Council of Elrond

Agents and characters cannot be "at" a site-type itself. Rather, should we not then conclude that agents and characters are never at the same site-type itself, preventing this mechanic from ever being used? :? How to parse the phrase into something that isn't impossible would be ambiguous, warranti...

With no other explanation, there is: Balrog can move normally to various under-deeps sites and Moria (surface site) without supporting cards right? *** Correct. Since The Under-gates alone is not "various" under-deeps sites, presumably any under-deeps site is allowed. With no other explanation, it r...

Consider the combination of the following: A Balrog player acts as a Ringwraith player. Any card and rules text applying to a Ringwraith also applies to The Balrog (e.g., if a card refers to a Ringwraith, it now applies to “a Ringwraith or The Balrog”). However, instead of using the special rules li...

Thus, the effects of Press-gang can't be taken immediately because the action is waiting for something to happen. Maybe I'm confused about what you are thinking "the action" is. There is no indication of anything happening to be able to trigger a passive condition on Press-gang. A character being d...

The bottom line is: there are rules on passive conditions and they can govern this situation. There is no reason to pretend that the timing rules on passive conditions don't apply here. Especially where there are no rules on "modifying rules" or "replacement." Indeed, among the basest of lines. To ...

Additionally, consider Undead automatic attacks: "each character wounded must make a corruption check". Annotation 19: Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body). However, if the strike calls for any special actions to follow...

There are other cases of the CoE knowing the ICE rulings but overruling them anyway without mentioning that they were doing so publicly, which we now know of courtesy of the archives being unlocked. I haven't seen any such examples. What rulings are you referring to? I'm referring to the this subfo...

This CoE ruling is inconsistent with the ICE ruling, yet it makes no mention of overruling ICE. So the CoE ruling is a mistake. This is just another example of the CoE Netrep not knowing or reading the ICE rulings. It may be a mistake, but then it would be an official mistake. Or it wasn't a mistak...

I believe I have said before that *I* don't see Press-gang nor PallandoTSK using passive conditions. How else could they work? See above. In contrast, how could they possibly work with passive conditions? Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific pass...

-Company B moves. Plague of Wights and The Moon is Dead are already in play. A Barrow-wight creature is played. The Hazard Player decides the declaration/application order and so Barrow-wight now has 4 strikes: 1 strike originally, plus 1 from TMiD, doubled to 4 by PoW. Where are you deriving this ...

I believe I have said before that *I* don't see Press-gang nor PallandoTSK using passive conditions. The historic tendencies of CoE would probably side with you in that regard, though, given the chance. Cue Bandobras' signature. An example of a ruling in this realm that I think is obviously question...

But as for "it isn't annotation 26", I think you have a different (too strict) sense of what "net effect" means. Another example of net effect is with Snowstorm and Itangast Ahunt. "They are separate effects", but the net effect (either being attacked and then returned home, or just returned home) ...

Saying "it isn't annotation 26" is insufficient justification for "it must be annotation 10". But you've already expressed your opinions there, so no need to rehash. But as for "it isn't annotation 26", I think you have a different (too strict) sense of what "net effect" means. Another example of ne...

Right; when they are first played only the first played will be relevant, but each start of a player's movement/hazard phase after that the hazard player chooses which will be relevant.

Almost. For full disclosure, I probably should put this in the original post: Under strict interpretation of current wording, agents for Balrog players would count as hazards but not 1/2 creature because the Balrog counts as a Ringwraith type player with additional rules. METB: "Agents count as haza...