Old Road

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Old Road

Post by Theo » Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:56 am
Making a resource playable at a site is less permissive than "resource may be played at site".
In first case all other conditions to play the resource must be fulfilled (site phase, untapped site, untapped character etc.).
"may be played" created by a card only checks for conditions of the card. Otherwise Bounty of the Hoard, Hoard Well Searched would allow to play minor or major item only if they are playable at the site (untapped site is altered by "already tapped site" and site that contains hoard is additional restriction, "Playable during the site phase" would be nothing more than redundant text).
To be sure I'm following, you are speaking to the two possibilities: "allows a _X_ to be played" and "a _X_ may be played"; the first must still satisfy normal rules for playing the X, but the second doesn't?

Regardless of arguments against the second, wouldn't this mean that Old Road---which uses the "allow" language---doesn't need errata since it would need to satisfy the other conditions of attempting to bring a faction into play?

---

I was instead asking (if continuing the drifting topic is ok) more about the multiple instances of "a _X_ may be played" that you would handle differently:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 12:00 pm
Yes. There is a problem. Despite an identical wording some cards cause immediate action, some not. The latter alter an action, when the action otherwise may be taken. Open to the Summons, Thrall of the Voice are examples of latter.
Thrall of the Voice has the phase restriction written in, so let's ignore that for now. A Chance Meeting and Open to the Summons have the wording "a _X_ may be played". But the difference you propose is that OttS is a permanent event instead of a short event, so that makes it less powerful? But permanent events can also be played in any phase, just like short events. And the effect allowing play is just as "immediate". Why should a momentary "may be played" (short event) be more powerful than a persistent "may be played" (permanent event)?
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 10:16 am
Resource short-event not restricted by its text to any phase may be played in any phase.
If it causes action that otherwise could be taken only in phase Y, it effectively removes a restriction that the action may be taken only in phase Y.
My question is: what rules source encourages the idea that short-events are special? A Chance Meeting has the same written effect as Open to the Summons, and it no more "causes" the character to be played than the other---in both cases it is a "may".
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.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue May 22, 2018 8:30 pm

Theo wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm
Thrall of the Voice has the phase restriction written in, so let's ignore that for now. A Chance Meeting and Open to the Summons have the wording "a _X_ may be played". But the difference you propose is that OttS is a permanent event instead of a short event, so that makes it less powerful? But permanent events can also be played in any phase, just like short events. And the effect allowing play is just as "immediate". Why should a momentary "may be played" (short event) be more powerful than a persistent "may be played" (permanent event)?
Theo wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm
My question is: what rules source encourages the idea that short-events are special? A Chance Meeting has the same written effect as Open to the Summons, and it no more "causes" the character to be played than the other---in both cases it is a "may".
This is the rules source:
Lidless Eye wrote:Short-event - A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: "until the end of the turn").
A Chance Meeting does not specify any period.
Theo wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm
To be sure I'm following, you are speaking to the two possibilities: "allows a _X_ to be played" and "a _X_ may be played"; the first must still satisfy normal rules for playing the X, but the second doesn't?
No.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Old Road

Post by Theo » Fri May 25, 2018 8:01 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 8:30 pm
This is the rules source:
Lidless Eye wrote:Short-event - A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: "until the end of the turn").
I don't think this section means that long and permanent events' effects are any less immediately implemented, but simply that the short event effect is momentary unless otherwise a period is given. I remain in disfavor of your belief that short events effects should be more powerful than those of other events.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 8:30 pm
Theo wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:56 am
Making a resource playable at a site is less permissive than "resource may be played at site".
To be sure I'm following, you are speaking to the two possibilities: "allows a _X_ to be played" and "a _X_ may be played"; the first must still satisfy normal rules for playing the X, but the second doesn't?
No.
Mysterious. Second guess: "make a _X_ playable" rather than "a _X_ may be played"? But I believe there are zero short events that "make a _X_ playable," so no examples to reinforce this distinction. In my mind, playability and play are distinct, so it seems awkward to compare their permissibility. Playability is an attribute so creates no permissibility in and of itself; play is a mechanic that, in part, governs how playability interacts with intent.

In that vein, neither the rules nor cards state that factions are only "playable" during the site phase, so an effect making them playable during another phase would be meaningless. The rules do state that factions "must be played" during the site phase. An effect that causes a faction to be played during other phases has meaning (Hour of Need). While Old Road itself is playable during any resource phase, it merely relaxes the requirement that factions can normally only be played at a site that they list as playable (and modifies the mechanism for their roll test)---without any mention of relaxing the required phase that is about as explicit as possible in the rules.
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.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri May 25, 2018 9:20 pm

Theo wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 8:01 pm
I remain in disfavor of your belief that short events effects should be more powerful than those of other events.
Did I say that short-events effects are more powerful than those of other events?
What I try to say is that if short-event says "you may make an action X" then you may make the action X when the short-event is resolved (and before is discarded). You does not must an you cannot wait for phase in which the action is otherwise allowed.
What differ us (as I understand) is that, in my opinion, resource short-event does not need explicitly state that it may be played in any phase. If resource short-event allows for action otherwise possible only in site phase and is not limited by its text to given phase, it is not limited to site phase.
Default that should be taken into account is that resource short-event may be played in any phase of its player turn. Default that should not be taken into account is the phase in which the action otherwise may be taken.
Theo wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 8:01 pm
Mysterious. Second guess: "make a _X_ playable" rather than "a _X_ may be played"? But I believe there are zero short events that "make a _X_ playable," so no examples to reinforce this distinction. In my mind, playability and play are distinct, so it seems awkward to compare their permissibility.
Probably there are no short-events that make something playable at site. There are resources that may be discarded to make Information playable at given site. They may be discarded in any phase.
And it does not mean that a cards that require Information playable at site may be played in any phase.
Theo wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 8:01 pm
In that vein, neither the rules nor cards state that factions are only "playable" during the site phase, so an effect making them playable during another phase would be meaningless.
If something is otherwise not playable at given site, the effect that makes it playable at the site is not meaningless.
Theo wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 8:01 pm
The rules do state that factions "must be played" during the site phase. An effect that causes a faction to be played during other phases has meaning (Hour of Need). While Old Road itself is playable during any resource phase, it merely relaxes the requirement that factions can normally only be played at a site that they list as playable (and modifies the mechanism for their roll test)---without any mention of relaxing the required phase that is about as explicit as possible in the rules.
Default that should be taken into account is that resource short-event may be played in any phase of its player turn. Default that should not be taken into account is the phase in which the action otherwise may be taken.
There are no resource-short events that say that they may be played in any phase of its player turn. There are resource-short events that allow for actions otherwise possible in site phase, but are still limited by their text to site phase.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Old Road

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon May 28, 2018 2:46 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 9:20 pm
There are no resource-short events that say that they may be played in any phase of its player turn. There are resource-short events that allow for actions otherwise possible in site phase, but are still limited by their text to site phase.
Most actions/effects enabled by short-events are not limited by rule to a specific phase, so the lack of indication on those short-events is irrelevant.
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon May 28, 2018 10:49 am

Few resource short-events that are limited by their text to site phase create actions otherwise limited to site phase.
Old Road is not limited by its text to any phase but allows for playing a faction that is limited to site phase.

If resource short-event would be played only in phase in which an action created by it may otherwise be taken, then presence of phrase "playable during site phase" in text of the few resource short-events is not explicable. Lack of of the phrase in text of Old Road does not allow to play it outside site phase. And "Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn as limited by specific card text." is victim, because "as limited by specific card text" is meaningless. After all it is always overridden by limitation of action that the events create.

According to such approach the fact "There are no resource-short events that say that they may be played in any phase of its player turn" indeed does not prove anything; maybe ICE never planned to issue such card. Still "playable during site phase" in text of Bounty of The Hoard etc. is not explicable; or may be explained as a redundancy.

P.S.
If there is a controversy whether some animal is a cow or a cat,
someone may say that this is very little cow, does not give a milk,
because not each cow gives milk.
And just because the cow is so little and does not give a milk,
it is mistaken for a cat.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Old Road

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon May 28, 2018 1:52 pm

Konrad writes:
If some ruling is de facto an errata (for a card/rule), it is a good reason to make an errata (to the card/rule).
Leaving such state as is retains the ruling invalid.
Are you still sure it is an erratum though, after this lengthy discussion, and not a clarification?
And what should be the final text of the proposal, as it seems to me it was also ruled (clarified) that Old Road is played at an untapped site, and that the site will tap upon successful play of the faction.

If we feel Old Road must state explicitly it is played at an untapped site by an untapped character, this suggests the normal rules for making an attempt to bring a faction into play are completely ignored, and that Old Road is some sort of separate case, then it must even say that the character must tap I suppose.
Personally I'm not in favour of this approach at all.

The main point here is: what should people vote for?
If you vote against the proposal, what do you get? The status quo is still that the ruling stands, so voting yes or no is without any real consequence.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon May 28, 2018 3:38 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 1:52 pm
Are you still sure it is an erratum though, after this lengthy discussion, and not a clarification?
No. I'm not sure.
I think that it is either wrong ruling, or errata.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 1:52 pm
And what should be the final text of the proposal, as it seems to me it was also ruled (clarified) that Old Road is played at an untapped site, and that the site will tap upon successful play of the faction.
"Tap character at a Haven [-me_fd-] during site phase. The character makes attempt to bring a faction into play (reveal the faction with the card). The length of the site path from this Haven to the site at which the faction can be played must be two or less (this must be verified by an available site card). The influence check for this attempt is modified by -1 and is not modified by the influencing character's direct influence."

(previously it was "Playable on a untapped character at a Haven [-me_fd-]", but to preserve a timing of influence attempt "Tap character at a Haven [-me_fd-]" is more appropriate [I want the influence attempt to be modifiable by effects like Lordly Presence, and playing the Old Road should be synonymous to influence attempt, allowing to reveal On Guard card in response])
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 1:52 pm
If we feel Old Road must state explicitly it is played at an untapped site by an untapped character, this suggests the normal rules for making an attempt to bring a faction into play are completely ignored, and that Old Road is some sort of separate case, then it must even say that the character must tap I suppose
"The length of the site path from this Haven to the site at which the faction can be played must be two or less (this must be verified by an available site card)."

implies that a faction is not played at the Haven. It is played by character at the Haven. In my opinion.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 1:52 pm
The main point here is: what should people vote for?
If you vote against the proposal, what do you get? The status quo is still that the ruling stands, so voting yes or no is without any real consequence.
My proposal offers a clear timing. I do not know how to play cards like Lordly Presence to affect the attempt according to current rulings. And I do not know whether it is possible to reveal On Guard in response to Old Road (attempt but not Old Road potentially taps the site). Because in my proposal playing Old Road is synonymous to declaring an influence attempt, cards like Lure of Power, or Times are Evil may be revealed.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Old Road

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon May 28, 2018 8:15 pm

playing the Old Road should be synonymous to influence attempt, allowing to reveal On Guard card in response
Agreed, and I've already written the erratum proposal in such a way as to make this clear. But we like to make clear for the voters what the consequences are of voting against the proposal, and in this case it seems I can only say that the status quo reflects an unclear situation then, in which you may or may not use cards like Lordly Presence and on-guards?

Why does the standard not work: "Playable on a character at a Haven. Tap character to attempt to bring a faction into play..."
"The length of the site path from this Haven to the site at which the faction can be played must be two or less (this must be verified by an available site card)." This implies that a faction is not played at the Haven.
Hmm, I think you're reading too much into this wording. The bolded part left out the word "normally", and as the following line (in parentheses) implies, it is just there for the verification of the legality of the faction in relation to the Haven.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon May 28, 2018 9:11 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 8:15 pm
But we like to make clear for the voters what the consequences are of voting against the proposal, and in this case it seems I can only say that the status quo reflects an unclear situation then, in which you may or may not use cards like Lordly Presence and on-guards?
Plus that current rulings contradict with rule "Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn as limited by specific card text.".
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 8:15 pm
Why does the standard not work: "Playable on a character at a Haven. Tap character to attempt to bring a faction into play..."
If playing of Old Road has to be synonymous with declaration of influence attempt then tapping of character should be made at declaration and revealing a faction too. If character would tap to attempt as main effect then the playing of Old Road will not be such synonymous.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 8:15 pm
Hmm, I think you're reading too much into this wording. The bolded part left out the word "normally", and as the following line (in parentheses) implies, it is just there for the verification of the legality of the faction in relation to the Haven.
'The bolded part left out the word "normally" ' is a fact.
Rest is an interpretation.

Consider a scenario when Morgul Night is in play and Old Road is played using character at Rivendell.
Then Wild Hounds is nowhere playable (and cannot be played without additional effects*), although it is normally playable (and normally may be played without additional effects) at Weathertop, or at Ettenmoors.
I think that a person that would try to play in such situation the Wild Hounds read too less from this wording.

*) Röac the Raven
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Old Road

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon May 28, 2018 9:32 pm

If character would tap to attempt as main effect then the playing of Old Road will not be such synonymous.
Yes I know this line of reasoning, though I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but in other cases you seem to resolve this by changing 'to' into 'and.' Not 'tap to', but 'tap and make an influence attempt'. Does this alter your concept of 'main effect?'
although it is normally playable (and normally may be played without additional effects) at Weathertop, or at Ettenmoors.
But normally also refers to the situation without the use of Old Road. I would say that is where it primarily refers to. Not sure where I stand on the Wild Hounds example, but such an issue seems to have been irrelevant at the time of creation of Old Road. If normally is too ambiguous, one could use "otherwise"?
Interpretation is often all we have...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon May 28, 2018 10:10 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 9:32 pm
Yes I know this line of reasoning, though I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but in other cases you seem to resolve this by changing 'to' into 'and.' Not 'tap to', but 'tap and make an influence attempt'. Does this alter your concept of 'main effect?'
In which cases?
If condition would be untapped character and "tap and make an influence attempt" would be main effect, then the playing of Old Road will not be synonymous of declaration of influence attempt. (if influence attempt is declared a character taps at declaration).
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 9:32 pm
But normally also refers to the situation without the use of Old Road. I would say that is where it primarily refers to. Not sure where I stand on the Wild Hounds example, but such an issue seems to have been irrelevant at the time of creation of Old Road. If normally is too ambiguous, one could use "otherwise"?
Right. "to the site at which the faction can be played" may be interpreted as "to the site at which the faction otherwise can be played".
Even then if resource short-event does not specify "untapped site" as its condition, the condition does not exist.
Independently, if successful attempt is considered as made at the site (and not against opponent's faction), then the site should be tapped (if not tapped already).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

dirhaval
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Old Road

Post by dirhaval » Tue May 29, 2018 5:13 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 10:49 am
If resource short-event would be played only in phase in which an action created by it may otherwise be taken, then presence of phrase "playable during site phase" in text of the few resource short-events is not explicable. Lack of of the phrase in text of Old Road does not allow to play it outside site phase.
Then how do you explain An Forth He Hastened? Who will only think that METD card is playable only during the Untap phase?
Do I get points for mentioning a card associated with a recent release of a Tolkien book?


It is true that there is not a minion version of Old Road. Why is that? If I received a message, threat, from a nearby Ringwraith, then I know what side my bread is buttered. Scorba Roused comes to mind. Too me that means Old Road was not meant to bypass the dangers of travel supporting the play only during the site phase (i.e. move to the site instead of a haven with healing and safety, but tap a character during the site phase instead of using the haven as a de facto site without an automatic attack).

I think that Old Road cannot be used to play a faction playable at the haven since a haven is its own nearest haven, thus no site path and thus voids the use of the card with the similar reason Old Road is not playable at wizard-havens. I wonder if anyone has had success with an Old Road/Great Road (Mordor man faction) deck and only have one site phase at a non-haven site using Here,There, or Yonder plus Look More Closely Later at a site such as the Wind Throne. "Hit the Road"

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Old Road

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Tue May 29, 2018 9:35 am

Help me out and save me some time, where exactly can this rule (or ruling) be found:
"Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn as limited by specific card text."

Your current (last) proposal does still mean that the Haven site must tap? I do not want to sneak in another overturning of a ruling.
This is primarily about the timing and about the making of an influence attempt (and anything resulting from it). If a Wild Hounds can be Old Roaded at a tapped Haven that is 1 thing, but rather not the Riders of Rohan (even if untapping a Haven is not a big thing).
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue May 29, 2018 10:30 am

dirhaval wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 5:13 am
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑
28 May 2018, 11:49
If resource short-event would be played only in phase in which an action created by it may otherwise be taken, then presence of phrase "playable during site phase" in text of the few resource short-events is not explicable. Lack of of the phrase in text of Old Road does not allow to play it outside site phase.

Then how do you explain An Forth He Hastened? Who will only think that METD card is playable only during the Untap phase?
This is the problem of those who support the notion. Maybe they are consistent.
dirhaval wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 5:13 am
I think that Old Road cannot be used to play a faction playable at the haven since a haven is its own nearest haven, thus no site path and thus voids the use of the card with the similar reason Old Road is not playable at wizard-havens.
Good point.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 9:35 am
Help me out and save me some time, where exactly can this rule (or ruling) be found:
"Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn as limited by specific card text."
Lidless Eye, Starter Rules, Playing and Drawing Cards, Events
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 9:35 am
Your current (last) proposal does still mean that the Haven site must tap? I do not want to sneak in another overturning of a ruling.
Still? I do not think that the faction is played at Haven, but also I did not make any changes that would support the notion.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”