Council of Elrond

Neat stuff. Video 1: I suggest adding "Starter Rules" to the title. Do you have two mics? The voice balance kept shifting around. It should be pretty easy to collapse to a single track. The (first) video comment is correct about being able to have multiple copies of "Cannot be duplicated" in your de...

To clarify, the 10 character maximum in the deck is a maximum on the sum of characters preselected for the deck PLUS characters from the draft pool that are chosen to be placed in the deck.

Note that the updated CRF entry just quoted differs from the ICE Rules Digest 80, and is consistent with ICE Rules Digest 80 being refuted by ICE. "Including" does not mean "the exact rule is that".

I'm pretty sure everyone is playing Beorn if Hero, and no one is playing Hero. Heh. I almost never play Beorn when I play Hero! I wonder to what extent we don't see more variety in decks simply because the high level players at tournaments are the same dozen people with the same old ideas. "It need...

The second. It can be in play without Radagast (as long as you declared that you were playing Fallen Radagast).

In my opinion, CoE #60 was also too sloppy to read much into. Even if "immediately end" doesn't preclude declaring additional effects, Shadowfax's "move again " shouldn't work because there was no previous move. Similar for Carambor's "move to an additional "; there was no previous move to a site. I...

Manuel, I'm sure my experiences with highly competitive environments is less extensive than yours, and I would value hearing more details of your viewpoint. My mental framework values analytical assessment the most, but even anecdotal would help. Also, I know DC rules adopted such an errata. Maybe t...

This reference does not match your interpretation:

ICE Rules Digest 110 wrote:The minion versions of hero Havens always count as Havens for agents. They don't become Havens when the hero version is occupied.

Another great demonstration of how to fail to cite references.

ICE never ruled that "moving to a new site" should be considered as "revealing a new site" because these are different. Now you seem to be fabricating something to argue against? If so, your fabrication seems to not be accounting for "moving to a new site" occurs over a duration, "revealing a new s...

Use this opportunity to back up you claims of ICE views with references. What doesn't seem to "be there" is any change to the movement rules given by the Starter Rules when a company is moving to a site in play (or a face-down site being moved to by multiple companies) OTHER than how to designate th...

Back on the actual topic, does anyone else have thoughts about the possibility of a nested chain when returning to the site of origin? Konrad? Theo? :) My impression was that ICE was strongly against the concept of nested chains in general, and the only place I've seen ICE use nested chains is with...

Neither the original rules nor the changed rules suggest that a company is still "moving" after the M/H phase. New Site Card: The site where a moving company is going. Deduction: if there is a new site card, then there must be a company moving to it. --- In my opinion (and, as far as I'm aware, CoE...

I will speak only for myself. While I am aware of the CRF literal words that claim to resolve the question of when a company is at a site, I see problems it causes with other existing rules that I have not seen adequately addressed. For example, the implications of the new rules on companies not bei...

Secondly, the situation complicates in multiplayer games. Not only the players allowed to see an obverse of discarded card have above information, but all players have access to them. For what it's worth: In multi-player we've ruled that anyone dicarding [sic] must show pallando the discards before...