Creature cards create attacks. The creature card is resolved, creating the attack, during a chain of effects. The attack must be resolved for the creature card to be resolved, for the chain to be resolved.
If attacks did not resolve during a chain of effects, additional nested attacks could be created.
No. Nested chains have long existed, they just weren't formally named until the CRF. But enough digression.
[edit: fix Create -> Creature]
Responding to revealed on-guard cards
Last edited by Theo on Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
The creation of the attack resolves at resolution of the creature card. The attack itself does not resolve at resolution of the creature card. Annotation 12: An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved. This is why attacks can be cancelled after the creature resolves while other card's cannot be cancelled after they resolve. Many times a creature can resolve (creating an attack) without the attack being resolved since the attack is canceled (though it is considered faced).
You are talking about the creation of the attack by a creature card right? The creation of the attack by resolving a creature card is the reason why the creature must be the first declared card -- so that the creation of the attack will be the last resolved.
Attacks created during resolution of non-creature cards (e.g., Rescue Prisoners) do interrupt resolution of that card in the chain of effects. And you can declare/resolve other cards during the strike sequence of such attacks. But this is not a "nested chain of effects." It is the Strike Sequence which has its own special rules. Plus, there are no timing issues when resolving a card's own attack and effects.
Which situation creates a chain of effects within another chain of effects? The only similar thing are actions satisfying active conditions which happen outside of any chain of effects as they are synonymous with the declared action (they are not declared/nested within other chains of effects).
From what I can see, there is nothing that creates one chain of effects within another chain of effects. How would this even work? Would some action resolving in a chain of effects CREATE a new chain of effects in which actions can be declared and resolved during resolution of the currently resolving first chain of effects? That's just unnecessary.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Declaring on-guard card in response would rule out all corruption cards. Additionally it could be impossible to react to some of them by Marvels Told etc. .
I do not see a chain of effects in which revealed on-guard card is declared as "nested".CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:04 am 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."
Nested in what?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
An attack is considered to be resolved and concludedCDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:04 am The creation of the attack resolves at resolution of the creature card. The attack itself does not resolve at resolution of the creature card. Annotation 12: An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved. This is why attacks can be cancelled after the creature resolves while other card's cannot be cancelled after they resolve. Many times a creature can resolve (creating an attack) without the attack being resolved since the attack is canceled (though it is considered faced).
suggests that an attack may be resolved but not concluded (or concluded and not resolved).
This does not mean that the resolution of a character tapping happens when a corruption check has been performed.CRF wrote:The resolution of a character tapping to give +1 to a corruption check happens when
the corruption check itself resolves.
This would be too late.
I think that
"when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved."
should be replaced with
"when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved and concluded."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
I can see that interpretation but I did not read it that way. I read it as saying that "resolving" an attack is the same as "concluding an attack."Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:25 am An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded
suggests that an attack may be resolved but not concluded (or concluded and not resolved).
This CRF statement is not talking about the "tapping" action, it is talking about the "+1 to roll" action. This can't be describing the "tapping" action because the tapping action is never "resolved" as it is an active condition for declaring the "+1 to roll" and it happens outside of any chain of effects.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:25 amThis does not mean that the resolution of a character tapping happens when a corruption check has been performed.CRF wrote:The resolution of a character tapping to give +1 to a corruption check happens when the corruption check itself resolves.
This would be too late.
All this says is that the +1 modifier happens/resolves when the roll is made. This should be obvious as the roll cannot be modified until the roll is made. But I do not know the reason for the CRF statement. Maybe you can do us a favor and read the ICE Digests to find out since you have a question on it.
Seems unnecessary.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:25 am I think that
"when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved."
should be replaced with
"when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved and concluded."
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Right. Effect of tapping resolves, not a tapping itself.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:00 pm This CRF statement is not talking about the "tapping" action, it is talking about the "+1 to roll" action. This can't be describing the "tapping" action because the tapping action is never "resolved" as it is an active condition for declaring the "+1 to roll" and it happens outside of any chain of effects.
Who is "us"? You?
I know the reason for the CRF statement.
Effect of tapping in support to cc resolves differently than other effects that modify the cc, declared in response to the cc.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
How so and why?Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:10 pm Effect of tapping in support to cc resolves differently than other effects that modify the cc, declared in response to the cc.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
How:
Example chain of effects.
Declarations:
1. Dragon-Sickness (on Balin)
2. Call of Home (on Frodo)
3. Frodo taps in support to cc from step 1
4. New Friendship
Resolutions:
4. New Friendship (giving modifier to cc declared in step 1)
3. DOES NOT RESOLVE (yet)
2. Call of Home (Frodo is returned to hand)
1. Dragon-Sickness (cc is modified by effect of New Friendship, but not by effect of tapping of Frodo; Frodo is not present and, obviously, is not in tapped state at the moment when cc from Dragon-Sickness resolves)
Why:
I do not know.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Why would Call of Home on Frodo be declared 2nd instead of after Frodo taps in support (as in the Example in the METW rulesbook).
Hm... Anyway, this one one of the earlier rulings and was made by ICE Netrep Scott Frazer. I've noticed that many statements from these earlier CRFs were removed or changed. No telling what that means though.
Say you have only Balin and Frodo in a company.
Declarations:
1. Dragon-Sickness (on Balin)
2. Frodo taps in support to cc from step 1
3. Call of Home (on Frodo)
4. New Friendship (played on Frodo, effect targeting Balin's CC)
Resolutions:
4. New Friendship (giving modifier to cc declared in step 1)
3. Call of Home removes Frodo
2. Does not resolve yet because of CRF on Corruption? -- But also, Tapping Frodo is the active condition and now resolution doesn't happen because Frodo is no longer in play.
1. Dragon-Sickness (cc is modified by effect of New Friendship, but not by effect of tapping of Frodo; Frodo is not present and, obviously, is not in tapped state at the moment when cc from Dragon-Sickness resolves)
But what about swapping the declarations of Tapping in Support and New Friendship:
Declarations:
1. Dragon-Sickness (on Balin)
2. New Friendship (played on Frodo, effect targeting Balin's CC)
3. Call of Home (on Frodo)
4. Frodo taps in support to cc from step 1
Resolutions:
4. Does not resolve yet because of CRF on Corruption? -- But otherwise would resolve
3. Call of Home removes Frodo
2. New Friendship (cannot resolve as New Friendship is played on Frodo since he is the Diplomat)
1. Dragon-Sickness (cc is NOT modified by New Friendship or the +1 support)
Hm... Anyway, this one one of the earlier rulings and was made by ICE Netrep Scott Frazer. I've noticed that many statements from these earlier CRFs were removed or changed. No telling what that means though.
Say you have only Balin and Frodo in a company.
Declarations:
1. Dragon-Sickness (on Balin)
2. Frodo taps in support to cc from step 1
3. Call of Home (on Frodo)
4. New Friendship (played on Frodo, effect targeting Balin's CC)
Resolutions:
4. New Friendship (giving modifier to cc declared in step 1)
3. Call of Home removes Frodo
2. Does not resolve yet because of CRF on Corruption? -- But also, Tapping Frodo is the active condition and now resolution doesn't happen because Frodo is no longer in play.
1. Dragon-Sickness (cc is modified by effect of New Friendship, but not by effect of tapping of Frodo; Frodo is not present and, obviously, is not in tapped state at the moment when cc from Dragon-Sickness resolves)
But what about swapping the declarations of Tapping in Support and New Friendship:
Declarations:
1. Dragon-Sickness (on Balin)
2. New Friendship (played on Frodo, effect targeting Balin's CC)
3. Call of Home (on Frodo)
4. Frodo taps in support to cc from step 1
Resolutions:
4. Does not resolve yet because of CRF on Corruption? -- But otherwise would resolve
3. Call of Home removes Frodo
2. New Friendship (cannot resolve as New Friendship is played on Frodo since he is the Diplomat)
1. Dragon-Sickness (cc is NOT modified by New Friendship or the +1 support)
Last edited by CDavis7M on Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Because then the example would not show, what it has to show.
Because the resource player did not respond to Dragon-Sickness, but he responded to Call of Home, fearing that there may be no other occasion to play New Friendship and that there may be no better use of Frodo (by some time).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
I updated the post above. I guess the CRF would prevent Frodo from tapping in support after Call of Home, where Call of Home might be played in response to New Friendship, which is Diplomat only.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:28 pmBecause then the example would not show, what it has to show.
Because the resource player did not respond to Dragon-Sickness, but he responded to Call of Home, fearing that there may be no other occasion to play New Friendship and that there may be no better use of Frodo (by some time).
So, there is an example. But why? I think maybe it just covers up the inconsistency between the Annotations on Timing and on Active Conditions and the earlier rules on Tapping in Support: "Before the roll is made for a corruption check, you may tap other characters in the same company as the character making the check. The corruption check is modified by +1 for each such character and/or Wizard tapped." This rule existing before the Annotations. The rules on corruption checks seem to suggest that the tapping in support happens (just) before the (resolution) of the roll. Which doesn't fit with the timing rules (this effect would be declared along with other declarations, not in the middle of resolution). Under this original rule, Frodo would not be able to give his +1 in support after Call of Home was declared targeting Frodo if Frodo was removed from play (whereas you would expect to be able to resolve a later declared effect using the "new" Annotations on Timing and Active conditions).
This ruling seems to have come out not long after the Companion and the Annotations were released.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
See also CRF entry for Narya.
Because of the way that timing rules work, characters tapping in support have no
effect on the corruption check, since they will be untapped when the support resovles.
See also Rulings by Term, Corruption.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Yes, the timing rules break corruption support for Narya.
My guess is that Narya would require Errata where as the CRF on Corruption could be deemed a clarification. And they weren't willing to add more errata for Narya's sake.
Probably because ICE was bombarded with concerns like this:
My guess is that Narya would require Errata where as the CRF on Corruption could be deemed a clarification. And they weren't willing to add more errata for Narya's sake.
Probably because ICE was bombarded with concerns like this:
Jan. 1997 wrote:Ichabod writes:
>Is it true that Rescue Prisoners only gives 2 marshalling points?
Yup. Not only that, you don't get the marshalling points until the
prisoners are stored.
I love METW, because it is a great game, but I'm not be willing to have
hundrets of arbitrary rule changes like Magig. I don't want discuss with
my opponent which rules we are playing for half an hour before we
can start to play ! And then the discussion while playing... :-<
Bye
Michael
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
I do not think that New Friendship is played on character.
But the thread has already deviated from its original topic. So I do not see a sense of discussing the question here (unless it will reveal relevant).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
I think we are using different "resolved" as adjective (state) vs. "resolved" as verb (process). Consider a non-creature card that creates attacks and then does other stuff. The card begins to resolve (verb), "have its effects implemented". An attack is an effect of the card. To finish having the card resolve (verb) and giving it the resolved (adjective) state, its effects need to have been implemented. It is not the case that the attack begins to resolve after the card creating it has finished resolving.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:04 amThe creation of the attack resolves at resolution of the creature card. The attack itself does not resolve at resolution of the creature card. Annotation 12: An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded when the final strike, all special actions resulting from the final strike, and the associated body check are resolved. This is why attacks can be cancelled after the creature resolves while other card's cannot be cancelled after they resolve. Many times a creature can resolve (creating an attack) without the attack being resolved since the attack is canceled (though it is considered faced).
Similarly the placement of creature cards (in discard or MP pile, say), is part of the resolution of the creature card, which cannot be determined until the attack is concluded.
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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/