Council of Elrond

My concern is not acknowledging a distinction between item played at site and an item not played at site but by/with character at site . Or acknowledging the distinction but not treating its consequences consistently. I don't think the underlined portion exists. If an item would be played by a char...

I was asking you. I am trying to understand the original post. You propose removing the CRF ruling, then give two statements that seem to have no bearing on the CRF ruling unless (for your first statement:) you are concerned that some may interpret the ruling as causing checks even for moving compan...

Oh, you read the CRF "Is triggered by a special ring item being played" as grounds for the check needing to happen for moving companies? I don't see that as being a valid interpretation. The CRF slots into the "an item is played" concept, and does not have any language that could supersede the origi...

A special ring item played in result of test is not played at site. It may be played even if company is not at site and eventually by character at site. Nothing stops a character controlled by FW player from playing a hero special ring item if the character is in company at minion site, or vice ver...

Vote to nullify. I know some people don't see it, but it just really really looks like a circle to me. Did you mean to post this under 35A? https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=144&t=3406 I truly hope that no one was confused that this card was created as Kill MP and ICE upheld that ov...

Like I said, I appreciate the details you pieced together. I had not noticed that implication before, myself. Rezwits needs to add a link to this in his "you probably aren't playing Agents correctly" signature. I do not think that what miguel said was wrong, unless you wanted to literally interpret ...

"'X or Y only' means 'X only or Y only'" is not an absolute truth. That is what it means in English If a store checkout has a sign saying "cash or check only" and someone wants to pay with a combination of cash and check, I've never seen this be a problem. :roll: If you want to learn more, check ou...

Ah good.

So you have come to revise your opinion?

CDavis7M wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:58 pm

The ICE Digest says that is how the rules work. From what I have seen, the Rulings are almost never wrong, and they were corrected when they were.

I like your logic on the wounding from the rules texts. However, how do you account for: >Well I guess we won't have to worry about giving away three kill MP's with Golodhros anymore..., but..., can he become wounded? Probably not. No. Agents attacking as detainment cannot be wounded. The rules on ...

ICE has decided to change the release of certain rulings. Rulings which clear up ambiguous situations in the game, which includes most rulings made, will continue to apply as soon as they are made. However, other rulings, such as errata, and new changes to the rules, will be delayed for at least tw...

Furthermore, miguel's wording doesn't address whether or not an agent can be wounded, since a wounded or unwounded agent can still pester. I think you owe him an apology.

I like your logic on the wounding from the rules texts. However, how do you account for:

ICE Rules Digest 122 wrote:>Well I guess we won't have to worry about giving away three kill MP's with Golodhros anymore..., but..., can he become wounded? Probably not.

No. Agents attacking as detainment cannot be wounded.

Aware of their Ways (and Knowledge of the Enemy) specifically state otherwise Except these cards do not specifically state that the card isn't just discarded (again). We know it is possible to discard cards already in the discard because of the remaining text on Aware of Their Ways. If someone hall...

From this understanding, all of the other cards and rules are consistent and make sense. You are missing that there are multiple senses of the term "play" used in the rules. The rules are ambiguous. That can mean that there are multiple valid (consistent) interpretations of them; that doesn't mean ...

Is "set aside" the same as "placed off to the side"? Setting is a type of placement. The phrase "off to the side" (vs. just "to the side") in English suggests there is some extra space given to those things. But since "aside" in this case doesn't specify anything they are "beside", I would take awa...