Wizard's Trove as Quest Bypass?

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:50 pm You are claiming Wizard's Trove is somehow special, that it (and it alone of permanent events?) creates its own play allowance, despite not being a short-event, and despite having the same phrasing as several other short-events which for some reason do not create their own allowance despite you saying that short events create their own allowance. From what text are your opinions deriving from?
From none. They are an original researches.
I believe that some regularities I'm trying to express are used in game anyway, even if not codified.
Most times if used inconsistently, or all times if used consistently.

I have provided the examples of Ringlore and Farmer Maggot before.

If a card creates an action when it executes in its chain of effects, the action executes just in the moment, even if otherwise the actions could not be declared in current phase or turn.

Whole (not codified) difference between short-events and other cards is that by default "you may" can only be used at execution of short-events, for other cards "you may" can by used later (as long the cards are in play).

For this reason a playability conditions of short-events are all that must be met to perform an action "you may" take allowed for the short-events.
For other cards all standard conditions to perform some "you may take" actions must be fulfilled. "You may" only alter the conditions; if "you may" is not standard action the condition are fully provided by text of the card (as in case of Farmer Maggot).
So for example Bad Company allows to play Orc and Troll characters, but does not allow to play them in any other situation than situation in which you otherwise may play a character, and does not supersede any other limitations than inability to play an Orc or Troll characters.

Wizard's Trove is so special as special is Safe from The Shadow, or Bad Company.
They do not create any action when they come into play.

Playability conditions of The White Tree are:
Sage at Minas Tirith, discarding of Sapling of the White Tree in company, or stored at Minas Tirith.
Wizard's Trove provides different playability conditions. If they would be an additional playability conditions, then you still would to have:
Sage at Minas Tirith, Sage, discard of Sapling of the White Tree in sage'company, or stored at Minas Tirith.
In addition to Sapling of the White Tree stored at Wizardhaven.

Safe from The Shadow alters "when may be stored".
Alternative effect of Wizard's Trove alters "when may be stored" and modifies MPs that a card gives.

Both cards do not alter "whether it may be stored" status of the card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:44 am
Theo wrote: Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:50 pm You are claiming Wizard's Trove is somehow special, that it (and it alone of permanent events?) creates its own play allowance, despite not being a short-event, and despite having the same phrasing as several other short-events which for some reason do not create their own allowance despite you saying that short events create their own allowance. From what text are your opinions deriving from?
From none. They are an original researches.
This is concerning from the viewpoint of how the rest of the playerbase is supposed to know which way to interpret each card, besides tracking Konrad down and hoping his answers are consistent.
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:44 am For this reason a playability conditions of short-events are all that must be met to perform an action "you may" take allowed for the short-events.
For other cards all standard conditions to perform some "you may take" actions must be fulfilled. "You may" only alter the conditions; if "you may" is not standard action the condition are fully provided by text of the card (as in case of Farmer Maggot).
And yet you agreed that "You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind" on Thrall of the Voice does more than "only alter the conditions," but it creates its own mechanic.

Or, rather, there is no reason for cards to state that they allow actions that are already allowed, so isn't every action that a card states that it allows a non-standard action? I.e., all allowed actions create their own allowance, only restricted as specified by the card.

It seems like the critical decision for interpreting a card, then, is whether allowances on cards are for taking actions, or for removal/expansion of restrictions for taking actions. Bad Company could be plausibly argued to be the latter, and the same with Safe from The Shadows. But then Both halves of Wizard's Trove should fit the first (since there are no misc. MP cards that can already be stored but are restricted against being stored at any Wizardhaven).

I'll say it again: being worth full MP is a separate effect of the second use of Wizard's Trove from storing.
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

Theo wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:21 am And yet you agreed that "You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind" on Thrall of the Voice does more than "only alter the conditions," but it creates its own mechanic.
Not true. You are manipulating.

"You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind"
alone would only alter maximum allowed mind for character played under control of the FW player*.

"Instead of a normal character, during your organization phase you may bring into play one character (including a minion agent) with up to a 6 mind. Place this card with the character. -1 to his mind to a minimum of 1. Such a character may also be in your starting company. ...for those who it conquered the spell endured when they were far away...-LotRIII"

"You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind"
in conjunction with
"Instead of a normal character"
replaces all condition that "a normal character" (allowed to be played by FW player) must met with condition "You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind" (with no restrictions regarding race).
Theo wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:21 am Or, rather, there is no reason for cards to state that they allow actions that are already allowed, so isn't every action that a card states that it allows a non-standard action? I.e., all allowed actions create their own allowance, only restricted as specified by the card.
There is no reason for cards to state that they allow actions that are already allowed.

"Alternatively, you may store one miscellaneous marshalling point card at one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ]. Any reference to the site
where the card can normally be stored are transferred instead to the Wizardhaven [ [-me_ha-] ]. Place Wizardʹs Trove with the stored card
‐ which is worth full marshalling points."

"you may store one miscellaneous marshalling point card at one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ]."
alone allows for an action that is already allowed.

In conjunction with rest it allows to store a Misc MP card that normally may be stored elsewhere but not at Haven/Darkhaven/Wizardhaven (not many of them in standard cardset and ruleset) and additionally causes that the card is worth full MP (an places Wizardʹs Trove on it).
Theo wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:21 am This is concerning from the viewpoint of how the rest of the playerbase is supposed to know which way to interpret each card, besides tracking Konrad down and hoping his answers are consistent.
I am not forcing anyone to follow my viewpoint. And I'm trying to be fair.
If I'm unable to find an exact rule that backs my point, the I says that my opinion should be treated as original researches.

Some regularities are not codified**. This does not mean that they do not exist.
So until they will be codified, I only can say "try to play consistently" and I can present what consistency I see.

*) Ride Against the Enemy causes playing a character, but not under control of a player.
**) An actions caused by passive condition existed in the game since beginning. Sadly, the term "passive conditions" first appeared in 4th edition - "Lidless Eye".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:41 am
Theo wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:21 am And yet you agreed that "You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind" on Thrall of the Voice does more than "only alter the conditions," but it creates its own mechanic.
Not true. You are manipulating.

"You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind"
alone would only alter maximum allowed mind for character played under control of the FW player*.

"Instead of a normal character, during your organization phase you may bring into play one character (including a minion agent) with up to a 6 mind. Place this card with the character. -1 to his mind to a minimum of 1. Such a character may also be in your starting company. ...for those who it conquered the spell endured when they were far away...-LotRIII"

"You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind"
in conjunction with
"Instead of a normal character"
replaces all condition that "a normal character" (allowed to be played by FW player) must met with condition "You may bring into play one character with up to a 6 mind" (with no restrictions regarding race).
Ah, I see. I did not mean to manipulate. In my view, "Instead of a normal character" means that the effect give is a replacement for the mechanism which normally has a one-per-turn limit, but "instead of a normal character" doesn't otherwise change the power of "you may bring into play". Lack of "instead of a normal character" would be equivalent to including "in addition to a normal character".
Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:41 am
Theo wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:21 am Or, rather, there is no reason for cards to state that they allow actions that are already allowed, so isn't every action that a card states that it allows a non-standard action? I.e., all allowed actions create their own allowance, only restricted as specified by the card.
There is no reason for cards to state that they allow actions that are already allowed.

"Alternatively, you may store one miscellaneous marshalling point card at one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ]. Any reference to the site
where the card can normally be stored are transferred instead to the Wizardhaven [ [-me_ha-] ]. Place Wizardʹs Trove with the stored card
‐ which is worth full marshalling points."

"you may store one miscellaneous marshalling point card at one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ]."
alone allows for an action that is already allowed.

In conjunction with rest it allows to store a Misc MP card that normally may be stored elsewhere but not at Haven/Darkhaven/Wizardhaven (not many of them in standard cardset and ruleset) and additionally causes that the card is worth full MP (an places Wizardʹs Trove on it).
Under this interpretation, wouldn't wording such as the following have been less ambiguous?
"Alternatively, when one miscellaneous marshalling points card is stored at one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ] you may place Wizard's Trove with it. Any reference to the site where the card can normally be stored are transferred instead to the Wizardhaven [ [-me_ha-] ]. The stored card is worth full marshalling points."

Not that such reasoning alone is justification for an alternative interpretation. But how would they have better indicated if they HAD wanted Wizard's Trove storing to allow any miscellaneous marshalling points card with less mess than the actual wording?

"Alternatively, you may store one miscellaneous marshalling point card (even if it couldn't normally be stored) at one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ]. Any reference to the site where the card can normally be stored are transferred instead to the Wizardhaven [ [-me_ha-] ]. Place Wizardʹs Trove with the stored card ‐ which is worth full marshalling points."

But then the parenthetical clarification is not necessary, it simply avoids ambiguity.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:41 am
Theo wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:21 am This is concerning from the viewpoint of how the rest of the playerbase is supposed to know which way to interpret each card, besides tracking Konrad down and hoping his answers are consistent.
I am not forcing anyone to follow my viewpoint. And I'm trying to be fair.
If I'm unable to find an exact rule that backs my point, the I says that my opinion should be treated as original researches.

Some regularities are not codified**. This does not mean that they do not exist.
So until they will be codified, I only can say "try to play consistently" and I can present what consistency I see.
I totally appreciate your perspectives. But this case is unusually lacking of indications within the rules texts to guide players in new situations. Other than some authoritative figure (you, CoE, whoever) going through every card and every situation ahead of time, players will be forced to argue about which cards should be interpreted which way. At the end of the day, the answer to "Where is the consistency?" is, "There isn't any." At least, not objective consistency, which I think it critical for interpretable/enforceable rules.
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

Theo wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:23 am Under this interpretation, wouldn't wording such as the following have been less ambiguous?
"Alternatively, when one miscellaneous marshalling points card is stored at one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ] you may place Wizard's Trove with it. Any reference to the site where the card can normally be stored are transferred instead to the Wizardhaven [ [-me_ha-] ]. The stored card is worth full marshalling points."
No. It would change meaning slightly. Unlike original text, it would also mean that card stored in result of Fealty Under Trial would be affected.
Theo wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:23 am Not that such reasoning alone is justification for an alternative interpretation. But how would they have better indicated if they HAD wanted Wizard's Trove storing to allow any miscellaneous marshalling points card with less mess than the actual wording?

"Alternatively, you may store one miscellaneous marshalling point card (even if it couldn't normally be stored) at one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ]. Any reference to the site where the card can normally be stored are transferred instead to the Wizardhaven [ [-me_ha-] ]. Place Wizardʹs Trove with the stored card ‐ which is worth full marshalling points."

But then the parenthetical clarification is not necessary, it simply avoids ambiguity.
The parenthetical clarification would be necessary.

Resource permanent-events may not be stored by default. To be storable they need a phrase that allows them to be stored.
Items may be stored by default. To be not storable they need a phrase that disallows them to be stored.
Theo wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:23 am I totally appreciate your perspectives. But this case is unusually lacking of indications within the rules texts to guide players in new situations.
Some rudimentary texts exist in Lidless Eye, Starter Rules, Playing and Drawing Cards.
"Except for resource long-events, you may play resource cards anytime during your own turn unless specifically prohibited by the rules or the cards themselves."
"Short-event - A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: "until the end of the turn")."

I can try to codify the regularities I am speaking about here.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I would appreciate such codification.
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:35 am Resource permanent-events may not be stored by default. To be storable they need a phrase that allows them to be stored.
Right; where we differ is that I believe that "you may store" is such a phrase, as much as "you may play" is that phrase earlier on Wizard's Trove for playing a card that can normally only be played according to its own specification.
MELE wrote:Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn - as limited by specific card text.
Wizard's Trove has no more of a specific phrase to overrule the limitation for play imposed by The White Tree than for storing permanent events that do not state they have a way to be stored.
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

Theo wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:05 am Wizard's Trove has no more of a specific phrase to overrule the limitation for play imposed by The White Tree than for storing permanent events that do not state they have a way to be stored.
We differ here.
Wizard's Trove provides new conditions of playing The White Tree. It does not remove any limitations.
If something what originally is playable at Amon Hen if Gates of Morning is in play, according to some effect may be played at Bree if Doors of Night is play, it cannot be called as removing of limitations.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I would say it is expanding of limitations. Curious difference.
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

From other thread:
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:47 am If you read:
"Alternatively, you may store one miscellaneous marshalling point card at one of your Wizardhavens"
in separation from rest of paragraph, you may ask why it reiterates what rules make possible anyway.
Or why "one", while rules do not make a limit.

Because reading in conjunction with rest of paragraph changes a sense.
Orphaned:
"Any reference to the site where the card can normally be stored are transferred instead to the Wizardhaven"
does not make any sense too.
This notion seems like the key for why the first Wizard's Trove use of "may play" can bypass The White Tree restrictions. "Ignore the text of The
White Tree." I would have looked for it to be part of the first sentence, but if you're going with "paragraph is interpreted together" then it doesn't matter.

So, I think the addition of this would sufficiently cover permanent events.

You still owe me an explanation of A Chance Meeting vote from last year only needing to be a "clarification." ;) Would you say that the additional Fell Beast ability ignores the hazard limit because it is creating its own allowance, for example? Bounty of the Hoard and Hoard Well Search allow items to be played without tapping a character (or, indeed, the items either cannot be played on a character at all, or they could be played on allies, or straight into the MP pile)? Actually, I've found surprisingly few cards that seem awkward with this magical exception, suggesting it is more these few cards that need greater scrutiny. I'm almost satisfied on the "may play" front.
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

Theo wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:11 am This notion seems like the key for why the first Wizard's Trove use of "may play" can bypass The White Tree restrictions. "Ignore the text of The
White Tree." I would have looked for it to be part of the first sentence, but if you're going with "paragraph is interpreted together" then it doesn't matter.
Perhaps ICE should use a different separator marks for statements that should be read (executed) separately (executed in sequence) and different for statements that should be read together.

ICE did not so.
Take Gems of Arda as example.
Gems of Arda wrote:Playable at The Gem-deeps. If you have a stored Vein of Arda, playable at any Under-deeps site. During any organization phase in which you store Gems of Arda, you may immediately tap a character in the same company and play a non-special item with him from your hand or discard pile. This item must be identical to an item that your opponent has already stored. Your opponent's stored item is discarded, and you may never store the item you played.

"During any organization phase in which you store Gems of Arda, you may immediately tap a character in the same company and play a non-special item with him from your hand or discard pile. This item must be identical to an item that your opponent has already stored."

Threat it at moment as two separate statements.
Someone does what first sentence allows him to doe. Then read next sequence.
"Ehm, I've already played a non-special item from my hand/discard pile. I did not knew that this item must be identical to an item that my opponent has already stored.

Also "Your opponent's stored item is discarded, and you may never store the item you played." should not be read in separation from to previous sentences. And cannot be executed as next in sequence. Otherwise it would block a playing an unique items.

Frankly, I do not know whether "Ignore the text of The White Tree." is a directive next to rest of paragraph, or must be read and parsed together with rest of paragraph.

In first case this means that Minas Tirith at moment is Haven for purposes of healing. For some variants of The White Tree, where discarding a Sapling is main effect of the card (not condition) this also means that a Sapling is discarded (not sure which copy of Sapling, that at Minas Tirith?).
Theo wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:11 am You still owe me an explanation of A Chance Meeting vote from last year only needing to be a "clarification." ;) Would you say that the additional Fell Beast ability ignores the hazard limit because it is creating its own allowance, for example?
Text of Fell Beast is more than awkward. It received clarification, while actually it deserves an errata.
According to the clarification it does not create an (possible) action "play Nazgul" at time of its execution.
If it would create such action the Nazgul would count against HL, and character played with A Chance Meeting still would count against "one character per turn limit" if such limit would exist.
Theo wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:11 am Bounty of the Hoard and Hoard Well Search allow items to be played without tapping a character (or, indeed, the items either cannot be played on a character at all, or they could be played on allies, or straight into the MP pile)?
"You may play", "may be played" for short-events means that "play" action may be taken at time of execution of given short-event.
The procedure of playing an item itself does not change; what changes is that the procedure may be started in different conditions.

If action is "is played" then it is performed as text of card specifies (under control of ally, or other item, in other way).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I found this reference:
ICE Netrep Digest #523 wrote: > So, does Wizard Trove let you store the Fate card before it get's inverted (and with 7 MP's to boot)? If so, I'm guessing that you can actually do this TWICE. 14 (possibly easy) MP's. Wizard's Trove allows you to store a misc. M.P. card ignoring where it would normally be stored and giving full M.P. So, you can only store Fate of the Ithel Stone once all the conditions on Fate have been met to allow it to be stored. Now, since both cards are non-unique, about the only thing which might hose this up is the actual cards. Which cards text takes precedence? If Fate takes precedence, then you cannot store it under a wizards trove until it is inverted. But if the Trove overrides Fate, the nasty combination above seems possible, if somewhat un-thematic.

There is no conflict. Fate has to be storable (inverted) before you can use Wizard's Trove on it
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/
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”