On Cards Overriding Rules

[Bandobras Took]

Short events are by default playable at any time, but the rules currently provide limitations on the play of even short events that one cannot ignore.

So why Bounty of The Hoard, Thorugh Search, Catch an Elusive Scent, all are "Playable during site phase" by its own text? Ach, vicious circle...

Short Events which would not otherwise be prevented from play may happily limit themselves from play by their own card texts and have no impact on this discussion.

You, however, have already said that:

1) Failure to meet an active condition can keep a short event from being played; and

2) A character that may not be legally brought into play may not be played with the use of a Chance Meeting.

By these two premises alone Chance Meeting is in serious trouble. The only possible way to save it is reading "May be played" as an open invitation to play a character. However, you have also said that

3) "May contain" is not good enough to allow an overriding of company composition rules.

I am therefore forced to conclude that "May be played" is only to be read as the card states -- overriding the Home Site rule and nothing else.

Since 1) and 2) both apply during any phase other than the organization phase (active condition of ability to play character and legality of character play, respectively) and there is no specific permission to play the card on the card text, we are in the same situation as with Many Turns -- it may not be played because the conditions required to play it do not exist.

I would maintain that there is a bit of inconsistency in allowing Chance Meeting to be played at any time but disallowing cards that say "Playable on an attack" instead of "Playable on a non-automatic attack" to be played on an auto-attack. In one case, the rule prohibiting card play takes precedence; in the other, it has not, but both have the same possibility of interpretation.

What should takes precedense? "Playable in any phase", which is default for resource short-events* over general rule "may be played only in xyz phase", or inversely?

I'm not really worried which takes precedence, so long as it's consistent. Right now, Chance Meeting enjoys liberties that Many Turns, Orders From Lugburz, and any card "Playable on an attack" do not. In each of the latter, the interpretation of the card has been exclusive. In the case of Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill, it has been inclusive.

This is especially disconcerting since the current interpretation of Chance Meeting is a far more pernicious way of getting around auto-attacks than Motionless Among the Slain. It seems to my mind that it unduly makes one card a panacea for every auto-attack (and nearly every hazard that a company is intended to face). I would be okay with this if other cards (Witch-King's ability, Strike Assignment cards) were given the same leeway and broad interpretation that Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill has been given. I would also be okay if Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill were given the rigorous and straight interpretation that these other cards have been.

As long as that disparity exists, it ought to be examined -- if nothing else from the metagame standpoint.

*) and for the same reasons omitted, likewise 2 in square root, in my opinion.

*

* Refer to my dream Bombadil set for a card that gives the Cube Root of 5 Marshalling Points.

[Konrad Klar]

Rules on automatic attacks makes direct refference to cards, similarly rules on on-guards cards makes direct reference to cards, forbidding of playing some of them.

Rules on playing characters (items, allies, factions) does not make such refferences.

1) Failure to meet an active condition can keep a short event from being played

Not lack of active condition prevents New Moon from revealing as on-guard, even if for both functions active condition may be in play (Elf, FreeHold, FreeDomain, Doors of Night). Not lack of active condition prevents Motionless Among The Slain from playing against automatic attack.

2) A character that may not be legally brought into play may not be played with the use of a Chance Meeting.

There is some difference between character that may be legally played, and conditions under which may be legally played. ACM creates immediate action allowing playing character under some condition.

3) "May contain" is not good enough to allow an overriding of company composition rules.

I agree. "Information is playable" is not good enough to playing information outside site phase.
"One minor or major item may be played at a tapped site that contains a hoard" on Bounty of the Hoard is good enough to play major item at tapped Framsburg (and not good enough to play minor item at untapped Framsburg, even if it is normally allowed). In this case conditions are set by short-event.

*) and for the same reasons omitted, likewise 2 in square root, in my opinion.

*

* Refer to my dream Bombadil set for a card that gives the Cube Root of 5 Marshalling Points.

Default is not printed although existing. My opinion.

[Bandobras Took]

Rules on automatic attacks makes direct reference to cards, similarly rules on on-guards cards makes direct reference to cards, forbidding of playing some of them.

Rules on playing characters (items, allies, factions) does not make such references.

That distinction may be a little too fine. The question is whether a card must explicitly override rules in order to achieve its effects at a given time. In the case of many cards except Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill, their effects are limited by the rules.

1) Failure to meet an active condition can keep a short event from being played

Not lack of active condition prevents New Moon from revealing as on-guard, even if for both functions active condition may be in play (Elf, FreeHold, FreeDomain, Doors of Night). Not lack of active condition prevents Motionless Among The Slain from playing against automatic attack.

But it sure prevents play of Many Turns during a phase in which its conditions do not exist. Shouldn't the same thing be done for Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill unless it is specifically stated on the card under what conditions it is playable?

2) A character that may not be legally brought into play may not be played with the use of a Chance Meeting.

There is some difference between character that may be legally played, and conditions under which may be legally played. ACM creates immediate action allowing playing character under some condition.

As I've said before, the text does not allow that interpretation any more than "This company may contain a Troll leader in addition to another leader" allows a Dunedain leader and a Troll leader to be in the same company outside a Darkhaven. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: one card enjoying a far more liberal interpretation than another.

3) "May contain" is not good enough to allow an overriding of company composition rules.

I agree. "Information is playable" is not good enough to playing information outside site phase.

Er . . . no, what I'm trying to communicate is that "A character may be brought into play under general or direct influence at any Shadow-hold, Ruins & Lairs, or Border-hold" doesn't do anything other than override home site rules by the same logic that says "A company may contain a Troll leader in addition to another leader" doesn't do anything other than override the leader rule on company composition.

This is an inconsistency. If you read the phrase from Orders of Lugburz as being exclusive, you have to read We Have Come to Kill in the same way -- as setting up an effect where home site rules no longer apply to character play. If you read We Have Come to Kill as inclusive, then you have to read Orders the same way -- that it enables a Troll leader to be in any kind of company with another leader -- no matter the races involved.

"One minor or major item may be played at a tapped site that contains a hoard" on Bounty of the Hoard is good enough to play major item at tapped Framsburg (and not good enough to play minor item at untapped Framsburg, even if it is normally allowed). In this case conditions are set by short-event.

But the thing is, Bounty of the Hoard flat-out states that it is playable during the site phase, so really can't have an impact on a discussion revolving around whether a card may be played in spite of lack of the conditions necessary for its play. Many Turns may not be played if the conditions required to play it do not exist.

Default is not printed although existing. My opinion.

Mine, too -- but the default changes from card to card. Orders is read exclusively, We Have Come to Kill inclusively. Many Turns must wait for a condition to exist, We Have Come to Kill creates its conditions for play after having been played. The default is not simply that a short-event may be played at any time -- it is that a short event may be played at any time unless other conditions/effects prevent its play.

The principles behind which We Have Come to Kill is being interpreted are not the principles being used on the other cards I have mentioned. This is an inconsistency that I would like to see resolved -- either in favor of reading other cards like Chance Meeting is read, or reading Chance Meeting like those other cards are read.

Either way, I'm happy; it's the "one way then another" that's getting me down.

[Konrad Klar]

This is an inconsistency. If you read the phrase from Orders of Lugburz as being exclusive, you have to read We Have Come to Kill in the same way -- as setting up an effect where home site rules no longer apply to character play. If you read We Have Come to Kill as inclusive, then you have to read Orders the same way -- that it enables a Troll leader to be in any kind of company with another leader -- no matter the races involved.

I read lasting effect as being exclusive (i.e. disabling one restriction, does not mean disabling others).
I read immediate action as being inclusive (i.e. possible to be taken under conditions described on card).

Still seems as inconsistency?

Mine, too -- but the default changes from card to card. Orders is read exclusively, We Have Come to Kill inclusively. Many Turns must wait for a condition to exist, We Have Come to Kill creates its conditions for play after having been played.

I disagree that organization phase is active condition for resource short-event or permanent-event that is not restricted to any phase by its own text.
Active condition for Orders from Lugbúrz is company on which other copy of Orders is not played.
Active condition for second use of Many Turns and Doublings are Gates of Morning in play and its target - hazard limit.

Again - active condition is not main effect.

But the thing is, Bounty of the Hoard flat-out states that it is playable during the site phase, so really can't have an impact on a discussion revolving around whether a card may be played in spite of lack of the conditions necessary for its play.

But the thing is also that major items is not playable at Framsburg (normally or, in any way known to me, non-normally) and it does not prevent Bounty of the Hoard to be played there.

Someone may say:
Bounty of the Hoard says nothing about playability of items. It changes only requirement of untapped site to tapped, and additionaly needs site phase and site that contains hoard. All other requirements are in force.
In the same way is readed ACM. It only changes default starting site from haven/home site to FreeHold, BorderHold, Ruins&Lairs and overrides limitations of hobbits.
So major item may not be played at tapped Framsburg (if Framsburg is wizardhaven any item may not be played) with Bounty.
Both may be readed exclusively or both may be readed inclusively.

That distinction may be a little too fine.

Add to it distinction between characters (allies, factions, items) and resource-events that creates action "play character" (ally, faction, item).

Some resources are explicitly restricted from being played against automatic attacks, some hazards are explicitly restricted from being revealed as on-guard.

[Bandobras Took]

My apologies for the lateness of the reply; work and family are busy at the moment.

I read lasting effect as being exclusive (i.e. disabling one restriction, does not mean disabling others).
I read immediate action as being inclusive (i.e. possible to be taken under conditions described on card).

Still seems as inconsistency?

Yes.

You may bring Aragorn II into play with Strider's company, removing Strider from the game and automatically transferring all cards on Strider to Aragorn II

In Digest 14 it was ruled:

The replacement may be done any time during your turn as per the logic of A Chance Meeting.

It seems that the whole argument falls down right there. We have a character card whose effects may be implemented as a Short Event. It seems Khamul and the Black Horse have both been left in the dust.

But the thing is also that major items is not playable at Framsburg (normally or, in any way known to me, non-normally) and it does not prevent Bounty of the Hoard to be played there.

The thing we are discussing here is whether something must be able to be played before a short event without a phase restriction can affect how it is played. You keep bringing up Bounty of the Hoard, which is irrelevant for the following reasons:

1) It specifies a phase during which it may be played;
2) Minor and Major items are normally playable during the site phase; and
3) It then specifies altered conditions under which Minor and Major items are to be played.

Chance Meeting does not specify when it may be played any more than Many Turns.

How can you play a card whose main effect is not, as you maintain, character play, but a modification of how a character may be played? You have to be able to play the character before you can modify how the character is played.

This is the question I am asking. I'll dissect it for clarity.

1) The main effect of the card is only modifying how a character may be brought into play -- not enabling character play itself. Likewise Many Turns is only modifying a Hazard Limit -- not creating one.

2) Since Many Turns may not be played in the absence of a hazard limit to affect, how can Chance Meeting be played to modify character play in the absence of the ability to play a character?

Cards that specify a phase have no effect on this question -- such cards are enabled by their very text to be played when they specify they may be played.

In the absence of such specifications, a short-event may only be played if its effect is relevant and the conditions exist for its play.

[Konrad Klar]

1) It specifies a phase during which it may be played;
2) Minor and Major items are normally playable during the site phase; and
3) It then specifies altered conditions under which Minor and Major items are to be played.

ACM:

1) Does not specify during phase which it may be played;
2) Characters may be normally played during organization phase;
3) It then specifies altered conditions under which player may bring character in play.

"2) Minor and Major items are normally playable during the site phase"

It additionally depends on site.

How can you play a card whose main effect is not, as you maintain, character play, but a modification of how a character may be played? You have to be able to play the character before you can modify how the character is played.

I maintain that main effect of ACM is bringing character in play under conditions specified on card.

Chance Meeting does not specify when it may be played any more than Many Turns.

Have hazard limit in untap phase and you may play Many Turns in untap phase. I know that it is unusual situation.
But for instance creatures are usually played in M/H phase (revealed as on-guard in site phase), but Ready To His Will is not limited to M/H / site phase, thus may be used by Fallen Alatar in organization phase (less typical situations like The Hunt, The Great Hunt).

1) The main effect of the card is only modifying how a character may be brought into play -- not enabling character play itself. Likewise Many Turns is only modifying a Hazard Limit -- not creating one.

You are talking about ACM? I think that character is played immediately as main effect of this card.

2) Since Many Turns may not be played in the absence of a hazard limit to affect, how can Chance Meeting be played to modify character play in the absence of the ability to play a character?

Effect is not target, nor condition in any way. If it would be condition it would lead to mentioned before vicious circle. A Chance Meeting (in may opinion of course) creates action "play character" - single use ability.

In the absence of such specifications, a short-event may only be played if its effect is relevant and the conditions exist for its play.

Thus you make some addition to:

Clarification: Hazard short-events and permanent-events can be played only during an opponent's movement/hazard phase. Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn as limited by specific card text.

For your own responsibility.

[Jambo]

Just a few points:

* Konrad, you never mentioned anything about the case with Strider and Aragorn. Why? Please can you tell us your thoughts on how this works?

You are talking about ACM? I think that character is played immediately as main effect of this card.

* Surely the text of ACM or WHCtK would have then said something along the lines of:
"Immediately bring a character into play..." and not "A character may be brought into play..."

* Why are resource permanent events treated so differently to short events? Why aren't permanent events treated as a constant effect activated when the resource player wishes? E.g. the text on OttS is pretty much the same as ACM and WHCtK and, unlike Khamul and The Witch-king, it has no phase restrictions on the card for bringing the character into play.

Cheers

[Konrad Klar]

* Konrad, you never mentioned anything about the case with Strider and Aragorn. Why? Please can you tell us your thoughts on how this works?

Sorry, overlooked.
It falls into the same category as Open To The Summons or Thrall of The Voice in my opinion. Playing Straider does not make immediate action "play character". Nowhere on this card is written that this action may be taken in any time.
I disagree with Digest 14 (rather logic of Phial of Galadriel).
Seems like unwritten rule "replacing may be done in any phase", but nobody dare to refer to unwritten rule.

* Surely the text of ACM or WHCtK would have then said something along the lines of:
"Immediately bring a character into play..." and not "A character may be brought into play..."

Not necessarily. Compare it with Here, There, or Yonder. Playing ally is immediate action (you agree?) and no word "immediate" here.

* Why are resource permanent events treated so differently to short events? Why aren't permanent events treated as a constant effect activated when the resource player wishes? E.g. the text on OttS is pretty much the same as ACM and WHCtK and, unlike Khamul and The Witch-king, it has no phase restrictions on the card for bringing the character into play.

Simply: different rules for Short-events and Permanent-events.

Short-event - A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: "until the end of the turn").

Permanent-event - The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded.

However some permanent-events also makes immediate actions, not only "effects [that] last until the card is discarded" . (In case of short-event lasting effect is only when "e.g., some say: "until the end of the turn".)

When "action" and when "lasting effect" on permanents?
Problem is "ICE's legacy" i.e. ambiguous wording. In case of items, allies, factions distinction is unambiguous "playable" for lasting effect and "may be played" for action. In case of characters "may be played" "may be brought into play" for both.
Otherwise this discussion would be short (if any).

[Bandobras Took]

1) It specifies a phase during which it may be played;
2) Minor and Major items are normally playable during the site phase; and
3) It then specifies altered conditions under which Minor and Major items are to be played.

ACM:

1) Does not specify during phase which it may be played;
2) Characters may be normally played during organization phase;
3) It then specifies altered conditions under which player may bring character in play.

"2) Minor and Major items are normally playable during the site phase"

It additionally depends on site.

I apologize; I wasn't clear. We can't really compare Chance Meeting with Bounty because Items are normally playable during the site phase and Bounty has no chance to change that -- the phase during which it specifies it is playable is the same phase when items are normally playable.

Chance Meeting does not specify when it may be played any more than Many Turns.

Have hazard limit in untap phase and you may play Many Turns in untap phase. I know that it is unusual situation.
But for instance creatures are usually played in M/H phase (revealed as on-guard in site phase), but Ready To His Will is not limited to M/H / site phase, thus may be used by Fallen Alatar in organization phase (less typical situations like The Hunt, The Great Hunt).

But this is what I am saying: if the conditions exist for the play of a card, it may be played. If they do not exist, the card may not be played. Therefore, the difficulty is summed up in:

Problem is "ICE's legacy" i.e. ambiguous wording.

In the absence of such specifications, a short-event may only be played if its effect is relevant and the conditions exist for its play.

Thus you make some addition to:

Clarification: Hazard short-events and permanent-events can be played only during an opponent's movement/hazard phase. Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn as limited by specific card text.

Not me:

An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the player invoking the action.

You may not play a card which has no effect on the game.

Logically following both of these, Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill are only playable based upon the interpretation of the card text, which is ambiguous. It can be read as enabling character play, but it can also be read simply as modifying how a character can come into play.

Nevertheless, I'm glad we both agree that the Strider ruling is a blaring contradiction of something -- one way or the other.

[Konrad Klar]

It was quoted before by you.

Healing

Each of your characters at a Darkhaven may heal during the untap phase of your turn. Such a character moves from a wounded position to a tapped position. In addition, certain cards can heal characters when they are played (e.g., Foul Smelling Paste).

Therefore, the rules allow for card effects that heal characters outside of the Untap/Heal phase.

Nowhere is written, that some untapping cards/effects may be used outside untap phase. Funny, but Foul Smelling Paste may be played normally only in site phase. Is untap phase active condition for And Forth He Hastened?

In my opinion no.

[Konrad Klar]

Ach, I have found.

Clarification: Characters do not automatically untap when the audience is called. A character may only untap during his own untap phase.

So, is untap phase active condition for cards like And Forth He Hastened or no?

[Bandobras Took]

Good point.

On the other hand, as I've said, I'd have no problem if Chance Meeting read "A Character may be played. This character may be brought into play under DI etc."

A direct permission to play characters would be similar in my mind to a direct permission to untap, and playable for its effect. I just don't think that's the effect of Chance Meeting.

On the other hand "A character may not untap until this card is stored" -- does that mean the character untaps immediately after storing the card?

[Konrad Klar]

On the other hand "A character may not untap until this card is stored" -- does that mean the character untaps immediately after storing the card?

No.
"xyz may not take some activity" is prohibition of action, not action itself.
If it is not action, then it is lasting effect (if it is main effect of card).

"Play character" is mandatory, "you may play character" is not. Both may refer to the immediate action, only second to the lasting effect.


I know that it was quoted many times by me, but once again:

Short-event - A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: "until the end of the turn").

This is core of my understanding of ACM. If it would be "this turn", "during next organization phase" then yes - some possibility for later use is created, but other are still in force.

Compare it with Old Cache:

Playable on a company at a tapped Dark-hold [D], Shadow-hold [S], or Ruins & Lairs [R]. During the site phase, one or two characters in that company may each tap to take control of a non-unique, non-hoard minor item of the following type: Weapon, armor, shield, or helmet. You may take these items from your play deck (reshuffle if used), discard pile, and/or sideboard.

So company still must face automatic attacks, creatures on-guard, agent attack (if any), must be able to take any activity in site phase.

[Wacho]

I believe Old Road is only legal to play during the site phase, however it has the same type of language that ACM does, so to be consistent it should be able to be played anytime you are at a haven.

I think mechanism of this card is the same as ACM. I believe it may played in any phase.
If ACM would have phrase e.g "Playable during untap phase", then it would be explicite overriding rules. If resource short-event does not have such phrase it is equivalent of "Playable during any phase".
Of course, if Old Road would be restricted to site phase and ACM not restricted to organization then it would be inconsistency.

Here is the relevant ruling from digest #74 in regards to Old Road:

About old road, since it's a short event, can it be played at any time
during your turn if your are at a haven ?

***  No.  It must be played during your site phase.

I've been on vacation so I haven't looked this up sooner, but as I said Old Road is only playable during the site phase.

@Ben: I still think you're ignoring the fact that ACM doesn't really follow the rules the way it should. You can't look to it for consistency, but ICE ruled that it should be read one particular way and that's what we're left with. Other cards can be read more logically and consistently with the rules in that they specifically have to override a rule to break it.

[Konrad Klar]

Is not digest 74 de facto Card Erratum?