A Plethora of Questions....

[Bandobras Took]

Another example of ICE's sloppy wording; attacks are not declared and resolved in a chain of effects. They simply exist, as noted. ICE did not use "resolved" in that CRF entry in the sense of a chain of effects, but rather in the generic sense of having solved a problem/conflict.

Concealment can't be played until the creature card resolves because until then, an attack does not exist. A creature card creates an attack; creating the attack is an action concurrent with the play of the card. The attack itself is not an action (any more than a character's prowess is an action) -- it is a description of the strikes a company must resolve.

[Konrad Klar]

They simply exist, as noted.

The attack itself is not an action (any more than a character's prowess is an action) -- it is a description of the strikes a company must resolve

Makes a sense.
Facing of attack may be action that has beginning and end.

Concealment can't be played until the creature card resolves because until then, an attack does not exist.

I agree and I did not say otherwise.
What I'm trying to say is that Concealment may be played only at the moment when executing of the creature did not end.
Creature card has been resolved and now there is an attack that is faced*.
Or short-event that creates attack has been resolved and now there is an attack that is faced*.

Short-event will not be discarded until the actions described in Annotation 12 will be done. Right or not right?

A creature card creates an attack; creating the attack is an action concurrent with the play of the card.

Not "concurrent with resolving of the card"?


Anyway, another scenario with "nested" chain.

Player A declares Smoke Rings.
In response Player B declares Cruel Caradhras (it does not create an attack, only strikes, so it is legal).

Cruel Caradhras resolves and now each character in company will face a strike.
Any action declared in strike sequence will be an action that is declared in middle of resolving "Smoke Rings - Cruel Caradhras" chain of effects.
And it is not be a part of "Smoke Rings - Cruel Caradhras" chain of effects.
Chain in chain.

*) not necessarily by company. Attack may be faced by agent if creature has been played in result of Hidden Knife.

[Bandobras Took]

We're treading further and further into the morass of sloppy wording.

Playing a card is the process of bringing a card into play. A card is not in play until it resolves in its chain of effects. Therefore, concurrent with the play of card is the same thing as concurrent with the card resolving.

I'm not sure why you maintain (if I've understood correctly) that Concealment may be played only at a moment before the creature card resolves (I think that's what "executing of the creature did not end" means -- I'm not certain what you're trying to say). Cancelling an attack is a means of facing it.

I like your Cruel Caradhras example -- another reason why timing rules and cards need work.

[Konrad Klar]

I'm not sure why you maintain (if I've understood correctly) that Concealment may be played only at a moment before the creature card resolves (I think that's what "executing of the creature did not end" means -- I'm not certain what you're trying to say). Cancelling an attack is a means of facing it.

I'm not maintaining that "Concealment may be played only at a moment before the creature card resolves".
I said before:
"What I'm trying to say is that Concealment may be played only at the moment when executing of the creature did not end."
(was my previous post "write only" ?)

The card where this process is better visible than in case of creature card is Tidings of Bold Spies.

Playable on a company moving to a site with an automatic-attack. This card creates one or more attacks on the company, the total of which duplicates exactly (including modifications) all automatic-attacks at the site. These attacks must be faced immediately and are not considered automatic-attacks.

Moment when player declares Concealment to cancel 1st attack is moment when the card Tidings of Bold Spies is resolved but execution of Tidings of Bold Spies (and whole chain in which the card was declared) did not end. When execution of Tidings of Bold Spies is finished then the card is discarded.

I do not know whether it is obvious (for me it is), but "action is resolved" is not the same as "action is completed".
Moment when a card resolves in its chain is the moment when actions specified in the card text start executing. Short-event card is not instantly discarded when it resolves.


Returning to the Far-Sight.

It is always easy to screw some thing than to unscrew the thing.
Because person who screwed is an authority (author of the game) and person who is trying to unscrew is not authority (just player), the unscrewing must be done with reverence.
Usually this means that it must be checked, whether some text (suspected of being screwed) has any chances to work as is, and if it has - how it works.

And now I must repeat myself.

- if both "Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where 'Information' is playable." and "Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck..." would be active conditions of Far-Sight, then it does not have a chance to work.

- if "Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck..." are not active conditions of Far-Sight then it has some chance to work, although in unusual way.
Possibility that I see is that one of actions of Far-Sight is: declaration of "search" action. In this case "Tap the sage and the site" are active conditions of the "search" action. When Far-Sight resolves the action "search" is declared (site and sage are tapped as its condition), resolves, then next action (cc of sage) resolves.

- last possibility I see (my favorite): "Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck" is screwed text. Instead it should be "Tap the sage and the site. Search through your play deck...". Then the card would be working just like All Thought Bent Upon It is working.

Declaration of other declaration (or declaration of action that starts another chain) is thing without precedence. I think that there is an agreement in that question.
Moot point (as I see it) is whether declarations may be done in middle of resolving chain of effects at all. In other words: whether it is possible that one chain of effect is started in middle of resolution of other chain of effects.

Rules explicitly allow for that in some circumstances.

Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card
itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the
card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions
may be declared to occur between these multiple actions.
The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse
order as they are printed.
(amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the
effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of
its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation
18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).

These restrictions have been relaxed by later errata and are now:

When facing an automatic-attack, you may play resources that directly affect the attack or would otherwise be playable during the strike sequence. The same applies for facing attacks created by cards with multiple actions.

So declarations made in middle of other resolving chain of effects are things that happen anyway.

All underlines mine.

[the JabberwocK]

Well gentlemen,

I have a bit of a headache following all of this conversation, since I am no rules expert like the 2 of you.

However, I do think I'm picking up some good morsels and learning.

In regards to Far Sight, can we all agree that the card should be played as intended? Certainly ICE did not make a card which would fizzle itself. We can be absolutely certain that was not their intent.

Is there any gathering of players in the world, tournament or casual, who doesn't allow Far Sight to be played "as intended"?

Why not just errata the exact wording on the card text.... why has the CoE not already done this?

Let's accept that Mr. Klar's favorite interpretation is in fact the case:

- last possibility I see (my favorite): "Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck" is screwed text. Instead it should be "Tap the sage and the site. Search through your play deck...". Then the card would be working just like All Thought Bent Upon It is working.

.... and thus we just need a small errata to eliminate the confusion.

Any objections?

After all, let's not let the tail wag the dog. The rules should supplement and support the play of cards in a way that makes logical sense, not the other way around.

[Bandobras Took]

Oh, it should, it should.

I think I understand what Konrad is saying; I was misunderstanding it before.

[the JabberwocK]

3) Rebel Talk - If at the end of my organization phase my characters exceed my allowed GI due to a hazard played on one of them (eg. Rebel Talk), do I get to decide which character I bounce back to my hand?

Conditionally; you must first return to your hand any characters that were played during the organization phase. Then you discard any characters until all characters are controlled by influence.

Instead of bringing a new character into play during your organization phase, you may discard a character that is at a Darkhaven or at his home site. Your Ringwraith may not be discarded. You must take this action when you are forced to discard a character due to a lack of available influence. In this case, the characters need not be at a Darkhaven.

Underline mine.

For this reason the whole scenario "What if I play a new character first from my hand during my Organization phase?" is not valid. In organization phase you may either play a character, or discard a character. If you do not have an enough influence to control a characters you must do latter. You may not do former.

Just to be clear.... the initial response above from Mr. Took is impossible, due to the later clarified rule which is summarized above by Mr. Klar.
There is not a situation where you could first return a character you played that turn to hand, and then discard any characters not controlled by influence. Because you would have to pick one or the other up front. Correct?

It may be best to just quote the CRF and Rulebook:

A character removed from the control of direct influence outside the organization phase does not need to be controlled by general influence until that player's next organization phase.

Just to clarify, this character does still affect my General Influence immediately, even though he isn't required to currently be controlled by GI, correct? For example, if my opponent plays a Rebel Talk on one of my characters and follows it up with a Muster Disperses. The character who has the Rebel Talk is now being considered for the Muster Disperses GI calculation, correct? Additionally, can my GI calculation go into the negative, beyond 0?
So if I was using all 20 points of my GI and my opponent played a Rebel Talk on Elladan who was under the DI of Elrond, and then followed it up with Muster Disperses, would my calculation for the Muster Disperses "unused general influence" be 0 or -4?

8] Am I correct that you do not have to enter the site (and face automatic attacks) in order to play
cards like The Windlord Found Me, Dreams of Lore, or any other non-item, non-faction, non-ally cards which don't specify that you must enter the site to play them?

No, you are not correct. To play any resource in the site phase, you must first face the automatic-attacks by entering the site.

Do you mean in order to play any resource that taps the site? If I arrive at the site, but don't want to enter the site, I can play resources such as A Chance Meeting, etc. without facing auto-attacks, correct?

Tapping of Akhorahil may take place during combat - before strikes are assigned, or between strike sequences.
Players are very limited with that what they can do during strike sequence and what they can declare in response to a body check. Tapping of Akhorahil does not fit in that limits. Using (discarding) of Miruvor does not fit too.

So I play a Cave Drake and choose Aragorn and Haldir to face the strikes. Strikes have been assigned now, but no strike roll has been made. I may now use Akhorahil's ability to modify Aragorn or Haldir's body attribute right before either of their respective strike rolls are to be made?

[Konrad Klar]

Just to be clear.... the initial response above from Mr. Took is impossible, due to the later clarified rule which is summarized above by Mr. Klar.
There is not a situation where you could first return a character you played that turn to hand, and then discard any characters not controlled by influence. Because you would have to pick one or the other up front. Correct?

I think so (wait for Bandobras answer).

Just to clarify, this character does still affect my General Influence immediately, even though he isn't required to currently be controlled by GI, correct?

No. Like an ally, the character is controlled by player, but not by GI, and obviously not by DI.

Changes to general influence take place immediately, with a minimum of zero free
general influence.

If I arrive at the site, but don't want to enter the site, I can play resources such as A Chance Meeting, etc. without facing auto-attacks, correct?

A company cannot do anything in site phase if it does not enter a site.
However "company" is not "player".
There are actions/cards that do not require any activity of company, do not require a character with certain skills, or do not require a company at all.
A Chance Meeting does not require any activity of company and does not require a character with certain skills.

For the record:

[...]
I am overturning this ruling in CoE digest 14:
---
"9. When a card such as River or Lost in Free Domains is played which
states that "it [the company] may do nothing at the site during its site
phase," does this mean the player can't even play permanent events like,
say, Gates of Morning? The rationale for the question was that the
company isn't doing it: it's not a card that uses a character's skill or
something a character is attempting to play. However, (and I didn't
remember this reasoning during the game) I don't think even perm events
like Gates would be allowed because nothing can be played in the site
phase unless the company enters the site, and the company can't do this
because it "may do nothing." But this wouldn't prevent the player from
playing said events during the end of turn phase, right?
*** The "company" may do nothing during the site phase. Nothing stops
the player from playing cards that don't require the company in any way
such as Gates of Morning but you can always play that during the end of
turn phase so it's moot."
---
*** This is incorrect. If a company is forced to do nothing during a
site phase, the site phase for that company is wholly skipped. There is
no opportunity to play anything.
[...]

This ruling negates a difference between player and company. It also leads to undefined situation when there are unrevealed on-guard cards that need be returned to hand at the end of site phase.
I disagree with the ruling.

So I play a Cave Drake and choose Aragorn and Haldir to face the strikes. Strikes have been assigned now, but no strike roll has been made. I may now use Akhorahil's ability to modify Aragorn or Haldir's body attribute right before either of their respective strike rolls are to be made?

Tapping of Akhorahil may take place during combat - before strikes are assigned, or between strike sequences.

What I said is true but it is not whole truth. I do not know a rule or reason for which taking of actions would be generally forbidden after strikes have been assigned. Particular types of actions are forbidden (canceling of attack, changing number of strikes).
Thanks for noticing it.

[Bandobras Took]

Rules Erratum: You may play a character even if you do not have enough influence to control them. However, if there are any characters you do not have the influence to control at the end of your organization phase, the character you brought into play this turn must be returned to your hand.

This is a rules erratum; it takes priority over rules as printed in the rulebook. No matter what else happens, the character must be returned to your hand.

Clarification: if you do not have enough influence to control all of your characters in play, they remain in play. However, you must discard any excess characters at the end of your next organization phase. If you bring a character into play during your organization phase and then do not have enough influence to control him, the character just brought into play must be returned to your hand at the end of your organization phase.

The rule that it overrides is italicized. It has no impact on the fact that you must always discard excess characters at the end of your organization phase other than the obvious one.

DISCARDING CHARACTERS
Instead of bringing a new character into play during your organization phase, you may discard a character that is at a Darkhaven or at his home site. Your Ringwraith may not be discarded. You must take this action when you are forced to discard a character due to a lack of available influence. In this case, the character(s) need not be at a Darkhaven.

Having to discard a character because of a lack of GI happens at the end of the organization phase. Bringing a character into play despite a lack of influence may be done at any time during the organization phase. That same character, if there are any characters you do not have the influence to control at the end of the organization phase, must be returned to your hand. This applies even if your first discard other characters to reduce your influence at the end of the turn.

Let me know if I have misunderstood the question.

[Konrad Klar]

If:

You must take this action when you are forced to discard a character due to a lack of available influence.

refers to:

However, you must discard any excess characters at the end of your next organization phase.

then at the end of organization phase two things may happen:
1. "if there are any characters you do not have the influence to control at the end of your organization phase, the character you brought into play this turn must be returned to your hand."
2. "you must discard any excess characters"

If the actions must be taken in that order then actually: if there are any "excess characters", then character played in that organization phase must be returned to hand even if it is controlled by DI (i.e. even if the new character is not one of "excess characters").

If the actions do not must be taken in that order then: the newly played character may remain in play, if after discarding "excess characters" there is no "any characters you do not have the influence to control".

[Bandobras Took]

That depends on how you interpret "at the end of the organization phase."

[the JabberwocK]

Bandobras -

I think you misunderstood my question.

Your earlier comment in this thread (quoted in my last post) stated that if a character was played during the organization phase and ANY characters exceeded GI, then that character must be returned to hand at end of organization phase.

Later in this thread's discussion it was stated that you must decide in advance whether you will play a character OR discard a character, and you may not do both. If you exceed allowed GI, you MUST choose the latter and not the former. Thus you may not play a character during organization phase if you currently exceed allowed GI.

So my question is:

How can your statement ever actually take place that you return a character to hand since he should never have legally been playable to begin with?

Thanks,

Jabber


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Konrad Klar]

That depends on how you interpret "at the end of the organization phase."

I think that it depends on something else.
Player may take various activities at "the end of the organization phase" . Player may play Hiding, Washed and Refreshed, Stealth, Secret Passage, Secret Entrance. And must discard/return to hand "excess characters". All at "the end of the organization phase".

Is there "one action per the end of the organization phase" limit?
If no, then e.g. ability to play Secret Entrance will depend on order in which the activities are taken. If player will decide that he will discard "excess characters" he may not be able to play Secret Entrance later, if last eligible sage was one of "excess characters".
If last eligible sage is one of "excess characters", then player will be able to play Secret Entrance, if he will do it before discarding "excess characters".


Although following errata does not state it clearly, I think that:

Rules Erratum: You may play a character even if you do not have enough influence to control them. However, if there are any characters you do not have the influence to control at the end of your organization phase, the character you brought into play this turn must be returned to your hand.

makes sense only if returning a "new" character to hand will be done before discarding other remaining "excess characters".

In such case it will prevent from happening a situations like: playing character for which there is no enough influence to control it, shifting other character from under DI under control of GI, shifting "new" character under DI, and finally, at the end of the organization phase, discarding one of "old" characters under controll of (insufficient ) GI and preserving "new" character.
Such exchange was possible according to original rules. Since that errata that requires at least two organization phases (one to voluntary discard one of "old" characters, next to play "new"), or to manage accident in which "old" character will be discarded outside of organization phase.

And now what is inevitable.
Admitting errors.
I was totally wrong on this topic, especially since http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... 104#p23104,
where I agreed to something I did misunderstand.

Later in this thread's discussion it was stated that you must decide in advance whether you will play a character OR discard a character, and you may not do both. If you exceed allowed GI, you MUST choose the latter and not the former. Thus you may not play a character during organization phase if you currently exceed allowed GI.

I was stating so and just that was my misunderstanding.

[the JabberwocK]

Just to clarify, this character does still affect my General Influence immediately, even though he isn't required to currently be controlled by GI, correct?

No. Like an ally, the character is controlled by player, but not by GI, and obviously not by DI.

Changes to general influence take place immediately, with a minimum of zero free general influence.

Konrad -
Thanks for your reply. So in my example above using Musters Disperses - the character would immediately cease to be controlled by direct influence but he also would have no affect whatsoever on general influence calculations until the following organization phase. The character is temporarily in kind of a no man's land where he isn't using of affecting either general or direct influence (like an ally as you mentioned). Correct?
I understand now that the lowest general influence value is 0, thank you.

If I arrive at the site, but don't want to enter the site, I can play resources such as A Chance Meeting, etc. without facing auto-attacks, correct?

A company cannot do anything in site phase if it does not enter a site.
However "company" is not "player".
There are actions/cards that do not require any activity of company, do not require a character with certain skills, or do not require a company at all.
A Chance Meeting does not require any activity of company and does not require a character with certain skills.

For the record:

[...]
I am overturning this ruling in CoE digest 14:
---
"9. When a card such as River or Lost in Free Domains is played which
states that "it [the company] may do nothing at the site during its site
phase," does this mean the player can't even play permanent events like,
say, Gates of Morning? The rationale for the question was that the
company isn't doing it: it's not a card that uses a character's skill or
something a character is attempting to play. However, (and I didn't
remember this reasoning during the game) I don't think even perm events
like Gates would be allowed because nothing can be played in the site
phase unless the company enters the site, and the company can't do this
because it "may do nothing." But this wouldn't prevent the player from
playing said events during the end of turn phase, right?
*** The "company" may do nothing during the site phase. Nothing stops
the player from playing cards that don't require the company in any way
such as Gates of Morning but you can always play that during the end of
turn phase so it's moot."
---
*** This is incorrect. If a company is forced to do nothing during a
site phase, the site phase for that company is wholly skipped. There is
no opportunity to play anything.
[...]

This ruling negates a difference between player and company. It also leads to undefined situation when there are unrevealed on-guard cards that need be returned to hand at the end of site phase.
I disagree with the ruling.

Konrad -
Thanks again. So that I am clear here, the current official ruling is that the company's site phase is skipped entirely if they do not choose to enter the site. Is this correct? Who is the person or entity that overturned this rule?

So I play a Cave Drake and choose Aragorn and Haldir to face the strikes. Strikes have been assigned now, but no strike roll has been made. I may now use Akhorahil's ability to modify Aragorn or Haldir's body attribute right before either of their respective strike rolls are to be made?

Tapping of Akhorahil may take place during combat - before strikes are assigned, or between strike sequences.

What I said is true but it is not whole truth. I do not know a rule or reason for which taking of actions would be generally forbidden after strikes have been assigned. Particular types of actions are forbidden (canceling of attack, changing number of strikes).
Thanks for noticing it.

Konrad -
Ok, so using Akhorahil after strikes are assigned seems to be allowed, but clearly not once any dice rolls have been made, correct?

And now what is inevitable.
Admitting errors.
I was totally wrong on this topic, especially since http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... 104#p23104,
where I agreed to something I did misunderstand.

Later in this thread's discussion it was stated that you must decide in advance whether you will play a character OR discard a character, and you may not do both. If you exceed allowed GI, you MUST choose the latter and not the former. Thus you may not play a character during organization phase if you currently exceed allowed GI.

I was stating so and just that was my misunderstanding.

Konrad -
I want to be sure I am understanding what is happening in regards to understanding this rule. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you were mistaken about having to choose in advance whether to play a character or discard a character during your organization phase? IF SO, is my example below allowed? -
- Elrond, Glorfindel and Elrohir at a site during organization phase.
- Elrohir was under Elrond's DI during the previous turn but he now has a Rebel Talk on him.
- At the beginning of my organization phase, I choose to play Elladan from my hand under Elrond's DI.
- At the beginning of the end of my organization phase I have a GI exceedance. I now must discard a character to resolve this. I choose to discard Elrohir who is carrying the Rebel Talk.
- Now at the end of my organization phase, I check the following rule:

Rules Erratum: You may play a character even if you do not have enough influence to control them. However, if there are any characters you do not have the influence to control at the end of your organization phase, the character you brought into play this turn must be returned to your hand.

.... now I am not breaking this rule currently so Elladan will be allowed to stay in play. Yes? No? I'm crazy? Back to the beginning?

I feel the conversation on this ruling is going in circles and I'm not sure where we stopped at a clear answer. Lol. =)

I guess I am still confused as to what the correct answer is. =(
Konrad - if my above example is not what you are meaning by saying that you made an error and had a misunderstanding, then what are you saying? What is the takeaway from your error/misunderstanding? Thanks

Thanks in advance gentlemen for any additional light you can shed on the matter.

[Konrad Klar]

The character is temporarily in kind of a no man's land where he isn't using of affecting either general or direct influence (like an ally as you mentioned). Correct?

Yes.

Ok, so using Akhorahil after strikes are assigned seems to be allowed, but clearly not once any dice rolls have been made, correct?

And not in strike sequence. Unless character uses body instead prowess against strike e.g. when facing strike from Dragon's Breath.

- Elrond, Glorfindel and Elrohir at a site during organization phase.
- Elrohir was under Elrond's DI during the previous turn but he now has a Rebel Talk on him.
- At the beginning of my organization phase, I choose to play Elladan from my hand under Elrond's DI.

As far this is almost OK. Almost because "I choose to play Elladan from my hand under Elrond's DI." is done just in "organization phase" not "At the beginning of my organization phase". Actions taken at the beginning/end of a phase are actions taken before/after other actions allowed in the phase will be/were taken.

At the end of organization phase some other actions may, or must be taken. One of mandatory actions is discarding a characters if there is not enough influence to control them.

Now it is interpretation, what exactly happens at this point.
"However, if there are any characters you do not have the influence to control at the end of your organization phase, the character you brought into play this turn must be returned to your hand." must be done first, before any "exceed characters" will be discarded.

Justification of that interpretation:
If player would be allowed to first discard "exceed characters", and in second step to perform "the character you brought into play this turn must be returned to your hand." then the player would very easily avoid that second step. Both before and after errata. Just because after discarding "exceed characters" his influence would be enough to control all characters he has in play (no need to discard/return any other character at this point).

In other words the player would be able to make "exchange", exposing on discarding unwanted character and preserving newly played character. The operation that otherwise requires discarding "old" character and then playing new character, so requires two organization phases (unless the player will manage a situation where unwanted "old" character will be discarded not voluntarily, e.g. in result of corruption check).

Before errata the player was able to make such exchange legally, placing newly played character under DI. Only purpose the errata is to prevent such exchange from happening. If "the character you brought into play this turn must be returned to your hand." and discarding "exceed characters" could be performed in any order, then the errata would be purposeless.