On-guard Time Travel?

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
Locked
miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

On-guard Time Travel?

Post by miguel » Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:37 am

Some on-guards seem to create a weird timing issue, sort of a time warp. I am referring to certain short-events, which instead of setting up some type of condition (e.g. Greed) have an immediate impact when they are resolved. For example the corruption check from Weariness of the Heart.
Weariness of the Heart wrote:The prowess of a character is modified by -1 until the end of the turn. Alternatively, the target character is forced to make a corruption check. Cannot be duplicated.
There was some discussion about the item/ally/faction chains here, I will use that as a basis for the following chain:

<start chain>
(i) tap character to declare the play of an item and place that item with the character*
(ii) opponent may reveal on-guard per rules because the company played a resource that potentially taps the site
<nothing more is declared, chain begins to resolve>
(iii) item is (succesfully) played: tap the site
<end chain>

*item is not considered in play until it has resolved

Now let's say at (ii) opponent uses on-guard Weariness of the Heart to induce a corruption check.
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: On-Guard Cards wrote:A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.
Normally a corruption check is declared, you can respond by tapping in support and playing cards, then the chain unwinds and at the CC resolution dice are rolled. According to the CRF quote however, here the CC has already resolved prior to the current chain, which essentially means the dice have already been rolled. So it looks like there is no chance to support this CC? So a chain with Gloin playing Durin's Axe would look like this:

<start chain>
(i) Gloin taps to declare the play of Durin's Axe and it is placed with Gloin (but Axe is not considered in play yet)
(ii) opponent reveals Weariness of the Heart for a corruption check, the dice are rolled immediately in the middle of this chain (CPs from Axe do not count)
(ii') If Gloin failed the check he is eliminated/discarded, Axe is discarded and the chain ends, otherwise continue with chain as normal
<nothing more is declared, chain begins to resolve>
(iii) Axe is (succesfully) played: tap the site (Axe is now considered in play)
<end chain>

Does that make sense?

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: On-guard Time Travel?

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:34 pm

cc from Weariness of the Heart precedes declaration of playing item.
So if there is no character that taps to play item the whole declaration is not correct.
I would opt for rollback - incorrectly declared cards should return to hand (or to place from they were coming).

P.S.
Weak (because no technical) argument - it would be small compensation for inability to respond to the declaration of on-guard.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: On-guard Time Travel?

Post by miguel » Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:43 pm

Ran into a sort of relevant example, underline is mine.
METW Unlimited Rules wrote:Example: After visiting Thranduil's Halls, Jessica's company moves to The Lonely Mountain. During her movement/hazard phase, Jason places a card on-guard. The card is Awaken Denizens, but Jessica does not know that. This card doubles the # of strikes for an automatic-attack at a Ruins & Lairs site.
During her site phase, Jessica states that her company will face The Lonely Mountain's automatic-attack (a Dragon, 1 strike with a prowess of 14). Jason reveals his on-guard card and the automatic-attack becomes 2 strikes with a prowess of 14 each. Jessica's company must face this attack (it may be canceled.
Suppose Jason had placed a Cave Drake on-guard. Then Jessica's company would have to face the automatic-attack and then the Cave Drake.
Suppose Jason had placed a Weariness of the Heart on-guard. Then, if Jessica's company successfully faced the automatic-attack and played an item, Jason could reveal the Weariness of the Heart to force any one character in the company to make a corruption check.
They just make a check, no backsies. Could it be treated as a nested chain though, where you could support the check? Weariness on-guard is even included in the examples of the rulebook, so it's business as usual? :?

Edit: Why do I feel this has been discussed before?

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: On-guard Time Travel?

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:23 pm

It is not clear whether "successfully" applies only to the "faced the automatic-attack", or both to the "faced the automatic-attack" and "played an item".

Of course, they made check. Why not?
Regardless of such or another timing Weariness of the Heart causes a corruption check.

Sorry. I do not see a point.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: On-guard Time Travel?

Post by miguel » Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:50 pm

Sorry, I know my thought process is sprawly, putting stuff out there helps me think :oops:

I just realized why it's 'business as usual'. It was an example under the old on-guard rules! I underlined the relevant part.
Ye Olde Rules wrote:PLACING A CARD ON-GUARD
During the movement/hazard phase of your opponent's turn, you may place one card on-guard for each of your opponent's companies. This card is played face down next to the company's new site or next to its current site if it did not move. Any card can be placed on-guard (i.e., it does not have to be a hazard, you can bluff). Such a card does count against the hazard limit for the company it is placed on.
The card will remain on that site until one of the following occurs:

· The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. If the on-guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack, it may be revealed before the automatic-attack is resolved. If it is a hazard creature, it will attack after the automatic-attack is resolved.
· The company plays a card keyed to the site. If the on-guard card is a non-creature hazard, it may be revealed if it is a hazard that directly affects the company or a character in the company (e.g., a hazard that forces all characters to make a corruption check).
· Otherwise, return the card to your hand at the end of the site phase.

In the first two cases, the card is handled as if it had been played during the movement-hazard phase (i.e., short-events are discarded, long-events last until your opponent's next long-event phase, etc.).
The underlined section was replaced by:
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: On-Guard Cards wrote:A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.
So... Yeah. I can't remember anyone ever playing it (or a card creating a similar issue) on-guard against me, and I have certainly never done it myself. Perhaps the people making the new on-guard rule referring to the chain of effects etc. just forgot about cards like Weariness? Honestly I'm not quite sure how Weariness should have been handled even under the old rules, but I have a feeling you should be able to support the check.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: On-guard Time Travel?

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:43 pm

People are doing many strange things. Common practice, for example, is tapping in support to 1st cc from Lure of Nature, then (if character with Lure of Nature is still in play), tapping another character in support. Instead of tapping all characters assigned to support in response to all cc from the Lure of Nature.
But who care about people?

If you want to make a deal with people and want to encourage them to respecting rules, then make errata to the "declared and resolved immediately".
In current state an on-guards causing cc are so powerful as would be a corruption cards if they could be played in response to cc.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: On-guard Time Travel?

Post by miguel » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:13 am

Yeah I think an amendment to the "declared and resolved immediately" CRF entry would be necessary. I mean, the entry works really well for all the other cards, right? It's just with short-events like Weariness that create an action instead of a condition where the timing fails. So cards like that should be dealt with in another manner, probably give them their own chain of effects that needs to be resolved right away, even in the middle of another chain (or something similar)? Are there any other cards with this problem than the few short-events forcing a CC?

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”