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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm 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.
No... the tapping is still an active condition and the characters would be tapped at declaration under the normal rules. You don't need the special clarification of Praise deciding WHICH character is tapping for WHICH effect unless those effects were individual effects capable of individually being declared and resolved, which they are.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm Actions can have targets and cards can have targets. If cards creates multiple actions that each has target, then the card has multiple targets.
No. The card does not have multiple targets. The card has multiple effects which each other their own single target. An action can have a single target. The action of playing a card can have a single target. While a card can have multiple effects each with their own target, the action of playing the card only ever has 1 target (or no target).
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm 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.
The target of an action is ONLY an active condition of that 1 action, not other other actions.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:39 pm Cards with multiple targets fizzles if at least one is absent at resolution.
No. That is absolutely not the case. The multiple effects of a card ONLY fail if the action of playing the card itself fails, or if that particular effect fails. One effect of a card failing to resolve (eg by no longer having a target) does not cause the other effects of the card to fail.

Example chain of effects where Lure of Nature has already been played on Frodo and 1 corruption check is triggered by Lure of Nature. If Bilbo plays Marvels Told on Lure of Nature, but Frodo must make a 2nd CC by Dragon-sickness in response, and Frodo fails the CC thereby discarding Lure of Nature, then Bilbo must still make his CC from Marvels Told even if MT's discarding action cannot resolve since it has no target.
  • DECLARATIONS:
  • Lure of Nature is in play. A corruption check of Lure of Nature is declared targeting Frodo.
  • Marvels Told is declared, in response. The action of playing Marvels Told has no target. Marvels Told is not "playable on a sage" or "playable on" anything. The condition of playing Marvels Told is that it must be the player's turn since MT is a resource. This condition is satisfied.
  • The corruption check of Marvels Told is declared, targeting Bilbo, a Sage.
  • The discarding action is declared, targeting Lure of Nature. The active condition is that the sage taps. And so Bilbo taps, satisfying the condition.
  • Dragon-sickness is "Playable on a character bearing a major or greater item." Dragon-sickness is declared, in response, to be played on Frodo. The declared action of playing Dragon-sickness targets Frodo. But before that, according to Annotation 24, the corruption check effect is declared, targeting Frodo.
  • RESOLUTIONS:
  • The target of the action of playing Dragon-sickness is verified. Frodo is in play. The action resolves and Frodo makes a corruption check and is ELIMINATED. When Frodo is eliminated, Lure of Nature is immediately discarded.
  • The conditions for the action of playing Marvels Told are verified. The only condition is that it must be the player's turn since Marvels Told is a resource. It is the players turn. The action of playing Marvels Told resolves.
  • The active conditions of Marvels Told's discarding action are verified. Bilbo is still tapped, but that is not the only condition. The target Lure of Nature is not in play. There is no target. The discarding action does not resolve per Annotation 7.
  • The target of Marvel Told's corruption check is verified. Bilbo is still in play. The effect resolves. Bilbo makes a CC. Bilbo passes. Bilbo's corruption check does not fail to resolve merely because the discarding action could not resolve.
  • The corruption check of Lure of Nature verifies whether its conditions are satisfied. The target Frodo is no longer in play so the corruption check fails to resolve per Annotation 7. The corruption check also fails, regardless of the target, because Lure of Nature is no longer in play and Lure of Nature being in play is a condition for the corruption check.
Similarly, if a Wizard plays Wizard's River Horses to cancel Smaug's attack, and Prowess of Age is declared in response to cancel the cancellation effect of Wizard's River Horses, the Wizard still needs to make the corruption check for Wizard's River Horses.
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 7:41 pm Example chain of effects where Lure of Nature has already been played on Frodo and 1 corruption check is triggered by Lure of Nature. If Bilbo plays Marvels Told on Lure of Nature, but Frodo must make a 2nd CC by Dragon-sickness in response, and Frodo fails the CC thereby discarding Lure of Nature, then Bilbo must still make his CC from Marvels Told even if MT's discarding action cannot resolve since it has no target.
Jesus..

This breaks so many rules I know.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:41 pm The conditions for the action of playing Marvels Told are verified. The only condition is that it must be the player's turn since Marvels Told is a resource. It is the players turn. The action of playing Marvels Told resolves.
Seems like the Marvels Told would successfully resolve even if there would not be in play the sage that tapped at declaration, according to above.

@CDavis7M
You are not a novice. For me you are troll. and replying to your post is a waste of (my) time.
Good luck with creating your line of interpretation of rules. Call it "mainline" if you wish.
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 8:30 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:41 pm Example chain of effects where Lure of Nature has already been played on Frodo and 1 corruption check is triggered by Lure of Nature. If Bilbo plays Marvels Told on Lure of Nature, but Frodo must make a 2nd CC by Dragon-sickness in response, and Frodo fails the CC thereby discarding Lure of Nature, then Bilbo must still make his CC from Marvels Told even if MT's discarding action cannot resolve since it has no target.
Jesus..

This breaks so many rules I know.
I am curious to know where you are learning the rules because it's not from the rules books or the rulings.
What I said above is supported by and consistent with the rules and rulings.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:30 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:41 pm The conditions for the action of playing Marvels Told are verified. The only condition is that it must be the player's turn since Marvels Told is a resource. It is the players turn. The action of playing Marvels Told resolves.
Seems like the Marvels Told would successfully resolve even if there would not be in play the sage that tapped at declaration, according to above.
Yes, the action of "playing Marvels Told" would resolve even if there was no Sage. But of course the discarding action would not resolve if there was no Sage because a tapped Sage is an active condition of the discarding effect. If there is no tapped Sage, there is no discarding. But Marvels Told is still "played."

Marvels Told has 3 separate actions that are declared and resolved, each with their own target (or none) and their own conditions:
  • Action of playing Marvels Told - no target, no conditions besides it being your turn.
  • Action of discarding a hazard event - targets the hazard event, the conditions are (1) that a Sage be tapped and (2) that the target hazard exists.
  • The Corruption Check- targets the Sage, the conditions are (1) the target Sage exists.
These actions are declared in reverse per Annotation 24, and the resolve in order. The action of playing the Marvels Told card resolves before the conditions for the discarding action are even checked:
  1. Specify the target Sage and declare the Corruption Check
  2. Specify the hazard event to be discarded, the Sage is already specified, tap the Sage, and declare the discarding action
  3. Verify that it is your turn and declare play of Marvels Told
  4. Verify that is it still your turn and then resolve the action (declared at 3) of playing Marvels Told, it is now in play, and stays in play until its effects are implemented and then it is discarded.
  5. Verify that the target Sage of the tapping action is still tapped and that the target hazard effect of the discarding action is still in play, then resolve the discarding action (declared at 2) by discarding the hazard event. (At this point, the Marvels Told card has already resolved and is in play. Any lack of a target for the discarding action cannot prevent Marvels Told from resolving).
  6. Verify that the Sage is still in play, and resolve the corruption check action (declared at 1).
Clearly "playing Marvels Told" is an action and it is a separate action from MT's action of discarding an event. And if you couldn't make that determination yourself, the timing rules and Annotations 7 and 24 explicitly tell you so. The rules state "If the play of a card requires other actions (e.g., corruption checks), the actions are resolved in the order in which they appear on the card." The play of a card is an action that requires OTHER actions. Annotation 7 tells you that "playing a card" is a separate action with its own separate active conditions. Annotation 24 tells you that "If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card." Therefore, the action of playing a card resolves separately from the actions listed on the card, which are also resolved separately. Each effect of a card has its own conditions, but they all have the condition that the action of playing the card itself be resolved. Just because the active conditions of one action fail does not mean that the active conditions of other actions fail. However, if the action of "playing a card" fails, then all of its effects also fail because the card itself is discarded and discarded cards immediately cease to have an effect on play.

It's also clear that "playing a card" is an action because it is this action that actually brings the card "into play" such that it can "place" itself with other cards. The "place" action could not target its own card if the card were not already in place. Cards like Rescue Prisoners and Sacrifice of Form would not work is the action of "playing a card" was not a distinct action since there would be no valid target if the card itself were not already in play.

It's also clear that there is some action to actually bring a short-event into play (ie, the action of playing the card itself) since "Each event falls into one of three classifications based upon how long it stays in play." The action of playing a short-event is what brings it into play, and then when its effects are implemented it is discarded.

Accordingly, even though there is no target for the discarding action, the action of playing Marvels Told still resolves. It does not fizzle. If discarding was the only action of Marvels Told, it would essentially be the same as fizzling. But the discarding is not the only declared effect. The CC of Marvels Told will still resolve even though the discarding action cannot resolve. The discarding action is NOT an active condition of the CC.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:30 pm @CDavis7M
You are not a novice. For me you are troll. and replying to your post is a waste of (my) time.
Good luck with creating your line of interpretation of rules. Call it "mainline" if you wish.
My interpretation is derived from ICE's rules and their rulings and it is consistent with the rules and rulings.
I'm truly sorry you spent so many years gnawing away and never found consistency, having to come up with workarounds like "somehow actions can happen without being declared," "short events revealed on guard cannot be responded to," believing that you can just pick up Crown of Flowers and place it with another card without any Rule or Effect allowing you to do so, and so on. It's a pity.

Every time you come up with some apparent discrepancy or inconsistency I can explain it consist with the rules and rulings or plain and simple English. But no, you're not the troll, I am Troll.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:23 am
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.
We've been down this road before. Are you trying to imply that somehow out of the quoted MELE Targeting rules you derive the underlined portion? I lack your "it's simple" "insight" into how such a limit could be interpreted from this text. My only guess is that you are (erroneously) trying to extrapolate from "1 target is 1 chosen entity". But by all means give us a semantic parse tree if you think your claim is in there, if you actually care to help the community grow in wisdom rather than decree the community bend before your oracular knowledge.

Otherwise, enough said.
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

What is "Playing a card"? - "Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play."

What is "the process of bringing a card from your hand into play"? - it is the chain of effects process "A series of declared actions made in response to one another is called a "chain of effects." The actions in a chain of effects are resolved one at a time from last declared to first declared (i.e., the last declared action is resolved first, then the second to the last, etc.)."

What is "into play"? - A card in the player's play Play Area that has gone through the chain of effects process. The Play Area being as shown in the image in my first post.

What is an "action"? - "Any activity in the game(card play, a corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses. etc.)"

What is a "target"? - It is "a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out"

What does "the target of the action" mean? - it is the chosen entity through which the activity will be performed.

What is the action of playing Fireworks? - It is the activity of taking the Fireworks card from your hand, choosing the target, placing Fireworks in the Play Area, and going through the chain of effects process such that Fireworks is "in play."

What is the target of Fireworks? - A character card having the Sage attribute. Fireworks is "Playable on an untapped sage."

How do you choose the target of Fireworks? - you look for a Sage in the Play Area, and you specify it, and you place the Fireworks card on it.

What does "on" mean? - the plain meaning of "on" is "in contact with" or "the location of something."

How is a card played "on" another card? - The played card goes under the target card. "Items, allies, and other cards representing things a character acquires and controls are placed under his card."

Now that you have the basics, please explain how Fireworks could possibly have 2 targets such that it could both be played on a Sage and with Crown of Flowers?

I'll explain why it can't. The Sage character is played with a company at a site. Crown of Flowers is not with the company at the site. Crown of Flowers has no target, it is played in in the play area separate from the company. When Fireworks is played, its target is chosen. It is possible to vocally "name" both the Sage and Crown of Flowers as targets but it is not possible to actually implement that targeting according to the rules of the game. Fireworks MUST be stacked under the Sage character in order to be played, if not it could not be declared. If Crown of Flowers were the target of Fireworks, then Fireworks must be stacked under Crown of Flowers. But wait, Fireworks MUST be stacked under the Sage? But the Sage and Crown of Flowers are two distinct cards. So, there is no possibility of stacking Fireworks under both of them. This would require stacking Crown of Flowers under the Sage Character. Moving Crown of Flowers to be stacked under the Sage is an activity in the game. This is an action. ANY ACTIVITY IN THE GAME IS AN ACTION. Actions in the game must be declared and resolved in a chain of effects. There is no rule or effect in the game to declare the Sage character taking control of Crown of Flowers, or to declare placing Crown of Flowers with the Sage character.

The target of the action. This is 1 to 1. "Effects" can have multiple targets because they include multiple actions. An effect of "Untap 2 characters." This requires 2 "activities" of rotating cards. You cannot untap 2 cards by 1 rotation movement. There is no magic, it requires physical activity by the player to perform an activity in the game, like rotating a card. It's 1 physical action performed on 1 entity. 1 target of 1 action. It can only ever be this way because of physics.

Just imagine playing the card game. It will make sense.
Yangtze2000
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm

But the 'with' bit is not part of the card that's being played in this case. It's part of the already-played CoF's special ability, which trumps the rules. So you could argue that the action is: "I'm playing Fireworks on Gandalf, with Crown of Flowers." One action, one target, plus the special ability of CoF.

Are 'with' and 'on' clearly differentiated anywhere in any of the myriad rules?
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Yangtze2000 wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:14 pm But the 'with' bit is not part of the card that's being played in this case. It's part of the already-played CoF's special ability, which trumps the rules. So you could argue that the action is: "I'm playing Fireworks on Gandalf, with Crown of Flowers." One action, one target, plus the special ability of CoF.
Like I said above, it is easy to say and impossible to do. Try actually putting the cards on the table and accomplishing this with 1 activity. It doesn't work. You need 2 separate actions/activities: 1 movement from hand to table for the card being played and 1 movement from table to another location on the table for the card in play. You can literally only place Fireworks in 1 spot in the play area, placing is 1 action, it is 1 card. The Sage is in play and must stay with the company, no effect allows it to be moved.
  • If Fireworks is played with Crown of Flowers, then its playability conditions are not met because its not played on a Sage.
  • If Fireworks is played on Gandalf, with Crown of Flowers, then the Crown of Flowers can would need to be picked up and moved to be with Fireworks. But moving a card is an ACTION and actions must be declared and resolved and there must be some rule or effect allowing that action. And there is no such effect here. So Crown of Flowers cannot be moved.
The game already provides the mechanic needed to move a card after it is already in play (like Crown of Flowers in this situation), it is the "place this card with that card" action. This mechanic has been here since the very beginning (discard a stored reforging and place Andúril, the Flame of the West with Narsil; If the Wizard is put back into play, return his items to him and place Sacrifice of Form with him.). Crown of Flowers does NOT use the mechanic that would allow Fireworks to be played with it. Since the mechanic is available and the designers did not use it, then No, Crown of Flowers cannot be placed "with Fireworks on Gandalf."

Think about it, the entire purpose of Crown of Flowers is to play a card such that it is "considered to be in play as though Gates of Morning were in play and Doors of Night were not." So then what type of cards is this intended to work with? Cards requiring Gates of Morning: long-event Clear Skies (Target: None. Condition: Playable only if Gates of Morning is in play.), long-event Cloudless Day (Target: None. Condition: Playable only if Gates of Morning is in play.), long-event Fog (Target: None. Condition: Playable only if Gates of Morning is in play.), long-event Moon (Target: None. Condition: If Gates of Morning is in play, treat all W as BL and all BL as FD.), long-event Star of High Hope (Target: None. Condition: by +2 if Gates of Morning is in play), long-event Sun (Target: None. Condition: Additionally, if Gates of Morning is in play...).

These are all non-targeted events. So no wonder the language used on Crown of Flowers is incongruous with targeted events.

There is no way to discard your own resources, they are discarded by their own effects. Crown of Flowers is not a way to bypass these restrictions. You can't discard Fireworks using Twilight on Crown of Flowers. Fireworks needed to be discarded by its own effect after preventing the character from untapping. You can't play Sacrifice of Form twice by using Twilight on Crown of Flowers to discard Sacrifice of Form.
Yangtze2000 wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:14 pm Are 'with' and 'on' clearly differentiated anywhere in any of the myriad rules?
On and with are not differentiated because they are clearly the same thing. They both refer to "targeting." "(MELE p. 91) Targeting: A card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets that entity."

Fireworks is 1 card. Playing a card is 1 action. The Sage is 1 card. Crown of Flowers is 1 card, separate and distinct from the Sage. There is no way for 1 single activity in the game (an action) to have 2 separate and distinct targets. It makes no sense from a gameplay perspective. And if you think about the given situation, it would require the player to pick up Crown of Flowers and move it to be with the Sage, which is an activity being performed without being allowed by the rules or the card effects. A card can be played with Crown of Flowers. Crown of Flowers cannot be placed with a card. Moving Crown of Flowers to be with Fireworks literally cheating.
Yangtze2000
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 6:04 pmOn and with are not differentiated because they are clearly the same thing.
Highly unlikely I think, otherwise they would not be separate words differentiated by an 'or'.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 6:04 pm...it would require the player to pick up Crown of Flowers and move it to be with the Sage, which is an activity being performed without being allowed by the rules or the card effects.
My argument would be that Crown of Flowers, when played into your play area, becomes playable 'with' a resource. CoF doesn't specify what kind of resource. So when you next play a resource you can choose to play that resource with CoF if you wish, as allowed by CoF's special ability which is now active because it is in your play area (not because of the general rules). For practical purposes, you would of course move the CoF card to be with the Resource card that has been played with it (if, say, the Resource targeted another card), to signify that they are now associated. You are only playing one action, targeting one card with one resource, but you are also taking advantage of CoF's special ability (which is not an action - CoF's action was playing it into your play area).
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

"playable on" and "playable with" are both targeting. That is what the rules say.

If Crown of Flowers worked with targeted resources it would need to have the "place this card with that card" effect. But it doesn't.

There is no record keeping in the game beyond the current turn. If you have to keep record "for practical purposes" then you're doing something wrong.
Yangtze2000 wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:52 am You are only playing one action, targeting one card with one resource, but you are also taking advantage of CoF's special ability (which is not an action - CoF's action was playing it into your play area).
This statement is not supported by the definition of action in this game. Any activity in the game is an action. You are not just playing 1 action. You are taking the 2nd action of moving CoF with Fireworks without any allowance to do so. It is an action, that is why certain cards allow for this action to be taken as I wrote above. CoF doesn't allow for re-locating after its in play.

And your statements on actions do not reflect the terminology and phrasing of the rules. This is described in ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY and TIMING and the glossary on chain of effects, declaring, resolving, and targeting, and Annotations 1-8.
Yangtze2000
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:41 pmAnd your statements on actions do not reflect the terminology and phrasing of the rules. This is described in ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY and TIMING and the glossary on chain of effects, declaring, resolving, and targeting, and Annotations 1-8.
Where do I fall foul of these rules? I can't see that I do.
Last edited by Yangtze2000 on Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

If Crown of Flowers can be placed with Fireworks, why doesn't it state "place Crown of Flowers with the resource" instead of what it actually says: "You can play one resource from your hand with this card" ? These are two different things. The game has these 2 mechanics and CoF uses 1, not the other.
Yangtze2000 wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:03 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:41 pmAnd your statements on actions do not reflect the terminology and phrasing of the rules. This is described in ACTIONS AND CARD PLAY and TIMING and the glossary on chain of effects, declaring, resolving, and targeting, and Annotations 1-8.
Where do I fall foul of these rules? I can't see that I do.
Your statement (copied below) not only falls foul of the rules but its not expressed in the terminology and phrasing of the rules, showing lack of basis in the rules.
Yangtze2000 wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:52 am For practical purposes, you would of course move the CoF card to be with the Resource card that has been played with it (if, say, the Resource targeted another card), to signify that they are now associated. You are only playing one action, targeting one card with one resource, but you are also taking advantage of CoF's special ability (which is not an action - CoF's action was playing it into your play area).
This reasoning is incongruous with the rules on actions and card play:

Image

Placing Crown of Flowers with Fireworks is an activity in the game, and by your own statements it would have an effect on the game. Therefore, it is an action.

You cannot just take an action "for practical purposes". Actions must be allowed by some rule or card effect and they must be declared and resolved in a chain of effects. There is a word for taking actions not allowed by the rules: "cheating."

The rules state (MELE p. 91) "A card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets that entity." Therefore, the effect of Crown of Flowers that allows "You can play one resource from your hand with this card" means that one resource can target Crown of Flowers even though that resource does not allow itself to target another resource (ie it is non-targeted). That is the only allowance provided by CoF's effect. It does not allow for a Crown of Flowers to be placed with another card that was played elsewhere. There must be a rule or an effect allowing for that action.

Unlike Anduril (discard a stored reforging and place Andúril, the Flame of the West with Narsil) and Sacrifice of Form (If the Wizard is put back into play, return his items to him and place Sacrifice of Form with him.), Crown of Flowers does not allow an action to be taken to place itself with another card.

The quoted statement above does not use the terminology and phrasing of the rules:
  • "For practical purposes, you would of course move the CoF card to be with the Resource card that has been played with it (if, say, the Resource targeted another card)"
    • You are conflating "targeting" of an action with a "placing" action. A resource played on another card is not played with CoF if CoF has to be moved, of course.
  • "to signify that they are now associated."
    • There is no such thing as "to signify that they are "associated" in this game. The game described "targeting" and "controlling"
  • "You are only playing one action"
    • Actions are not "played," cards are "played". Actions are "declared." Playing a card is an action that is declared
  • "but you are also taking advantage of CoF's special ability"
    • Cards like CoF do not have "special abilities." Characters have special abilities, like corruption check and influence check modifiers. Cards have "effects" which are declared and resolved in a chain of effects.
  • " CoF's action was playing it into your play area)."
    • Playing CoF into your play area is not an action of CoF. It is an action allowed by the rules of the game. The rules allow you to play resources. CoFs own actions/effects say nothing about playing it in your own play area.
Yangtze2000
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm

Not using the words you would prefer does not negate my argument, and besides, you understood my meaning, hence my phrasing is perfectly adequate. And nothing you have highlighted negates my argument. The cards trump the rules, and I have explained exactly how it might be argued, in this case, that the card trumps the rules.

Also, I believe the following to be in error in multiple ways, my commentary in blue:

DECLARATIONS:
Lure of Nature is in play. A corruption check of Lure of Nature is declared targeting Frodo. No, because Lure of Nature Cannot target Hobbits. But let that go for the sake of argument.

Marvels Told is declared, in response. The action of playing Marvels Told has no target. No, Marvels Told clearly has a target: Lure of Nature.

The corruption check of Marvels Told is declared, targeting Bilbo, a Sage. Wrong order. The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is declared last. The cards in a chain are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on each card are resolved in the order in which they appear (p.30 The Wizard's Rulesbook).

The discarding action is declared, targeting Lure of Nature. Wrong order. The discarding and tapping of Bilbo action will happen first, when Marvels Told is declared, two paragraphs above, unless the opponent declares an action before it resolves. The active condition is that the sage taps. And so Bilbo taps, satisfying the condition. Bilbo tapping and discarding Lure of Nature can only realistically be viewed as one action. If the opponent doesn't want this to happen then they have to declare another action designed to thwart it before it resolves. Either Bilbo taps and Lure is discarded, or the opponent declares another action in the chain, in which case neither Bilbo taps nor Lure discards, yet.

Dragon-sickness is "Playable on a character bearing a major or greater item." Dragon-sickness is declared, in response, to be played on Frodo. The declared action of playing Dragon-sickness targets Frodo. But before that, according to Annotation 24, the corruption check effect is declared, targeting Frodo.

RESOLUTIONS:
The last played action (card) resolves first and Frodo makes a corruption check and is ELIMINATED. When Frodo is eliminated, Lure of Nature is immediately discarded. Agreed, because Lure of Nature had already been played on Frodo prior to this chain of events beginning, and is discarded along with Frodo.

The conditions for the action of playing Marvels Told are verified. The only condition is that it must be the player's turn since Marvels Told is a resource. It is the players turn. The action of playing Marvels Told resolves. No, Marvels Told does not resolve any of its actions. It is negated because it no longer has a target. This very example is given on p.41 of The Wizards Rulesbook.

And that is the end of that chain of events.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Yangtze2000 wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The corruption check of Marvels Told is declared, targeting Bilbo, a Sage. Wrong order. The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is declared last. The cards in a chain are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on each card are resolved in the order in which they appear (p.30 The Wizard's Rulesbook).
Because the Corruption check is the final action on the card it is first declared and last resolved.

Neither CRF entry for Lure of Nature, nor "Beginning/end of phase and turn" (not universally accepted) allow for Marvels Told or Dragon-sickness in response to ccs caused by Lure of Nature.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Yangtze2000
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 5:46 pm

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:27 pm
Yangtze2000 wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:50 pm The corruption check of Marvels Told is declared, targeting Bilbo, a Sage. Wrong order. The Corruption check is the final action on the card and is declared last. The cards in a chain are resolved in reverse order, but the actions on each card are resolved in the order in which they appear (p.30 The Wizard's Rulesbook).
Because the Corruption check is the final action on the card it is first declared and last resolved.
No that is incorrect. Actions on a card are declared in the order they appear on the card, and if they are not challenged they are resolved before moving on to the next action on the card. In a chain of effects, actions are resolved in the reverse order they were declared.

In this case, the Corruption check on Marvels Told was never declared. We didn't get that far, because Dragon Sickness was declared in response to the declaration of Marvels Told's first action. So once Dragon Sickness is resolved, if Marvels Told is not negated (which in this case it was), we would resolve Marvels Told's last-declared action, which would actually have been the Marvels Tolds card's first action, and then we would continue down the card, before moving to the last declared action of Lure of Nature (the Corruption check).
Last edited by Yangtze2000 on Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:45 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

CRF, Rulings by Term, Timing wrote:The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”