Convention of tagging the joint actions

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by Konrad Klar »

Marvels Told wrote:Ritual. Tap a sage to force the discard of a hazard non-environment permanent-event or long-event. Sage makes a corruption check modified by -2. "He tarried there from errantry, and melodies they taught to him, and sages old him marvels told..." -LotRII
Ready to His Will wrote:Playable on an Orc, Troll, Giant, Slayer, or Man hazard creature with one strike for each of its attacks. All attacks of the creature are canceled. The creature becomes an ally under the control of any character in the company that now taps. It has a mind of 1, 1 ally , prowess equal to its normal prowess minus 7, and a body equal to 8. Place this card with the creature.
The actions that are main effect of Marvels Told are executed in the order:
target non-environment permanent-event or long-event is discarded,
target sage makes a corruption modified by -2.

So if targets are Lure of Senses on Arwen and Arwen, and Arwen does not have any other sources of corruption, then even in worst case (dice roll result is 2) she will not be eliminated. Situation would be different, if the two actions created by Marvels Told would by simultaneous. Then Arwen would make cc - 2 still having 2 CPs.

What if actions from Ready to His Will would be executed in order:
All attacks of the creature are canceled,
The creature becomes an ally under the control of any character in the company that now taps,
Place this card with the creature.

?

After execution of "All attacks of the creature are canceled" the creature would be discarded. Remaining actions could not happen.
This is probably not what was intended by creators of the card.
I think that at least two first actions should be executed simultaneously.


However there is no convention of tagging the action that should be executed simultaneously.
I am preparing to make some erratum proposals in the next year for Ready to His Will and some other cards that (in my opinion) create simultaneous actions (aka "joint actions"). I am considering some possibilities of tagging such actions (e.g. separating them with semicolon) but I want to avoid a collision, that could occur if given method is already used for other purposes.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by CDavis7M »

There is no such thing as "joint actions" in the rules. The only similar thing in the rules is "synonymous" actions. There is nothing in the rules to suggest that cancellation of an attack is "synonymous" with discarding of the creature. Synonymous actions are limited to resolving active conditions (Annotation 5 and 6), reconciling hand size/drawing cards (Annotation 25), and the actions resulting from a dice roll (Annotation 19, 21, and 23). As such, there is no issue with Ready to His Will. Plus, this is one of the rare situations where common sense can dictate.

Fun fact: there are no rules stating what to do with non-defeated non-detainment creatures (e.g., the creature was canceled). All we only know is that Orc-Raiders is discarded.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:48 pm
I am preparing to make some erratum proposals in the next year for Ready to His Will and some other cards that (in my opinion) create simultaneous actions (aka "joint actions").
No rush. With the current backlog you'll have until 2028 to submit these new proposals.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by Konrad Klar »

Only very careless people could name simultaneous things as "synonymous". People of ICE's were so careless.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by CDavis7M »

The people of ICE put a lot of care into this game. More than anyone else designing games set in Middle Earth. Though Roberto Di Meglio, Marco Maggi and Francesco Nepitello come close.

Kjeld
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by Kjeld »

I think they were "careless" in the sense that they didn't care to get bogged down in the rabbit-hole of rules minutiae and trusted their player base to figure out a common-sense, or conventional, way to have fun while playing the game. I don't believed they cared for rules-lawyering, and tried to create a game that favored an enjoyable theme over brute mechanics, to the detriment of a perfectly internally consistent set of rules.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:34 pm
There is no such thing as "joint actions" in the rules. The only similar thing in the rules is "synonymous" actions.
It seems that there are anyway.
CRF wrote: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. [effective 11/17/97]
This time they are not called "synonymous" actions.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by CDavis7M »

Removing the site and drawing/discarding are not "joint actions".

The CRF just requires "simultaneously" moving the old site and drawing cards using both hands at once. Using just one hand is a silly mistake really.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by Konrad Klar »

I did not know that MECCG cannot be used by people with some disabilities of hands.
Good to know.
And it is nice that healthy part of players is instructed to use both hands.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by CDavis7M »

Of course accommodations are made. ICE exempted Beren.

But look, even if Ready to His Will technically caused its own actions to fail by some interaction of rules, the intent of the card is clear and there is no confusion among players.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Convention of tagging the joint actions

Post by Konrad Klar »

Good reason for not making errata at all.

Players know that after canceling of all creature's attacks, the creature should be discarded. Players also know that creature targeted by Ready to His Will should stay in play anyway, because otherwise Ready to His Will would not work.

Next time some player may ask: why first target of A Malady Without Healing that should be discarded after cc (if its result indicates so) should not stay in play and not make subsequent body check.

Cos some actions are joint and some not?
Or there is no such thing like joint actions but there is also no confusion among players here, so we can give up to be consistent this time?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”