Playing a card with Crown of Flowers that targets a character

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

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:10 pm Konrad Klar wrote: ↑27 Jun 2020, 00:05
A character card is moved to other site, other company, permanent-events played on the character moves along the character.
This is because the character "controls" those resources. I just posted a portion of the rules that explains what "controls" means besides what should be understood by its definition. Cards controlled by another card are are placed under that card and remain with that card. This would be the case even if the rules didn't explain, it's what "controls" means.
Permanent-events played on the character are not controlled by the character.
Allies, items are controlled by the character.
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 Jun 26, 2020 10:05 pmA character card is moved to other site, other company, permanent-events played on the character moves along the character.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:22 pm Permanent-events played on the character are not controlled by the character.
First, if a character "moves" to a site in this game, a new site card is played with the current site. The character card is not "moved" to a new site card...
Second, how can a card that is played "on" another card somehow not still be "on" that card just because the other card moved? Even if the location of the character card is moved in play, those cards played "on" the character would still be "on" the character.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:30 pm Second, how can a card that is played "on" another card somehow not still be "on" that card just because the other card moved? Even if the location of the character card is moved in play, those cards played "on" the character would still be "on" the character.
Replace "on" by "with" an you achieve something like:

Second, how can a card that is played "with" another card somehow not still be "with" that card just because the other card moved? Even if the location of the character card is moved in play, those cards played "with" the character would still be "with" the character.
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

Yangtze2000 wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:16 pm The word 'with' isn't used in the rules that I can see. A controllable resource is first 'played', and then tucked under the character that is to control it. It's a two stage process, at least in description. So to where is the Resource played before it is tucked? Wherever it is played to, it is then clearly moved to be tucked. So there is a precedent of play-then-move without that being spelt out on the cards.
I don't read it that way. It seems clear enough that allies, items, and events are played directly with the character.
"Every ally is controlled by the character that tapped to bring it into play; i.e., it must be placed under and remain with that character’s card." Here, "i.e." is used. Meaning that "bring the ally into play" actually means placing it under the character. It is a 1 step process.
"If a character is at an untapped site that indicates that a specific type of item card (gold ring, minor, major, or greater) is “playable,” he may tap to bring an item of that type into play. The item card is placed under the character’s card." It is less clear here but the second sentence is likely a clarification of the first sentence similar to playing an ally. There is no requirement of a 2-step process.
And resource events are literally "playable on" other cards. It's clearly not a 2-step process for events. In fact, we know that it's a 1-step process because the "target" MUST be specified at declaration of the card when it is taken from your hand and put on the table.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:35 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:30 pm Second, how can a card that is played "on" another card somehow not still be "on" that card just because the other card moved? Even if the location of the character card is moved in play, those cards played "on" the character would still be "on" the character.
Replace "on" by "with" an you achieve something like:

Second, how can a card that is played "with" another card somehow not still be "with" that card just because the other card moved? Even if the location of the character card is moved in play, those cards played "with" the character would still be "with" the character.
Exactly. Fireworks is played on/with the character. Even if the character moves, Fireworks will still be with the character.\

Well, not quite "exactly" because you should say: "Replace 'on' with 'with'." The word "by" is not correct usage here. Definitions matters.

Also, if a resource if played on the character, there is no way for it to be with Crown of Flowers. The player could not attempt to play Fireworks with Crown of Flowers because then the conditions for playing Fireworks would not be met because then it would not be "Played on an untapped sage."
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:38 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:35 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:30 pm Second, how can a card that is played "on" another card somehow not still be "on" that card just because the other card moved? Even if the location of the character card is moved in play, those cards played "on" the character would still be "on" the character.
Replace "on" by "with" an you achieve something like:

Second, how can a card that is played "with" another card somehow not still be "with" that card just because the other card moved? Even if the location of the character card is moved in play, those cards played "with" the character would still be "with" the character.
Exactly. Fireworks is played on/with the character. Even if the character moves, Fireworks will still be with the character.

If a resource if played on the character, there is no way for it to be with Crown of Flowers. The player could not attempt to play Fireworks with Crown of Flowers because then the conditions for playing Fireworks would not be met.
Or Crown of Flowers goes along with Fireworks where the Fireworks goes.
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 Jun 26, 2020 11:44 pm Or Crown of Flowers goes along with Fireworks where the Fireworks goes.
If Fireworks is played with Crown of Flowers, then it is not "Played on an untapped sage." The Sage and Crown of Flowers are different cards. So Fireworks could never be played with Crown of Flowers.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

There is nothing in the rules nor on any other cards I know of that allow a resource to be played with Crown of Flowers. Crown of Flowers seems to be the sole source of that allowance. Separately, Fireworks has its own allowance for what it may be played on. I know of no rules that suggest that the allowances of Crown of Flowers and Fireworks are not mutually compatible, that "play with/on" means "play with/on something AND NOTHING ELSE." The cards make the allowances; players may adhere to them both.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:46 pm If Fireworks is played with Crown of Flowers, then it is not "Played on an untapped sage."
I know of no reasonable basis for this deduction. We instead even have language of two simultaneous "play on"s in that hazards are always played on a company for the purpose of the company's hazard limit, but some may additionally be played on an entity within that company or on the company's new site.

Further, what would it mean to "play on" a company generally (e.g., Crept Along Cleverly) under the strict interpretation that "play on" implied something like "must be touching (under? on?) the entity"? There is no physical company entity to touch (or be on or under).
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

Dwarven Ring of ... wrote:... Playable only with a Gold Ring...
CDavis7M must find it hard to use these, with the item they are "played with"-at-the-exclusion-of-"played on" getting discarded immediately. ;)

My point with this post is just that there can be multiple valid interpretations of "play(able) with".
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:03 am I know of no rules that suggest that the allowances of Crown of Flowers and Fireworks are not mutually compatible, that "play with/on" means "play with/on something AND NOTHING ELSE."
I do know of a rule. The rules on Targeting.
(MELE p.91) 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).
Playing a card is an action. Playing 1 card is 1 action. 1 action can have only 1 chosen target. Other actions, like cancelling or discarding, are said to have multiple targets because there are actually multiple discarding actions, one action for each target. See Praise to Elbereth, there are multiple separate cancellation actions each with their own specifically chosen target. We know that they are actually separate actions because one of the actions can fail for one target while the other actions succeed on other targets. Discarding 1 Nazgul by Scimitars of Steel to prevent it from being cancelled by Praise does not prevent Praise from cancelling the other 8 Nazgul because there are multiple separate actions.

Playing 1 Fireworks card is just 1 action. It can only have 1 target because it is just 1 action. And you have to specifically choose the targeted card when declaring the action of playing Fireworks. There is no possibility of choosing 2 completely separate targets for 1 action. Only non-targeting events can be chosen to be played out through Crown of Flowers because Crown of Flowers needs to be the target of the action of playing that event.
Theo wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:03 am We instead even have language of two simultaneous "play on"s in that hazards are always played on a company for the purpose of the company's hazard limit, but some may additionally be played on an entity within that company or on the company's new site.
😶 The word "on" is not a game term in itself.
There is a difference between the rules on playing hazards and the rules on targeting... The rule on playing hazards is: "Your opponent plays hazards on the company-each hazard is resolved as indicated in its text." While hazards are played "on" a company for purposes of the M/H phase, the company is not the "playable on" target of the hazard unless its indicated in its text. Some non-targeting hazards are said to played "on" the company during their M/H phase even though they do not target the company.
Theo wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:03 am Further, what would it mean to "play on" a company generally (e.g., Crept Along Cleverly) under the strict interpretation that "play on" implied something like "must be touching (under? on?) the entity"? There is no physical company entity to touch (or be on or under).
Who's leading the Quest for Inconsistency?
The resource is played with the company just as any other entity associated with company. The company is the 1 target for the 1 resource. It's simple.
Theo wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:13 am
Dwarven Ring of ... wrote:... Playable only with a Gold Ring...
CDavis7M must find it hard to use these, with the item they are "played with"-at-the-exclusion-of-"played on" getting discarded immediately. ;)
... The Gold Ring that the Special Ring is "played with" is replaced by the Special Ring. The rules on testing rings state: "If the roll indicates a special ring that you have in your hand, you may replace the gold ring with that ring and discard the gold ring". While the Special Ring ring targets the Gold Ring, the discarding happens after the replacement and the Special Ring is not controlled by the Gold Ring or whatever you are suggesting.🤭
Theo wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:13 am My point with this post is just that there can be multiple valid interpretations of "play(able) with".
Perhaps. But none of those valid interpretations allow for the 1 action of playing 1 card to somehow have 2 targets.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:23 am Perhaps. But none of those valid interpretations allow for the 1 action of playing 1 card to somehow have 2 targets.
Perhaps. Bun nothing forbids 1 card to somehow have multiple targets.
A Malady Without Healing has three targeting actions and there may be 1 or 2 entities that are targets.
If at least one is absent at resolution of the card, the card fizzles.
The Wizards: Praise to Elbereth
Resource: Short-event

For each of your characters in play that you choose to tap, cancel one Nazgûl event or one Nazgûl attack. Additionally, if Doors of Night is in play, characters gain +1 prowess until the end of turn. "O Elbereth! Githoniel!...Thy starlight on the Western Seas."-LotRI
CRF wrote:Nazgûl events discarded by Praise to Elbereth have no effect. Which characters are
tapping to discard which events must be declared when Praise to Elbereth is declared.
Nazgûl permanent-events that are targeted by Praise to Elbereth maynot be tapped in
response to its play.
I think that discarding Nazgûl permanent-events in response will fizzle Praise to Elbereth.
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: Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:51 am
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:23 am Perhaps. But none of those valid interpretations allow for the 1 action of playing 1 card to somehow have 2 targets.
CRF wrote: Which characters are tapping to discard which events must be declared when Praise to Elbereth is declared.
I think that discarding Nazgûl permanent-events in response will fizzle Praise to Elbereth.
The entire point of the clarification to Praise to Elebereth requiring choosing which character tap to discard which Nazgul is that the actions are distinct. One action failing to resolve would not prevent the others from resolving.

As for Malady Without Healing, the action of playing 1 Malady has 1 target, the non-RW/W character. The Shadow magic character is a condition of playing Malady, not a target. Of course Malady is a bit weird because typically the magic card would target the magic user, not potentially an opponent's character, but not in this case for some reason. The character is the target of the CC, the character is the target of the body check, the magic user is the target of the last CC. No single action ever has 2 targets. It's not possible.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:51 pm The entire point of the clarification to Praise to Elebereth requiring choosing which character tap to discard which Nazgul is that the actions are distinct. One action failing to resolve would not prevent the others from resolving.
I see other reason. Which Nazgûl permanent-events are prevented from tapping must be known at declaration.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:51 pm As for Malady Without Healing, the action of playing 1 Malady has 1 target, the non-RW/W character. The Shadow magic character is a condition of playing Malady, not a target. Of course Malady is a bit weird because typically the magic card would target the magic user, not potentially an opponent's character, but not in this case for some reason. The character is the target of the CC, the character is the target of the body check, the magic user is the target of the last CC. No single action ever has 2 targets. It's not possible.
Hopefully you read what you are writing yourself.

The Shadow magic character is a condition of playing Malady, not a target.
The character is the target of the CC, the character is the target of the body check,
the magic user is the target of the last CC.

Anyway, if you magic user would not be a target of Malady it would be possible to play Malady and choose at resolution which magic user (if multiple are present at site) has to perform the last CC.
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: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:18 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:51 pm The entire point of the clarification to Praise to Elebereth requiring choosing which character tap to discard which Nazgul is that the actions are distinct. One action failing to resolve would not prevent the others from resolving.
I see other reason. Which Nazgûl permanent-events are prevented from tapping must be known at declaration.
If that were the only reason then no special clarification would have been needed. Of course targets of the cancelling action must be declared at declation according to the existing rules. But the clarification to Praise states "Which characters are tapping to discard which events must be declared when Praise to Elbereth is declared." This is because during the movement/hazard phase it is possible for the character to be removed from play by a hazard, negating their cancellation of a particular Nazgul. Back to the original point, negating one cancellation action of Praise does not negate the action of playing Praise. On the other hand, negating the action of playing Praise would negate all other effects of Praise.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:18 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:51 pm As for Malady Without Healing, the action of playing 1 Malady has 1 target, the non-RW/W character. The Shadow magic character is a condition of playing Malady, not a target. Of course Malady is a bit weird because typically the magic card would target the magic user, not potentially an opponent's character, but not in this case for some reason. The character is the target of the CC, the character is the target of the body check, the magic user is the target of the last CC. No single action ever has 2 targets. It's not possible.
Hopefully you read what you are writing yourself.

The Shadow magic character is a condition of playing Malady, not a target.
The character is the target of the CC, the character is the target of the body check,
the magic user is the target of the last CC.

Anyway, if you magic user would not be a target of Malady it would be possible to play Malady and choose at resolution which magic user (if multiple are present at site) has to perform the last CC.
What I wrote is correct. The shadow-magic character is merely a condition of playing Malady, not the target, because the action of playing the Malady card only targets the non-RW/W character. "Playable during the site phase on a non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character at the same site as a shadow-magic using character." Malady is played on/targets the non-RW/W character. This the the same reason why Three Golden Hairs can be "played on" a character at the same site as opponent's Galadriel, she is a condition, not the target. And this is why Nenya cannot use opponent's Galadriel, "Galdriel only" means "playable on Galadriel," she is the target of the action of playing the Nenya card, not just the target of the CC and bonuses.

What you wrote is not correct (it would be possible to play Malady and choose at resolution which magic user (if multiple are present at site) has to perform the last CC). The target of the CC must be identified and cannot change. You know how targeting works. Even as a condition of playing Malady, and not the target, "a Shadow-magic user" must still be identified at declaration of Malady to satisfy the condition. Recognize that there are other effects of Malady (ie the last CC) that rely on the antecedent. "Unless the shadow-magic user is a Ringwraith, he makes a modified by -5." THE antecedent Shadow-magic user satisfying the condition is also the target shadow magic user of the corruption check. Therefore, even though it may be possible to satisfy the condition using a different shadow-magic user at resolution based on the playability conditions alone, THE Shadow-magic user being the target of the CC would prevent the antecedent shadow-magic user from changing because they are the same character.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:05 pm If that were the only reason then no special clarification would have been needed. Of course targets of the cancelling action must be declared at declation according to the existing rules. But the clarification to Praise states "Which characters are tapping to discard which events must be declared when Praise to Elbereth is declared." This is because during the movement/hazard phase it is possible for the character to be removed from play by a hazard, negating their cancellation of a particular Nazgul. Back to the original point, negating one cancellation action of Praise does not negate the action of playing Praise. On the other hand, negating the action of playing Praise would negate all other effects of Praise.
Or just a resource player would have freedom of choose which character taps to cancel/discard which event.
And no Nazgûl permanent-events would be prevented from tapping in response.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:05 pm Back to the original point, negating one cancellation action of Praise does not negate the action of playing Praise. On the other hand, negating the action of playing Praise would negate all other effects of Praise
Actions can have targets and cards can have targets. If cards creates multiple actions that each has target, then the card has multiple targets.
Some of the actions may fail, but this is irrelevant. A target of an action is active condition of the action. If it is not present both at declaration and at resolution of the action, the action fizzles.
Cards with multiple targets fizzles if at least one is absent at resolution.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”