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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

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]
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/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:11 am Create 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.
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).
Theo wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:11 am If attacks did not resolve during a chain of effects, additional nested attacks could be created.
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.
Theo wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:11 am No. Nested chains have long existed, they just weren't formally named until the CRF. But enough digression.
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.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

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?
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. .
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."
I do not see a chain of effects in which revealed on-guard card is declared as "nested".
Nested in what?
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 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).
An attack is considered to be resolved and concluded
suggests that an attack may be resolved but not concluded (or concluded and not resolved).
CRF wrote:The resolution of a character tapping to give +1 to a corruption check happens when
the corruption check itself resolves.
This does not mean that the resolution of a character tapping happens when a corruption check has been performed.
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.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

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).
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
CRF wrote:The resolution of a character tapping to give +1 to a corruption check happens when the corruption check itself resolves.
This does not mean that the resolution of a character tapping happens when a corruption check has been performed.
This would be too late.
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.

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

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.
Right. Effect of tapping resolves, not a tapping itself.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:00 pm 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.
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.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

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.
How so and why?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:18 pm How so and why?
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.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

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)
Last edited by CDavis7M on Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:32 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: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:15 pm 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).
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.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:28 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:15 pm 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).
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).
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.

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

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

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:15 pm 4. New Friendship (played on Frodo, effect targeting Balin's CC)
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.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:04 am
Theo wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:11 am Create 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.
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).
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.

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/
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”