----------------
-------------Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm The difference is that active conditions do not have targets, since they are not actions, by definition. A card that is played on another card targets that card by rule. The argument is valid only so long as one assumes that Nenya is played on Galadriel.
As I said, I think that's too much of an assumption. There is at least one card that requires characters to be in play in order to be played: Await the Onset.
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:46 pmIt also requires having the characters.Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm As I said, I think that's too much of an assumption. There is at least one card that requires characters to be in play in order to be played: Await the Onset.
Alliance of Free Peoples requires a presence of some factions in play but does not require a having (controlling) them.
If not anything else then "Galadriel makes a corruption check..." targests Galadriel.
--------------------
--------------------CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:59 pmThis statement is so confused. Read the rules on active conditions and targets a few times.Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm The difference is that active conditions do not have targets, since they are not actions, by definition.
Yes, Galadriel is the target of the corruption check action. And so the entity of Galadriel is the active condition for the corruption check.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:46 pm If not anything else then "Galadriel makes a corruption check..." targests Galadriel.
But Galadriel is not the target of "Any one corruption check made by a character not in a Shadow-hold or Dark-hold is automatically successful." The corruption check itself is the target. Since this automatic-success action does not also have Galadriel as an active condition, then the card must have some other active condition targeting Galadriel in order to require Galadriel in order to play the card. And the card does have this playability requirement -- "Galadriel only." The playability conditions (Galadriel only) of Nenya targets Galadriel and so as the target, she becomes an active condition for playing the card.
Await the Onset has no active condition for the action of playing the card.
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:07 pmHaving something in play is example of former.CRF wrote:An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is
declared.
Contrary to the what "active condition" name may suggest a having something does not look especially active.
But you cannot declare Await the Onset without having some number of characters, factions, protected Wizardhavens, stage points.
And it will not be successfully played if at resolution you will not have them.
Such interpretation is possible. This means that Nenya may be only played in response to cc.
Other interpretation is analogy to Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees.
Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees cancels all attacks of the next non-unique hazard creature.
So it makes operation on entity that may potentially exist in future.
--------------------
------------------------CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:15 pmLooking at Await the Onset again, I realize that I was not looking at this same card before.
It means that the automatically successful corruption check can only happen in response to a corruption check. You can't play it up front and see what happens. If you do that you only get the attribute bonuses.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:07 pmSuch interpretation is possible. This means that Nenya may be only played in response to cc.
Nenya has other effects. Different effects can have different targets.
For Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees - Attacks are first resolved and then they can be canceled. So the effect can be triggered by a passive condition.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:07 pm Other interpretation is analogy to Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees.
Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees cancels all attacks of the next non-unique hazard creature.
So it makes operation on entity that may potentially exist in future.
How would Nenya's effect be triggered later? Would the corruption check declaration be the passive condition to trigger the automatic success? If so, the automatically successful action would be declared in the chain of effects after you already failed the check (or not).
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:29 am"Any one corruption check..."
If the cc would be target then "Corruption check..." would be sufficient.
Nenya's effect could be use later, not triggered, just like Master of Esgarroth's effect can be used later, but is not triggered.
"Any one" may be read as "of your choice".
Adunaphel the Ringwraith can tap to cancel one hazard creature attack not played at a site against any one of your companies.
If in this case "any one" would not extend possible targets, then this ability would be limited to attack against Adunaphel's own company.
How many hazard creature attacks not played at a site may be faced by company at Darkhaven?
-----------------------
---------------------------Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:36 pmI'm tired of the hypocrisy.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:59 pmThis statement is so confused. Read the rules on active conditions and targets a few times.Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm The difference is that active conditions do not have targets, since they are not actions, by definition.
By definition:
Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actionsNo action, no target.A target is an entity that an action is played out through.
Now kindly shut up.
---------------------CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:15 pm Brandobras, instead of picking and choosing two line out of context, go back and read "Events" (MELE p. 40, 41) "Actions and Card Play" (MELE p. 50), "Timing Rules" (MELE, p. 69), and the Glossary on Action, Declaring an Action, Resolving an Action, Chain of Effects, Targeting, Active Condition, and Passive Condition (MELE 87-91). It's only a few pages but it is dense.
-----
Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:04 pm The difference is that active conditions do not have targets, since they are not actions, by definition.By your statement -- an active condition of discarding a card does not target the discarded cardBandobras Took wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:36 pm By definition:Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actionsNo action, no target.A target is an entity that an action is played out through.
Now kindly shut up.
Discarding Card_B is a typical active condition for some other Action_A of Card_A. If you can't choose Card_B for the discarding action to be played out through (i.e., target Card_B), how would Card_B ever be discarded?
It's clear that active conditions can have targets. Tapping a card, discarding a card, targeting a card -- these Active Condition activities are all actions. ALL active conditions either HAVE targets or ARE targets.
Also, Active conditions ARE actions except they are defined to not be actions for the purpose of declaring and resolving actions in a chain of effects. Instead, the Active Conditions for Action_A are declared and resolved immediately out side of the chain of effects containing Action_A. This enables the games to create a "cost" for an action while also providing last-in-first-out timing rules. Taking one action is often the "cost" for another action (i.e., the active condition for some other action).
Merely requiring presence of some card "in play" without targeting the card can be a condition, but it is not an active condition. This means that the "in play" condition is not declared and resolved immediately outside of the chain of effects like an active condition would be.
-----------------------Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pmI would say so.You can choose Card_B (if there are multiple eligible) to discarding as condition of Action_A.
Without associated babble [for the discarding action to be played out through (i.e., target Card_B)].
If something is target of Action_A it must be present both at declaration and at resolution of Action_A.
If something must be both discarded at declaration of Action_A and is target of Action_A then you have a recipe for defunct Action_A (mission impossible).
It's clear that you are not trying (even briefly) to check what sense make the things you are writing, before posting them.
--------------------CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:04 pmThat's just incorrect. There is no way to perform any action without a target.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pmI would say so.an active condition of discarding a card does not target the discarded card
I guess you didn't go back and read the sections that I mentioned. Otherwise you would have noticed the official "babble" on targeting.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pmYou can choose Card_B (if there are multiple eligible) to discarding as condition of Action_A.
Without associated babble [for the discarding action to be played out through (i.e., target Card_B)].
If Card_B is discarded by a discarding Action_B, then Card_B IS the target of the discard Action_B. This is true whether the discarding action is an active condition of another action or if the discarding action is declared and resolved in the chain of effects.
This is a basic principle of the game. This is it is incorrect to say "discarding a card does not target the discarded card."
You must be referring to Annotation 8. But you are missing an important detail from the Annotations on Active Conditions that will explain your "mission impossible." Just read it a couple times. Let me know if you notice an important detail.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:15 pm (1) If something is target of Action_A it must be present both at declaration and at resolution of Action_A.
(2) If something must be both discarded at declaration of Action_A and is target of Action_A then you have a recipe for defunct Action_A (mission impossible).
HINT: check the list of sections that I posted.Even Brandobras knows it
-----------------------Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:48 pmExactly.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:15 pm Brandobras, instead of picking and choosing two line out of context, go back and read "Events" (MELE p. 40, 41) "Actions and Card Play" (MELE p. 50), "Timing Rules" (MELE, p. 69), and the Glossary on Action, Declaring an Action, Resolving an Action, Chain of Effects, Targeting, Active Condition, and Passive Condition (MELE 87-91). It's only a few pages but it is dense.
By your statement -- an active condition of discarding a card does not target the discarded card
Discarding is not an action. It is an active condition. You choose the card to be discarded by the active condition by . . . choosing the card. It is not a target.Discarding Card_B is a typical active condition for some other Action_A of Card_A. If you can't choose Card_B for the discarding action to be played out through (i.e., target Card_B), how would Card_B ever be discarded?
No.It's clear that active conditions can have targets. Tapping a card, discarding a card, targeting a card -- these Active Condition activities are all actions. ALL active conditions either HAVE targets or ARE targets.
I'll even go further:Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the "target" of the action.
Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).Wizard's River Horses, explicitly, by rule, discards events without targeting them.Spell. Wizard only. All Nazgul events are discarded
Targeting is not required to affect any entity in the game. An action which affects an in-game entity likely targets it, according to the restrictions on targeting. But active conditions are explicitly not actions.
No. They are prerequisites for actions. The definition for actions explicitly says they are not actions by noting the key difference.Also, Active conditions ARE actions except they are defined to not be actions for the purpose of declaring and resolving actions in a chain of effects.
Merely requiring presence of some card "in play" without targeting the card can be a condition, but it is not an active condition.The requirement that a card be in play most assuredly is an active condition. Or we can just go to the definition of a Condition, Active:CRF, Active Conditions wrote:An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared.
Please stop making up rules. Active conditions are specifically stated not to be actions in the definition of Action. Having a particular card in play is listed as an example of an active condition. Cards can be affected without being targeted.A prerequisite for an action actively made by a player. Typically this involves tapping a character, discarding an item, or having a character of a particular skill in play.
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:00 pm Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out.
This means as along it is not known what is "entity through which a card or effect will be played out", it is not known what is Targeting. And vice versa.
If someone is seeing everywhere entities through which a card or effect will be played out, he is seeing everywhere targets.
If each entity associated with action (tapped, discarded at declaration) is perceived as entity through which a card or effect will be played out, each will be considered a target.
Someone may not care that conditions "discard X at declaration" and "X must be present both at declaration and at resolution" cannot be reconciled. Maybe seldom ask himself about purpose in game of some terms.
-------------------------
-----------------------
CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:12 pmKonrad Klar wrote:.
If each entity associated with action (tapped, discarded at declaration) is perceived as entity through which a card or effect will be played out, each will be considered a target.
Only the one that gets tapped or discarded is THE target. Of course, there maybe be more than one valid target.
They can be reconciled. Don't summarize. Read the Glossary on Active Conditions and the CRF Annotations on Active Conditions again.Konrad Klar wrote:.
conditions "discard X at declaration" and "X must be present both at declaration and at resolution".
--------------------------
Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:58 amAnnotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.Reconcile away. There isn't much reconciliation there that I can see.Annotation 7: If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded.