Incorrect - Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

There is a statement is in the CRF "Active Conditions" that often comes up but always gets confusing in the details. I think it is incorrect or misleading. It states: "Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources, but may not be the targets for your resources." The context of this ruling is analyzing the "playable" conditions of The White Tree, Mallorn, and also Stone of Erech. (Gollum's Fate diversion at the end).

It's true that your opponent's resources may not (generally) be the targets of your resources/effects. This is the important part. However, your opponent's resources may also not be the "active conditions" of your resources as satisfying the active condition WOULD target the resource. Really, it is the (non-active) playable "if" conditions that may use (be satisfied by) your opponents resources.

The description of Active Conditions and Targeting from the Companion and MELE Glossary (emphasis added):
Action: Any activity in the game(card play. a corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses, etc.). Each action is not immediately resolved when it is declared. An opponent and yourself have the opportunity to declare other actions in response. Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions - they are declared and resolve immediately.

An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Typical active conditions are tapping a card and discarding a card. For example, Magic Ring of Stealth can cancel a strike against its bearer if two particular active conditions are met: the bearer must be a scout and Magic Ring of Stealth must tap. These are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions to the player invoking the action. In the case of Magic Ring of Stealth, the player cancelling the strike must have provided a scout and he must tap the ring, which renders the ring unable to be used again until his next turn.

Condition, Active: A prerequisite for an action actively made by a player. Typically this involves tapping a character, discarding an item, or having a character of a particular skill in play. Active conditions are declared and resolved with no time for response by an opponent or yourself.

Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the "target" of the action. Some possible targets are: characters, corruption checks, strike dice rolls, items, sites, and companies. A card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets that entity. Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).
I think the CRF ruling on "Active Conditions" above is incorrect because it does not fit the description of active conditions and the examples given when making this ruling describe using the opponent's resources to satisfy the "playable on/if/at" or "in play" conditions, not any active condition of tapping/discarding/targeting that is actively taken by a player.


1. Stone of Erech
Stone of Erech ‐ Permanent‐event
Unique. Playable at the Vale of Erech and if the Men of Lamedon are already in play. Discard if the Men of Lamedon leave play.
So the conditions for playing Stone of Erech are: (1) A company at the Vale of Erech and (2) the Men of Lamedon are already in play.

And now the relevant rulings(emphasis added):
Ichabod 1/6/97
Hey all,
I ruled a little while ago you couldn't play Stone of Erech if your opponent had the Men of Lamedon in play. Turns out I was wrong about that one. Your opponent's cards can be used as active conditions for your resources. However, your opponent's cards may _not_ be used as _targets_ for your resources. In English (or American as the case may be), you can use your opponent's cards to satisfy the requirement that something must be in play. You cannot use your opponents cards to satisfy the requirements of one of your cards if something will or might happen to the opponent's card as a result.

------ "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" ------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
The ruling states that the condition (2) "the Men of Lamedon are already in play" can be satisfied by your opponent's faction. However, a faction being in play does not involve tapping/discarding/targeting nor is it a restriction to the player invoking the effect that would render the effect unable to be used again until his next turn.

2. Mallorn and The White Tree
Mallorn ‐ Permanent‐event
Unique. (Errata to first sentence) Playable only if Earth of Galadriel's Orchard is stored at Bad End. Playable at Bag End only if Earth of Galadrielʹs Orchard is stored there. Bag End becomes a Haven for the purposes of healing and bringing characters into play. Bag End can untap during its ownerʹs untap phase. If Bag End is discarded, return it to its location deck. All Hobbit factions are worth +1 marshalling points.
So the conditions for playing Mallorn are: (1) a company at Bag End and (2) if Earth of Galadrielʹs Orchard is stored there
(Unlimited) The White Tree - Permanent-event
Unique. Sage only at Minas Tirith. Playable only if a Sapling of the White Tree is at Minas Tirith and is discarded. Minas Tirith becomes a Haven for the purposes of healing and playing hazards.

Errata - Add "Discard the Sapling of the White Tree." (This applies to the Limited version which doesn't say "and is discarded")
From the timing of the question, I believe the Unlimited card text is under consideration. So the conditions for playing The White Tree are: (1) Sage at Minas Tirith; (2) a Sapling of the White Tree is at Minas Tirith; and (3) the Sapling is discarded

And the ruling:
ICE Digest 86 - May 24, 1998 12:00 AM
Question 1: Can you play Mallorn at Bag End, if another player previously stored *Earth of Galadriel's Orchard* there?

Answer 1: Yes.

Question 2: Wait... what happened to not using your opponent's resources are conditions for your own? Does this mean I can plant The White Tree at Minas Tirith if my opponent has stored a sapling there? Does this mean I can play Gollum's fate using my opponent's copy of Gollum if he happens to be at Mt. Doom?

Answer 2: The ruling is that you can't target your opponent's resources with your resources. Mallorn only uses Earth of Galadriel's Orchard as an active condition, it doesn't target it. So that's OK. The White Tree discards the sapling, so it targets, and can't be played that way. Same with Gollum's Fate. (CRF, Term, Target)
The ruling states that the condition (2) "if Earth of Galadrielʹs Orchard is stored there" can be satisfied by your opponent's item. However, you cannot use your opponent's item to satisfy The White Tree's condition (3) "the Sapling is discarded" because the discarding action targets the Sapling. So even if your opponent's Sapling could be used to satisfy the condition (2) "a Sapling of the White Tree is at Minas Tirith" it could not be used to satisfy the condition (3) "the Sapling is discarded." Of course I agree that the discarding action targets the Sapling. But not only that, the discarding action is an active condition of playing The White Tree per Annotation 6.

3. Gollum's Fate
Gollum's Fate ‐ Short‐event
Unique. Only playable if The One Ring and Gollum are both at Mount Doom during the site phase. The One Ring is destroyed and its bearer’s player wins.
The conditions for playing Gollum's Fate are: (1) The One Ring is at Mount Doom; (2) Gollum is at Mount Doom; and (3) it is during the Site Phase. From the discussion above you might think that Gollum's Fate could be playable using your opponent's The One Ring and your Opponent's Gollum. Yes, it's true that the playability conditions could be met. However, there is a clarification to this card:
Gollum's Fate (clarification) - This card is considered to target both The One Ring and Gollum. This means it cannot be played on your opponent's The One Ring or Gollum.
Right, so even though the original text appears like you could use your opponent's resources based on the discussion of Stone of Erech, The White Tree, and Mallorn, you actually can't because the card is considered to target both The One Ring and Gollum. Also, at least the "destroying" effect targets The One Ring to win the game even if Gollum is not also "destroyed."

But wait, that is a clarification, not errata! True. I used to think that "clarifications" were used to interpret a card and that "errata" were used to change how a card is played. That is not correct. According to the Companion, "Errata" is only issued when "the text on the card is wrong or incomplete." A "Clarification" is issued when "the card could be ambiguous." There are many "clarifications" that actually change how the card is played. So the card is played according to the clarification.



Bottom line: these rulings explain that "Your opponent's resources may be/meet the playable "if" conditions for your resources." None of them actually mean "Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources."
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

These are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy.

X - action that a player actively decides to invoke
Y - conditions that satisfy X

Y does not must be actively invoked by player.

@CDavis7M
Bluntly speaking, you have problem reading the sentence:

These are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy.

You are mistaking an action that a player actively decides to invoke with conditions that satisfy the action.
And you are expecting that a condition must be something that a player actively decides to invoke, to be called an active condition.
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

Is there a rule that prevent a player from tapping or discarding an opponent's cards?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

So you have no opinion on whether the CRF statement is incorrect or misleading?
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:14 am These are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy.

X - action that a player actively decides to invoke
Y - conditions that satisfy X

Y does not must be actively invoked by player.

@CDavis7M
Bluntly speaking, you have problem reading the sentence:

These are called active conditions because a player actively decides to invoke the action they satisfy.

You are mistaking an action that a player actively decides to invoke with conditions that satisfy the action.
And you are expecting that a condition must be something that a player actively decides to invoke, to be called an active condition.
I don't have a problem reading the sentence. You misunderstand conversational English. And "bluntly speaking," your posts are riddled with so many idiomatic errors they are often difficult to parse. And your comprehension of the English language is vastly different from most native English speakers. When I say "discarding A is an active condition for action B" I'm not trying to suggest that an action (discarding) somehow IS a condition (some required state). The rules on active conditions themselves use the same phrasing of words I do. "Typical active conditions are tapping a card and discarding a card." The condition is that a card be tapped, which can be satisfied by the tapping action.

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:26 am Is there a rule that prevent a player from tapping or discarding an opponent's cards?
Games have rules instructing a player what they can do. Games don't typically operate the other way around. You can't just draw cards from an opponent's deck, look at their hand, or steal their seat just because the rules don't prevent you from doing it.

This is the Hi-Ho-Cherry-O principle that even children understand -- don't take cherries from someone else's tree. It doesn't have to be written down, it is fundamental.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:50 pm When I say "discarding A is an active condition for action B" I'm not trying to suggest that an action (discarding) is somehow a condition (some required state).
When I say "discarding A is an active condition for action B" I mean that an action (discarding) is a condition of B.
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:50 pm You can't just draw cards from an opponent's deck, look at their hand, or steal their seat just because the rules don't prevent you from doing it.
Still, there are rules that forbid targeting of opponent's resources and characters.
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

@CDavis7M
You like presenting things in (broad) context.
An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is
declared. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the
player invoking the action.
Annotation 5: If an action requires an entity to tap as a condition for the action's main
effect, that entity must be untapped when the action is declared; else, the action may
not be declared. Tap the entity at this point; this is considered synonymous with the
action's declaration, i.e., it is not a separate action. When it comes time to resolve the
action in its chain of effects, that entity must still be in play and tapped or the action is
canceled.
Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the
action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is
considered synonymous with the action's declaration, i.e., it is not a separate action.
Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the
action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your
hand, it is discarded.
Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active
condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved.
An action may not be declared if its target is not in play. However, dice-rolling actions
may always be targeted by other actions declared later in the same chain of effects.
Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources, but may
not be the targets for your resources.
If an "alternative" or "additional" effect does not have any "playable ..." conditions,
then the "playable on ..." conditions from the primary effect of the card apply. The
following cards are exceptions to this rule:
• Gloom
• Good Sense Revolts
• Half an Eye Open
• Heedless Revelry
• Here is a Snake
• In the Name of Mordor
• Inner Cunning
• Nobody's Friend
• Withdrawn to Mordor
• Wolf-riders
See also Rulings by Term, Targets.
Underlines mine.

"in play or established" - what the distinction means for you?
Is discarding/tapping "in play" when action requiring it is declared? Or rather the discarding/tapping is something that must be established?
Is Scout Only something that must be established? Is it actively taken by a player?

Annotation 5 says about tapping as Active Condition, Annotation 6 says about discarding as Active Condition.
What then may be "any other active condition" mentioned in Annotation 7?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:21 pm "in play or established" - what the distinction means for you?
From your previous post I am wondering if you are still misunderstanding the wording here - or if we can agree to use English as it is.

The phrase "an active condition" in the statement "An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. " is referring to the tapping/discarding/targeting actions, not the condition that something be tapped/discarded/in play. The "action requiring it" is the one that is declared in the chain of effects (the tapping/discarding/targeting actions are not declared).

"Established" means "checking" that the entity has been tapped/discarded at declaration of the action requiring it. "In play" refers to targets being in play.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:21 pm Is discarding/tapping "in play" when action requiring it is declared?
"In play" refers to targets as active conditions, not discarding/tapping.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:21 pm Or rather the discarding/tapping is something that must be established?
As discussed above.

----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:21 pm Is Scout Only something that must be established?
It depends on whether "Scout only" is just a keyword or if it is a condition on playability. "Scout only" is a condition for playing Concealment while "Scout only" is only a keyword for A Nice Play to Hide.

For Concealment: the (A) the action of playing the Concealment card targets the Scout (the Concealment card is placed "on" the Scout) and (B) tapping a Scout is an active condition for the cancellation effect.

For A Nice Place to Hide: only (B) tapping a Scout is an active condition for the cancellation effect. A Nice Place to Hide does not have to be played "on" the Scout itself.

Since these cards only have 1 effect, the end result is the same. Concealment may not be played if there is no Scout. A Nice Place to Hide is not a "legal play" because it would have no effect on the game if a Scout didn't tap for the effect.

------
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:21 pm Is it actively taken by a player?
For Concealment, the Concealment card is actively placed "on" the Scout. Vilya is placed on Elrond. And so on.

Any targeting is "actively taken by a player" as the player must somehow indicate the target (playing the card on the target, naming the target, etc).


------
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:21 pm Annotation 5 says about tapping as Active Condition, Annotation 6 says about discarding as Active Condition.
What then may be "any other active condition" mentioned in Annotation 7?
I think Annotation 7 is mostly just leaving the options open for potential active conditions later on. Maybe something like returning a card from play to your hand in order to declare an effect. Or moving a card from play into your play deck (instead of discard pile) to declare an effect. Removing a card from the game (instead of discarding) to declare an effect. These all are potentially "any other active condition" mentioned in Annotation 7.

It's rare but there are some active conditions besides tapping/discarding/targeting:
-Returning a manifestation of Agburanar to your hand :D
-Wounding a character to cancel an attack using Escape or Diversion.

Discarding cards from your hand to play Refuge or Drughu, or cancel dragon attacks by Dragon's Hunger are also active conditions but the card is in your hand.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”