"The effects of an environment card"

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:49 am A non-environment card that would cause to tap other card(s) in result of action caused by passive condition would not rely on the rule that I propose to remove.
Why bother stating that the effects of a NON-environment card are not governed by a rule on "the effects of an environment card."
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:49 am A mechanism that regulates when some card will be tapped again already exists.
Such as?
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:49 am Only thing that the rule adds to picture in this case is that if tapped card would untap and the passive condition would reappear in the same turn the card will not be tapped again.
This is wrong. I already explained how the rule applies to Morgul Night above.

And this rule is also needed to allow Goldberry to prevent her company from being returned to their origin. Goldberry only cancels the triggered return-to-origin effect for her particular, not the on-going effect of the long-event that can trigger the return-to-origin effect based on a passive condition.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:47 am "Something is broken" is a good reason to make an errata.
The rules are not broken -- you just misunderstand them. Even putting aside the idiomatic errors of your proposals, the fact that you cannot find consistency in the rules and feel the need to belittle the Designers and make up all sorts of ways that they were wrong should point to the fact that your ideas are wrong
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Vastor Peredhil wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:25 am Chris's new mantra if it is not there it is not there
To be fair, it's not mine, it's ICEs own explanation from 1997 of their ruling framework.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:44 am
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:33 pm And we know already from ICE that Passive Conditions do not work "once per occurrence of the condition" as you suggest.
ICE wrote:
I would say that the Wizard-Haven canceling is an on-going effect and therefore could not be countered by Black Vapour.
The attack cancellation effect on the wizardhavens operates using passive conditions and it can be applied more than once for a single attack. You should read the rulings.
Let assume at moment that the Wizard-Haven canceling is an on-going effect and the Wizard-Haven is the surface site of Deep Mines.
Forewarned is Forearmed and Doors of Night are in play and Nameless Thing is played keyed to the Wizard-Haven.
I think that then we will have an infinite loop. The attack that cannot be canceled would be continuously and ineffectually cancelled.
Such unresolved situation would not allow a game to be proceeded. Such situation could be resolved arbitrarily. Someone could arbitrarily decide what beats what. "Is cancelled" beats ""cannot be cancelled" or vice-versa.
That's wrong. Are you misunderstanding Active Conditions in addition to misunderstanding Passive Conditions?

First of all, it should be obvious that an attack that cannot be cancelled, well, cannot be cancelled. It's that simple! But I'll also explain the game mechanics: an attack cancellation effect cannot even be declared on an attack that cannot be cancelled because the "cannot be canceled" effect negates the active conditions for declaring the attack-cancellation effect. There is no "infinite loop" as you suggest.

Still, depending on the declaration/resolution timing, the attack can be cancelled before it is modified to be uncancellable. There are two scenarios, a simple resource effect that cancels one targeted attack and then FW Isengard's effect where "all attacks" are cancelled.

The resource player sets the timing of a short event or resource-activation and may cancel one of the attacks simply by declaring it later in the chain of effects. But this is not an issue when there are multiple attacks because the attacks are all the same. If one attack is cancelled by a resource effect, the hazard player simply chooses another to not be cancelled by Forewarned is Forearmed.

But even with Isengard's effect, there is no possibility to cancel the would-be-uncancellable attack. Since the order of applying these effects triggered by passive conditions matters, then the hazard player will sets the timing of Forewarned is Forearmed's attack-reduction effect and Isengard's attack-cancellation effect per Annotation 26. In which case, the attack will be modified such that it cannot be cancelled before the attack is cancelled.

This is another example of why the misconception that Annotation 9 should govern all passive conditions timing doesn't make sense. Annotation 9 only governs when the timing doesn't matter while Annotation 26 lets the hazard player decide when the order matters.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:32 pm Why bother stating that the effects of a NON-environment card are not governed by a rule on "the effects of an environment card."
You may be bothered.
I am trying to explain that the effects of a cards like Long Winter have nothing to do with with Environment keyword. They are regulated by Passive Conditions mechanics.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:32 pmSuch as?
They are regulated by Passive Conditions mechanics. Once some passive condition occurs, an action caused by the passive condition is declared.
When the same passive condition occurs again, the action is declared again.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:32 pm This is wrong. I already explained how the rule applies to Morgul Night above.
That does not fit in your understanding of how Morgul Night works in my opinion. It is an on-going effect, not an action that is triggered by anything.
I am not responsible for you and for anyone who sees any trigger or passive condition here.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:33 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:47 am "Something is broken" is a good reason to make an errata.
The rules are not broken -- you just misunderstand them. Even putting aside the idiomatic errors of your proposals, the fact that you cannot find consistency in the rules and feel the need to belittle the Designers and make up all sorts of ways that they were wrong should point to the fact that your ideas are wrong
If I think that "Something is broken" then I propose an errata.
Someone may have understanding of rules different from mine, and my argue that my understanding is broken.
I do not have any respect for it.
I have a respect for those who try to point an inconsistency with my reasoning or in my proposal.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:39 pm
Vastor Peredhil wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:25 am Chris's new mantra if it is not there it is not there
To be fair, it's not mine, it's ICEs own explanation from 1997 of their ruling framework.
If it will something to do with proposal of removing of some rule...
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: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:43 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:32 pm This is wrong. I already explained how the rule applies to Morgul Night above.
That does not fit in your understanding of how Morgul Night works in my opinion. It is an on-going effect, not an action that is triggered by anything.
I am not responsible for you and for anyone who sees any trigger or passive condition here.
If Morgul Night's effect were merely an on-going effect that could not be triggered by a passive condition, then the effect would only be implemented at resolution of the Morgul Night hazard card. Meaning that only the region types currently in play would be affected. But that is not how this card work. Morgul Night's effect continues to change new region types as they come into play. It does this by triggering the effect using Passive Conditions. The Passive Condition mechanic is the only game mechanic in MECCG that provides this functionality.

"These are called passive conditions because the actions they satisfy come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by a player."

Think about it -- Is there a condition for changing a region type to a Shadow-land? Yes, the condition is that the region is a Wilderness. If the region is not a wilderness, it is not changed to a Shadow-land. That is a condition.

Does the Wilderness region type come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by a player? Yes, the player only directly made the decision to reveal a site or a region card. The Wilderness region type on that card only indirectly comes into play as a result of the revealing decision.

The region type changing effect of Morgul Night is triggered by the passive condition of a Wilderness region type or by a Shadow-land region type being in play. Morgul Night's effect is triggered using Passive Conditions.

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:43 pm I have a respect for those who try to point an inconsistency with my reasoning or in my proposal.
Your understanding is wrong because it is inconsistent with the ICE rulings as I've point out. You're welcome.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:43 pm If it will something to do with proposal of removing of some rule...
English please.

--------

This proposal goes against ICE's rulings and it simply misunderstands the rules. We are playing ICE's game.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:12 pm That's wrong. Are you misunderstanding Active Conditions in addition to misunderstanding Passive Conditions?
Maybe it depends on your judgement. If so, I am unable to answer the question convincingly.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:12 pm First of all, it should be obvious that an attack that cannot be cancelled, well, cannot be cancelled. It's that simple! But I'll also explain the game mechanics: an attack cancellation effect cannot even be declared on an attack that cannot be cancelled because the "cannot be canceled" effect negates the active conditions for declaring the attack-cancellation effect. There is no "infinite loop" as you suggest.
Smart guy, who I am not, could say that even if X cannot be done, someone may try to do X albeit unsuccessfully.
Even if character with Obey Him or Die "cannot be discarded by a body check" it does not mean that a dice roll cannot result with a number that indicates so.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:12 pm This is another example of why the misconception that Annotation 9 should govern all passive conditions timing doesn't make sense. Annotation 9 only governs when the timing doesn't matter while Annotation 26 lets the hazard player decide when the order matters.
Set pieces of game.
The three paragraphs in your post (before the quoted above) are illustration how your conception works.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:26 am If Morgul Night's effect were merely an on-going effect that could not be triggered by a passive condition, then the effect would only be implemented at resolution of the Morgul Night hazard card.
I would say that the Clear Skies effect also affects the characters that came in play after resolution of the Clear Skies. And that the effect lasts as long as Clear Skies is in play; is not applied to any character.
Passive conditions are not involved here.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:26 am "These are called passive conditions because the actions they satisfy come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by a player."

Think about it -- Is there a condition for changing a region type to a Shadow-land? Yes, the condition is that the region is a Wilderness. If the region is not a wilderness, it is not changed to a Shadow-land. That is a condition.
I can try to think about it. Every state and object in play is in play as result of decisions made by players. In near or in distant past.
Not all objects/states that may be examined are passive condition. If there is no action there is no passive condition.
I have mentioned Clear Skies above.
I could mention Great Army of the North. "If you have at least 4 unique Orc and/or Troll factions-none playable at a [-me_dh-]" is condition of receiving of the card's MPs.
Is it a passive condition?
Player has only 4 unique Orc and/or Troll factions-none playable at a [-me_dh-]. Orcs of Moria is the last played. Is receiving of the MPs an action triggered by passive condition? What if later Moria will be treated as [-me_dh-] or if Orcs of Moria will be discarded? Does the player lose the MPs immediately or in chain of effects?
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:26 am Konrad Klar wrote: ↑
07 Feb 2021, 22:43
If it will something to do with proposal of removing of some rule...

English please.
If it will have something to do with proposal of removing of some rule...

(hopefully it is now better)
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 Feb 08, 2021 10:26 am I could mention Great Army of the North. "If you have at least 4 unique Orc and/or Troll factions-none playable at a [-me_dh-]" is condition of receiving of the card's MPs.
Is it a passive condition?
Player has only 4 unique Orc and/or Troll factions-none playable at a [-me_dh-]. Orcs of Moria is the last played. Is receiving of the MPs an action triggered by passive condition? What if later Moria will be treated as [-me_dh-] or if Orcs of Moria will be discarded? Does the player lose the MPs immediately or in chain of effects?
I can't be bothered to go over everything again and again, but I will address Great Army of the North since it is a different card at least.

The card literally states "if you have at least 4 unique Orc and/or Troll factions." The sentence begins with the word "if." This is a condition by definition. Furthermore, it is something that occurs passively. The player decides to play an Orc faction, which just happens to be their 4th one meeting these conditions.

Great Army of the North uses passive conditions. This is the only game mechanic that can give the player the marshalling points. The 4 specified factions are the condition for triggering the effect that allows the player to receive Great Army of the North's 2 marshalling points.

The effect is dependent on the conditions being met. As the conditions change, the effect can change. Same as any effect dependent upon Doors of Night. The card either gives 0 MP or it gives 2MP. The giving of the MPs relies on Passive Conditions for timing. But there is no timing issue when giving/losing MPs.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:47 pm I can't be bothered to go over everything again and again, but I will address Great Army of the North since it is a different card at least.
OK.
I just asked whether it is a passive condition, in your opinion.
In my opinion a receiving this card's MPs is not an action. Under some circumstances the card gives MPs, under other circumstances it does not give MPs. Under some circumstances a site has an additional AA from Dragon at Home, under other circumstances (Ahunt manifestation of the same Dragon is in play), the site does not have the AA.
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 Feb 08, 2021 5:00 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:47 pm I can't be bothered to go over everything again and again, but I will address Great Army of the North since it is a different card at least.
OK.
I just asked whether it is a passive condition, in your opinion.
In my opinion a receiving this card's MPs is not an action. Under some circumstances the card gives MPs, under other circumstances it does not give MPs. Under some circumstances a site has an additional AA from Dragon at Home, under other circumstances (Ahunt manifestation of the same Dragon is in play), the site does not have the AA.
Great Army changes the MPs that a player receives after Great Army is resolved and without any active conditions initiated by the player. The only other mechanic for changing the game is using passive conditions. This is what passive conditions were designed to do. There's no reason to not use those rules here.
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”