Lucky Search with Lure of Expedience

[Maethmaenor]

Hello METW community!

I am registered since a couple of years, but this is my first post. I have not played for 10 years, but now my wife and I are beginning to remember, re-reading rules and playing test plays. As always, questions about rules arise. I would thank you if we can clarify the following:

Thorin has Lure of Expedience and Kili in the same fellowship tries to use Lucky Search in the site phase. Kili finds an item but results wounded by the attack of LS so the item is discarded. Should Thorin make the corruption check because a character has gained an item (because of LoE) or should one wait until LS is followed to the end of text, so that at the end is the item discarded and nobody has gained it (meaning that Thorin does not make a CC)?

Thank you,
Maethmaenor

Lucky Search:
Scout only. During the site phase, tap a scout at a Shadow-hold [Sh]. Turn over cards from your play deck one at a time until you reveal a non-special item or reach the end. If you reveal a non-special item, the scout takes control of it. In any case, the scout must face a single strike attack with a prowess equal to 3 plus the number of cards revealed; this attack/strike cannot be cancelled. Reshuffle all revealed cards except the item back into the play deck.

Lure of Expedience:
Corruption. Does not affect Hobbits and Wizards. A character receives 2 corruption points. Target character makes a corruption check each time a character in his company gains an item. Cannot be duplicated on a given character. During his organization phase, a character with this card may tap to attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 5, discard this card.

[Konrad Klar]

Timing of corruption check from Lure of Expedience is governed by passive condition rules.
This cc occurs as first declared action od chain of effect that follows the chain of effect in which an item was gained.

Whether the item is still beared, or is lost, does not matter. Passive condition (activator) of the action from Lure of Expedience is an act of gaining of item, not its presence.

[Maethmaenor]

Thank you, Konrad. That was a really quick answer.

I have always some trouble with the passive and active conditions concept.
If I understand it right, the CC of Thorin should be made immediately after Kili gains the item, and then Kili continues with LS facing its attack, and later be wounded, discarding the item. Right?

Relative with the same: would be time to play resource cards that affect the CC in this particular case?

[Konrad Klar]

If I understand it right, the CC of Thorin should be made immediately after Kili gains the item, and then Kili continues with LS facing its attack, and later be wounded, discarding the item. Right?

Not immediately.
The chain of effect in which Lucky Search was declared and resolved must end*.
Then, in new chain of effect, cc from Lure of Expedience is declared as first action.
And...

Relative with the same: would be time to play resource cards that affect the CC in this particular case?

... now is the time to declare in response something that can affect the cc (or something not related to cc, but otherwise legal).




*) As sidenote: because Lucky Search is a card that causes an immediate attack, it must be declared as first action of chain of effect.

[Maethmaenor]

Thank you, Konrad.
I have read again too about passive and active conditions to understand this kind of situations.

Regards.

[the JabberwocK]

Not immediately.
The chain of effect in which Lucky Search was declared and resolved must end*.

Will you please spell out (in baby steps) what this means?

I believe:

Lucky Search is declared... nothing happens.

Lucky search is resolved... meaning it will now have an effect on the game.

Next, we go about the sequence of events stated on the card:

Tap a scout, turn over cards, reveal an item, character gains an item, STOP (now Lure of Expedience triggers and a corruption check is made, and cards which modify corruption checks may be played), THEN we continue with the sequence of events listed on the card... scout must face attack (now cards may be played which affect the attack/strikes or are otherwise playable during the strike sequence, etc)... finally, we continue again with the sequence of events and reshuffle revealed cards into play deck.

Do I have the above correct? Or am I incorrect?

Also, the below was quoted in this discussion: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3236

Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card
itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the
card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions
may be declared to occur between these multiple actions.
The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.
(amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the
effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of
its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation
18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).

How can a corruption check take place from Lure of Expedience if no actions may be declared to occur between multiple actions as printed on the card? Or is a corruption check from Lure of Expedience not considered to be a declared action? If it is not considered to be a declared action, then playing a corruption check modifier (A Friend or Three, etc) certainly IS a declared action, so how is this allowed?

Finally, regarding Lure of Expedience (but not relating to Lucky Search)...

Lure of Expedience
Will trigger when a gold ring item is tested and a special item is successfully played.
Will trigger when an item is transferred.
Can be played on-guard and will trigger a corruption check when revealed in response to an item played.

If a character bearing an item is eliminated or discarded from play and drops the item, and then a non-wounded character picks up the item, this is considered a transfer and would necessitate a corruption check from Lure of Expedience, correct?

[Konrad Klar]

How can a corruption check take place from Lure of Expedience if no actions may be declared to occur between multiple actions as printed on the card?

It cannot be made or even declared, and the following is wrong:

Tap a scout, turn over cards, reveal an item, character gains an item, STOP (now Lure of Expedience triggers and a corruption check is made, and cards which modify corruption checks may be played), THEN we continue with the sequence of events listed on the card... scout must face attack (now cards may be played which affect the attack/strikes or are otherwise playable during the strike sequence, etc)... finally, we continue again with the sequence of events and reshuffle revealed cards into play deck.

However a passive condition that causes action may be produced inside of resolving chain of effect. The passive condition here is "character in the same company as target of the Lure of Expedience gains an item".

Chain of effects #1:
Lucky Search is declared.

Lucky Search resolves and executes:
Scout taps. Cards are turn over, item is found. The scout takes the item (the condition written on the Lure of Expedience is produced at this point). Attack is faced.

Chain of effects #2:
Corruption check made by target of Lure of Expedience is declared. Other actions may be declared in response.

Eventual other actions that was declared in response start resolving and executing, in order from last declared action to first declared action. Finally the corruption check made by target of Lure of Expedience resolves and is executed*.


This simple scenario assumes that nothing was declared in response to Lucky Search and that no other passive condition was produced in chain with the Lucky Search (scout becoming wounded would produce a condition written on Something has Slipped or on Despair of Heart).

If a character bearing an item is eliminated or discarded from play and drops the item, and then a non-wounded character picks up the item, this is considered a transfer and would necessitate a corruption check from Lure of Expedience, correct?

If a character is eliminated due to failing a body check, one item can be immediately transferred to each unwounded character in his company: but, the rest of his items are discarded.

Annotation 22: When a character fails a body check, his items may be immediately
reassigned to unwounded characters in his company, one item per character.
Reassigning of the eliminated character's items is considered to be synonymous with
his failed body check, i.e., no action may take place between the failed check and
reassigning the items. Unassigned items are discarded.

Lidless Eye and CRF use different words. Not necessarily carrying identical meaning.
Lidless Eye says about transferring an items, CRF says about reassigning an items.

I do not know whether the reassigning counts technically as a transfer.
Nevertheless character in the same company as a target of Lure of Expedience gains an item, and it is a condition written on Lure of Expedience.

*) The rule that governs the situation is:

Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific
passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the
chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive
condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in
its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike
sequence follow a different set of rules.

[the JabberwocK]

Ok, I think I understand now.....

The corruption check required by Lure of Expedience is not made until all of the actions of Lucky Search have been completed (ie. item revealed, attack happens, cards shuffled back into deck).

Once all of that is over, then the corruption check takes place, regardless of whether or not the character still bears the item.

Do I have that correct?

I do not know whether the reassigning counts technically as a transfer.
Nevertheless character in the same company as a target of Lure of Expedience gains an item, and it is a condition written on Lure of Expedience.

Thanks for clarifying this.

[Konrad Klar]

Once all of that is over, then the corruption check takes place, regardless of whether or not the character still bears the item.

Do I have that correct?

Once all of that is over, then the corruption check is declared, regardless of whether or not the character still bears the item.

[the JabberwocK]

Once all of that is over, then the corruption check is declared, regardless of whether or not the character still bears the item.

Copy that, thanks!