into play by its effect.

Thrall states "Place this card with the character." There is antecedent for "the" character. The antecedent is the "one character with up to a 6 mind" which "you may bring into play."

Therefore, even a sitting Thrall may not be placed with a character unless that character brought into play by its own effect.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Bandobras Took »

That's the point of debate. Thus, the initiative for a clarification.
Instead of a normal character, during your organization phase you may bring into play one character (including a minion agent) with up to a 6 mind.
All three cards give the same ability. This can be used to create three separate uses. Or one use can apply to all three cards. In the case of the latter, Thrall checks whether the appropriate action was done -- bringing into play a character instead of a normal character -- and then attaches itself to the character so played. The text is not explicitly exclusive, so inclusive is also a possibility.

The lack of a "may not be duplicated on a given character" is at least an indirect indication that inclusion was intended.

If anybody's got a player's guide or other ICE comments on Thrall, that could shed further light.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar »

@CDavis7M
Read the text and CRF entry for Helm of her Secrecy.
Then try to apply your theory consistently both to Thrall of the Voice and Helm of her Secrecy.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M »

meanwhile
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:30 am
Nothing disables the ability of Thrall of the Voice once it is placed on a character. That means that during your organization phase, you may always opt to bring in one character instead of a normal character, moving Thrall to the new character played.
----------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:30 pm
@CDavis7M
Read the text and CRF entry for Helm of her Secrecy.
Then try to apply your theory consistently both to Thrall of the Voice and Helm of her Secrecy.
Helm of her Secrecy establishes a passive condition for placing the card. Thrall does not. And so Thrall cannot be placed without playing a character.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:20 pm
All three cards give the same ability. This can be used to create three separate uses.
If the card can create 3 separate uses, then it is not the "same ability." If it were the same ability (like Traitor, Lure of Power, etc.), then maybe multiple Thralls would be placeabe. But the card text would be different if that were the case.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:20 pm
If anybody's got a player's guide or other ICE comments on Thrall, that could shed further light.
Sure. Here are ICE's comments on whether an effect of multiple cards is the same effect or not. Thrall's effect is clearly cumulative and not the same effect. You can play multiple characters with multiple Thralls. But the placing action is dependent on that particular character being played. The placing isn't triggered upon the play of the character as a result of a passive condition (e.g., if a character of up to 6 mind is played, place this card with the character...). And if Thrall really did have the "same effect" (e.g., place this card with the next character player) then triggered effect would fail for the duplicate cards.

------------------
Passive Conditions
  • A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.
  • Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike sequence follow a different set of rules.
  • Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects.
  • Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
  • 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.
ICE Digest 79 wrote:From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>If two Rivers are played on a site during the M/H phase, when the
>resource player decides to tap a ranger to satisfy ONE are they BOTH
>then satisfied? It would seem so, because the conditions for both were
>met simultaneously. Compare this to Lure of Power (multiples go away
>when one is checked) and Traitor (same thing.)


No, you have to tap two rangers.

>Second part of the question: What is the underlying rule/mechanism that
>causes secondary Lures and Traitors to go away like this, and if River
>is not the same, why not?


The underlying mechanism for Traitor is that it is an effect triggered
by a passive condition. Since they are not numerical effects that
could be done cumulatively, they are both discarded, and the effect
only applies once.

River is different. It is an effect (the company can't do anything)
that can be cancelled (by tapping a ranger). If two are having an
effect on play, they must be canceled individually, by tapping two
rangers
.
ICE Digest 80 wrote: >From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>To: me...@tower.ml.org
>Subject: Re: METW digest 79: River Revisited
>Message-ID: <354DEC...@popmail.vnet.net>
>
>I guess I don't understand the subtle semantics. Could you help me
>better understand? Consider the text of River:
>
>Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn
>does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase.
>
>(No mention of cumulative in the text.)


If it is assumed that in order to have a cumulative effect the card
must state it is cumulative, then two Fellowships would give a +1
to prowess. A card does not have to mention that it is cumulative
to have a cumulative effect.

Generally the opposite is true. If a card can't have a cumulative
effect on play, it will be unique or cannot be duplicated. Passive
conditions are a little different, since if there are two in play,
both will get triggered at the same time, for no extra effect. But
since River is a short-event, and not a card in play, it does not
work as a passive condition. Even if it did what would it be? "If
you tap a ranger, then you may do something during the site phase?"
But you can already do something during the site phase, so that
is meaningless.


>Order of play: my opponent plays two Rivers during the M/H phase. They
>are played and resolve seperately. They are short events, so once
>played they are discarded, they do not stay on the site (Wizard's
>Companion p 29) as a long event or permanent event would. The site now
>has a "memorized" condition, tap a ranger or you can't do anything here.
>Since there is no mention of a cumulative effect on River in its text
>the site shouldn't "remember" the need for two rangers to be tapped,
>only that "If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not
>tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase." If I tap a
>ranger, one ranger, that condition has been met. Since there is no
>mention of "cumulative" in River's text, he could play three on the site
>and it wouldn't matter: so long as I tapped a (singular) ranger I have
>met the "conditon" placed on the site.


This is all based on the fact that River doesn't say cumulative.
Since River is cumulative, the site should remember the need for
two rangers to be tapped.

And again, what river does is put an effect that you can't do
anything on a site. If you tap a ranger, it gets rid of the
effect. But if there are two such effects on the site, the
second one will still have an effect on play, until you tap
a second ranger
.
ICE Digest 81 wrote: From: John Coble <jco...@vnet.net>
>Ok, I follow you in that there is no "cumulative" text in the game; if
>two cards are not prohibited from being in play simultaneously then
>their effects are assumed to be cumulative. This still leaves the
>question of why Lure of Power is not cumulative?


Because that's the way passive conditions work. If two of the same
effect trigger at the same time, only one of them applies, but they
are both considered to have triggered for purposes of discarding
them.


>Traitors not having an effect I can see, mainly due to the resolution
>text on the card, but I still don't understand why a "duplicate" Traitor
>card goes away: why doesn't it wait for the next failed corruption
>check?


Because the next corruption check has already happened.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Bandobras Took »

And all Thrall does is establish an effect that you can play a character instead of a normal character.

The way Thrall is worded, the effect is never "used up." A Thrall in play on a given character *still* allows the play of a character instead of the normal character, and Thrall is placed on whichever character was most recently played. In that case, as well, three Thralls can end up on the same character. (This is very obviously a screw-up on ICE's part, but there it is.)

Each Thrall card says it is to be placed with the character brought into play instead of a normal character. The presence of other Thrall cards doesn't change that. The River logic is hazy, to say the least, given that their own errata to attempt to make the card function didn't work. It's clear how they wanted *River* to work, regardless of its text. We need to know how they wanted *Thrall* to work, because Thrall doesn't get cancelled by playing a character, or even changed.

Edit:
If the card can create 3 separate uses, then it is not the "same ability."
You're correct. I rescind my previous statement. Whenever a character is played with the text of Thrall as it stands, all Thralls you have in play must be placed with that character.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:42 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑
19 Sep 2019, 00:30
@CDavis7M
Read the text and CRF entry for Helm of her Secrecy.
Then try to apply your theory consistently both to Thrall of the Voice and Helm of her Secrecy.

Helm of her Secrecy establishes a passive condition for placing the card. Thrall does not. And so Thrall cannot be placed without playing a character.
The same for Open to the Summons. Condition may be just the character.
But if not and If the same may be said for Open to the Summons and Thrall of the Voice, then "Cannot be duplicated on given character." is inexplicable.

If Éowyn does not must be played, why character allowed by Thrall of the Voice must be played?

And how many copies of Thrall of the Voice may be played during organization phase? Is there a limit?
So for what "instead normal character"? If character would be played in result Thrall of the Voice, it would be played when Thrall of the Voice resolves, not when player otherwise could play "normal character" in organization phase (or in starting company).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:35 am
The same for Open to the Summons. Condition may be just the character.
But if not and If the same may be said for Open to the Summons and Thrall of the Voice, then "Cannot be duplicated on given character." is inexplicable.
How can a card that is not playable on a character ever be duplicated on a character without an active or passive condition for performing the placing? Duplication is not possible for Thrall or OttS and so there is no need to write "cannot be duplicated."

-------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:35 am
If Éowyn does not must be played, why character allowed by Thrall of the Voice must be played?
The issue with Thrall is that there is no effect on the game if Thrall is not played. If no character is played, thrall is not placed, and the mind is not reduced. I gives no MP. It does nothing else. A card cannot be played for no effect. But if a card has an active condition or a passive condition enabling it to achieve some effect, then it can be played. This possibility of a later action is an effect on the game. Similar to a non-targeting long event. This is described in the MELE rules.
MELE Playing and Drawing Cards & Legal Play of Cards wrote: A card cannot be played for no effect. A card may be played if it has potential effect.

The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later.
Thrall has no active conditions or passive conditions for placing the card on a character. Thrall has no effect on the game without a character being played. And so it cannot be played to just sit around.

Helm of Her Secrecy has a passive condition that is triggered following a Nazgul attack. Plus, Eowyn being in hand is one of the active conditions of even playing Helm of Her Secrecy. What are you going to do, not play her? Even still, if you don't play her, or if it's not a Nazgul attack, then Helm of Her Secrecy just gets discarded. But at least the passive condition was established, creating some possible effect on the game.

Look at the list from Brandobras and consider -- if "may take some action" on a card has an active or passive condition to trigger it later, then the "may" is a "may." But if the "may take some action" has no active or passive condition to trigger the action, then the "may" is really a "must." (note the MELE updates on "Lost in the X").

Whispers/Rumours of Rings have card-taking-actions as an active condition for their placing actions. There is a possibility for later effects. The card placing doesn't have to happen right away. These cards have an effect on the game.

Thrall states: "Instead of a normal character, during your organization phase you may bring into play one character (including a minion agent) with up to a 6 mind." This has no effect on the game unless the character is played. Actions cannot just happen without active or passive conditions. The action is "play one character" but there is no active condition for this action.

Thrall has no effect on the game (and will be returned to hand) unless there a character being played by its effect.

Some other MEWH permanent events have no actions but they at least have the possibility to affect MPs or change some rule restriction.

-------------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:35 am
And how many copies of Thrall of the Voice may be played during organization phase? Is there a limit?
So for what "instead normal character"? If character would be played in result Thrall of the Voice, it would be played when Thrall of the Voice resolves, not when player otherwise could play "normal character" in organization phase (or in starting company).
Well, we know your interpretations of limits from Untimely Brood. Let's set this aside for now.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:37 am
How can a card that is not playable on a character ever be duplicated on a character without an active or passive condition for performing the placing? Duplication is not possible for Thrall or OttS and so there is no need to write "cannot be duplicated."
Open to the Summons contains the phrase "Cannot be duplicated on given character.".
That would not be needed if agent character would be played in result of Open to the Summons (i.e. when the card resolves).
The phrase make sense if there are multiple copies of Open to the Summons on company and agent character is played later.
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:37 am
The issue with Thrall is that there is no effect on the game if Thrall is not played. If no character is played, thrall is not placed, and the mind is not reduced. I gives no MP. It does nothing else. A card cannot be played for no effect. But if a card has an active condition or a passive condition enabling it to achieve some effect, then it can be played. This possibility of a later action is an effect on the game. Similar to a non-targeting long event.
Can I understand that if Éowyn is not played with Helm of Her Secrecy it is different?
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:37 am
Thrall has no active conditions or passive conditions for placing the card on a character. Thrall has no effect on the game without a character being player.
As long as someone believe that presence of character played instead normal character is not condition. Believe or not believe he must live with Open to the Summons and "Cannot be duplicated on given character.".
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:37 am
"Instead of a normal character, during your organization phase you may bring into play one character (including a minion agent) with up to a 6 mind." in Thrall has no effect on the game unless the character is played. Things cannot just happen without active or passive conditions. The action is "play one character" but there is no active condition for this action.
For above reasons Bad Company should not be playable. It does not set any passive conditions, does not give MP.
It only gives some possibility.
Or is playable but Orc and Trolls along with it.
Player can play during organization phase one character. He does not need active or passive conditions for it.
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:37 am
Whispers/Rumours of Rings have card-taking-actions as an active condition for their placing actions. There is a possibility for later effects.
Would make sense if card-taking-actions would be done in order to declaring placing action.
Does not make a sense if action is "take and place".
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:37 am
Look at the list from Brandobras and consider -- if "may take some action" on a card has an active or passive condition to trigger it later, then the "may" is a "may." But if the "may take some action" has no active or passive condition to trigger the action, then the "may" is really a "must." (note the MELE updates on "Lost in the X").
I do not see any sense in above.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Bandobras Took »

Thrall has no effect on the game without a character being played. And so it cannot be played to just sit around.
This is unequivocally false. Giving a player the capacity to do something they would otherwise be unable to do is an effect on the game.

See also Rumours of Rings.
Actions cannot just happen without active or passive conditions.
This is also completely false. See Dark Tryst.
if "may take some action" on a card has an active or passive condition to trigger it later, then the "may" is a "may." But if the "may take some action" has no active or passive condition to trigger the action, then the "may" is really a "must." (note the MELE updates on "Lost in the X").
This is also egregiously false.
Bade To Rule wrote:Playable at a Darkhaven during the organization phase on your Ringwraith. -2 to his direct influence. +5 general influence. You may discard this card during any of your organization phases.
Doesn't look like much of an active condition or passive condition there, does it?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that you can only take an action if there's a condition, or that there must be an action for a card to be played, but neither of those is true or borne our by the cards or rules.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Thrall of the Voice: multiple on character clarification

Post by Konrad Klar »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:22 pm
Doesn't look like much of an active condition or passive condition there, does it?
Target Ringwraith?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”