Old Road

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Old Road

Post by Theo » Sun May 20, 2018 7:50 am

I still didn't observe you mentioning whether or not you think Old Road should require the character making the influence attempt to tap. Presumably no? Or otherwise I think you cede my point about default rules needing to be explicitly overwritten.

Furthermore, these rebuttals feel unsatisfying. I believe that you believe them, but at this point it sounds more like wishful thinking. Some in particular:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 5:42 pm
The procedure itself is phase-agnostic (there is nothing particular in site phase that would allow a character to tap and take played item under its control).
Except the MELE p42 rule I quoted before stating that these cards "must be played during your site phase." Or what am I missing here?
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 5:42 pm
If to assume that Old Road allows to play a faction at [-me_ha-], then the text does not make a sense. Because now a some faction may be played at [-me_ha-] it would turn out that "The length of the site path from this Haven to the site at which the faction can be played**" is always zero. This effectively would allow to make attempt to bring any faction into play.

So no. The faction cannot be considered to be played at this [-me_ha-].
It sounds like you are confounding where a faction is played with where a faction card lists that it can be played. Indeed, Old Road allows the play of any faction by a character at a Haven. It replaces the requirement "at the site specified on a faction card" (requirement (c) in previous post) with "at a Haven".
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 5:42 pm
Because not restricted by its text a resource short-event may be played in any phase of its player turn, any action that happens in its result may happen in phase in which the event is played.

I would not expect from most resource short-events, and resource permanent-events a containing of phrase "playable in any phase". This would be absurd redundancy.
I am not saying Old Road couldn't be played whenever you want. There is the matter of the rule that you can't play cards for no potential effect. But enabling a player to skirt 1 of 5 requirements when the other 4 requirements for a mechanic aren't met is at least a potential effect in my mind, since it is conceivable that other cards might be played that allow the other 4 requirements to be satisfied or otherwise avoided. So go ahead and play Old Road any time you could play any resource, but don't expect to get a faction out of it.
="Konrad Klar" wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 5:42 pm
Unlike factions, items, allies, that may be played only in site phase, factions, playing a characters is not limited by rules to organization phase.
Except that it is: the "Bringing Characters Into Play" section. There is a rulebook exception to this section in the form of character influence attempts, which have a number of other stipulations.

---

Consider what your desired high-allowance interpretation would mean for cards beyond those we've already discussed:
Items could be played at Tharbad at any time. (And it doesn't specify what type of item so greater all you want! Except this would be too absurd for anyone... right?)
Burat, Tuma, and Wuluag could be played during any phase in the turn one of the others is played.
Rumours/Whispers of Rings could play rings at will.
Roac the Raven allows the play of a faction at any time. Perhaps this makes thematic sense? Oh wait, this was "fixed" with errata.
Gwaihir: could move any time, except more errata.
Ringlore: errata.

So at this rate each of these will individually get an "errata", rather than just backing up a step and realizing that a work around for one requirement out of many should not make a card playable, yes an official printing misled the community for 20 years on A Chance Meeting but it's high time to get over it, and (with that behind us) ALL of these cards (along with the original rules themselves) do deserve some clarifications,

Well, can't blame me for trying to earnestly study this matter. :roll:
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: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun May 20, 2018 10:16 am

Theo wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:50 am
I still didn't observe you mentioning whether or not you think Old Road should require the character making the influence attempt to tap.
Good point.

My proposal is now:

Playable on a untapped 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.
Theo wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:50 am
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑
19 May 2018, 18:42
The procedure itself is phase-agnostic (there is nothing particular in site phase that would allow a character to tap and take played item under its control).

Except the MELE p42 rule I quoted before stating that these cards "must be played during your site phase." Or what am I missing here?
Yes. You are missing something. Difference between a procedure (itself) and when the procedure may be taken.
Rules say the procedure X may be taken only in phase Y.
Short-event playable in any phase may cause procedure X outside of phase Y.
Theo wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:50 am
="Konrad Klar" wrote: ↑
19 May 2018, 18:42
Unlike factions, items, allies, that may be played only in site phase, factions, playing a characters is not limited by rules to organization phase.

Except that it is: the "Bringing Characters Into Play" section. There is a rulebook exception to this section in the form of character influence attempts, which have a number of other stipulations.
Just not true.
Theo wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:50 am
Consider what your desired high-allowance interpretation would mean for cards beyond those we've already discussed:
Items could be played at Tharbad at any time. (And it doesn't specify what type of item so greater all you want! Except this would be too absurd for anyone... right?)
Burat, Tuma, and Wuluag could be played during any phase in the turn one of the others is played.
Rumours/Whispers of Rings could play rings at will.
Roac the Raven allows the play of a faction at any time. Perhaps this makes thematic sense? Oh wait, this was "fixed" with errata.
Gwaihir: could move any time, except more errata.
Ringlore: errata.
That happens when someone does not distinguish "what", "when" and "where".
Tharbad does not cause any action that results in playing item.
Tharbad does not cause any action at all.
Burat, Tuma, and Wuluag do not cause an action "play character".
Rumours/Whispers of Rings are not entities able to play anything.
Roäc the Raven: its ability is not resource short-event that may be played at any time (if not restricted by its text), it could be used only in site phase (with or without CRF entry for it [that only in part is errata, and in part is a clarification]).
Gwaihir: his former company could take next M/H phase if not errata.
Theo wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:50 am
So at this rate each of these will individually get an "errata", rather than just backing up a step and realizing that a work around for one requirement out of many should not make a card playable, yes an official printing misled the community for 20 years on A Chance Meeting but it's high time to get over it, and (with that behind us) ALL of these cards (along with the original rules themselves) do deserve some clarifications,

If some action requires X number of conditions and some other action/effect removes one of them then X-1 remain.

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.
If resource short-event is restricted by its text to given phase (Z) it may be played only in that phase (Z).
If it causes action that otherwise could be taken only in phase Y (and Y is different than Z), it effectively removes a restriction that the action may be taken only in phase Y.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Old Road

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun May 20, 2018 11:24 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 10:16 am
Theo wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:50 am
Except that it is: the "Bringing Characters Into Play" section. There is a rulebook exception to this section in the form of character influence attempts, which have a number of other stipulations.
Just not true.
If there is a method for bringing characters into play outside of the organization/site phases, we do not know what it is. The rules only detail methods for org/site phase.
Theo wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:50 am
Consider what your desired high-allowance interpretation would mean for cards beyond those we've already discussed:
Items could be played at Tharbad at any time. (And it doesn't specify what type of item so greater all you want! Except this would be too absurd for anyone... right?)
Burat, Tuma, and Wuluag could be played during any phase in the turn one of the others is played.
Rumours/Whispers of Rings could play rings at will.
Roac the Raven allows the play of a faction at any time. Perhaps this makes thematic sense? Oh wait, this was "fixed" with errata.
Gwaihir: could move any time, except more errata.
Ringlore: errata.
That happens when someone does not distinguish "what", "when" and "where".
Tharbad does not cause any action that results in playing item.
Tharbad does not cause any action at all.
Burat, Tuma, and Wuluag do not cause an action "play character".
Rumours/Whispers of Rings are not entities able to play anything.
Roäc the Raven: its ability is not resource short-event that may be played at any time (if not restricted by its text), it could be used only in site phase (with or without CRF entry for it [that only in part is errata, and in part is a clarification]).
Gwaihir: his former company could take next M/H phase if not errata.
A character (even a Hobbit) may be brought into play with direct influence at any Free-hold, Border-hold , or Ruins & Lairs.
SPECIAL: Items may be played here even if the site is tapped.
May be played on the same turn (X) is played.
You may play a ring special item placed with this card as though it were in your hand.
There is no functional difference between these wordings.
Resource short-event not restricted by its text to any phase may be played in any phase.
Not quite.
Unless stated otherwise, a card is playable only if its effect applies to an existing situation, hazard, attack, etc. (i.e., you may not play a card just to discard it).
If all the cards except Chance Meeting don't cause actions, then neither does Chance Meeting. It must be played to affect a preexisting situation.

If Chance Meeting does cause an action, I do not see why the others do not. The wording is functionally the same.
Folco Boffin wrote:You may discard Folco at a Haven to play any Hobbit from your hand with his company.
Does this cause a character play action?
Last edited by Bandobras Took on Sun May 20, 2018 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun May 20, 2018 12:00 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 11:24 am
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑
20 May 2018, 11:16

Theo wrote: ↑
20 May 2018, 08:50
Except that it is: the "Bringing Characters Into Play" section. There is a rulebook exception to this section in the form of character influence attempts, which have a number of other stipulations.

Just not true.

If there is a method for bringing characters into play outside of the organization/site phases, we do not know what it is. The rules only detail methods for org/site phase.
It does not change a fact that rules do not state that characters may be played only in organization phase.
And I expressed before my opinion that a method (procedure) is one thing and when the method (procedure) may be used is other thing.
We know how to discard a single card from hand, and fact that (without use of other effects) the procedure may be taken only in end-of-turn phase, or at completion of company's M/H phase (if it happens that number of cards in hand exceed allowed hand size exactly by one), does not change the method (procedure).

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.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 11:24 am
Folco Boffin wrote:
You may discard Folco at a Haven to play any Hobbit from your hand with his company.



Does this cause a character play action?
Discarding? Yes.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Old Road

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun May 20, 2018 2:54 pm

How is the difference between causing an action or not causing one determined, then?

Discard is also available as the result of using a card for a random number. And the method is never defined in the rules. Methods for character play actually are defined in the rules. There is an End-of-Turn phase where you can discard, and you can discard as part of the movement/hazard phase, but there is no method given, merely opportunity. This is opposed to character play, which has its own section in the rules (akin to such things as combat and corruption), and therefore an expressly delineated method.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Shapeshifter » Sun May 20, 2018 4:52 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 1:45 pm
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:07 am
Currently, rulings are that Old Road can't be played any time.
Can you quote this ruling and/or the reasoning leading to this conclusion?
If so, I do not see the reason to alter the card, even if it's more clear/consistent.
CoE 74. As long as the meccg forums are down, I can't give the reasoning with 100% certainty, but the responses I received in connection with other debates suggest that the coin came down on "the card must explicitly override the rules" rather than "short events are playable at any time."
Just for completeness... It was already before CoE 74 that the NetRep ruled on this one:
CoE weekly Rulings/Clarifications 11 wrote:3. I can't find anything that tells me I can't use Old Road in the org phase, or even that it results in the
Haven or the remote site tapping.
*** CRF Site Phase/General: "Items, factions and allies must be played during the site phase."
*** CRF Site Phase/General: "The site taps upon successful play of the resource that would tap it."
[...]
18. What are the site tapping rules with regards to Hour of Need and Old Road?
*** Andrew Sitte was nice enough to find an old ruling by Van Norton on the subject. Van often consulted with Ichabod on the hard rulings so we'll use this one for now as it doesn't seem to follow cram logic: "In Van Norton's old digests, 581 and 582, he says that both require an untapped site and will tap the site at which they are played."
This ruling was repeated in several later Rulings Digests (e.g. #23).

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun May 20, 2018 5:16 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:54 pm
How is the difference between causing an action or not causing one determined, then?
It is more difficult to determine than determining whether the word "green" is subject, or is modifier, or is adverbial in given sentence.

It requires analyzing whether given phrase makes a sense in given function.

For example:
Open to the Summons wrote:Playable on a minion company. One agent minion may be played with target company at a Darkhaven - place this card with the agent. -1 to his mind to a minimum of 1. This card may be played with a starting company in lieu of a minor item. When played as such, reveal it when starting companies are determined as if it were a character. Cannot be duplicated on a given character.
If "One agent minion may be played with target company at a Darkhaven - place this card with the agent." would be an immediate action then why it is played on just a company, and not on company at a Darkhaven, where the action may be taken?

A Chance Meeting - if it would not make an immediate action but only extend a possibilities of playing characters in organization phase, why the card is not playable only in organization phase, or at least does not contain phrase like "this turn" (that would make sense if played in untap phase, or in organization phase)?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Old Road

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun May 20, 2018 5:21 pm

But now we're talking about immediate actions vs non-immediate; the discussion was about cards that create actions vs cards that do not. I see no logic that has A Chance Meeting enabling character play at any time its conditions are met that does not allow Open to the Summons to enable character play at any time its conditions are met.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun May 20, 2018 6:05 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 5:21 pm
But now we're talking about immediate actions vs non-immediate; the discussion was about cards that create actions vs cards that do not.
1.
If it is really not obvious:
If action allowed by a card is immediate, then the card create the action.
If action allowed by a card is not immediate, then the card does not create the action.

2.
As long "Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn as limited by specific card text." will not be acknowledged, the interpretation that A Chance Meeting extends playability of characters but does not cause a playing of character will be possible. Similarly a notion that Old Road may be played only in site phase (despite that it is not limited to site phase by its text) will exist.
And "Playable during site phase" in text of Bounty of the Hoard, Hoard Well Searched, Here, There, or Yonder will be treated as redundant text.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Old Road

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon May 21, 2018 1:52 am

I still can't understand point 1, but I acknowledge the validity of point 2.

However, I've finally found what I consider a parallel card to standard interpretations of Chance Meeting.

Pledge of Conduct. The rules for transferring items list the organization phase, but it is evident that Pledge of Conduct may be played whenever a character is facing a corruption check.

I'm still not certain I agree that Chance Meeting creates an action rather than modifying it, but at least there's a precedent now. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Old Road

Post by Theo » Mon May 21, 2018 10:09 pm

I'm also having a hard time.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:05 pm
1.
If it is really not obvious:
If action allowed by a card is immediate, then the card create the action.
If action allowed by a card is not immediate, then the card does not create the action.
Am I close with this statement: you think that only momentarily allowing an action to occur is for some reason more permissive than allowing the action to occur over an extended period of time? Is there something in any of the rulebooks that you can highlight as an inspiration for this notion? If this is the notion you are proposing, it does help me understand where you would draw the line, but it seems like it is creating an enormous power in short events vs. other events and I don't have any precedent for why this would be done.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 1:52 am
Pledge of Conduct. The rules for transferring items list the organization phase, but it is evident that Pledge of Conduct may be played whenever a character is facing a corruption check.
Assuming you mean "actually transfer an item" rather than "be played" (which I don't think anyone is disputing?), I'm not sure how this would be more evident than any of the other cases. Perhaps the card at least speaks somewhat to timing with the active verb: "a character facing a corruption check", which could happen in phases outside of the Organization phase and so could be interpreted as overruling the Organization phase requirement? The Transferring Items section also lists any time a character leaves play due to failing a body check or from a card that says items may be transfered, so perhaps the card could be seen as replacing the requirement that the character be [leaving play] with [facing a corruption check]?

Should we also get into storage? Sapling of the White Tree, To the Uttermost Foundations, etc allow storage at any time? Or is this hinging again on an inherent power difference of momentary vs. ongoing effects?
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
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Old Road

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon May 21, 2018 10:51 pm

I simply can't contest that the intent of Pledge of Conduct is to be played any time there is a corruption check, whether transferring is otherwise permissible by rule or not.

Thus, there is a precedent for Chance Meeting acting in a similar way, even if I still don't feel that to be healthiest for the game.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Old Road

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue May 22, 2018 3:42 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 10:51 pm
Thus, there is a precedent for Chance Meeting acting in a similar way, even if I still don't feel that to be healthiest for the game.
You require Pledge of Conduct as a precedent? What about the direct quote from The Wizard's Player Guide made by ICE which I quoted in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=143&t=3327 ? :?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Old Road

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue May 22, 2018 10:56 am

Theo wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 10:09 pm
Am I close with this statement: you think that only momentarily allowing an action to occur is for some reason more permissive than allowing the action to occur over an extended period of time? Is there something in any of the rulebooks that you can highlight as an inspiration for this notion? If this is the notion you are proposing, it does help me understand where you would draw the line, but it seems like it is creating an enormous power in short events vs. other events and I don't have any precedent for why this would be done.
Inspiration is the difference between "is playable" and "may be played".
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).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Old Road

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue May 22, 2018 2:28 pm

the Jabberwock wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 3:42 am
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 10:51 pm
Thus, there is a precedent for Chance Meeting acting in a similar way, even if I still don't feel that to be healthiest for the game.
You require Pledge of Conduct as a precedent? What about the direct quote from The Wizard's Player Guide made by ICE which I quoted in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=143&t=3327 ? :?
This is in the context of how cards are mechanically/functionally different by their text. How ICE wanted the card to work regardless of what they wrote on the card is a separate issue. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”