Council of Elrond

This applies among others to an attacks created by cards like Ash Mountains.

Related thread:

How do hazard creatures which create persistent effects work?

Proposed regulation:

"If a card not in play stated that by some period an action happens when given conditions are met, for purposes of timing the action is treated like an action caused by passive condition."

EDIT: Changed the title of thread.

I would probably say rather 'for some duration' than 'by some period' but that's just haggling over language.

I would say that in some period an action may happen, and an effect of the action may have some duration.

Proposed regulation:

"If a card not in play stated that in some period an action happens when given conditions are met, for purposes of timing the action is treated like an action caused by passive condition."

Better?

Maybe it would be clearer if we just made it more verbose? I.e. one thing I'm tripping over is using the word 'period' without an 'of what' coming after it.

If an effect of a card that does not remain in play after resolution (i.e. a hazard creature or a short-event) establishes that for a specific period of time one or more actions happen automatically when conditions (as specified on the card) are met, for purposes of timing such actions are treated like actions caused by a passive condition. Such an action is not subject to the rule that an action caused by a passive condition is cancelled if the card that created it is no longer in play when the action resolves, but otherwise follows the rules for passive conditions.

What do you think of the above? After working through that, I think at least the first part is pretty important to spell out - otherwise someone could try to argue that this rule covers permanent-events as well.

"If an effect of a card that does not remain in play after resolution (i.e. a hazard creature or a short-event) establishes that for a specific period an action happens when given conditions are met, for purposes of timing the action is treated like an action caused by passive condition."

I would not want the regulation a more verbose.
Timing of and whole matter of Passive Condition is subject of separate set of rules.
They may be potentially changed and then the regulation could be not in sync with the changes (would require changes too).
The actions are treated like actions caused by passive condition for purposes of timing, and not for other purposes.

Yeah, I think that works. I think I would still prefer 'period of time' but that's just because it makes the sentence sound more natural to me for some reason. I think the meaning is clear enough.

In the game there is no concept of time* counted in units. A term "time", used sometimes, refers to some point in game.
For the reason "period" or "period of game" sound to me as more appropriate than "period of time" in context of MECCG.

*) I've heard that some players perceive some processes in game as a vector.

Is it possible to combine this proposal with this one: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 145&t=3729
since they address very similar issues?

They are independent. If one will pass and other will not it will not be a catastrophe.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:39 am "If a card not in play stated that by some period an action happens when given conditions are met, for purposes of timing the action is treated like an action caused by passive condition."

How do hazard creatures which create persistent effects work?

Why would the timing need to specified by a general rule? Don't effects created by creatures operate in the same way as effects created by events? Shouldn't the effects take their timing from the card that created them (since the card describes the effects)? Maybe all discarded cards create effects using passive conditions, but I haven't reviewed all short events and creatures. Can anyone say that this proposal won't break the timing rules used for some other card?

But it seems like creatures can't set up passive conditions, because as the CRF says "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." That's why you can avoid the effects of such a long-event or permanent-event by hitting it with Marvels Told. Hazard creatures only exist in play while they are being faced. If you look at the play examples in both the METW and MELE rules, if not defeated, the 'play-by-play' always has the hazard creature card being discarded immediately after the company has faced it.

Marvels Told can stop the effects of long/permanent events because their effects are canceled when they are discarded, not because of the rules on passive conditions. "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." -- This statement is describing the "card causing an action." That is, the card causing/triggering a triggerable action (e.g., on a discarded card) as a result of the card's own action(e.g., its play, or something else), which is the passive condition (for triggering the discarded card's effect). This statement is not referring to the the card "creating" the triggerable action. The card that created the action may have been discarded.

As an Example -- An undead attack (the passive condition) causes (triggers) a +1 prowess action as a result of a passive condition indicated on Chill Douser (Chill Douser indicates that undead attacks get +1 prowess, and so an undead attack will trigger this effect). You can't resolve a +1 prowess action targeting an undead attack if an attack-canceler card has already resolved and discarded the undead attack. This is because "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."

Chill Douser effect isn't really a passive condition. It gives the attacks the bonus, even though they don't exist yet, unconditionally.

But isn't the strike and prowess bonus an action that can be triggered by the declaration of an undead attack?

Uruk Lieutenant similarly gives attacks a bonus, but conditionally. But the condition is on which attacks it gives the bonus to, not whether or when such attacks get the bonus; all such attacks get the bonus, and they get it even though they don't exist yet. So this also isn't a passive condition.

But isn't +3 to prowess an action that can be triggered by a declared attack by Orc Lieutenant against a company that has faced Uruk Lieutenant?

----------------

Greed and Troll-Purse were also mentioned in the linked thread. But don't these cards already get triggered together by the same item-playing action?

---------------

Maybe this CRF statement is a little misleading.

CRF - Terms - Passive Conditions wrote:A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.

Yes, this statement is always true. A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play. But this is just a description and it's incomplete. A passive condition (action) can cause an (triggerable) action to happen based on an effect already in play (where the effect was stated on a non-long/permanent event card that is no longer in play).

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:48 pm Maybe this CRF statement is a little misleading.

CRF - Terms - Passive Conditions wrote:
A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play.

Maybe the statement is a little misleading:

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."

Maybe:
"A card stating that an action happens as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action has no effect."

would be better.

The statement means:

If the action (passive condition) that triggers another triggerable action is created by a card then card must be in play when the triggerable action is triggered

For example, if a creature creates an attack (the passive condition), and another card gives +1 prowess to creature attacks, then the creature still needs to be in play when the +1 prowess resolves in the chain of events following the creature's declaration.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:35 am The statement means:

So you agree that the current wording is insufficient and needs to be changed. Good to know.

I was describing a statement on passive conditions.

I was not describing the card or the card's active conditions.

Good to know the differences.