Loopholes in Passive Condition Rules

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Loopholes in Passive Condition Rules

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:13 pm

1.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Conditions wrote:Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific
passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the
chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive
condition
. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in
its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike
sequence follow a different set of rules.
Not all passive conditions are produced inside of a chain of effects.
End of phase that may be passive condition never happens in chain of effects.
Some other passive conditions sometimes are produced inside of chain of effects, sometimes not. E.g. passive condition like a company moving through certain regions may be produced at the start of the company's M/H phase, before declaration of any action.
Passive Conditions does not say what then.
Proposed regulation:

If some a passive condition is produced not in chain of effects, then a new chain of effects is started and an action caused by the passive condition becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects.

2.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Conditions wrote:Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific
passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the
chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive
condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in
its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled.
Note that actions in the strike
sequence follow a different set of rules.
Some passive conditions are not a states (example of states: "some card is in play", "company is moving through certain regions") that may persist in play by some time. Some are an actions that happen momentarily (for example a becoming wounded - character may be in wounded state by some time, but if he becomes wounded at some point in some chain of effects, he will not still become wounded at declaration of action from Despair of Heart, nor at its resolution).
Proposed regulation:

If a passive condition is an action then it is not checked at the resolution of action caused by the condition.

3.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Conditions wrote:Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific
passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the
chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive
condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in
its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike
sequence follow a different set of rules.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Conditions wrote:A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the
action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
Phrase "the action is canceled" is confusing. Actually the action does not resolve.
"the action is canceled" may be certainly confusing if the action is an attack. Reader may be under impression that because "an attack has been canceled" the attack has been faced, and this may have an impact on playability of other card. Actually the attack just did not happen.
Proposed regulation:

Changing both occurrences of "the action is canceled" with "the action does not resolve".

All underlines mine.
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: Loopholes in Passive Condition Rules

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:47 pm

If a passive condition is an action then it is not checked at the resolution of action caused by the condition.
I would suggest "action or game mechanic." Some game mechanics such as drawing cards are not actions.
Changing both occurrences of "the action is canceled" with "the action does not resolve".
It is possible that they meant the declaration is cancelled. I do not know if there is a functional difference between that and "does not resolve," however.
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: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Loopholes in Passive Condition Rules

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:31 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:47 pm
I would suggest "action or game mechanic." Some game mechanics such as drawing cards are not actions.
Some example, please.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:47 pm
It is possible that they meant the declaration is cancelled. I do not know if there is a functional difference between that and "does not resolve," however.
I do not think so. Even if a passive condition has been produced and disappeared in the same chain of effect, it is possible that it will reappear at resolution of action caused by some passive condition.

Example:
Doors of Night is in play. A company is moving from Bree to Weathertop.

Chain of effects #1:
Resource player declares Master of Wood, Water, or Hill (to change [-me_wi-] to [-me_bl-])
Hazard player declares Snowstorm.

Snowstorm Resolves (at this point the passive condition from the Snowstorm is produced).
Master of Wood, Water, or Hill resolves (at this point the passive condition from the Snowstorm disappears).

Chain of effects #2:
Return a company to a site of origin is declared.
Withered Lands is declared (to change [-me_bl-] to [-me_wi-] [-me_wi-])

Withered Lands resolves (at this point the passive condition from the Snowstorm reappears).
Return a company to a site of origin resolves.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Loopholes in Passive Condition Rules

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:03 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:31 pm
Bandobras Took wrote: ↑
30 Mar 2018, 19:47
I would suggest "action or game mechanic." Some game mechanics such as drawing cards are not actions.

Some example, please.
OK. I have found some example - Pale Dream-Maker.
I accept the suggestion.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Loopholes in Passive Condition Rules

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:08 pm

One addition to the wishlist:

4.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Conditions wrote:Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the
card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain
of effects.
Annotation 9a breaks vicious circle when leaving active play by a card X causes discarding other cards (as stated on card X).
If it would happen in the following chain of effects, then the card X would not be in play at point of resolving the action(s) and the action(s) discard would not resolve. According to:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Passive Conditions wrote:A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the
action resolves, or else the action is canceled.
However Annotation 9a does not cover the situations when leaving active play by a card X causes returning to hand other cards. Example: Black Horse.
Proposed regulation:

Annotation 9a: If a card is required to be removed from active play by some passive condition, the
card is removed from active play immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain
of effects.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”