Council of Elrond

I agree with Konrad that "becomes" language should indicate a one-time effect. I'm not convinced that the removal of King Under the Mountain should not keep the site a Border-hold and Dwarf-hold permanently, though. There are many other cards with this same problem. To my knowledge, none of them can...

I know of no rules that suggest that the allowances of Crown of Flowers and Fireworks are not mutually compatible, that "play with/on" means "play with/on something AND NOTHING ELSE." I do know of a rule. The rules on Targeting. (MELE p.91) Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card...

Dwarven Ring of ... wrote:... Playable only with a Gold Ring...

CDavis7M must find it hard to use these, with the item they are "played with"-at-the-exclusion-of-"played on" getting discarded immediately.

My point with this post is just that there can be multiple valid interpretations of "play(able) with".

There is nothing in the rules nor on any other cards I know of that allow a resource to be played with Crown of Flowers. Crown of Flowers seems to be the sole source of that allowance. Separately, Fireworks has its own allowance for what it may be played on. I know of no rules that suggest that the ...

Are there (or should there be) restrictions on responding to non-ABP/AEP actions during the beginnings/ends of phases/turns? There is novelty for the proposal, that tried to address the issue: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=4095 But now I see that it is not sufficient. I wil...

In light of the CoE 2018 ARV: Beginning/End of phase & turn resolution, the restrictions are placed on actions declared in response to ABP/AEP. Some passive conditions may be non-ABP/AEP and still be triggered by situations that occur during the beginnings/ends of phases/turns as defined by the reso...

Since this is still entirely contained in one thread, could we try adding an additional organization? It would be helpful for me if maybe CDavis7M continued to update the original post and have one section of "peer-corroborated" (or some other such name) issues that at least one other of the other p...

Nigh two years later, here's a claim that the attack's prowess is the minimum of the strike's prowess (at least for greater-than conditions). I wrote: >From: "Isaac S. Demme" <thrr-...@geocities.com> >>the high 20's were not uncommon which led me to wonder if I could use Old Thrush in CVCC (I think ...

5. CoE 115 incorrectly ruled that a player can only initiate CvCC once per turn. There is no basis for this restriction in the rules. The CoE Netrep appears to have the misconception that each company does not have their own site phase , just one phase for the player. ICE Netrep : Just as there is ...

CDavis7M wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:52 pm

(A) "Canceling an Attack From a Company" on p. 81 allows the defending player to play resources to cancel the attack "a card can be used to cancel an attack... Example: A Nice Place to Hide."

You've changed the meaning of the sentence by quoting only one fragment of it.

Well, that is not how the CRF should be interpreted according to the author of the CRF. It cannot be interpreted on it's own, it should be interpreted as an explanation of the rules. Ichabod literally says that this CvCC ruling shouldn't be interpreted literally as you are asserting. If this CRF ru...

In Digest #61, it was asked: How do Unabated and Tidings interact? I answered: *** Given that Unabated in Malice is played and resolved on the automatic-attack in question when Tidings of Bold Spies resolves, then all effects of Unabated in Malice will be duplicated, per the text of Tidings of Bold...

I would say that the attacker cannot play A Malady Without Healing on the defending character declared as the scout playing A Nice Place to Hide because of the CRF. It would affect the attack and possibly some strike, but not an individual (specific) strike. By your reasoning on Malady, you have yo...

The CRF clarification on CvCC actually CAN be interpreted consistent with the existing rules. (CvCC: The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.) This is because the defender may, by the rules take ac...

Your misunderstanding of CvCC and Abductor have the same root issue. <snip> 1) Abductor is a different thread. 2) "Here's how it works" is your (dictatorial) decision. 3) Your post deductively contradicts your claims, as I have helpfully tried to demonstrate. 4) "a non-errata errata" is a nicely co...