"The effects of an environment card"

[Konrad Klar]

Once the effects of an environment card have been applied to a target during a given
movement/hazard phase, that effect is not applied again to that target during the
current turn.

I propose to remove it.

It does not regulate anything. It does not solve any problem. It introduces a confusion.

Effects of cards in play that are applied to some objects are applied as results of actions caused by passive condition. Once per occurrence of the condition. Whether the card is an environment card or not. There are no essential differences between returning a company in result action from Snowstorm and returning a company in result action from The Way is Shut.

Effects or short-events are either applied immediately, or not applied at all, i.e. a target or objects on which the card operates are under effect, usually by some period, e.g. until end of turn.

Other effects of environment cards in play are not applied at all.They last as long the card is in play. E.g. if Fell Winter is in play each Border Hold has an additional AA of Wolves. Bree is normally Border Hold, so it has the Wolves AA, if it will become Ruins and Lairs it will lose it, but if it will become again Border Hold (even during the same turn), e.g. because Nature's Revenge has been discarded, it will have the AA again.

If a site that satisfies the conditions of tapping action from Long Winter will be tapped by the action (or by anything else), then, if it will become untapped, it will not be a new occurrence of that triggers the tapping action from Long Winter.
Unless the counter of occurrences of the passive conditions will be reset at the end of turn. But the quoted rule does not say that it is reset, it does not imply that it is reset, it at best suggests such possibility.

[CDavis7M]

It does not regulate anything. It does not solve any problem. It introduces a confusion.

You're confused on how the Passive Condition rules work. Without this CRF entry, Morgul Night's effect would change a Wilderness region into a Shadow-land and then, in the following chain of effects, change that same region (now a Shadow-land) into a Dark-domain.

Effects of cards in play that are applied to some objects are applied as results of actions caused by passive condition. Once per occurrence of the condition.

This is wrong. The rules on Passive Conditions state "A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play." If the passive condition exists, the action happens. There is nothing in the rules that states that an effect triggered by a passive condition can only be triggered once. The effect is applied and re-applied every time that the passive condition exists. Unless it is an effect of an environment card.

If the condition exists, the effect is applied. If the condition exists once (e.g., the condition is an action), then the effect is applied once. If the effect exists continually (e.g., the condition is an on-going effect or state), then the effect is applied continually.

Though some effects triggered by passive conditions specify a result (e.g., a company faces a Dragon attack) rather than the underlying action (creation of a Dragon attack). In such cases, the underlying action (creating a Dragon attack) must happen to cause the result (the company faces a Dragon attack), but the underlying action only happens if the result hasn't already happened.

Other effects of environment cards in play are not applied at all. They last as long the card is in play. E.g. if Fell Winter is in play each Border Hold has an additional AA of Wolves.

This is statement is bogus. How can a site be given an automatic attack if the effect giving the automatic attack is never applied to the site? "Applying" is different from "targeting." Non-targeted effects are still applied. The effect of Fell Winter is applied to the border-hold. Just because there are no timing issues does not mean that the timing rules do not have to be followed.

If a site that satisfies the conditions of tapping action from Long Winter will be tapped by the action (or by anything else), then, if it will become untapped, it will not be a new occurrence of that triggers the tapping action from Long Winter.

The site would be retapped except for the CRF entry we are discussing. The effect is "each non-Haven site card with at least two Wildernesses in its site path is tapped." Is there a site card with two wilderness in its site path? If so then Long Winter's effect will tap that site, except that "once the effects of an environment card have been applied to a target during a given movement/hazard phase, that effect is not applied again to that target during the current turn."

Unless the counter of occurrences of the passive conditions will be reset at the end of turn.

There is no such "counter." You made that up.

[Konrad Klar]

You're confused on how the Passive Condition rules work. Without this CRF entry, Morgul Night's effect would change a Wilderness region into a Shadow-land and then, in the following chain of effects, change that same region (now a Shadow-land) into a Dark-domain. This is not a mere ruling on a question. It came from the Designers.

You're confused on how the Passive Condition rules work.
I agree.
I think that Morgul Night's effect works like the (1st and 2nd) effect of Fell Winter.
It does not cause persistent results, like: a company is returned to a site of origin, site is tapped, some card is discarded etc.
As long Fell Winter is in play the Border Holds have an additional AA. The AA does not remain in play when Fell Winter leaves an active play.

It came from the Designers.

Good to know that not from Mystery Men.

This is wrong. The rules on Passive Conditions state "A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play." If the passive condition exists, the action happens. There is nothing in the rules that states that an effect triggered by a passive condition can only be triggered once. The effect is applied and re-applied every time that the passive condition exists.

If the condition exists, the effect is applied. If the condition exists once (e.g., the condition is an action), then the effect is applied once. If the effect exists continually (e.g., the condition is an on-going effect or state), then the effect is applied continually.

Though some effects triggered by passive conditions specify a result (e.g., a company faces a Dragon attack) rather than the underlying action (creation of a Dragon attack). In such cases, the underlying action only happens if the result has already happened.

I would put it shortly: a company moving through listed regions is not perpetually facing an attack from Dragon Ahunt.
But it is the conclusion from:
"Effects of cards in play that are applied to some objects are applied as results of actions caused by passive condition. Once per occurrence of the condition."

There is no such "counter." You made that up.

If someone realizes a concept of "once" then maybe, sometime, he will realize a concept of "counter".

[CDavis7M]

It does not cause persistent results, like: a company is returned to a site of origin, site is tapped, some card is discarded etc.
As long Fell Winter is in play the Border Holds have an additional AA. The AA does not remain in play when Fell Winter leaves an active play.

Again, your using language that is not part of MECCG. MECCG does not involve "persistent results." It involves actions and on-going effects. Tapping a card is an action. Creating an automatic-attack is an on-going effect. Actions can only be cancelled in the same chain of effects. On-going effects can be cancelled later. Both have "persistent results." Don't make stuff up. Stick to the terms of the game.

I would put it shortly: a company moving through listed regions is not perpetually facing an attack from Dragon Ahunt.
But it is the conclusion from:
"Effects of cards in play that are applied to some objects are applied as results of actions caused by passive condition. Once per occurrence of the condition."

There is no need to make up "once per occurrence of the condition" because the effect of an Ahunt Dragon is that the company "immediately faces one Dragon attack." Once the creation of the Dragon attack has resolved, the company is considered has faced the dragon attack.

And we know already from ICE that Passive Conditions do not work "once per occurrence of the condition" as you suggest.

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.

Sorry about your misunderstanding.

[Konrad Klar]

Again, your using language that is not part of MECCG. MECCG does not involve "persistent results." It involves actions and on-going effects. Tapping a card is an action. Creating an automatic-attack is an on-going effect. Actions can only be cancelled in the same chain of effects. On-going effects can be cancelled later. Both have "persistent results." Don't make stuff up. Stick to the terms of the game.

I am pissing on it. You have confused the situations.
If I would like to formulate a new rule then I would care about compliance with terms used with the game.
But in the situation I care about expressing a sense of some rule (or lack of the sense) and I am trying to use as descriptive language as I can.

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.

Sorry about your misunderstanding

I disagree.
"Once per occurrence of the condition."
The same applies to Dragon Roused's cancellation effect. And the same for attack from Dragon Ahunt.

I am not sorry about ICE, nor about your notions/statements. Not my responsibility. I am trying to be consistent.

[CDavis7M]

Then how come your made up rules are always inconsistent with the actual rules and the rulings?

[Konrad Klar]

Then how come your made up rules are always inconsistent with the actual rules and the rulings?

The question includes some assumptions not made by me, so you, not me, can answer it.

[Vastor Peredhil]

@Konrad, shut up man you really have no clue how this game terms work!

seriously !!!

and most old school players know how these conditions work and why this one exspecially is needed

just my 2 cents for 2021 we should have left you & your darn proposals in 2020 with the rest

[Konrad Klar]

Replies as above are additional reasons for which I prefer to speak for myself.

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.
It does not need to rely on the rule. A mechanism that regulates when some card will be tapped again already exists.
An environment card that would cause to tap other card(s) in result of action caused by passive condition cannot rely on the rule that I propose to remove.
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.

E.g. Weathertop has been tapped by action from Long Winter. Then Weathertop becomes untapped in result of Look More Closely Later. Then Doors of Night leaves active play, then Doors of Night appears in play again. The passive condition reappears, but (with the rule) Weathertop is not tapped again.
It will be tapped again at the start of new turn, if Long Winter and the passive condition will still exist.

[Vastor Peredhil]

Well my advice silence is golden,

you want to be a hero really bad, heh, but you are no hero you are the boy who cried wolf...

you must believe ICE designers were evil wizard who made such rules to confuse the weak minded, but alas they were just a bit inconsistent and the underestimated the way in which others would look for mistakes or loopholes in their work...

Chris's new mantra if it is not there it is not there - take it to heart - your hypothetical cards and situations have no merit and the DC team created 2000 cards trying to break the rules and so far we did not manage that (even though Theo is looking hard for it) but people like, Marcos, Manuel, Mikko (the M-club) keep us honest and Chris is trying his best to do so as well

so please Konrad, do research before you post your stuff ask others before you think something is broken, because normally its just the case from where you stand

[Konrad Klar]

so please Konrad, do research before you post your stuff ask others before you think something is broken, because normally its just the case from where you stand

"Something is broken" is a good reason to make an errata.
Rules & Errata is a good section to post en errata proposals.
A forum is a good tool for publishing some texts to be read by all interested readers, instead contacting them (or some of them) individually.

P.S.
You did not hesitate to post something addressed to me at forum, although PM and email were some alternatives. For reason other than gold, I believe.

[Konrad Klar]

I am pissing on it. You have confused the situations.

I apologize for that. Especially CDavis7M.
Such language causes that a center of discussion goes away from factual aspects of discussed matter.

[Konrad Klar]

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.

[Vastor Peredhil]

except that Haven and Free-holds are never considered surface sites ... but yeah you are so awesome at finding things that do not exist

[Konrad Klar]

A Wizardhaven is not considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site unless Deep
Mines has been played on it.

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.

For those who are more focused on factual aspects of the discussed things.