On-Guard Foolish Words

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Sauron wrote:So where does this leave us? :)
It seems Foolish Words is a special case, it does not follow normal on-guard rules (card text overrides them). So it in fact could have been revealed and played on The Mouth in the scenario you described.
Konrad Klar wrote:Actually that part is not exceptional. You can, for example, reveal on-guard Lure of Senses and play it on any character* in company in respose to playing ally.
Sure, except that (according to me? :) ) Foolish Words does not affect the character it is played on and Lure of the Senses does (it gives CPs). So while the situations are not the same, an on-guard targetting an "unrelated party" is certainly not exceptional.
Konrad Klar wrote:It is possible that so described target will lose in site phase capabilities that make it a valid target on-guard and aquire them again. E.g. bearer of special item ring would lose it in site phase and then aquire another special ring item (in result of testing a gold ring item, or in result of transfer). In the meantime he was not valid target of The Roving Eye (that is prepared to be revealed and played as on-guard).
However target itself (that particular bearer) had exist all required time.

Clarification: All targets of the on-guard card must have existed and be valid targets from the movement/hazard phase up until the on-guard card is revealed.
So you're saying that if the target becomes temporarily unvalid at any point after the move/haz phase (prior to revealing the on-guard), it remains unvalid? What if the changes in validity occur during the move/haz phase?

(i) Must the target have been valid at the time of placing the on-guard, or would be it enough that the target became valid after placing the on-guard but still during move/haz phase? For example Cirdan has Lure of Nature (played on an earlier turn) and I place Lure of Nature on-guard. Now before ending his move/haz phase, Cirdan plays Marvels Told on his Lure, making Cirdan a valid target for the on-guard.

(ii) What if the target was valid when placing the on-guard, then became unvalid, then valid again all within the same move/haz phase? For example Cirdan is moving and I play Shut Yer Mouth on-guard, then play another SYM on Cirdan. Again Cirdan uses Marvels Told and gets rid of the SYM on him during the move/hazard phase.

Checking the validity of the target should probably start from the moment of placing the on-guard. In which case...
Possible Clarification wrote: All targets of the on-guard card must have existed and been valid from the moment of placing the on-guard up until it is revealed.
Ending my post with a small observation. Let's consider two companies, A and B, moving to the same site and joining there. An on-guard Lure of Expedience is placed for company A. It seems that the on-guard can't be revealed and played on a character (originally) from company B since the target wasn't valid when the on-guard was placed. Foolish Words would of course be legal. On-guards are tricky! :D
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

miguel wrote:On-guards are tricky! :D
I vote for this as the official NetRep ruling. :)
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

1.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Company wrote:If all characters in a company leave play, the site goes to the location deck or discard
pile, depending on its tapped status. If this happens during the movement/hazard
phase, the site card stays in play until the end of all movement/hazard phases. In this
case, on-guard cards may still be played on the site.
So either:
- such on-guards cannot be revealed, only playced.
- they may be revealed as long they are placed on correct site card. This means that rules do not check against which company on-guard was placed, nor in which M/H phase (so automatically also do not check in which exactly moment).

2.
a. Why at all to check whether on-guard would be played in M/H phase?
Balin would get the greater item after its former bearer has been eliminated by AA.
Is not enough to check whether Balin was in play in M/H phase? A character, not item, is target of The Roving Eye? Balin was in play in M/H phase (even at the end/by the whole M/H), although not as bearer of greater item.

b. Why to check whether target of on-guard was present in play continously?
The Mouth returned to hand in M/H phase would be in M/H phase as valid target of hazard as valid is The Mouth played in site phase.
Because The Mouth from M/H phase is not the same The Mouth from site phase and what was played on later could not be played on former?
He leaved active play in M/H phase and reappeared in site phase.
Right? Is it correct justification behind "All targets of the on-guard card must have existed from the movement/hazard phase up until the on-guard card is revealed."?

If so: Frodo had bear Lesser Ring in M/H phase and in site phase he lose it and get Magic Ring of Words. What was making it a valid target of The Roving in M/H phase is not present when on-guard is revealed. In meantime (between losing one ring and aquiring other) Frodo did not exist as target of The Roving Eye.
As target of The Roving Eye he reappeared.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Sauron
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

So where does this leave us now? lol ;)
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Sauron wrote:So where does this leave us now? lol ;)
Ehmm...
What you were initially expecting?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Konrad Klar wrote:1.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Company wrote:If all characters in a company leave play, the site goes to the location deck or discard
pile, depending on its tapped status. If this happens during the movement/hazard
phase, the site card stays in play until the end of all movement/hazard phases. In this
case, on-guard cards may still be played on the site.
So either:
- such on-guards cannot be revealed, only playced.
- they may be revealed as long they are placed on correct site card. This means that rules do not check against which company on-guard was placed, nor in which M/H phase (so automatically also do not check in which exactly moment).
But you can reveal certain on-guards this way: hazards that target the site (automatic-attack or otherwise). Their target existed from the moment of placing the on-guard up until the site phase. Hazards targetting a company or a character would not be legal to reveal. Perhaps this is exactly what that CRF ruling is attempting to convey?

In case of two companies combining, an on-guard targetting one of the original companies would now target the new company just likes hazards/resources played on the original company would.
Konrad Klar wrote: 2.
a. Why at all to check whether on-guard would be played in M/H phase?
Balin would get the greater item after its former bearer has been eliminated by AA.
Is not enough to check whether Balin was in play in M/H phase? A character, not item, is target of The Roving Eye? Balin was in play in M/H phase (even at the end/by the whole M/H), although not as bearer of greater item.

b. Why to check whether target of on-guard was present in play continously?
The Mouth returned to hand in M/H phase would be in M/H phase as valid target of hazard as valid is The Mouth played in site phase.
Because The Mouth from M/H phase is not the same The Mouth from site phase and what was played on later could not be played on former?
He leaved active play in M/H phase and reappeared in site phase.
Right? Is it correct justification behind "All targets of the on-guard card must have existed from the movement/hazard phase up until the on-guard card is revealed."?
a. Well it says so in CRF: "An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase."

b. Because apparently we need to clarify the CRF entry which seems to mean adding structure to it (and I think the structure presented would work ok, just needs players to pay attention). Another option would be for CoE to make a rules change to simplify the CRF entry (for example the target must continuously exist from the time of placing the on-guard until revealing it, but doesn't need to be valid until revealing the on-guard), possibly making some hazards more dangerous as a side-effect (e.g. The Roving Eye, The Will of the Ring).

I don't think a CoE rules change would be much simpler / more approachable than a ruling, since you'd still need to pay attention to the target (if proposed as I wrote above). And revealing on-guards like The Roving Eye and The Will of the Ring when they could not have been played during the move/haz phase IMO considerably weakens the Hero alignment since they are the most susceptible to corruption to begin with (and really the only solid One Ring win option).
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

miguel wrote:But you can reveal certain on-guards this way: hazards that target the site (automatic-attack or otherwise). Their target existed from the moment of placing the on-guard up until the site phase. Hazards targetting a company or a character would not be legal to reveal. Perhaps this is exactly what that CRF ruling is attempting to convey?
Obviously such approach would require a lot of tracing. Not only what happened to the targets of on-guards during M/H phase but also when given on-guard card was placed (at least in which M/H phase). Add to this landscape a fact that an automatic-attacks can be added/removed multiple times during turn and site type may change too.

If it is OK... why not?
miguel wrote:b. Because apparently we need to clarify the CRF entry which seems to mean adding structure to it (and I think the structure presented would work ok, just needs players to pay attention). Another option would be for CoE to make a rules change to simplify the CRF entry (for example the target must continuously exist from the time of placing the on-guard until revealing it, but doesn't need to be valid until revealing the on-guard), possibly making some hazards more dangerous as a side-effect (e.g. The Roving Eye, The Will of the Ring).
Refrasing my question: what was your point behind "All targets of the on-guard card must have existed from the movement/hazard phase up until the on-guard card is revealed."?

If it was that target must be in play continously, then I only would add: Frodo as himself would be in play continously. However if he lost his one (and only) special item ring in site phase and then aquire another special item ring in site phase, then as target of Roving Eye he was not in play continously.
It was my point behind "All targets of the on-guard card must have existed and be valid targets from the movement/hazard phase up until the on-guard card is revealed.".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Frodo would not only need to be continuously in play but also a valid target from the moment the on-guard is placed (would have been playable on Frodo) up until the on-guard is revealed (is playable on Frodo). If at any time in between Frodo leaves play or ceases to be a valid target, the on-guard loses its 'tracking', if you will.

Sure there can be some complex situations, but I don't think they'd be very common. At least this method is pretty clear-cut as long as you're able to keep track of everything. Of course I wouldn't mind a rules change proposition, provided it's easier to handle and would not upset the balance between alignments and deck types.
Sauron
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

What did you guys decide about an on guard foolish words? Does it's text override or not override normal onguard playability?
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Common Brian, asked and answered :P
miguel wrote:
Sauron wrote:So where does this leave us? :)
It seems Foolish Words is a special case, it does not follow normal on-guard rules (card text overrides them). So it in fact could have been revealed and played on The Mouth in the scenario you described.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

miguel wrote:...Another option would be for CoE to make a rules change to simplify the CRF entry (for example the target must continuously exist from the time of placing the on-guard until revealing it, but doesn't need to be valid until revealing the on-guard), possibly making some hazards more dangerous as a side-effect....
I kinda like this solution, I am just mostly worried about The Roving Eye with Lure of Nature and what have you... But wait! Can you even reveal The Roving Eye on-guard targetting the guy playing the item?
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: On-Guard Cards wrote:A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.
So Roving gets declared and resolved prior to the play of the item, which means it can't target that character (unless there's another item of course). The CC from Roving would also happen (resolution) before the play of the item? Ha? :o
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Sauron wrote:What did you guys decide about an on guard foolish words? Does it's text override or not override normal onguard playability?
I think (I'm convinced) that "If placed on-guard, it may be revealed and played when [...]" override both rules that decide "when on-guard card may be revealed" (a) and "what on-guard cards can, and what they cannot do" (b).

Otherwise other cards with similar text would not work as expected.
Searching Eye (from Lidless Eye) wrote:Cancel and discard any card requiring scout skill before it is resolved or cancel any ongoing effect of a card that required scout skill to play. If this card is played as an on-guard card, it can be revealed during the opponent's site phase to cancel and discard a card requiring scout skill before it is resolved.
If it would only override (a) and not (b) then it could not cancel a card declared in site phase but obviously not existed in M/H phase (or be smart and manage chain of effects lasting from M/H phase to site phase)*.
Heedless Revelry wrote:Playable on a non-Ringwraith company that is not moving. Make a roll (or draw a #) for each untapped non-Wizard character in the company; modify this roll by -2 for hero characters. If the result is greater than the character's mind, the character becomes tapped. Alternatively, may be revealed as an on-guard card on a company after the successful play of an item, ally, or faction. Tap all untapped non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard characters in the company.
CRF, Errata (Cards), Heedless Revelry wrote:The "playable on ..." conditions of the first paragraph do not apply to the second
paragraph. Card Erratum: Change "after the successful play" to "in response to the
play." [Effective 8/27/98] Does not interfere with the playing of the card it is revealed
in response to.
If "may be revealed as an on-guard card on a company in response to the play" would only override (a)** and not (b) then it would not be revealed because on-guard cards cannot directly tap characters.


miguel wrote:Frodo would not only need to be continuously in play but also a valid target from the moment the on-guard is placed (would have been playable on Frodo) up until the on-guard is revealed (is playable on Frodo). If at any time in between Frodo leaves play or ceases to be a valid target, the on-guard loses its 'tracking', if you will.
So you are against me or not against me here? :)

If not against me here, then eventual moot point would be "whether to trace or not to trace when and which on-guard card was placed and what was state of things in M/H phases other than last company's M/H phase". (uffff....)




*) besides this card has different timing than normal on-guards - it is declared in the same chain of effect in which it was revealed, not "prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed". Otherwise its target would not even exist at declaration (and at resolution) .

**) it actually overrides (a). Normal on-guard card may be revealed when the company plays a resource that potentially taps the site. Heedless Revelry is slightly less restrictive if it comes to "potential of tapping", but is more restrictive if it comes to type of resource - only item, ally, or faction; no information cards, no Tower Raided.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Konrad Klar wrote:So you are against me or not against me here? :)
I think we're in agreement. Next we'd just need to figure out which would be smarter, to issue a ruling with stipulations about the on-guard's target and its validity at different points in time, or try to simplify via a CoE rules erratum. Although if read in a certain way, the CRF entry could already be seen supporting the possible CoE erratum I mentioned...

"Rules Erratum: An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed."

Underline is mine, and if that part is seen as the dominant section, since it says what the first part actually means, then the target doesn't necessarily need to be valid during the move/haz phase..? If so, then a ruling stating this would be enough. I know this is reaching though.

Also, pls see my post about Roving Eye just above yours, timing is weird.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

miguel wrote:
miguel wrote:...Another option would be for CoE to make a rules change to simplify the CRF entry (for example the target must continuously exist from the time of placing the on-guard until revealing it, but doesn't need to be valid until revealing the on-guard), possibly making some hazards more dangerous as a side-effect....
I kinda like this solution, I am just mostly worried about The Roving Eye with Lure of Nature and what have you... But wait! Can you even reveal The Roving Eye on-guard targetting the guy playing the item?
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: On-Guard Cards wrote:A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.
So Roving gets declared and resolved prior to the play of the item, which means it can't target that character (unless there's another item of course). The CC from Roving would also happen (resolution) before the play of the item? Ha? :o
I had in mind a situation when Frodo loses Lesser Ring in site phase (e.g. according to effect of Tower Raided) and than aquire another special item ring (due to gold ring item test or in result of transfer [from character eliminated by Orcs]).
A resource* that would tap a site may be played at the site and on-guard may be revealed in response.

Other scenerio: Frodo loses Lesser Ring in result of The Ring's Betrayal (first revealed on-guard), then tests gold ring, aquire Lesser Ring #2. Site is still untapped (influence attempt against Southrons was not successfull). Haradrim are being played and second on-guard waiting to be revealed is The Roving Eye.

*) Even a faction. Tower Raided's effect is not in play until scout taps at the end of site phase.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Right, so Roving Eye wouldn't be that bad after all since it couldn't be used in response to, say Wormsbane, to target the character playing it (unless otherwise legal). But, the timing is still weird. Digressing a bit, but to use your 2nd scenario where Haradrim are being played and Roving is revealed.

Chain-o'-effects

(1) Haradrim is declared (character taps)
(2) Roving Eye is revealed, considered declared and resolved prior to this chain --> immediate corruption check that actually already happened..? are you able to even support the CC since it's been resolved? WTF?
...

To get back on topic, I'm thinking a ruling/errata along the lines of "the target must continuously exist from the time of placing the on-guard until revealing it, but doesn't need to be valid until revealing the on-guard" could be the way to go, it would make the amount tracking needed more manageable. Anyone find downsides to it?
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”