Parsimony of Seclusion

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Bandobras Took »

Introducing a difference between the resolution of an action and its execution seems to be iffy; the rules make no such distinction.
You can say exactly the same about most actions that change a state of target.
Which is why I suggest that Annotation 8 be amended to account for actions that do so.
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: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Konrad Klar »

If everything happens almost immediately, some things may appear as indistinguishable.

Discarding of minion The Arkernstone against Dwarf under effect of Magical Harp:

The action is declared, resolves, but is not executed.
Because it is known why.
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: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Bandobras Took »

Now we're getting in to what occurs with the cancelling of actions. :)

I still think Annotation 8 should be amended to account for targeting of entities not in play.
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: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by CDavis7M »

Each of the 9 dragons have their own event. The idea here is to make the hazard limit increase only if the player is actually playing with Agburanar.

I think the card text would be clear without the alternative effect. Instead of 2 alternative effects, the card could have 1 effect and 1 "if"-conditional effect.
Proposed Rulings by card wrote:
  • Card Erratum: Change "Alternatively,  return  any  manifestation  of  Agburanar  to  your  hand  from  your  discard  pile  and  increase  the  hazard  limit  by  two." to "If you returned any manifestation of Agburanar to your hand, increase the hazard limit by two."
  • The hazard limit only increases if Agburanar is the Dragon manifestation that you returned from your discard pile.
As for Annotation 8 - Generally, cards with specific limitations or allowances are overridden by effects or rules that indicate them specifically. But if a general rule doesn't indicate the specifics, then it doesn't apply.

Some actions (returning/taking a card to hand) target cards that are out of play. This allowance is created by the effect in the card text. Annotation 8 doesn't override more specific card text.

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

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:50 pm
I think the card text would be clear without the alternative effect. Instead of 2 alternative effects, the card could have 1 effect and 1 "if"-conditional effect.
2 alternative effects make a sense.

Player may choose 1st - safer - but he will not have bonus HL if he will return Agburanar manifestation.
Or he may choose 2nd, but if Agburanar manifestation is not present in discard pile at resolution, he will not get anything*.

*) He may count on situation where Twilight played in response by him on Doors of Night will effectively discard The Will of Sauron along with (his) Agburanar Ahunt. But opponent's Twilight played on his Twilight spoils the plan.
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: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by CDavis7M »

In your situation, when the hazard player plays Twilight "in response", it is being played in response to playing Parsimony? If not, when is Parsimony played? I understand that Twilight is played so that long event Agburanar Ahunt is discarded due to Will of Sauron being discarded and discarding long events.

But why play Twilight "In response". Wouldn't the hazard player just declare Twilight, wait for it to resolve (or not), and wait to have Agburanar Ahunt discarded. Then, play Parsimony in a new chain.

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

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:19 pm
In your situation, when the hazard player plays Twilight "in response", it is being played in response to playing Parsimony?
Yes.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:19 pm
I understand that Twilight is played so that long event Agburanar Ahunt is discarded due to Will of Sauron being discarded and discarding long events.
Yes.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:19 pm
But why play Twilight "In response". Wouldn't the hazard player just declare Twilight, wait for it to resolve (or not), and wait to have Agburanar Ahunt discarded. Then, play Parsimony in a new chain.
To provoke an opponent to play Twilight and respond to it with Twilight (#3).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

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

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Konrad Klar »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:28 pm
Introducing a difference between the resolution of an action and its execution seems to be iffy; the rules make no such distinction.
You can say exactly the same about most actions that change a state of target.
Which is why I suggest that Annotation 8 be amended to account for actions that do so.
Rules may not name some things but at the same time they may say about the things.

Some cards untap during untap phase outside of chain of effects.
Cards discarded in result of producing an active condition are discarded immediately, not in chain of effects.

Negating the distinction between resolution of an action and its execution reminds me discussion at meccg.net about (lack of) possibility of responding to revealed on-guards. One of discussants said that if short-event would be declared and resolved immediately (prior a chain of effects in which it has been revealed) it should immediately gone to discard pile, without effect.
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: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by CDavis7M »

For referenceImage

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:19 am
Some cards untap during untap phase outside of chain of effects.
Cards discarded in result of producing an active condition are discarded immediately, not in chain of effects.

Negating the distinction between resolution of an action and its execution reminds me discussion at meccg.net about (lack of) possibility of responding to revealed on-guards. One of discussants said that if short-event would be declared and resolved immediately (prior a chain of effects in which it has been revealed) it should immediately gone to discard pile, without effect.
Why do you say that some cards untap outside of a chain of effects?

I need you to unpack how you see the on-guard discussion to indicate a distinction between resolution of an action and its execution. The declaration of the play of a short-event is resolved by the short event's effects being implemented and then the short event being discarded. There is no way for the short event to be discarded if nothing else is stopping its effects from being implemented (e.g. invalidated conditions, Many Sorrows Befall). Implementation of the effects of the short event is NOT synonymous with resolution of the declared play action, but there is no distinction between a resolution and "execution" of a declared play action.

---

Perhaps the root issue may be this ambiguity?
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.
"resolved" could be either an adjective or the past tense of a verb. The adjective form would imply to me that it has finished resolving; the verb would only require that one has begun its resolving. I think the verb form is correct, but others may think otherwise.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

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

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:49 am
Why do you say that some cards untap outside of a chain of effects?
If action is both mandatory (must happen) and nothing causes its declaration then it happens outside of a chain of effects.
Or maybe player declares untap Item 1, untap Item 2 etc.. actions?

Take the Smoke on the Wind as example.
Now look on: "Otherwise, you may tap one character in the company and put this card in your marshalling point pile."
This is the activity that you may take, but you do not must take (even if you can).
Tapping of character is an action. Right?
Was it declared or resolved?
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: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by CDavis7M »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:38 pm
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.
The card must be in play when the action resolves, but when the action resolves, the card is moved out of play. When it resolves, not after it resolves.

It doesn't work because the card moving to hand/discard pile is simultaneous with the resolution of the action, at which point they're not in play, so the action can't have discarded them, so they're in play, so they're discarded .
Brandobras, would you mind explaining, maybe with an example? I reviewed the Timing and Active Condition rules and CRG and I don't see any faults. And I can't determine any cards that would cause that issue.

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

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:15 pm
Playable on untapped X. Tap X.

At the moment when action resolves X is no longer untapped.

There is no time (to declare anything) between resolution and execution of action.
Konrad, I reviewing the Timing and Active Condition rules and CRF and I don't see any issues with cards having text as stated above. Examples of cards with such language include Dark Numbers, Fireworks, etc.

I also don't see any differentiation between resolution and execution of an effect/action. Execution of the action occurs "at resolution" of the action.

Would you mind explaining why you think this and explain when it would matter?

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

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:55 pm
Discarding of minion The Arkernstone against Dwarf under effect of Magical Harp:

The action is declared, resolves, but is not executed.
Because it is known why.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:40 pm
Now we're getting in to what occurs with the cancelling of actions. :)
My understand of cancelling of actions based on other cards and the CRF is that the action does not resolve.

So, in the Minion Arkenstone example, the discarding a dwarf is declared but did not resolve.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Parsimony of Seclusion

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:03 am
Theo wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:49 am
Why do you say that some cards untap outside of a chain of effects?
If action is both mandatory (must happen) and nothing causes its declaration then it happens outside of a chain of effects.
Or maybe player declares untap Item 1, untap Item 2 etc.. actions?

Take the Smoke on the Wind as example.
Now look on: "Otherwise, you may tap one character in the company and put this card in your marshalling point pile."
This is the activity that you may take, but you do not must take (even if you can).
Tapping of character is an action. Right?
Was it declared or resolved?
Interesting, thanks. I think I get what you're saying about mandatory, but there is a question of timing: nothing says that untapping NOW is mandatory, just that untapping must occur at some point during the phase. The player choosing when to untap should be declared, not that I can think of it ever mattering in practice.

And yes, I would similarly say that choosing the Smoke on the Wind "may" effects of tapping a character and moving it to your MP must be declared, otherwise it wouldn't be clear what you are doing. Apparently as a permanent event, the card sits around indefinitely on your board (still worth MP!) until you declare the effect of the tap and move actions. If they intended this effect to be only resolvable when the play of the card is resolved, it would instead rely on:
CRF wrote:Annotation 27 : If a card has optional effects, the player playing the card must choose which will take place. He must do this at the time the card is played, not when it is resolved in its chain of effects. When such a card is resolved, if any active conditions for the choice of effects do not exist, the card has no effect and is discarded.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”