Skill cards target character with skill

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

I think that active conditions of Gnaw with Word are: presence of target (i.e specified) sage/diplomat, presence of additional (not specified) target sage/diplomat in the same company, or at current, or at new site.

Specified: must be the same at declaration, and when it comes to resolving a card.
Not specified: does not must be the same at declaration, and when it comes to resolving a card.

See:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Sage Only wrote:Any card requiring a sage to play is a sage only card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Bandobras Took wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:34 pm I'm sorry, where did you get the idea that there are target-based active conditions? Targets are entities through which an action plays out. The rules flat-out state that active conditions are not actions. Therefore, it is impossible for them to target.
A target for an action always creates a targeting active condition.
CRF Active Conditions wrote:Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved.
Playing a card sure sounds like an Action verb to me! That skill cards are played by a character means that a character entity is involved in the play action being played out. From this we can conclude that the character is a target of the play action.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Bandobras Took wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:34 pm I prefer what's actually in the rules. Active Conditions are not Actions and therefore do not have targets. Having a character of a particular skill in play is an active condition.
I agree with these points. My additional point that the having-a-skill-character is only one part of "[skill] only" cards. The "skill only" creates an active condition, sure; any target creates an active condition for the target, which doesn't mean that the target is no longer a target. The additional component of "skill only" cards is that the card is played by a character according to the CRF. It is this that indicates to me that there is an entity associated with the card play action that requires targeting (which itself creates an active condition for card play).
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

When a sloppy worded rule meet a will of respecting it precisely then a nonsense is exposed.
"(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill.
Gnaw with Words wrote:Tap a sage if another sage in his company or at his current site or at his new site. Alternatively, tap a diplomat if another diplomat is in his company or at his current site or at his new site. 'Small comfort will those two have in their companionship: they will gnaw one another with words. ...If Wormtongue ever comes out of Orthanc alive, it will be more than he deserves.'-LotRIII
Any card requiring a sage to play is a sage only card.
Does Gnaw with Words require a sage (in first use)?
Is it a sage only card?
If so, is Gnaw with Words played by sage?

Something is not right here. And I bet that it is the first quote.
I will correct it in competing thread.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Gnaw with Words requires the existence of two sages (or two diplomats without loss of generality) in the same company or current or new site as specified by its text. It targets the one being tapped, and doesn't target the one that isn't being tapped (since that is a condition of the tap action, not an entity the action is played out through).
The addition of the second CRF entry then makes this a sage only card.
The addition of the first CRF entry then adds a separate requirement that the card be played by a sage (under this thread's proposed clarification).

What is not right here?

[edit: Gnaw With Words card does not require a sage to play because it can be played without any sages in play. Thus it is not a "sage only" card.]
Last edited by Theo on Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:44 pm What is not right here?
That Gnaw with Words is played by sage.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Theo wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:46 pm
Bandobras Took wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:34 pm I'm sorry, where did you get the idea that there are target-based active conditions? Targets are entities through which an action plays out. The rules flat-out state that active conditions are not actions. Therefore, it is impossible for them to target.
A target for an action always creates a targeting active condition.
CRF Active Conditions wrote:Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved.
Playing a card sure sounds like an Action verb to me! That skill cards are played by a character means that a character entity is involved in the play action being played out. From this we can conclude that the character is a target of the play action.
Actually, this sounds like a solid argument for *not* having skill cards target a specific character, as it leads to a contradiction.

All Annotation 8 is saying is that you can't play a card if you can't target whatever it's supposed to target. Thus, anything that says "Playable on a Skill X" does actually target a character of Skill X, and will fizzle if said character is removed before the card resolves. But this is not the same thing as "Skill X Only," nor should it be.
Last edited by Bandobras Took on Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

@ Konrad: And that means Palantir of Annuminas would be able to recycle Gnaw With Words, which I doubt is the intent.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bandobras Took wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:50 am @ Konrad: And that means Palantir of Annuminas would be able to recycle Gnaw With Words, which I doubt is the intent.
Is it harmful? Is a recycling of Dragon factions intended use Parsimony of Seclusion, and From the Pits of Angband?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

And if even it is a problem, it may be solved independently.

By simply changing:
"Any card requiring a sage to play is a sage only card."
to
"Any resource card requiring a sage to play is a sage only card."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Well, not independently. Such a change would also make Gnaw With Words no longer played by a sage.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Bandobras Took wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:43 am
Theo wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:46 pm Playing a card sure sounds like an Action verb to me! That skill cards are played by a character means that a character entity is involved in the play action being played out. From this we can conclude that the character is a target of the play action.
Actually, this sounds like a solid argument for *not* having skill cards target a specific character, as it leads to a contradiction.
Could you clarify what contradiction you see?
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:50 pm Well, not independently. Such a change would also make Gnaw With Words no longer played by a sage.
Well, independently. This change would make impact on Gnaw With Words, but it does not require a changes in other rules.
Question is rather whether that or another theory does not require this change to be consistent.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Theo wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:52 pm
Bandobras Took wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:43 am
Theo wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:46 pm Playing a card sure sounds like an Action verb to me! That skill cards are played by a character means that a character entity is involved in the play action being played out. From this we can conclude that the character is a target of the play action.
Actually, this sounds like a solid argument for *not* having skill cards target a specific character, as it leads to a contradiction.
Could you clarify what contradiction you see?
If we accept that reasoning, then it runs headlong against the earlier demonstration that active conditions cannot have targets.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

...

A Character playing a card is not an active condition; it is an action that (because it has A Target) creates active conditions that The Target be in play at declaration and at resolution of the card play action.

Similarly tapping A Card is an action, which equally creates active conditions that The Target be in play at declaration and resolution of the tapping action. As part of a condition for another action (such as card play), tapping creates another set of active conditions: the entity to tap must be untapped when the larger action is declared and it must be tapped when the larger action resolves.

Just because the active condition of an entity being in play is not targeting that entity does not mean that whatever created the active condition does not target the entity. For example, stated playability conditions (active conditions) for Secrets of Their Forging by itself does not target a ring, but the card as a whole does because other actions on the card are played out through a specific ring.

The required presence of a named card (e.g. Doors of Night) only creates active conditions without targeting because there is no action. In contrast, play of a card is an action, which the CRF has stated requires a target for "skill only" cards.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”