Too Great and Terrible Rules Discussion

[Merrick_H]

Split the topic into a rules discussion thread so as not to clutter up the GEMP Bug reporting thread too much.

I'll have a response to the latest assertions in a bit.  Still reading through some cards.

Merrick_H

[sgtdraino]

Bib's argument is that the "this" is referring to the act of the event wounding Gandalf rather than wounding Gandalf... Though I found it to also be logical there is no backing in the rules for it. The wording in TGAT is exactly the same as other cards which are known to prevent wounding, and subsequently do not work at the tomb.

Seems like splitting hairs to me. I don't see how the event wounding Gandalf is any different than any other wounding of Gandalf. Is there any distinction made in the rules indicating that there is a difference between these two things? Bib seemed to indicate that the timing of the actions/effects somehow clarified this issue, but again I don't know what rules he's talking about.

So, according to bib's view, how would the card break down algebraically?

Split the topic into a rules discussion thread so as not to clutter up the GEMP Bug reporting thread too much.

lol. I was just hitting refresh on the "Bug" thread, so I was pretty confused for a little bit there!

ETA: I went back and looked at bib's initial response:

The wounds aren't being prevented by discarding the 2 Gandalf cards. It's preventing the action of the card itself.

Okay, I did find some basis for bib's idea that it is possible to prevent an entire action, rather than just an effect; it's listed in the CRD under "Cancel":

When an action (such as playing an event
or using a special ability) is canceled or
prevented, its effects are ignored but its costs
and requirements are still paid. If that action is
playing an event, that event card is discarded.

So under the clarification for "cancel" it does use both the words "canceled" and "prevented" in reference to stopping an action. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a more specific listing for "prevent," only the listing for "cancel..." although other entries do make reference to effects being "prevented." Under "effect" in the CRs:

If something happens to prevent one effect which
in turn would have prevented a second effect, the
second effect is performed.

It still seems to me that, in every case, Decipher used the word "cancel" when you were stopping an entire action, and used "prevent" when you were preventing a particular effect. I can't find any card that seems worded contrary to this. Anybody got one?

And even it if is possible to "prevent" an action as a whole, there is still the issue with Too Great and Terrible as to whether "this" refers to wounding Gandalf twice, or whether "this" refers to the entire action of playing the card. To me, it still looks like it's referring specifically to the wounds. If it referred to preventing the entire card, it would also negate the very text that allows you to prevent it!

It's basically saying "Do this unless FP does this."

No, it's definitely not saying that. We have cards that use the "unless" wording, this is not one of them.

[Merrick_H]

I went through all of the cards that have the word "prevent" in their game text and discovered two cycles of cards that were very interesting and relevant, one from Mines of Moria and one from Realms of the Elf Lords.

All of these cards follow the pattern:
(pay cost) X to Y.  Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this.

Mines of Moria
Tidings of Erebor
Dismay our Enemies
Wielder of the Flame
Flee in Terror
Hobbit Sword-play

Realms of the Elf Lords
Can You Protect Me From Yourself?
Such a Little Thing
Too Great and Terrible
Terrible as the Dawn
Why Shouldn't I Keep It?

Saruman, Servant of the Eye

Keep in mind I eliminated any card that had "prevent" as a Response: action as those respond to a particular situation occurring, rather than being a part of the effect of the card.

Here are some rules that I would keep in mind:

effect - The effects of an action are usually listed after the word "to" (so the action takes the form of "pay X to do Y," with X being the cost and Y the effect).

response - A special ability or event labeled with the word "Response:" indicates that you may perform that action
whenever the trigger described in its game text happens.

playing a card -
5. Respond to the playing of The Card (and to losing initiative if necessary). Responses or triggered actions that respond to the playing of The Card happen now. If The Card has game text on it that triggers "When you play..." The Card, it happens now. Other cards may respond to the card being played as well. These are handled in the manner described under actions and action procedure. If The Card was a Free People's card and it leaving your hand causes you to lose initiative, each player may respond to you losing initiative now.
6. Perform effects of The Card. This includes choosing cards to be affected, if necessary. If initiative is a requirement for an effect, you cannot count The Card. If an effect takes a card into your hand from your discard pile, The Card is not there yet.

So, lets look at the facts as I see them:

• The "Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this." is not a Response: action as defined by the response rules, so it does not fall under step 5 of "playing a card".
• It is after the "to", therefore it is part of the effect of the card.
• Since it is a part of the effect of the card, it is resolved in step 6 of "playing a card".
• The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.  Only one effect is carried out, not both.

[dmaz]

It's basically saying "Do this unless FP does this."

No, it's definitely not saying that. We have cards that use the "unless" wording, this is not one of them.

Or the word "instead" or "either" (see my previous comments about Decipher current ruling inclusion on the word "instead").

I understand Bib's and Merrick's leaning towards this interpretation, right off the cuff; there are many event that are presented in exactly this way ("do this unless FP does this"). But as you pointed out, draino, Decipher defined specific wording to surround such cases...it doesn't appear that this is one of those cases...

[dmaz]

• The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.

I think we can all agree the FP player has a preventive action as an alternative...that is clear. The point is that we have established that the effect of the card is being carried out. That's progress at least...before some weren't sure whether the card was even considered played or in the effect phase until some "decision" was made The card is in play. The effect is being carried out.

Your statement above, I feel doesnt have enough backing within the rules when applied to the situation. The effect is in fact carried out in the wounding of Gandalf. One can just as easily view the effect as two-fold...I will read through more cards, but there are many with effects that involve multiple things.
I feel that your statement above is true for:
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?

This is because the choice is directly given in the card. For the "temptation" cards, the effect says that it does the negative thing, while the FP has the option to prevent. whether or not the preventing is happening while "resolving" a card, you are still preventing something. I think to deny that would be to dismiss all of Decipher's work to wording the cards that specifically, as well as making specific ruling regarding phrases such as "instead". If it wasn't preventing they wouldn't have used that word, I think.

ADDED:
While I am defending that those are actual wounds that are being prevented I'm still not certain :/

I understand your argument Merrick, and I think if it ended up coming down to pure game vernacular, so to speak, there is agruments for both sides.

Example:
It says prevent "this" - singular.
If we split hairs and were talking about preventing real wounds then it might say "prevent those" instead.
Thus your argument, which I still find logical, is that we are preventing "wound Gandalf twice".
What I'm stuck on is if that still means you are preventing wounds...it seems like it does...

[sgtdraino]

I went through all of the cards that have the word "prevent" in their game text and discovered two cycles of cards that were very interesting and relevant, one from Mines of Moria and one from Realms of the Elf Lords.

All of these cards follow the pattern:
(pay cost) X to Y.  Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this.

Great examples. And in all those examples, I'd say that you could replace "this" with "Y," in your equation.

Keep in mind I eliminated any card that had "prevent" as a Response: action as those respond to a particular situation occurring, rather than being a part of the effect of the card.

I'm not sure that's relevant. What does it matter as to whether the "prevent" is happening as a result of a Response action, or whether the "prevent" is happening as a result of being part of the game text of the card?

I'd also argue that in the case of Too Great and Terrible (and the other examples you listed), the "prevent" isn't part of the effect of the card, rather it is a triggered action built into the card, which may (or may not) prevent the effect. See below.

playing a card -
5. Respond to the playing of The Card (and to losing initiative if necessary). Responses or triggered actions that respond to the playing of The Card happen now. If The Card has game text on it that triggers "When you play..." The Card, it happens now. Other cards may respond to the card being played as well.

So this indicates that in addition to Response actions, we also have things called triggered actions, and the timing for them is the same as the timing for Response actions. It's basically what I said it was: A built-in Response action.

So, lets look at the facts as I see them:

• The "Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this." is not a Response: action as defined by the response rules, so it does not fall under step 5 of "playing a card".

It's not a Response action, but it is a triggered action. It gives the player a chance to take an action wherein they pay X to do Y, and in this case, the "do Y" of the triggered action, is preventing the effect of the first action.

• It is after the "to", therefore it is part of the effect of the card.
• Since it is a part of the effect of the card, it is resolved in step 6 of "playing a card".

I don't think it's part of the effect, it's a triggered action.

• The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.  Only one effect is carried out, not both.

It's not presenting a choice of two effects. The card presents a single effect (wound Gandalf twice), then initiates a triggered action wherein the Free People's player may prevent the wounds.

[Merrick_H]

• The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.

I feel that your statement above is true for:
Tidings of Erebor
Dismay our Enemies
Wielder of the Flame
Flee in Terror
Hobbit Sword-play

This is because the choice is directly given in the card. For the "temptation" cards, the effect says that it does the negative thing, while the FP has the option to prevent. whether or not the preventing is happening while "resolving" a card, you are still preventing something. I think to deny that would be to dismiss all of Decipher's work to wording the cards that specifically, as well as making specific ruling regarding phrases such as "instead". If it wasn't preventing they wouldn't have used that word, I think.

If you think that it is true for the cards listed above (Mines of Moria Cycle) then it has to be true for the Realms of the Elf Lords Cycle.  The format for the wording is exactly the same:

(pay cost) X to Y.  Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this.

[dmaz]

I don't think it's part of the effect, it's a triggered action.

• The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.  Only one effect is carried out, not both.

It's not presenting a choice of two effects. The card presents a single effect (wound Gandalf twice), then initiates a triggered action wherein the Free People's player may prevent the wounds.

That's interesting...But I'm not sure if it's a triggered action though...triggered actions are more like cards such as GKOMP or Relentless Uruk, where it automatically happens.  This is a preventative option that is presented only after the effect goes into play.

[dmaz]

• The effect of the card cannot be carried out until player C chooses which effect is going to resolve, either the direct effect of the card or paying cost Z.

I feel that your statement above is true for:
Tidings of Erebor
Dismay our Enemies
Wielder of the Flame
Flee in Terror
Hobbit Sword-play

This is because the choice is directly given in the card. For the "temptation" cards, the effect says that it does the negative thing, while the FP has the option to prevent. whether or not the preventing is happening while "resolving" a card, you are still preventing something. I think to deny that would be to dismiss all of Decipher's work to wording the cards that specifically, as well as making specific ruling regarding phrases such as "instead". If it wasn't preventing they wouldn't have used that word, I think.

If you think that it is true for the cards listed above (Mines of Moria Cycle) then it has to be true for the Realms of the Elf Lords Cycle.  The format for the wording is exactly the same:

(pay cost) X to Y.  Player C may (pay cost) Z to prevent this.

Sorry, I copy pasted the wrong stack...these are the events I was talking about. I'll edit my original post.

Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?

[sgtdraino]

dmaz, Response actions themselves operate on a "trigger":

A special ability or event labeled with the word
"Response:" indicates that you may perform that
action whenever the trigger described in its game
text happens.

The rules are simply saying that there are other triggered actions in addition to Response actions.

Looking through, I still feel like I'm seeing a definite pattern with the cards, in which "prevent" always seems to be in reference to an effect, while "cancel" seems to be more powerful, able to take out an entire action:

Orc Ambusher
Orc Scout
Gandalf, Wise Guide
Storied Homestead
Furious Hillman
Time for Food
Seeking It Always
Relentless

And of course the many cards that cancel skirmishes. As you can see, other than skirmishes, the "cancel" word is most often used in reference to killing events.

[Merrick_H]

Keep in mind I eliminated any card that had "prevent" as a Response: action as those respond to a particular situation occurring, rather than being a part of the effect of the card.

I'm not sure that's relevant. What does it matter as to whether the "prevent" is happening as a result of a Response action, or whether the "prevent" is happening as a result of being part of the game text of the card?

The reason it matters is Response: actions can only take place after the event that they are responding to takes place.  You cannot discard Dwarven Bracers to prevent a wound until the wound is about to be taken in the first place.  In this case I'm arguing that the format is replacing the effect - therefore no wounds are placed and you could not use intimidate or other such Response: cards.

I'd also argue that in the case of Too Great and Terrible (and the other examples you listed), the "prevent" isn't part of the effect of the card, rather it is a triggered action built into the card, which may (or may not) prevent the effect. See below.

playing a card -
5. Respond to the playing of The Card (and to losing initiative if necessary). Responses or triggered actions that respond to the playing of The Card happen now. If The Card has game text on it that triggers "When you play..." The Card, it happens now. Other cards may respond to the card being played as well.

And this is where I think you are wrong.  Triggered actions are things that would be dealt with in step 5 such as Goblin Armory.  As this is part of the effect (it is after the "to") it is not resolved until step 6 when effects are performed.

So this indicates that in addition to Response actions, we also have things called triggered actions, and the timing for them is the same as the timing for Response actions. It's basically what I said it was: A built-in Response action.

There is no construct defined in the rules as a "Built in response action".  There are costs, effects, triggered actions (on external cards that respond to a particular scenario happening) and response actions.  Don't try to fabricate rules here :-)

[Merrick_H]

dmaz, Response actions themselves operate on a "trigger":

A special ability or event labeled with the word
"Response:" indicates that you may perform that
action whenever the trigger described in its game
text happens.

The rules are simply saying that there are other triggered actions in addition to Response actions.

Looking through, I still feel like I'm seeing a definite pattern with the cards, in which "prevent" always seems to be in reference to an effect, while "cancel" seems to be more powerful, able to take out an entire action:

Orc Ambusher
Orc Scout
Gandalf, Wise Guide
Storied Homestead
Furious Hillman
Time for Food
Seeking It Always
Relentless

And of course the many cards that cancel skirmishes. As you can see, other than skirmishes, the "cancel" word is most often used in reference to killing events.

Major exception that nobody would argue is on Warg, War-Warg and Sharku's Warg.  Costs are still paid, but the effect of the special ability is cancelled.

[dmaz]

From the comprehensive rules under "cost"

If an action is prevented, its effects are ignored
but its costs and requirements are still paid.

According to the rules if something gets "prevented" there is an effect that is is preventing, which is then ignored. Preventing something does not mean that it cancels any effect or creates some alternate effect. I think this should solve quite a bit.

A way to continue to argue this, which has already been done is to say "well 'prevent' in these specific events means something different than 'prevent' in all other cases", but there's no foundation to assume Decipher wanted it to mean something different...

[sgtdraino]

The reason it matters is Response: actions can only take place after the event that they are responding to takes place.

Again, I disagree. Response actions happen whenever the circumstances that trigger them occur. For example, Dwarven Bracers doesn't kick in until a wound is about to happen, but Orc Ambusher triggers as soon as an event is played.

In this case I'm arguing that the format is replacing the effect - therefore no wounds are placed and you could not use intimidate or other such Response: cards.

The format for replacing an effect is well-established. That's not what Too Great and Terrible is doing.

There is no construct defined in the rules as a "Built in response action".  There are costs, effects, triggered actions (on external cards that respond to a particular scenario happening) and response actions.  Don't try to fabricate rules here :-)

Triggered actions are not fabricated, and there is no rule that says a triggered action has to come from an external card.

Major exception that nobody would argue is on Warg, War-Warg and Sharku's Warg.  Costs are still paid, but the effect of the special ability is cancelled.

This is not an exception, it's all covered in the CRD under "Cancel."

A way to continue to argue this, which has already been done is to say "well 'prevent' in these specific events means something different than 'prevent' in all other cases", but there's no foundation to assume Decipher wanted it to mean something different...

Exactly.

[Merrick_H]

The reason it matters is Response: actions can only take place after the event that they are responding to takes place.

Again, I disagree. Response actions happen whenever the circumstances that trigger them occur. For example, Dwarven Bracers doesn't kick in until a wound is about to happen, but Orc Ambusher triggers as soon as an event is played.

Exactly what I meant.  I shouldn't have used the word "event", rather I should have said trigger.

In this case I'm arguing that the format is replacing the effect - therefore no wounds are placed and you could not use intimidate or other such Response: cards.

The format for replacing an effect is well-established. That's not what Too Great and Terrible is doing.

The cards previously mentioned:
Saruman's Reach
In the Ringwraith's Wake
Desperate Defense of the Ring
What Are We Waiting For?
don't replace an effect, they allow a player to choose the effect after the costs are paid.

There is no construct defined in the rules as a "Built in response action".  There are costs, effects, triggered actions (on external cards that respond to a particular scenario happening) and response actions.  Don't try to fabricate rules here :-)

Triggered actions are not fabricated, and there is no rule that says a triggered action has to come from an external card.

There are select things that can cause a trigger (triggered action) -
Each time - description of the trigger followed by a comma.
When - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
While - Description of the trigger followed by a comma.
"Response:" - A special type of triggered action
Winning/losing a skirmish
Moving (move from, move, move to)
Free People's Player Death - Threats

This does not fall into any of those categories.

Major exception that nobody would argue is on Warg, War-Warg and Sharku's Warg.  Costs are still paid, but the effect of the special ability is cancelled.

This is not an exception, it's all covered in the CRD under "Cancel."

You specifically said "as you can see the word cancel is most often used in reference to killing events".  I was pointing out the main "canceling special abilities" use of the word cancel.

A way to continue to argue this, which has already been done is to say "well 'prevent' in these specific events means something different than 'prevent' in all other cases", but there's no foundation to assume Decipher wanted it to mean something different...

Exactly.

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that the way the cards are structured with this being in the Effect section of the card, it is internally consistent with replacing one effect with another prior to the resolution of the effect.