Page 2 of 2

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:12 pm
by Theo
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:57 am
Some statements may be concluded from existing rules and texts of cards. The statements deserve for "clarification" status.
Some statements may not be concluded from existing rules and texts of cards. They may be even a reconstruction of intent of authors of the rules, but the rules themselves say otherwise. The statements deserve for "errata" status.
Some existing rules are ambiguous, and multiple reasonable conclusions---mutually exclusive with one another---may be drawn from them. In such cases I believe clarifications are appropriate to specify which conclusions were intended.

As far as I would expect, the two contentious points in my reasoning are:
* Can effects of cards already in play count as being played?
* Can an effect including “place with” or “place under” a character of a card already played count as the card played on the character?

To the first point, from existing rules:
MELE wrote:Declaring an Action: Stating an action is being played
.
Conclusion: yes, effects of cards already in play can count as being played. For some of the corruption cards the receiving of corruption and placement of card is not actively declared by a player, so I could envision someone contending that those effects might not be played; but neither are the effects of most passive conditions actively declared by a player, and those are specifically mentioned in the quoted rules section. I do not concern myself with whether or not all such effects are played, but only the possibility that some are.

To the second point, from existing rules:
From the preceding conclusion, effects can be considered to be played. The effect of placement of the card implies that there is there is a play of the card. Does "place with" or "place under" imply "place on"? They needn't in general. But it is indisputable that the play of the effect would have an effect on the character: the character receives corruption points.
Summary: there is an effect (character receiving corruption points and having card placed with/under), the possibility that the effect is considered played, the play of the corruption card, and the play of an effect on a character.
Second Point Conclusion: yes.

---

Further, in this case I think the ambiguity has already been resolved by ruling out alternatives, but indirectly enough that an explicit clarification such as the one proposed would be useful:
MELE wrote:A character’s accumulated corruption equals the total corruption points of all cards played on him.
If the effect of these cards did not cause the card to be played on the character, the received corruption could signify nothing.
Of course, an alternative perspective could be that this rule also needs errata to include "placement"; I value interpretations with fewer necessary errata.

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:23 am
by Konrad Klar
Declaring an Action: Stating an action is being played.
Theo wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:12 pm
The effect of placement of the card implies that there is there is a play of the card.
What about such action like returning to hand the Spider of the Môrlat?
Is not the action declared? Does the declaration imply (un)playing the Spider of the Môrlat?

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:21 pm
by Theo
There are multiple scopes of the word play. I don't see how one can consider returning a card to hand as "playing a card" CRF entry. I do see how one can consider the return of the card to hand as the play of the card, in the sense of the manipulation of the card during the course of game play.

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:41 am
by Konrad Klar
Someone may use "playing of X" as synonymous of "declaring of X".
No big problem until he makes implications like your. That declaring "placing of X" implies playing of X.
No. Declaring of "placing/returning/discarding/storing of X" is not "playing of X"; it is at best "playing of placing/returning/discarding/storing of X".

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:07 am
by Theo
So you don't think "playing of placing/returning/discarding/storing of X" includes any notion of "playing of X"? If a player plays a ball game which includes kicking the ball, the player does not play the ball?

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:31 am
by Konrad Klar
Playing in CCG includes a playing of cards.
It may include a shuffling of deck.
Shuffling a deck does not include a playing of cards.

P.S.
Some extra MECCG specific sentence:
"Declaration of corruption check from Lure of Nature does not include a playing card. At best it includes playing of corruption check."

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:38 am
by Theo
To shuffle a deck is to play with cards, in most general sense. I do not see how it could be a play of cards on a character. Forcing a corruption check does not (necessary) involve a play of a card. One could say it includes a play of a die-roll.

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:48 pm
by CDavis7M
from an old (older) ICE FAQ:
Q: If a character already has had a corruption card played on him during his turn, and he is wounded by a Nazgul bearing Morgul-knife or the Pale Sword, are they eligible to receive one of these corruption cards also? The rules state that a maximum of one corruption card may be played on a character per turn.
A: The character may not be assigned the Pale Sword or Morgul-knife as corruption cards in this situation. These two Nazgul enhancers should be amended to say that playing them as corruption cards is optional.

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:59 am
by Theo
Thinking more about this exceedingly loose interpretation of card "play", it would support Bandobras' earlier "lumps" theory for Fallen characters with more than five mind. Tie to another proposal viewtopic.php?f=145&t=3788. Troll-purse is another fun example that comes to mind, where a discarding effect of Cram would trigger a corruption check under the looser "play" interpretation.

I'm against double standards, so it sure seems that some part needs errata and not just clarification. While it seems possible that the original rules were written so that placed corruption cards are also played under a loose definition of play, accepting the looser definition basis would break all sorts of other things.

So I'm back to marking this as an errata rather than clarification. As I see it, if it was only a clarification there would need to be additional clarifications or errata; marking as an errata limits the collateral. Effects can be played, but effects manipulating cards in play should not count as the play of those cards for rules interpretation purposes.

That is, the second question I propose previously could be answered yes but should be answered no or risk at the very least the ambiguity of double standards:
Theo wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:12 pm
* Can effects of cards already in play count as being played?
* Can an effect including “place with” or “place under” a character of a card already played count as the card played on the character?

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:05 pm
by CDavis7M
This is not a general definition of what "play" means. It's specific to corruption cards.
Theo wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:59 am
Thinking more about this exceedingly loose interpretation of card "play", it would support Bandobras' earlier "lumps" theory for Fallen characters with more than five mind.
How does the ruling on placing corruption cards support the "lump" theory? Regardless, the "lump" theory is invalidated by other rulings:
Ichabod Digest 42 wrote:From: Andrew John Susalla <asus...@umich.edu>
>#2) FW-decks cannot use An Unexpected Party because they can't get
>a Dwarf with a mind above 5 in play. Thrall of the Voice reduces the
>Dwarf's mind from 6 to 5, so it would force the discard of the Unexpected
>Party. I don't think you can discard Thrall without discarding the
>character.
Actually, you can. And then you have a 6 mind dwarf to play An Unexpected
Party with.
Ichabod Digest 78 wrote:From: kin...@mail.wsu.edu (Randall Kintner)
>>I wonder whether playing An Unexpected Party with a Fallen Wizard would
>>present any interesting possibilities?
>You actually can't play AUP as a Fallen Wizard. AUP requires a Dwarf with 6
>or more mind and FWs can't use (I believe it says "play" at one spot in the
>rules and "use" in another) characters with more than 5 mind. If you take
>Gimli and put a Thrall of the Voice on him so that you can use him, he is no
>longer a 6 mind dwarf.
Ignore the "use." Fallen-wizard may not play or start with characters
with more than 6 mind. Thus, you can use Thall of the Voice to bring
in Gimli, discard Thrall, and play AUP. (CRF, Rulings by Term, Fallenwizard).
Ichabod Digest 81 wrote:From: Jean-Luc Bevierre <org...@yahoo.com>
>line 3 "@ Fallen-wizards may not play characters with more than five
>mind, but if they have one in play the character is not discarded."
>
>Sorry to bother you with this kind of question but I need some
>explanation about this. If I cannot play character with more a mind
>greater than five, how get one in play in my company?
Thrall of the Voice reduces six mind characters to five mind and
allows you to play them. It could later be discarded, giving you
a six mind character in play. Not to mention hazards which increase
the mind of characters.
--------------
Theo wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:59 am
Troll-purse is another fun example that comes to mind, where a discarding effect of Cram would trigger a corruption check under the looser "play" interpretation.
This is taking the corruption ruling way too far. Nothing supports discarding a resource to count as "playing" it.


From what I can see there are no other gameplay examples left to consider.

Re: Errata: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:19 am
by Konrad Klar
If a player declares an effect of a card in play, he is not declaring the card, he is not playing the card.

Re: Errata: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:59 pm
by Konrad Klar
Player discards Cram as part of declaration of action "untap other character in company". This is not a declaration of Cram, nor playing of Cram.

Re: Errata: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:48 pm
by CDavis7M
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:19 am
If a player declares an effect of a card in play, he is not declaring the card, he is not playing the card.
Except that declaration of a placing effect of a corruption card in play counts as playing a corruption card for purposes of the rule that "a character may have more than one corruption card, but only one may be played on him each turn" according to the ICE ruling above. Which is why Icy Touch says "(on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn)" to avoid this issue.

Re: Errata: Placing Corruption Cards

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:45 pm
by Konrad Klar
Except of exceptions. As always.