Corpse-candle corruption

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I was wondering about the timing of the corpse-candle corruption checks. From an earlier thread (underline mine):
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:29 am Corpse-candle states: "If this attack is not canceled, every character in the company makes a corruption check before defending characters are selected." There is no condition for triggering this effect later. So this effect (making Corruption Checks) is implemented when Corpse-candle resolves. The effect is still conditioned upon "If this attack is not canceled" - but this is a condition for implementing the effect and not a condition for triggering the effect (there is no passive condition established). So the effect is implemented at resolution (which happens to be before defending characters are selected). The phrase "before defending characters are selected" is more of a restriction on assigning strikes than it is a timing requirement for making the CCs.
This hypothesis seems off to me. If the corruption checks themselves needed to occur when Corpse-candle resolved, is the implication that there would be no chain of effects in which to cancel the attack (the corruption checks had already been declared when Corpse-candle was declared)? Or should the wording actually have been something like: the corruption checks are the first actions declared in a new chain of effects when Corpse-candle resolves?

===

I had an alternative interpretation: that the "before defending characters are selected" gave a deadline by which the checks needed to be made, but no other timing requirement. Under this interpretation, unlike the one above, it seems clear that the resource player could, for example, plan to cancel with A Nice Place to Hide, but it gets canceled with Many Sorrows Befall, so now the resource plays and resolves a Dark Tryst to draw into another A Nice Place to Hide to cancel the attack.

What I'm wondering is what "If this attack is not canceled" implies about which players decide when to do the checks. Because there are rare instances when the hazard player can also choose to cancel an attack, which might also occur after several chains of effect, might both players need to approve? That is, does the phrase "if this attack is not canceled" create a requirement that needs to be established prior to resolving the check actions, or might it simply be a weird way of phrasing a built-in option for canceling the check effect? In the second sense, as the checks are mandated for the resource player, perhaps that player alone has control over when to resolve the checks.

The most probable interpretation to me might have been that the checks had to be the last actions prior to assigning characters, but I was surprised by this ruling:
ICE NetRep Scott Frazer 1996/3/27 wrote:>Can you cancel a corpse-candle attack after you've made the corruption checks?

Yes, as long as you haven't assigned the strikes yet.
===

Regardless of the above, I also wondered whether all of the checks need to occur in the same chain, or whether the resource player can resolve a few at a time and then play some other cards (potentially cancelling the attack) depending on the outcomes before they would need to resolve the rest to begin strike assignment.

Thoughts?
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

1.
As long the players may declare actions, it is not known whether attack will be canceled or not.

Solution may be:

Corruption checks are declared when all players decide that they will not declare any action.
When declarations of the corruption checks are done, players may declare other actions in response.

The action in response may also be "cancel".

2.
Theo wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:55 pm Regardless of the above, I also wondered whether all of the checks need to occur in the same chain, or whether the resource player can resolve a few at a time and then play some other cards (potentially cancelling the attack) depending on the outcomes before they would need to resolve the rest to begin strike assignment.
Anything other than "in the same chain" is exotic solution, apparently without any basis.

3.
The Lidless Eye: The Ring Will Have But One Master
Rarity: Rare, Precise: R

Hazard: Permanent-event

Playable on the bearer of The One Ring. During each of his organization phases, one character (other than the bearer) in bearer's company is discarded (of bearer's player's choice) along with all cards played with him. During his organization phase, the target character may tap to attempt to remove this card by making a roll (drawing a #)-if the result is greater than 8, discard this card. Cannot be duplicated on a given character.
Card with similar problem. No visible deadline.

EDIT: "whiteout" > "without"
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

Theo wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:55 pm I was wondering about the timing of the corpse-candle corruption checks. From an earlier thread (underline mine):
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:29 am Corpse-candle states: "If this attack is not canceled, every character in the company makes a corruption check before defending characters are selected." There is no condition for triggering this effect later. So this effect (making Corruption Checks) is implemented when Corpse-candle resolves. The effect is still conditioned upon "If this attack is not canceled" - but this is a condition for implementing the effect and not a condition for triggering the effect (there is no passive condition established). So the effect is implemented at resolution (which happens to be before defending characters are selected). The phrase "before defending characters are selected" is more of a restriction on assigning strikes than it is a timing requirement for making the CCs.
This hypothesis seems off to me. If the corruption checks themselves needed to occur when Corpse-candle resolved...
When you clip this part out of the entire discussion, then maybe I can see how you have this interpretation of what I said. But I was saying that the effect of making the corruption checks is implemented. I clearly was NOT saying that corruption check dice rolls are resolved as part of the resolution of the creature card itself. That makes absolutely no sense because a creature's attack cannot be cancelled before it has resolved, which creates the attack in the first place...

In that other post, the discussion was about whether items (and creatures) have effects caused by passive conditions and the question was whether the corruption check effect of Corpse-candle triggers by passive condition.

I said that the effect of the card is implemented when the card resolves. Passive condition rules are timing rules. The timing of the corruption checks by Corpse-candle are specified in the card text. There is plenty of time for the players to do things before making these corruption checks. There is no issue with the timing.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:55 pm What I'm wondering is what "If this attack is not canceled" implies about which players decide when to do the checks. Because there are rare instances when the hazard player can also choose to cancel an attack, which might also occur after several chains of effect, might both players need to approve? That is, does the phrase "if this attack is not canceled" create a requirement that needs to be established prior to resolving the check actions, or might it simply be a weird way of phrasing a built-in option for canceling the check effect? In the second sense, as the checks are mandated for the resource player, perhaps that player alone has control over when to resolve the checks.
By the way, there is an official clarification.

Corpse-candle (clarification)—If this attack is cancelled, the company does not have to make corruption checks.

-----
Theo wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:55 pm Regardless of the above, I also wondered whether all of the checks need to occur in the same chain, or whether the resource player can resolve a few at a time and then play some other cards (potentially cancelling the attack) depending on the outcomes before they would need to resolve the rest to begin strike assignment.

Thoughts?
There is a rule regarding multiple corruption checks.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I did not say that CDavis7M is wrong. I am not sure.

But if the corruption checks would be handled as typical actions caused by passive condition then there are situations when attack will be canceled and the corruption checks will happen anyway.

Company is at FW version of The White Towers on which Nature's Revenge is played. The site has its type changed to/treated as [-me_sh-]. Corpse-candle may be played at the site.

If Corpse-candle is in play the corruption checks are declared and the action from FW version of The White Towers ("If one of your companies is at this site, all attacks against it are canceled.") is declared too.
Resource player chooses order of the declarations.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”