Errata: Placing Corruption Cards

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Errata: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Theo »

Proposal:

Declaring effects which include an action of placing a corruption hazard with a character count as declaring the play of a corruption card on the character. In particular, corruption cards must be playable on the character to declare and implement the effect that includes the placing action, and successful placement prevents additional corruption cards from being played on (or placed with) the character for the rest of the turn.

---

Current wording of rules could be interpreted to allow corruption cards to be placed with cards that normally could not have corruption cards played on them (such as Ringwraiths), as well as allow any number of placements of corruption cards in addition to a played corruption card in the same turn.

Placement-based corruption cards include:
Morgul-Knife
The Pale Sword
Black Breath
Icy Touch

Inspired by the Icy Touch proposal.

[update 1:] Many rules use the phrase "play" when they intend to encompass declared/activated abilities of cards already in play. Because placement of cards causes those cards to continuously target who they are placed on, the "play" of the placement effect could be considered a play of a corruption card.

[update 2:] However, accepting this looser basis for "play" seems like it would have many other damaging repercussions. I do not believe that effects that manipulate cards in play should count as the play of those cards for rules interpretations purposes.
Last edited by Theo on Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by the JabberwocK »

Lidless Eye Rulebook - Corruption Cards
A character may have more than one corruption card, but only one may be played on him each turn.
How bout a more simple rule erratum:
Lidless Eye Rulebook - Corruption Cards
A character may have more than one corruption card, but only one may be played or placed on him each turn.
(changes in bold)

Also, perhaps this is opening up too large a can of worms, but what are the notable drawbacks to universally making "played = placed"? I know cards like Master of Shapes, etc. would benefit from such a change.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Theo »

Your proposal (ignoring the can of worms for now) leaves an awkward state with Icy Touch wording. Without the additional verbiage of something like my proposal, a character on whom a corruption card has been already placed (but not played) would be eligible as "the next" target of Icy Touch. But then under your proposal, the placing action would be disallowed, and Icy Touch would need to be discarded.

Under my proposal, you'd skip such a character and Icy Touch could be placed on another later-wounded character.

Also, your wording does not solve the problem of Icy Touch being placed on characters upon whom corruption cards cannot be played.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Theo »

I suspect your can of worms would break many things. The CRF defines Play as being from your hand by default. All cards that have placement effects after already being in play would need errata. Thrall of the Voice and Open to the Summons are some examples that come to mind. Lots of Fallen Wizard avatar-specific stage resources.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by the JabberwocK »

Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:01 am
I suspect your can of worms would break many things. The CRF defines Play as being from your hand by default. All cards that have placement effects after already being in play would need errata. Thrall of the Voice and Open to the Summons are some examples that come to mind. Lots of Fallen Wizard avatar-specific stage resources.
Ok, so dropping the can of worms then.... just thought it was worth bringing up.
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:56 am
Your proposal (ignoring the can of worms for now) leaves an awkward state with Icy Touch wording. Without the additional verbiage of something like my proposal, a character on whom a corruption card has been already placed (but not played) would be eligible as "the next" target of Icy Touch. But then under your proposal, the placing action would be disallowed, and Icy Touch would need to be discarded.
I don't understand. How would my verbiage allow a character to be eligible as "the next" target of Icy Touch, when only 1 corruption card may be placed or played on each character per turn? That character would not be eligible to receive Icy Touch (due to already having a corruption card played or placed on him that turn) so Icy Touch would look for the next available target, or be discarded.
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:56 am
Also, your wording does not solve the problem of Icy Touch being placed on characters upon whom corruption cards cannot be played.
Ughh.. I feel this is going pretty far into the mud, but understand your point. Obviously corruption cards may not be played (or placed) on Ringwraiths. They simply cannot be corrupted.

In general, I feel there are so many instances of played vs placed that appear on card texts, that it may be better to simply approach these with reasonable common sense while playing MECCG, rather than attempt to fix them all. :roll: :?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by CDavis7M »

This is a good issue to fix. But I think it makes more sense to clean up the cards and provide any clarifications to the cards. Because the play of the card will cause this issue to arise and a player will look up the rules based on the particular card.

If a general rule seems better, the problematic cards should at least be given a reference to the updated general rule.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Bandobras Took »

the Jabberwock wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:21 pm
In general, I feel there are so many instances of played vs placed that appear on card texts, that it may be better to simply approach these with reasonable common sense while playing MECCG, rather than attempt to fix them all. :roll: :?
Unfortunately, reasonable common sense has a hard time following reason, and is anything but common.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Theo »

the Jabberwock wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:35 am
Lidless Eye Rulebook - Corruption Cards
A character may have more than one corruption card, but only one may be played or placed on him each turn.
the Jabberwock wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:21 pm
How would my verbiage allow a character to be eligible as "the next" target of Icy Touch, when only 1 corruption card may be placed or played on each character per turn? That character would not be eligible to receive Icy Touch (due to already having a corruption card played or placed on him that turn) so Icy Touch would look for the next available target, or be discarded.
Your verbiage only changes the restrictions on the playing (+placing) action. It does not change Icy Touch's mechanism for selecting the target of its placing, which is only based on previous corruption card playing (not previous corruption card placing). So while a character might not be able to have a second Icy Touch placed on him in a turn, the second Icy Touch would not know that when it decides that it should declare its placement action. It seems reasonable (to me) that the placement action would then fizzle, but "the next" available character was already determined and no additional character could be the target of a new placement action.

At least, this is a reasonable premise from their use of "The next available character ... receives..." rather than "When a character is ..., they receive...".
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:10 pm
Current wording of rules can be interpreted to allow corruption cards to be placed with cards that normally could not have corruption cards played on them (such as Ringwraiths), as well as allow any number of placements of corruption cards in addition to a played corruption card in the same turn.
The ICE Netrep disagrees. They did not see any difference between "playing" or "placing" a corruption card on a character: of course Morgul-knife may not be "placed" on a character if Lure of Nature was already "played" on them that same turn.

Image

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3445
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Konrad Klar »

It is good when a letter of rules becomes matching an intention of authors of the rules.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Theo »

This is making me consider a new angle that I hadn't before.

Many points of the rules use the phrase "play" when they intend to encompass declared/activated abilities of cards already in play. I think it is a terrible confusion, but such is the rules wording available to us. So while I still believe that a placement action is (with good reason) distinct from a play action, activating the effect which has a placement action in it may be considered "play" of that effect (and action). And because placement of cards causes those cards to continuously target who they are placed on, the play of the placement effect could be considered a play of a corruption card.

Perhaps it will only be me, but I find this reasoning completely satisfying, and helpful. I am updating this proposal to be a "clarification" rather than an "errata". If others find it helpful, perhaps it can be of service to the Council.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3445
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:53 am
I am updating this proposal to be a "clarification" rather than an "errata".
A little step toward popularization of fuzzy logic.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Theo »

Can you be more specific about which aspects you find fuzzy here?
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3445
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by Konrad Klar »

Blurring a difference between ruling and rule.

Some statements may be concluded from existing rules and texts of cards. The statements deserve for "clarification" status.
Some statements may not be concluded from existing rules and texts of cards. They may be even a reconstruction of intent of authors of the rules, but the rules themselves say otherwise. The statements deserve for "errata" status.
The Lidless Eye: Something Has Slipped
Hazard: Permanent-event

Playable on a company. If a character in the company becomes wounded, the prowess of each character in the company is modified by -2 for the rest of the turn. Discard this card during its organization phase if the company is at a [-me_dha-] . Cannot be duplicated on a given company.
The -2 applies for each character that is wounded. Wounding an ally triggers this
card. You cannot "become wounded" if you are already wounded before the strike.
The "Wounding an ally triggers this card." * from CRF entry for Something Has Slipped if treated as "clarification" is an offence of Boolean logic.
Becoming wounded does not necessarily involves combat situation (in which allies count as characters).

*) Why "Wounding an ally triggers [effect of] this card." and not "Becoming wounded by an ally triggers [effect of] this card" is other question. And example of situation where difference between "being wounded" (that may happen for already wounded character/ally/agent) and "becoming wounded" becomes blurred.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Clarification: Placing Corruption Cards

Post by CDavis7M »

Except these definitions of "clarification" and "errata" are different from ICE's definition of those same terms (See Companion).

Even statements that may not be concluded from existing rules and texts of card were classified as "clarifications" under ICE's interpretation.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”