maker's map and secrets of their forgering

[Leon]

The Worthy Hills is just a special case where the site can not tap and it overrules other things. Somewhere along the discussion changed to playing cards on tapped sites or characters, which is a more general problem.

[Bandobras Took]

Now do you have any example of a card which states tap a site or tap a character that should not be treated as if this is a requirement of the card or are you going to claim that the cards I listed before are playable on tapped sites and characters if it is not stated clearly otherwise. Because in that case it will concern at least 20 cards in the game, but probably way more that you can abuse.

To Satisfy the Questioner states that it is playable on an untapped character at a free hold.

There is no action of this card other than to tap the character and the site.

If you say that tapping a character is a requirement for card play (and that is the only possible action for an active condition with to satisfy the questioner), then the chain of effects goes like this:

1) You declare the card targetting an untapped character;
2) The active condition kicks in on declaration, tapping the character;
3) The card resolves and checks once again for a valid target -- an untapped character. Surprise, the character has already tapped. The card fizzles itself and is never playable.

Unless you'd like to claim that a target's validity is only checked on declaration, this is precisely how such cards must work if you claim that tapping the character and the site is an active condition for play of the card.

And you cannot claim that tapping the site and character is a condition of one of the card's effects -- the card doesn't have any other effects.

If the phrase "Tap the character and the site" is not a condition of To Satisfy the Questioner, then it is not a condition of any cards unless it is directly (and I'm afraid merely showing up on the same card is not enough) linked to an action.

I've given a sufficient example of this difference with Far Sight vs. All Thought Bent On It. Far Sight (as I've said quite a few times) has as a condition of its searching effect that you tap the character and the site.

All Thought's searching effect has no condition attached to it. Tapping the Sage and the Site and the corruption check are different effects.

I mean, a card can have multiple effects.

[Leon]

I know a card can have multiple effects but usually all of those must be fulfilled the card or it is stated that there is a choice between effects. Any card for which not all effects can be fulfilled should either be unplayable or have some errata. More specifically, I think that in order to play a card that says tap a character or tap the site needs an untapped character or site to be played.

If I follow your logic I would be able to play To Satisfy the Questioner at a tapped site.

To Satisfy the Questioner C (3) Permanent-event
Playable during the site phase on an untapped character at a Free-hold. Tap the character and site. No marshalling points are received and the character may not untap until this card is stored at a Darkhaven during his organization phase.

[Wacho]

And you cannot claim that tapping the site and character is a condition of one of the card's effects -- the card doesn't have any other effects.

Wrong. The effect of this card is to give the player 3 miscellaneous MPs. Tapping is a cost of getting these MPs. To understand active conditions you have to look at what is the purpose of the card. In this case the purpose is to provide 3MPs. Tapping your character and the site is the cost of gaining those MPs. Now you as a player might play this card in order to burn down the Free-hold with Smoke on the Wind, however, this doesn't mean the purpose of the card is to tap the site. You can't consider other cards or effects when looking at what the cost or purpose of a card is. Going back to Darkness Under Tree, the purpose of the card is to tap a character. That is the whole point of playing the card, so that is not a cost or a restriction on play. Also the card is a hazard. How could tapping the character be a cost or a restriction for the hazard player?

It seems to me you are deliberately confusing costs and effects. It isn't really that hard to figure out. Look at what the purpose of the card is. Now look at what you have to do to achieve that. For cards such as Far-Sight and All Thought Bent Upon It the purpose is to allow you to search through your deck and grab an item. In order to do that you must tap the site and sage. While the wording is slightly different the meaning is exactly the same.

[coro]

The Worthy Hills is just a special case where the site can not tap and it overrules other things. Somewhere along the discussion changed to playing cards on tapped sites or characters, which is a more general problem.

I can not see why a site that doesn't tap overrules the requirement of an active condition (taping the site) for playing maker's map and other information cards. I would say that the worthy hills limitates the use of some information cards instead.

edited:
I've seen that the CRF aclaration is from ICE, as nobody from ICE can answer this, I've nothing more to say. For me it's clear that tapping characters and tapping site are active conditions in all cases except the worthy hills.

[Konrad Klar]

It seems to me you are deliberately confusing costs and effects. It isn't really that hard to figure out. Look at what the purpose of the card is. Now look at what you have to do to achieve that.

Whole discussion indicate that it is really hard to figure out what is active condition and what is not.
I don't believe that term "costs" is determinant here. It changes from situation to situation and from player to player (Can you say that existence of Gates of Morning in play is cost of playing Fog? Who pays this cost? ). It is not technical approach. Sometimes even tapping/discarding as active condition may be useful and main effect is undesired effect.

[Bandobras Took]

And you cannot claim that tapping the site and character is a condition of one of the card's effects -- the card doesn't have any other effects.

Wrong. The effect of this card is to give the player 3 miscellaneous MPs. Tapping is a cost of getting these MPs.

No, storing the card gives the player three miscellaneous MPs. The card itself doesn't do one single thing when played except tap the character and the site.

Will you say that tapping the character and the site is an active condition of receiving +2 to rolls required to move between Under-Deeps sites in the case of Maker's Map? That's a bit difficult since the site will be discarded by the time you use Under-Deeps movement.

It seems to me you are deliberately confusing costs and effects. It isn't really that hard to figure out. Look at what the purpose of the card is. Now look at what you have to do to achieve that.

Yes, this is the crux of the matter. One side of the issue is confusing costs and effects. I would say that you're generalizing. Active conditions are the costs of specific actions, not cards. Gaining MPs is not an action. Card play is only one of many possible actions. For any given action, there can be a cost associated with it. In the case of cards such as Far Sight, tapping the character and the site is a clear and unambiguous cost of searching for a card. In the case of All Thought, there is no cost associated with searching for an item -- tapping the character and the site is just one of the effects after the card resolves. In the case of both to Satisfy the Questioner and Maker's Map, tapping the character and the site is not an active condition because there is no possible action that requires it.

While the wording is slightly different the meaning is exactly the same.

The wording is completely different. That's like saying that Orc Stealth can be used by Hobbits in FW deck because the wording is only slightly different than Halfling Stealth.

If I follow your logic I would be able to play To Satisfy the Questioner at a tapped site.

Resource events do not generally require an untapped site. This may vary according to card text.

Yes, that is precisely the point I am making.

[Bandobras Took]

For me it's clear that tapping characters and tapping site are active conditions in all cases except the worthy hills.

Here's another good one, then: Foul Trophies.

Playable on an untapped Orc or Troll character in a company that has just defeated an attack by Elves, Dwarves, Dunedain, or Men. Tap the character. Discard this card to modify another attack by Elves, Dwarves, Dœnedain, or Men against the character's company. The attack is reduced to one strike with +3 prowess and -2 body. Only one Foul Trophies may be so discarded against a given attack.

I think it's already established that tapping the character can't be a condition of playing the card if an untapped character is the condition of playing a card.

What are we tapping the character in order to do?

It can't be to modify the attack; you discard the resource as an active condition to modify the attack. Tapping the character is an effect of the card. Not an active condition.

[Konrad Klar]

How about Burglary?

Tap a character to make a burglary attempt at a site in lieu of facing its automatic-attacks. Tap the site and make a roll (or draw a #) modified by +2 if the character is a scout and by +3 if he is a Hobbit. If the result is greater than 10, an item normally playable at the site may be played with the character. If the attempt fails, the character must face all automatic-attacks alone.

"Tap the site" is in the same verse as "make a roll (or draw a #)" (which is obviously main effect).

[Bandobras Took]

After a long debate about To Satisfy the Questioner on meccg.net, Miguel found this from the MELE Rules:

Certain resource cards other than items, allies, and factions are playable during the site phase and state the conditions under which they may be played. Such a card only requires an untapped site if it states that the site taps when played.

By rule, cards which tap a site require an untapped site.

That's a lot better than trying to say tapping a site is an active condition.

So now, we're only left with the problem of a card which taps a character and does not require an untapped character.

The only one of those I can think of offhand is Ringlore.

Sage only, only playable at a site where "Information" is playable, and only if a character in his company has a Gold Ring. Play to test a Gold Ring. No roll (or draw) is used. The player may replace the Gold Ring with any ring from his hand (except for The One Ring). Playable only during site phase. Tap the sage and the site.

Should we perhaps ask the NetRep whether the resource rule above should be made a general ruling -- if a card taps an entity, it requires an untapped entity, whether or not such is an active condition?

[Leon]

Should we perhaps ask the NetRep whether the resource rule above should be made a general ruling -- if a card taps an entity, it requires an untapped entity, whether or not such is an active condition?

That is certainly the solution I am looking for. My arguments in the discussion did not say active conditions and such because I do not know the CRF etcetera good enough.

[Konrad Klar]

Should we perhaps ask the NetRep whether the resource rule above should be made a general ruling -- if a card taps an entity, it requires an untapped entity, whether or not such is an active condition?

Extending term "untapped site" to "untapped entity"? What next? "playable during the site phase" to "playable in any phase"? Eh... This rule says only about requirement of untapped site, non-(item, ally, faction) resource and only during site phase.

[Leon]

I think so far the discussion has been almost exclusively about requirements for characters and sites to be untapped. A rule is found for sites and it is suggested that this is extended to other types of cards. Please do not start complaining we are broadening a rule too much without giving specific examples where this rule would be really a bad idea.

I think the rule suggested by Brandobras can really make a whole lot of cards clearer and we can deal with further problems as they come up.

[Konrad Klar]

I would prefer clarifications for some card (only some of them are not precisely written). It is much safer than making general rule.

[Leon]

I can make you a list of at least 20 cards that would become clearer with this ruling and probably a whole lot more so I think a ruling is more important here than some errata. Also consider the amount of discussion that there has been on this point here.