Council of Elrond

Create cards create attacks. The creature card is resolved, creating the attack, during a chain of effects. The attack must be resolved for the creature card to be resolved, for the chain to be resolved. The creation of the attack resolves at resolution of the creature card. The attack itself does ...

"MELE USING MELE WITH METW" reference above made it impossible for agents to be hazards in a hero deck. ICE Digest 73 doesn't change or overrule that.

All of the rules have already been quoted here or referred to. With this kind of response, should I reason that it is your interpretations/deductions that are amiss? There are many posts of yours that fail to reference the relevant ICE rulings. The main meta-difference between us seems to be that I...

CDavis7M, give some references or the "Alternative Game Format" subforums might be a better place for the rules you want to make up. This isn't to discourage throwing out ideas or other brainstorming, just to discourage flat refutations without counter evidence. As far as I know, items must be playe...

Would you care to explain your reasoning?

Creature cards create attacks. The creature card is resolved, creating the attack, during a chain of effects. The attack must be resolved for the creature card to be resolved, for the chain to be resolved. If attacks did not resolve during a chain of effects, additional nested attacks could be creat...

How about Spawn of Ungoliant. Blow Turned. Stabbing Tongue of Fire (say vs. Smaug played with a Rumor of Wealth). Arguably Adunaphel Unleashed / Motionless Among the Slain (if you want your guy to die). What am I missing?

Maybe you could provide a simile or a parse tree? To me: "the body check dice-roll" => "the dice-roll component of the body check" That is, the "body check" phrase in this sentence is an adjective modifying the "dice-roll" phrase, and the "dice-roll" is what needs to be directly affected. Putting th...

Indeed. The two of us retroactively went back and created the idea of nested chain in the CRF.

Sorry, what? The "Body Check" definition that I quoted which distinguished two components? What is the "change" (in terms of rule language, not in terms of what you want it to mean)?

I will not argue that you seem to favor such theses. :roll: I think your only example that was NOT reinforcing "card is not resolved as though it occurred during the M/H phase" was Doubled Vigilance. It seems like the important aspect of Doubled Vigilance is that it's passive triggers off of a decla...

Could you be clearer about what disagreement you think you are seeing? "Affecting the body check" includes modifying the die roll or the body of the character making the check. Note that "modifying the die roll" and "modifying the body of the character making the check" are distinguished components ...

Is there an easy example of what is achieved by the revealed card taking effect as though it had been declared earlier if it is NOT that it can't be responded to? Why have the rule at all?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The Charter was amended several times since CoE #43. The Annual Rules Vote mentioned in the current Charter didn't exist until 2018. As for "Out of respect for ICE's legacy no new (non trivial) errata will be issued, nor will any rules from ICE's last CRF be ov...

My impression is that the unique keyword has often been given special meaning beyond the original rulebooks. This has long been contentious. Examine, for example, Long Dark Reach rulings. Well, I don't see the support for that conclusion in the rules. Reference CoE #65 and #43. "Remember, NetRep rul...