Effects played during the organization phase, and depend on the site or site path of a moving company

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

If you believe that there is no problem here, then OK. Please vote against the proposal.
I do not mind to repeat the same what was written in first post. And I do not want to convince you that Annotation 26 has completely different purpose.
I am not responsible for your system of understanding of rules.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

It's not my system, it's ICEs system and they already ruled on this. It's already been cited and discussed on this forum.

At least come up with an actual game play issue.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:20 pm It's not my system, it's ICEs system and they already ruled on this. It's already been cited and discussed on this forum.
I am not responsible for your notion about origins of your system of understanding of rules.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 8:13 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:20 pm It's not my system, it's ICEs system and they already ruled on this. It's already been cited and discussed on this forum.
I am not responsible for your notion about origins of your system of understanding of rules.
You are clearly not responsible for my understanding and no one suggested that you were. So why bother making a statement. Weird.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Because you were nice to ask:
CDavis7M wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 5:20 pm What problem is the proposal trying to solve?
...at the same time citing the post that tries to describe problem.

So I was rude to answer the question.

It is OK that someone has very different (than mine) understanding of some rules. And it is natural that he believes that he is right (and that I am not).
But if he expects an answer and at the same is negating someones understanding of some rules, then the answer is just like that: I am not responsible for your system. Within your system problem may not exist.

If you want to point me inconsistencies in MY system, you are welcome.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:38 pm There are three actions/effects that compete for be first declared at beginning of M/H phase:
Effect of Secret Passage, attack from Scorba Ahunt, returning effect of Snowstorm.
The inconsistency is that the timing of Secret Passage does not matter with respect to Scorba Ahunt or the returning effect of Snowstorm. Secret Passage can be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd with no difference to game play. Scorba Ahunt vs Snowstorm does matter but these were not played during the organization phase.

Putting aside the lack of a game play issue to solve, there appears to be no reason for the proposed solution. The rules on passive conditions govern when certain effects are declared. There is already a rule on when effects played during the organization phase are declared. So why "treat them as action caused by passive condition" as in the proposal?

This proposal appears to be a solution in search of a problem.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I did not say that order always matters. Sometimes net effect may be the same.
Nonetheless the order should be established.
Where the order of effects in question matters are situations where hazard limit is changed. Effects that change HL to some minimum may interfere with actions caused by passive conditions that increase HL. The order also matters in case of nested chain of effects (each resolved attack, declared in chain of effects at start of M/H phase is resolved in its own chain of effects); this may decide about a number of hazards declared during facing an attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 7:03 am Nonetheless the order should be established.
Why create needless rules?
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 7:03 am Where the order of effects in question matters are situations where hazard limit is changed. Effects that change HL to some minimum may interfere with actions caused by passive conditions that increase HL.
There are already rules specifically for effects that modify the hazard limit. Effects played in the organization phase are applied before effects played later.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 7:03 am The order also matters in case of nested chain of effects (each resolved attack, declared in chain of effects at start of M/H phase is resolved in its own chain of effects); this may decide about a number of hazards declared during facing an attack.
How does this proposal "decide about a number of hazards declared during facing an attack" ?

There are still are no game play examples...
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:56 pm Why create needless rules?
I do not know.
But if someone has to make 2 things in any order, and the order does not change a final result, he still must decide about the order, otherwise he will not start making the things.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:56 pm There are already rules specifically for effects that modify the hazard limit. Effects played in the organization phase are applied before effects played later.
According to what rule?
CDavis7M wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:56 pm How does this proposal "decide about a number of hazards declared during facing an attack" ?

There are still are no game play examples...
Attack from Scorba Ahunt is declared, then effect Fair Travels in Wilderness is declared.
Effect of Fair Travels in Wilderness reduces HL from 4 to 2.
Attack from Scorba Ahunt resolves.
Hazard player has three copies of Dragon's Blood in hand, but can play only 2 due to HL limitation.

If order of declaration would be effect of Fair Travels in Wildernes then attack from Scorba Ahunt, hazard player could play up to four hazards during resolving the attack from Scorba Ahunt.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Resolution of attack creation is separate and different from resolution of the attack (the strikes) itself. The attack is created and the chain continues to resolve.

Attacks within a card are different. They stall resolution of later effects in that same card.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I always thought that actions in chain of effects resolve sequentially* - next action in chain is waiting for resolving until previous is resolved and fully executed.

*) except simultaneous/joint action, to be strict.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

When an attack is created at Resolution, it is immediately considered as being faced and the chain continues to resolve. Strikes do not have to be assigned and strikes resolved immediately at resolution of the attack. There is time for several chains of effects before assigning strikes.

On the other hand, an attack that is an intermediate effect within other effects on the same card do interrupt resolution per Annotation 24. The attack and strikes can be targeted still as it is akin to a dice roll and special rules were created for this circumstance. Other attacks do not follow these rules.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

1.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 7:50 pm When an attack is created at Resolution, it is immediately considered as being faced and the chain continues to resolve. Strikes do not have to be assigned and strikes resolved immediately at resolution of the attack. There is time for several chains of effects before assigning strikes.
I think differently.
If company starts moving through regions affected by both Scorba Ahunt and Bairanax Ahunt then two attacks are declared. First declared attack does not resolve until second declared attack is finished. Facing an attack does not detach from chain of effects. There are no multiple parallel chain of effects.

2.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 8:56 pm There are already rules specifically for effects that modify the hazard limit. Effects played in the organization phase are applied before effects played later.
Thanks for pointing this out.
The Dragons , Hazard Limit (Clarification) wrote:The base hazard limit is determined (i.e., set) simultaneously at the moment a
company reveals its new site or otherwise announces it is beginning its movement/
hazard phase. Any cards which modify a company’s hazard limit played prior to this
point are then immediately applied to the company’s base hazard limit in the order
chosen by the player controlling the company.
With such modifications established,
any cards played after this point are interpreted in the order they are resolved. Any
effects which modify the hazard limit against a company during its site phase are
ignored. Any reduction in the hazard limit during a movement/hazard phase does not
affect cards already announced and played.
Underline mine.

Yes. There is conflict between the rule and:
Effects that are played during the organization phase, and depend on the site or site path of a moving company, create an effect which is not declared until the new site is revealed. If the site or site path is not of the appropriate type when the effect resolves, the resource has no effect. If the company has multiple movement/hazard phases on the same turn, the card applies separately to each phase, having an effect only if the correct conditions are met.
Cards like Fair Travels in Wilderness belong to both categories. Effect of cards like Horses are governed only by The Dragons , Hazard Limit (Clarification).

Therefore I see a need of modifying my proposal by adding:
"This includes effects of cards played during the organization phase that modify hazard limit depends on the site or site path of a moving company.
They are not immediately applied to the company’s base hazard limit."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:30 am 1.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 7:50 pm When an attack is created at Resolution, it is immediately considered as being faced and the chain continues to resolve. Strikes do not have to be assigned and strikes resolved immediately at resolution of the attack. There is time for several chains of effects before assigning strikes.
I think differently.
If company starts moving through regions affected by both Scorba Ahunt and Bairanax Ahunt then two attacks are declared. First declared attack does not resolve until second declared attack is finished. Facing an attack does not detach from chain of effects. There are no multiple parallel chain of effects.
A card/effect creating an attack is considered "faced" when the card/effect resolves in a chain of effects. The attack is not "resolved" until all of its strikes are resolved. The term "resolve" has two different meanings: (1) a card or effect being "resolved" means that it has been implemented in a chain of effects; (2) an attack has been "resolved" once all of its strikes (all of the dice rolls) are resolved. Resolving a card that creates an attack is not the same as resolving all of the strikes of the attack. This is similar to how "canceling" an attack happens after its creation is resolved while "canceling" an effect happens before the effect is resolved.

When Assassin creature card resolves: multiple attacks are in play and faced in order.
When entering Dol Guldur: multiple attacks are in play and faced in order.
When Tidings resolves on Co. moving to Dol Guldur: multiple attacks are in play and faced in order.
When effects of Smultiple Ahunts trigger: multiple attacks are in play and faced in order.

There is no requirement that the first attack of multiple attacks have all of its strikes resolved before the 2nd attack is brought into play ("faced"). It is clear that the "creation" of the attack must have already "resolved" in the chain of effects in order for that attack to be targeted by new cards being played while the attack being faced.
ICE Rules Digest 122 wrote: >Just to bring up the other major new ruling (btw, I don't like the new
>Agent-ruling) - how does the Corruption-thing work? How am I supposed to
>play cards like Morgul-knife when they have to start a chain of effects,
>but I am not allowed to play

After an attack resolves, there is time to start and end a chain of
effects before strikes are assigned. That is when you would play cards
like Morgul Knife.
This has always been the case. There is no need to make up timing rules. An attack is an on-going effect that lasts until all of its strikes are resolved. Resolution of attack-creation is different from resolution of the attack (resolving all of the strikes of the attack). New chains of effects can be created and resolved after resolution of attack-creation before resolving strikes, a chain of effects can be resolved between strikes, and also between multiple attacks. The Strike Sequence and Annotation 24 use different timing rules.

And there is still no gameplay example of why this proposal is needed.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:29 pm And there is still no gameplay example of why this proposal is needed.
Because there may be two chain of effects at the start of M/H phase, each competing to be first.

Nobody cares and everybody plays anyway - this is real gameplay example.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”