Page 1 of 5
In the heart of his Realm
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:29 pm
by Khamul the Easterling
Card text is
Each company moving in a Dark-domain [d] draws one less card at the start of its movement/hazard phase (to no minimum). Additionally, any sage at a site in a Dark-domain [d] or Gorgoroth, or moving with a Dark-domain [d] or Gorgoroth in his site path, loses his sage skill. No character at a site in a Dark-domain [d] or Gorgoroth, or moving with a Dark-domain [d] or Gorgoroth in his site path, can use spells, light enchantments, or rituals. Discard when any play deck is exhausted.
I've found
in the "PLayandExamplesFile" (p 7) on the meccg.net forum:
If In the Heart of His Realm is played on a company that it would affect, you can wait for its passive
condition to be announced and then Marvels Told it in response. See also, CRF Annotation 9, Passive
Conditions.
On the other hand:
-> When you keep the ItHoHR in hand till the company makes for Mount
Doom the situation is different (I think). You than play the card and
when it resolves it takes away the skills from the sages at / underway
to Mount Doom. It does so as part of its resolving. And of course it
stays around as a passive condition to kick in when any new company
enters 'the zone' - but that's not very relevant.
Played in this way you cannot MT it; that is not with a sage from
the affected company. Because itHoHR is either not resolved yet or the
wannebe sage already list his skill."
I'm not sure whether these are contradictory or not... (?)
The problem, IMO is the difference whether the company is already in a "no skill zone" or not. If it's moving into it, ITHOHR can be canceled by marvels told, I think. But if it's already staying/moving within this zone (or right moving out of it), it possibly cannot be canceld.
What do you say?
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:44 pm
by |Highwayman|
I think moving or already there doesn't make a difference for In the Heart of His Realm
the difference is whether In the Heart... was already in play (therefore kicking in as a passive effect to witch you can respond with Marvels Told) or is played just now (when you can't target it with Marvles Told as you have to wait till In the Heart... is in play so it can be a legal target for Marvels, but when in play it cancels the sage skills of characters in given regions and cuz of that you no longer have any sages in the given company to use Marvels)
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:57 pm
by Sauron
When you play the card from hand it has to resolve. Then once resolved, it sets up a passive condition which is triggered by the moving company. The company can still respond to the passive condition and cancel it with marvels told.
It works the same if the card is already in play as well.
There just is no way around it.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:02 pm
by |Highwayman|
the way I saw it works you'd at least need a sage in another company to get rid of this card but now basicaly In the Heart of His Real sucks as there's always time to get rid of it...
I get the feeling that more and more in-depth analysis of game mechanics make more and more cards very easy to counter...
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:58 pm
by Manuel
It's like Brian says.
There's a very similar example with the Way is Shut. The card is played, the passive condition triggers and you can respond to that with Marvels Told.
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:08 pm
by |Highwayman|
I understand that's how it works now but it got me thinking that maybe it would be better if there was no time to respond to passive conditions - it wouldn't be that easy to counter a lot of hazards and by that the game would become more challenging
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:11 am
by Konrad Klar
I'm convinced that In the heart of his Realm does not create any action activated by passive condition. It is continuous effect and companies/characters described on card are under this effect.
Compare it with Fell Winter:
Environment. Each Border-hold receives an automatic-attack: Wolves-3 strikes with 7 prowess. Additionally, if Doors of Night is in play, treat all Free-domains [f] as Border-lands and all Border-lands as Wildernesses [w]. Cannot be duplicated.
If losing of sage skills would be action, then receiving of additional automatic-attack would be action too. First activated be passive condition "sage is in company moving through DarkDomain" second by "each Border-hold" itself.
Existence of condition does not mean automatically that this condition is passive condition. See second effect of Fell Winter (condition for this effect is Doors of Night). See also Flotsam and Jetsam
If a player has 15 or fewer cards in his play deck (20 or fewer if a Fallen-wizard), all effects are automatically canceled which allow him to search through or look at any portion of his play deck or discard pile outside the normal sequence of play. Discard when any play deck is exhausted. Cannot be duplicated. '...busy with his fiery thoughts. He has forgotten Treebeard.-LotRIII
Effect of this card is conditional too. But it is continuous effect, not action activated by passive condition "If a player has 15 or fewer cards in his play deck (20 or fewer if a Fallen-wizard)". Agree?
No chance of response to "continuous effects". They are in play immediatelly, when card creating it is in play and when other conditions are met.
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:30 am
by Jambo
So if you're saying that ItHoHR doesn't create a passive condition then can you give me an example of a card that does, and how it's different from ItHoHR?
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:27 pm
by Konrad Klar
Dragons Ahunt are cards that creates actions caused by passive condition.
Basic difference:
What happens if card in play that creates actions caused by passive condition is discarded after action is resolved?
Nothing. If characters were eliminated, discarded, wounded in result of dragon attack, these actions are not reverted back. Similarly tapped sites are not untapped (Long Winter), returned companies are not returned back to the site, where it was going (Long Winter, Snowstorm).
What happens if card play that does not create actions caused by passive condition is discarded after its effect is resolved?
Effects disappears immediately. Fell Winter is discarded and BorderHolds no longer have additional automatic attack. Condition of second effect of Fell Winter (Doors of Night) is no longer in play and this effect dissapears immediately.
"A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play."
This is definition. So if main effect of card in play does not seem as action with decided start and finish, but rather as continuous effect, then this card is not creating actions caused by passive condition.
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:49 pm
by Jambo
Ok, so on your premise the passive conditions primer stickied at the top of this forum contains incorrect information?
Would there be a difference on what a moving company could do based on the following scenarios and your opinion on how things should work:
A company flips over a site with a Dd in its site path. The hazard player plays ItHoHR and it resolves. A character in that company trying to play MT in response to the alleged "passive condition" now wouldn't/shouldn't be able to do this. Correct?
ItHoHR is already in play and during the m/h phase a company flips over a new site with a Dd in its site path. Could the company respond to the effect of ItHoHR kicking in by playing MT?
I hope you're right simply for the sake of this cool card's usability, and for the sake of any others, but I imagine the discussion will be heavy scrutinised by those who have ruled otherwise in the past....
How would this work with The Way is Shut then?
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:56 pm
by Manuel
http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=263
You'll find some help about this topic in this link. This example is taken of that same post by Mark Alfano:
I’m traveling to Mount Doom through Nurn (say I came from the Easterling Camp), and my opponent throws down Mordor in Arms, which essentially says I’m gonna get crushed by orcs and trolls. I allow Mordor in Arms to resolve, and then – after it resolves – my movement becomes the passive condition that triggers the attacks associated with Mordor in Arms. This triggering of Mordor in Arms begins a new chain of effects, to which I am free to respond. I do – with Marvels Told, zapping Mordor in Arms. Now, my opponent doesn’t want to see me skip all those nasty attacks, so he plays, in response to my Marvels Told, In the Heart of His Realm. However, he’s made a goof, and I’m safe. Why? According to Annotation 9, In the Heart of His Realm can only be triggered by a passive condition after everything else in the chain of effects in which it was played resolves. So that means that (assuming no one plays anything else) In the Heart of His Realm resolves, then Marvels Told resolves, zapping Mordor in Arms, then the triggering of Mordor in Arms tries to resolve, but the card that set up the triggering is no longer around, so it is canceled. At this point, In the Heart of His Realm is triggered by the passive condition of my moving in Gorgoroth, starting a new chain to which I may also respond with another Marvels Told. Assuming nothing else is played in this third chain, my Marvels Told will resolve, zapping In the Heart of His Realm, then In the Heart of His Realm will try to be triggered, but since it’s no longer around, it can’t and is canceled. All hail Marvels Told!
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:57 pm
by Konrad Klar
Jambo wrote:A company flips over a site with a Dd in its site path. The hazard player plays ItHoHR and it resolves. A character in that company trying to play MT in response to the alleged "passive condition" now wouldn't/shouldn't be able to do this. Correct?
Yes.
Jambo wrote:ItHoHR is already in play and during the m/h phase a company flips over a new site with a Dd in its site path. Could the company respond to the effect of ItHoHR kicking in by playing MT?
Yes. The same as you cannot play Smoke Rings "in response" to Flotsam an Jetsam. This is continous effect under which is sage in certain companies (or player with short enough deck), not action activated by staying or moving in DarkDomains.
Jambo wrote:How would this work with The Way is Shut then?
Is returning of company action, or it is continous effect under which is company?
May it be interrupted or canceled if done? If not, then this is action, declared in its own chain of effect and thus may be responsed, be MT or anything else.
Part of text of In the heart of his Realm is illusory similar to the text of Ahunts, but it is difference between describing objects which are under effect (as it is in case of Fell Winter) and stating of passive condition which is causing action.
Jambo wrote:Ok, so on your premise the passive conditions primer stickied at the top of this forum contains incorrect information?
Yes. In the heart of his Realm does not produce actions.
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:13 pm
by Jambo
Konrad Klar wrote:Yes. The same as you cannot play Smoke Rings "in response" to Flotsam an Jetsam. This is continous effect under which is sage in certain companies (or player with short enough deck), not action activated by staying or moving in DarkDomains.
I presume you mean Smoke Rings cannot be played in response to [an already resolved] Flotsam and Jetsam? If they're in the same chain of effects it would seem reasonable to play Smoke Rings in response. But yes, I see and understand the analogy you are making with MT and ItHoHR.
The current rules are crazy when a card designed to tackle the play of certain card or cards, is itself counterable by the very card(s) it's supposed to prohibit...
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:25 pm
by Konrad Klar
Jambo wrote:I presume you mean Smoke Rings cannot be played in response to [an already resolved] Flotsam and Jetsam?
Yes. You cannot play anything "in response" to something that is not declared (continous effects are still in play). Of course you can use Smoke Rings to move cards from sideboard to play deck.
Jambo wrote:If they're in the same chain of effects it would seem reasonable to play Smoke Rings in response.
And vice versa too.
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:27 pm
by |Highwayman|
I fully support Konrad's view and explanation on this (obviously as my answer to this topic started this passive condition war)