Röac the Raven

[Konrad Klar]

@Theo: An Active Condition is a requirement that must be met in order to declare an action. Such a thing must be established when an action is declared, and must still be the case when the action resolves, else the action fizzles.

Exception is an active condition that is discarding a card (from play, or from hand). It is checked only at declaration.

[Theo]

@Theo: An Active Condition is a requirement that must be met in order to declare an action. Such a thing must be established when an action is declared, and must still be the case when the action resolves, else the action fizzles.

This is unfortunately one of the largest areas where ICE was none too clear in their wording. What's more, some cards list active conditions for their play (playing a card is an action) and active conditions for their actual text, and these can be contradictory (as an example, Far-sight requires an untapped site for its play and a tapped site for its "search the deck action," which means that at some point during the chain of effects the site must be both tapped and untapped at the same time. ).

The current official interpretation is that discarding your wizard is an active condition for the play of Sacrifice of Form.

Thanks.

Why would it be important to make the discard in Sacrifice of Form a condition rather than a consequence of activation?

To my reading Far-Sight doesn't require a tapped site, it causes the tapping of the site (or requires the player to tap the site, if you prefer). I feel like you are implying that once that occurs the reader would need to start over at the beginning and again check that the site is untapped (which it now isn't, so the card wouldn't be allowed to be played). I would instead read everything up until the card begins to dictate how to resolve it as being requirements, which once checked (a single time), start the resolutions.

It seems deliberately paradoxical to require that resolutions be performed prior to requirements of those resolutions are met, as in the case of discarding as an active condition. "Discard" is a verb, implying how to resolve the card. In contrast, "discarded" would be a state and could be part of a requirement.

Hrumph.

[Bandobras Took]

If a wizard is discarded as an active condition, it will happen when SoF is declared.

If, on the other hand, it is an effect of the card, it will happen when SoF resolves. This allows the declaration of any other actions which would require the wizard in response to the declaration of SoF.

An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved. An action may not be declared if its target is not in play.

Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where "Information" is playable. Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent.

The condition for play of the card is Sage at Untapped site. Condition for searching is tapping the sage and the site. Both are checked at declaration and resolution. At some point, there's going to be an issue.

Hrumph.

Very well put.

[Konrad Klar]

Issues with Far-Sight was discussed some time ago at this forum. Because the topic is risen again I only remind my opinion.

I think that Far-Sight has been carelessly written, anyway even in its current form the card may work, albeit in some unusual way.

Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where "Information" is playable. Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent.

Bold original, underlines mine.

Both underlined phrases look like a conditions. If they would have been fulfilled at the same time, then there would be a conflict.
It is not possible to have an untapped site (at declaration and resolution) and tap the same site to something at the same time.
I think that instead "Tap the sage and the site to" "Tap the sage and the site." should be used.

The solution that allow the card to work anyway is nested chain of effects (chain inside other chain).
I have not coined this term. It is used in CRF (Annotation 19), and it happens in many situations in game.
E.g. when attack card resolves (but before its execution completes) players may declare other actions (e.g. actions that affect the attack, but they are not limited to such actions).

In such situation both conditions are not conflicting, because they do not need to be fulfilled in the same time.
And even net result of the card is the same as it would be if text would be "Tap the sage and the site.", not "Tap the sage and the site to".
The card works internally in different way (needlessly complicated) than card with text "Tap the sage and the site."

About Sacrifice of Form.
Current ruling is nonsensical. I do not see other reasons to maintaining it other that pride and prejudices of its creators.
Any action XYZ only requires presence of the XYZ both at declaration and at resolution.
If a Wizard would be discarded at declaration, then at resolution there would be no Wizard, thus also no Wizard's company, no attack against Wizard's company, and no items controlled by Wizard.