Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1506
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:49 am
Theo wrote:
Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:41 am
In that case, their effects resolved in whichever order they entered play. Whichever entered first makes the condition within the second's effect impossible.
Sounds like arbitrary ruling. Is it based on something?
Theo wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 6:20 am
Deduced from what it means to resolve the effects from playing a card.

At least, past CoE rulings are consistent with this:
CoE #57 wrote:If an effect is in play that was played during a previous chain of effect in the same movement/hazard phase, it's applied in the order in which the cards were played.
(I presume the inclusion of the same movement/hazard phase clause is present only to exclude effects that all are triggered---and thus are ordered---at the start of the movement/hazard phase. The motivating rationale should also apply to PallandoTSK & Press-gang.)
Hmm... that CoE ruling is misleading and incorrect. It doesn't apply here. The statement in CoE #57 is in response to a question about applying the strike-modifying effects of Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead:
CoE #57 wrote:Lastly, I know this question has been discussed here, but I never quite understood what the final verdict was on it. Here is the scenario, the
moon is dead, plague of wights are in play. How are the strikes calculated, additionally if I also throw in a Chill Douser how does this affect the strikes with plague of wights. The way I've been doing it so far is just doubling the natural strikes on a undead creature with PoW and then adding in the TMiD and Chill Douser strikes and prowess mods.


*** If either of these cards are in play at the beginning of the movement/hazard phase, the resource player chooses the order in which they're applied. After that, cards are applied as per chain of effects. If an effect is in play that was played during a previous chain of effect in the same movement/hazard phase, it's applied in the order in which the cards were played.
The CoE Netrep appears to be reciting Annotation 26 on the Movement/Hazard phase, but then it writes "resource" player instead of "hazard" player, seemingly remembering Annotation 10 on passive conditions and confusing it with Annotation 26. It would be helpful if the Netrep cited the rules.
Passive Conditions wrote:Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared.
Movement/Hazard Phase wrote:Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
The CoE #57 statement "If either of these cards are in play at the beginning of the movement/hazard phase, the Resource Player chooses the order in which they're applied" is misleading because at the beginning of the M/H phase, it is the Hazard Player that determines the order when the net effect differs (the order of Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead changes their net effect) per Annotation 26. It's Annotation 10 that lets the Resource player decide the order of actions triggered by passive conditions.

Annotation 26 lets the Hazard Player choose the order of actions triggered by the site-path at the start of the M/H phase, like the actions caused by Fell Winter and Morgul Night.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:30 pm
Why would these effects of Press-Gang and Pallando the Soul-keeper not be triggered by passive conditions and follow those rules?
They are not triggered. They replace "discard a character" action.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:30 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑28 Oct 2019, 09:25
Should be usable also in case: The Riddle Game VS Will Shaken.
Except, remember the timing rules. Discarding by The Riddle Game happens during resolution. Will Shaken's "place" action happens in response. The CoE ruled that Will Shaken is discarded by The Riddle Game but didn't reference the rules.
Will Shaken's "place" action happens at revealing hand.
"He then names two cards and the other player reveals his hand If any of the named cards are revealed, they are immediately discarded."

Seems like revealing hand and discarding named card(s) are joint actions, not actions executed in order. Therefore The Riddle Game discarding action takes precedence. Otherwise "place" from Will Shaken would take precedence.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1506
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 6:09 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:30 pm
Why would these effects of Press-Gang and Pallando the Soul-keeper not be triggered by passive conditions and follow those rules?
They are not triggered. They replace "discard a character" action.
These cards create effects that happen later in response to some situation arising. The rules on Passive Conditions govern such effects and those rules provide for ordering the declaration of such effects. There is an mechanic provided by the developers that fits this situation. Why would the game not use it? What other mechanic of the game would apply?

I'm not saying that "discard a character" is the trigger. I agree that these effects of Press-gang and Pallando replace some other "discard a character" action (which would not happen given these effects). There are many cards having effects that say: don't do Action A, instead do Action B. Most of these cards create the situation where Action A would arise but some don't (e.g., Press-gang and Pallando the Soul-keeper). Even if Action A never happens, that doesn't mean that the effect replacing A with B was never applied to the situation in which Action A might happen.

Saying "don't do Action A" or "instead of Action A" is basically the same as "cancel Action A." Other cards create effects that cancel actions meeting some criteria that would happen later. These actions are canceled before they resolve. There is no reason why the effects of Press-gang and Pallando the Soul-Keeper would not operate similarly.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 6:09 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:30 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑28 Oct 2019, 09:25
Should be usable also in case: The Riddle Game VS Will Shaken.
Except, remember the timing rules. Discarding by The Riddle Game happens during resolution. Will Shaken's "place" action happens in response. The CoE ruled that Will Shaken is discarded by The Riddle Game but didn't reference the rules.
Will Shaken's "place" action happens at revealing hand.
"He then names two cards and the other player reveals his hand If any of the named cards are revealed, they are immediately discarded."

Seems like revealing hand and discarding named card(s) are joint actions, not actions executed in order. Therefore The Riddle Game discarding action takes precedence. Otherwise "place" from Will Shaken would take precedence.
I see no basis for "joint actions." Especially given that the timing rules already describe that actions on a resolving card are taken in order without interruption. There is no way for Will Shaken to insert itself into an already-resolving chain of effects to take precedence over the discarding by The Riddle Game, even if The Riddle Game's actions were not "joint actions."

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:23 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 6:09 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:30 pm
Why would these effects of Press-Gang and Pallando the Soul-keeper not be triggered by passive conditions and follow those rules?
They are not triggered. They replace "discard a character" action.
These cards create effects that happen later in response to some situation arising. The rules on Passive Conditions govern such effects and those rules provide for ordering the declaration of such effects.
Rather, these cards create effects that create actions that happen as a replacement to other actions. There is no triggering condition/response mechanism.

---

I do agree that Will Shaken placement is an action triggered by a passive condition, so should be declared in a following chain of effects, at which point it could have already been discarded by The Riddle Game. The outcome is the same in this case.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:21 am
I do agree that Will Shaken placement is an action triggered by a passive condition, so should be declared in a following chain of effects, at which point it could have already been discarded by The Riddle Game. The outcome is the same in this case.
If Will Shaken placement action would be an action triggered by a passive condition, there would not be any outcome.
CRF wrote:A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the
action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:23 pm
I see no basis for "joint actions." Especially given that the timing rules already describe that actions on a resolving card are taken in order without interruption. There is no way for Will Shaken to insert itself into an already-resolving chain of effects to take precedence over the discarding by The Riddle Game, even if The Riddle Game's actions were not "joint actions."
You have said couple of times about reconciling hand and removing of site of origin. Are the actions executed in any order, or rather simultaneously?
Between two "joint actions", just because they are joint, nothing may happen.
It may not be said about actions executed in order. E.g. if 1st action discards character in its result, 2nd action makes something else, the Fellowship on company that contained the now discarded character is discarded.
This happens without declaration of discarding the Fellowship.
Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the
card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain
of effects.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:36 am
If Will Shaken placement action would be an action triggered by a passive condition, there would not be any outcome.
(unless Will Shaken would be the card named according The Riddle Game).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1506
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:21 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:23 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 6:09 pm

They are not triggered. They replace "discard a character" action.
These cards create effects that happen later in response to some situation arising. The rules on Passive Conditions govern such effects and those rules provide for ordering the declaration of such effects.
Rather, these cards create effects that create actions that happen as a replacement to other actions. There is no triggering condition/response mechanism.
If the "other action" is not even declared when the card is played, how could its card effect create an action to replace the "other action" if there is no triggering condition/response mechanism?

The mechanics of the game allow for effects causing immediate actions, effects where certain conditions trigger actions, and effects that modify the specific rules of the game. Here, there is no immediate action nor is there a specific rule being referenced.

Surely a replacement effect could be triggered and resolved before resolution of an action that could potentially cause to be replaced action to happen. At least then the mechanics and timing rules would apply to the situation. I don't see a need to assume that the effect just applies as needed without being triggered, leaving timing of the effect outside of the rules.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1506
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:55 am
You have said couple of times about reconciling hand and removing of site of origin. Are the actions executed in any order, or rather simultaneously?
This is described in the Annotations and CRF on the Movement/Hazard phase.
Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes. No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company.
Annotation 25b: Players drawing cards when a new site is revealed is synonymous with the resolution of the new site being revealed. It happens immediately, not in the following chain of effects.
When you draw cards for movement, you may continue drawing cards until you either want to stop, or have drawn the number of cards allowed for the movement.
Removing the site of origin and resetting to hand size are simultaneous actions, and they are the last actions in any movement/hazard phase. This means a moving company is not at a site until the site phase.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar »

@CDavis7M
If to understand a trigger as a reason for which something happens, then there are triggers at almost any point of game.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:36 am
Theo wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:21 am
I do agree that Will Shaken placement is an action triggered by a passive condition, so should be declared in a following chain of effects, at which point it could have already been discarded by The Riddle Game. The outcome is the same in this case.
If Will Shaken placement action would be an action triggered by a passive condition, there would not be any outcome.
CRF wrote:A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the
action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
I think there is sufficient grounds for the card indicating an exception to the normal in-play rules. There is clearly a condition for its action. If the card needed to be in play to evaluate the condition as normal, it couldn't occur regardless of whether it is handled as an immediate effect or as a passive condition. We don't say that a revealed Snowstorm causes a currently-moving company to return to its site of origin; Will Shaken has to be an exception.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:44 am
If the "other action" is not even declared when the card is played, how could its card effect create an action to replace the "other action" if there is no triggering condition/response mechanism?
I am confused by your confusion. These are not creating immediate actions. These are changing what action occurs when the game specifies an action occurs.
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:44 am
Here, there is no immediate action nor is there a specific rule being referenced.
The are amending All rules that would discard characters from play, as they specify...? Failed body checks, failed corruption checks, dismissal, being influenced away, miscellaneous other card effects, etc. Characters aren't just discarded from play with no rules governing such. Of these examples, only card effects have a possibility of being triggered by a passive condition. But even then it would be those cards' effects that create the passive condition, not PallandoTSK or Press-gang.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:43 am
I think there is sufficient grounds for the card indicating an exception to the normal in-play rules.
Yes. After all Will Shaken is the card that cannot be played but still has effect on game.
But why to complicate it? Why not to place Will Shaken in MP pile just at the moment when it is seen at opponent hand?
Must be any "if" the indicator of a passive condition, even if for some reason (not matching the definition; Will Shaken is not a card in play) it cannot be?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1506
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:52 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:44 am
Here, there is no immediate action nor is there a specific rule being referenced.
The are amending All rules that would discard characters from play, as they specify...? Failed body checks, failed corruption checks, dismissal, being influenced away, miscellaneous other card effects, etc. Characters aren't just discarded from play with no rules governing such. Of these examples, only card effects have a possibility of being triggered by a passive condition. But even then it would be those cards' effects that create the passive condition, not PallandoTSK or Press-gang.
There is no such rule governing all discarding. There are only rules requiring cards to be discarded in specific situations. If these rules were modified, the modified rule wouldn't apply to card effects that discard a character (e.g., discarding effect of A Lie in Your Eyes). If Pallando and Press-gang were intended to modify the rules, they would have specifically referenced some rule. Like how Ordered to Kill modifies the rule for unrevealed on-guard cards "return the card to your hand at the end of the site phase" with its effect "any unrevealed on-guard cards are discarded instead of being returned to their owner's hand."

Instead, Pallando and Press-gang's effects apply to any situation where a character would be discarded. In order to work their effects must be applied to situations where a character might be discarded. Pallando and Press-gang's effects initially don't do anything, but later these effects come into play indirectly as a result of other decisions made by the players. This is exactly what the rules on passive conditions were made to cover. There is no good reason why these effects would not use the rules on passive conditions, especially the rules solve this apparent timing issue.

Or, let's pretend that that the rules created by the designers don't work and make up our own rules.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Press-gang AND Pallando the Soul-keeper

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:34 pm
Pallando and Press-gang's effects initially don't do anything, but later these effects come into play indirectly as a result of other decisions made by the players.
One problem with your interpretation is that it contradicts the rules saying that the effects of permanent events are implemented immediately.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”