On-Guard Foolish Words

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Sauron
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

This came up in my game with Manuel and it wasn't really ruled convincingly one way or the other.

Scenario
The Mouth and Grimborgoth in a company.

During Company's m/h phase:
Opponent plays the mouth hazard forcing The Mouth Char back to hand.
On-guard played (foolish words)

During Site Phase:
We have come to kill is played and The Mouth is re-played, and attempts to influence a faction

Can Foolish Words at this point be revealed and played on The Mouth?

Relevant points of information:
Foolish Words text:
Any riddling roll, offering attempt, or influence attempt by the target character is modified by -4. If placed on-guard, it may be revealed and played when a character in the company declare a riddling, offering or influence attempt.

CRF
On-Guard Cards:
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.

Resulting Ruling during Play:
It was ruled that the character had to be in the company through the entire m/h phase to be a legal target for foolish words. One of the reasons used was what if it was non-unique character and the player had another copy in their hand. How would you be able to tell which one was in the company previously?

I'd like to discuss this out and try to figure out a more elegant reason, if nothing else so we know for the future.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

One of the reasons used was what if it was non-unique character and the player had another copy in their hand. How would you be able to tell which one was in the company previously?
I agree with "reason".
Otherwise it would mean that unique character reintroduced in site phase has history of previously removed character. So if this turn a corruption card was played on removed character, another could not be played on reintroduced character.

I think that it is enough to determine whether target is the same object that have existed in last M/H phase (or in any/all of company M/H phases ?), or just identical, but not the same. Being in play at the end of last M/H phase is enough (what is wrong in playing on-guard Foolish Words on Eowyn played in middle of M/H phase with Helm of Her Secrecy?).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Beornd
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:15 pm

My subjective oppinion:

Foolish Words works like Searching Eye - Card text beats Basic rules - this cards are special on-guard cards (otherwise - why is "on-guard text" written their? )
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Beornd wrote:My subjective oppinion:

Foolish Words works like Searching Eye - Card text beats Basic rules - this cards are special on-guard cards (otherwise - why is "on-guard text" written their? )
Right. Foolish Words is special case (I've overlooked its "on-guard text" and it is not first time :oops:).
But rest of concerns remains valid for other cards, like Shut Yer Mouth, for example.
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

Beornd wrote:otherwise - why is "on-guard text" written their?
Because without that text Foolish Words would not have been revealable as an on-guard. See below (underline is mine).
MELE Rules wrote:PLACING A CARD ON-GUARD
During the movement/hazard phase of your opponent's turn, you may place one card on-guard for each of your opponent's companies. This card is played face down next to the company's new site or next to its current site if it did not move. Any card can be placed on-guard (i.e., it does not have to be a hazard, you can bluff). Such a card does count against the hazard limit for the company it is placed on. The card will remain on that site until one of the following occurs:
· The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. If the on-guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack, it may be revealed before the automatic-attack is resolved. If it is a hazard creature, it will attack after the automatic-attack is resolved.
· The company plays a card that potentially taps the site. If the on-guard card is a non-creature hazard, it may be revealed if it is a hazard that directly affects the company or a character in the company (e.g., a hazard that forces all characters to make a corruption check).
· Otherwise, return the card to your hand at the end of the site phase.
In the first two cases, the card is handled as if it had been played during the movement-hazard phase (i.e., short-events are discarded, long-events last until your opponent's next long-event phase, etc.).
It wasn't until later that this rule was extended in the CRF:
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: On-guard Cards wrote:You may reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction even if the on-guard card only has an effect if the attempt is successful. You may also reveal a card in response to such an attempt that affects the actual influence attempt.
So before that CRF entry Foolish Words needed the part about being able to be revealed on-guard. Afterwards that part of the card text became moot. The CRF text Brian quoted in the OP also came afterwards, and is IMO not overridden by the now moot text of Foolish Words.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Sauron wrote:It was ruled that the character had to be in the company through the entire m/h phase to be a legal target for foolish words.
Not entirely accurate. I said the character needed to be in the company at the end of the move/haz phase (or at least that's what I was trying to say). As Konrad pointed out with his Eowyn example, that's how it should go.
Sauron
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Manuel brought up another point,

What if the char in company A exists at the end of their m/h phase, but gets returned to hand during company B's m/h phase?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

@Miguel:
If you refer to the state of rules regarding on-guards at time of issuing Dragons Edition, they was permisive at maximum. There was no (formulated) requirement that target of revealed on-guard must have existed in M/H phase. In such state a phrase "may be revealed as on-guard" does not change anything.
Some concepts have existed in game since beginning, like off to the side cards (Sacrifice of Form), or passive conditions. But respective rules appeared later.

@Sauron
I think that one thing does not change: it must be checked whether target is the same entity as in M/H phase, or just identical. Unique, or not, a card played in site phase, has not a history of identical card existed in M/H 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

That's true, need to reformulate...

CRF 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.

Clarification: All targets of the on-guard card must have existed from the movement/hazard phase up until the on-guard card is revealed.

How's that?
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Konrad Klar wrote:@Miguel:
If you refer to the state of rules regarding on-guards at time of issuing Dragons Edition, they was permisive at maximum. There was no (formulated) requirement that target of revealed on-guard must have existed in M/H phase. In such state a phrase "may be revealed as on-guard" does not change anything.
Some concepts have existed in game since beginning, like off to the side cards (Sacrifice of Form), or passive conditions. But respective rules appeared later.
My point was that according to MELE (and METW) rules, you are not allowed to reveal an on-guard to affect an influence attempt. So Foolish Words needed that part in its card text. But that part became obsolete once CRF said such cards could be revealed on-guard.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

@Miguel
Makes a sense if Foolish Words is considered a card that does not affect directly a character in company.

According to MELE (and METW) you are not allowed to reveal as on-guard a card that does not affect directly a company but otherwise affects an influence attempt against a faction.
Times Are Evil, Scatha At Home and Lure of Power would not be allowed without later CRF entry (quoted by you).
Stormcrow would be allowed (if Wizard is in company), because it directly affects a character in company and indirectly (by lowering a DI of Wizard) influence attempt (if made by Wizard). Shut Yer Mouth would be OK too.

Please note that
CRF wrote: You may reveal a card in response to an influence attempt against a faction even if the on-guard card only has an effect if the attempt is successful. You may also reveal a card in response to such an attempt that affects the actual influence attempt.
still does not allow to reveal on-guard in response to influence attempt againts opponent's character, item, or ally. "On-guard text" of Foolish Words is less restrictive.

Fact that text "may be revealed as on-guard" overcomes one restriction of revealing on-guards, does not mean that it overcomes only that one, arbitraly choosen.
Without "may be revealed as on-guard" Foolish Words could not be revealed as on-guard for many reasons (target did not exist in M/H phase, declared influence attempt not against faction, [according to you] not affecting directly a character in company). Text of the card does not address specifically any of that reasons.
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

Good point, but I object describing my thought process as arbitrary. :P

After re-reading the CRF 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), I think I see where you and a some others are coming from. Based on how one reads the CRF entry, it can be all about the validity of revealing and perhaps I've overemphasized / read too much into the validity of target(s) here. And the text of Foolish Words can certainly override any other requirement to reveal. In fact, nothing on Foolish Words says it must even be played on the character making the influence attempt! :o
Sauron
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

miguel wrote:Good point, but I object describing my thought process as arbitrary. :P

After re-reading the CRF 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), I think I see where you and a some others are coming from. Based on how one reads the CRF entry, it can be all about the validity of revealing and perhaps I've overemphasized / read too much into the validity of target(s) here. And the text of Foolish Words can certainly override any other requirement to reveal. In fact, nothing on Foolish Words says it must even be played on the character making the influence attempt! :o
So where does this leave us? :)
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

miguel wrote:Good point, but I object describing my thought process as arbitrary. :P
Not business, but nothing personal... :wink:
miguel wrote:In fact, nothing on Foolish Words says it must even be played on the character making the influence attempt! :o
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. It will not make a playing ally harder, or easier, but it does not must.

*) Non-ringwraith, and not character on which a corruption card was played that turn.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

miguel wrote: Clarification: All targets of the on-guard card must have existed from the movement/hazard phase up until the on-guard card is revealed.

How's that?
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.

would take into account such (unusual, I admit) scenarios.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”