Responding to revealed on-guard cards

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CRF wrote:A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared
and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.
Proposed change:
"A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were declared prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.
Other action may be declared in response to declaration of the card."

Reason:
Under current rules a revealed on-guard card that causes a corruption check is extremely powerful. It does not matter how many means a resource player has at his disposal. He cannot use any of them.
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

Timing Rules wrote:Your opponent may always declare an action in response before your action is resolved.
If you may always declare an action in response and if the corruption check caused by an on-guard card "retroactively takes effect" then why would effects modifying the corruption check not also be able to be declared and "retroactively take effect" as well? There are no rules preventing the Resource player from declaring actions in response. So I would agree but I see no reason for it, especially since I disagree with the premise.

If characters could NOT tap to support a corruption check, I would expect it to be mentioned in the example of playing Weariness of the Heart on guard.

Image
Image
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Because "immediately" and "before".
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

If a player may not tap +1 in support of a corruption check because of "immediately" and "before" then they may not roll the dice either. Why would one action be allowed and the other not allowed? The on-guard rules do not prevent actions.

And if the character is in play during one chain of effects and they are considered to have resolved a corruption check in the prior chain of effects, then they must have successfully passed the corruption check. :roll:
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:33 am If a player may not tap +1 in support of a corruption check because of "immediately" and "before" then they may not roll the dice either. Why would one action be allowed and the other not allowed? The on-guard rules do not prevent actions.
Why you would roll the dice in response to Weariness of the Heart, revealed as on-guard?
Once a chain of effects starts resolving, nothing may be declared in response to the actions declared in the chain.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:33 am And if the character is in play during one chain of effects and they are considered to have resolved a corruption check in the prior chain of effects, then they must have successfully passed the corruption check.
This does not take into account the possibility that "a revealed on-guard card retroactively* takes effect".
Otherwise you are right. Why anything made in response to X would change a state before declaration of X?

*) I am happy that ICE, not me, introduced the term "retroactively".
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

(the last post was a joke, hence the :roll)


Anyway, the rules just don't support the conclusion in the original post.
A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.
The on guard card is not resolved in the prior chain of effects. It merely takes effect as though it were. The resource player using a corruption check effect does not disrupt the on guard rules.

The CRF statement seems to just be expanding in the actual On-Guard rules
MELE 67 wrote: the card is handled as if it had been played during the movement-hazard phase (i.e., short-events are discarded, long events last until your opponent's next long event phase, etc.).
The corruption check is only handled as if it were previously resolved. It is not actually already resolved. The resource player may still declare effects in response.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Premise:
immediately - without media between

both declared and resolved immediately prior
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:20 pm It is not actually already resolved. The resource player may still declare effects in response.
Where to put the effects declared in response if not between declaration of revealed on-guard card and the chain of effects during which it was revealed?
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

The resource played at the site, the on guard corruption card, and the corruption check modifier effects are all declared and resolved in the SAME chain of effects. However, the on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the declared resource played at the site (even though they are actually in the same chain of effects).

This statement was made to clarify that the On-Guard card is treated as resolving in the site phase, not in the M/H phase as suggested by the MELE rules. Cards like Doubled Vigilance required this clarification. You can learn this by reading the ICE digests.

There is nothing to suggest that a resource players effect cannot target a corruption check caused by an on guard card.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:11 pm (even though they are actually in the same chain of effects).
On-guard card is revealed in the same chain of effects as declared resource (in response to it).
It is not declared in the same chain of effects.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Is there an easy example of what is achieved by the revealed card taking effect as though it had been declared earlier if it is NOT that it can't be responded to? Why have the rule at all?
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: Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:03 pm Is there an easy example of what is achieved by the revealed card taking effect as though it had been declared earlier if it is NOT that it can't be responded to? Why have the rule at all?
From my review of the old Q/A in the newsgroup, I think it is because the rulesbooks suggests that the on-guard card is treated as if it were resolved before the end of the M/H phase:

"The card is handled as if it had been played
during the movement-hazard phase (i .e ., short-events are discarded, long-events last until your opponent's next long-event phase, etc.).
"

People ask whether Lure of Nature revealed on guard would trigger corruption checks. The CRF clarifies that Lure of Nature resolves in the site phase, not in the M/H phase. The corruption checks don't trigger. The above rule from the Rulesbook just means that the long event doesn't only work on that one company, it stays in play for all companies like normal.

Also, Bombadil cannot cancel the revealed on-guard card (the company is no longer moving during the site phase even if they were moving during the movement hazard phase). His effect only works for moving companies.

Also, if the site is entered already, the on guard card revealed in response to the entrance is treated as if it were resolved before the site was entered for Doubled Vigilance.

There is nothing to suggest that the resource played cannot play corruption helping effects in response to an on guard card.

The fact is that a corruption check causing card requires an action (eg dice roll) by a player at resolution. So if Weariness of the Heart is treated as if it had already resolved, then the dice roll action would have already happened. Except the dice roll didn't happen already, it has just been declared and the resolution will be treated as if it happened before (no difference in this case).

If the point was "it can't be responded to" the the CRF would have said that instead.

The main thing to remember, when making rulings based on the rules and the cards, is that if it isn't there, then it isn't there. If a rule says a revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed, that does not mean a resource may not be played in response.

Under the original Rulesbook there is no confusion.

The original post is one of many examples of finding supposed discrepancies in the CRF by not understanding the context in which the statement was made.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I will not argue that you seem to favor such theses. :roll:

I think your only example that was NOT reinforcing "card is not resolved as though it occurred during the M/H phase" was Doubled Vigilance. It seems like the important aspect of Doubled Vigilance is that it's passive triggers off of a declaration ("chooses to enter"). That is, once something has been declared it has been declared---chains resolve what was declared not whether declarations occur. A good point/purpose for the rule wording.

I think the other historic example was Lure of Power being revealed in response to an influence attempt being successful, which has a passive with similar characteristics.

But the Lure of Power brings up its own aspect to consider. The on-guard reveal is allowed to occur during chain resolution. Even if you say the on-guard is literally resolved during the current chain while just its effects are treated as though they occurred earlier, that still doesn't allow anyone to respond if the reveal occurs during a chain resolution. Konrad's suggestion would fix this, although without giving much of a reason and perhaps leaving ambiguity about handling multiple on-guard cards.

Konrad, would you consider something like:
"A revealed on-guard card is the first declared action in a nested chain of effects, and when resolved its effects are implemented retroactively as though the card was declared prior to the chain(s) of effects during which it was revealed."

In retrospect, this seems to me to be likely the intent of the original rulemakers, just insufficiently formalized.
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

You two and your "nested chain" ♥️
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Indeed. The two of us retroactively went back and created the idea of nested chain in the CRF. :roll:
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

There is nothing in the CRF that suggests that one chain of effects can be nested in another chain of effects.

The only mention of "nested chain" is:
The body check is the first declared action in a nested chain of effects that immediately follows the strike dice-roll and special actions resulting from the strike.

The body check's "nested chain of effects" is not nested in another chain of effect. There is NO other on going chain of effects (special actions are already resolved). Instead, the chain of effects for the body check is nested within resolution of the Strike (which does not resolve in a chain of effects).
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”