Search found 1500 matches

by CDavis7M
Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 50
Views: 2880

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

I've read over 4,000 pages of ICE rulings. I'll take your word for reading them 👍 As someone who has read them, I can tell who has and who hasn't by their words. Well, at least you're consistently inconsistent. :roll: The apparent inconsistency is because you've taken these statements out of contex...
by CDavis7M
Tue May 19, 2020 4:33 pm
Forum: Decks, Strategy, Tips, Ideas
Topic: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)
Replies: 29
Views: 1836

Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)

Removing the sage skill is an action that modifies an attribute of a card, just like how +1 prowess, +5 Direct Influence, or +1 corruption point are actions modifying card attributes. Modifying an attribute of a card requires targeting. ... removing the sage skill would need to wait for the followi...
by CDavis7M
Tue May 19, 2020 4:19 pm
Forum: The Marketplace
Topic: [FO] Looking for the value of a MECCG Gift Set
Replies: 8
Views: 218

Re: [FO] Looking for the value of a MECCG Gift Set

I have seen a few of these sell. $120+ for a sealed box, maybe $150. Maybe more depending on the buyer. I've seen a sealed Gift Box sell for $125+. $40-80 for an opened set. The dice are fairly valuable on their own. I think they could easily sell for $20, likely more. Having the cards adds some val...
by CDavis7M
Tue May 19, 2020 6:12 am
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings
Replies: 10
Views: 287

Re: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings

OK. I forgot that I mean by "target" something different than you mean. I like the definitions of "Target" in the ICE rulesbooks: An action that is played out through one or more specific entities as stated on a card or in the rules is considered to "target" the entities. A targeted entity is said ...
by CDavis7M
Tue May 19, 2020 5:50 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Protected Wizard Haven opponent can't use
Replies: 2
Views: 86

Re: Protected Wizard Haven opponent can't use

>I have a question. If I have a character at the White Towers (using it as >an unprotected Wizardhaven) and then my opponent plays Fortress of White >Towers (or otherwise protects it), what happens to my character. It says >no other players can use it as a haven... You would have to replace the sit...
by CDavis7M
Tue May 19, 2020 5:43 am
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings
Replies: 10
Views: 287

Re: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings

You do not see that playing of Éowyn is optional action, or you see it but still consider Éowyn as target of "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence". I'm a bit confused as to why you would say this because I specifically noted that playing Eowyn is an optional action and that she i...
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 11:56 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Gorgoroth region movement rules?
Replies: 2
Views: 86

Re: Gorgoroth region movement rules?

(looks like the rule is originally credited to the CRF) The rule is actually an optional rule in the original The Wizards rulesbook. https://i.imgur.com/u3FpIp1.jpg?1 The decision to require the use of this rule in tournament play wasn't enacted until late 1997 after the release of ME: The Lidless ...
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 10:38 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
Replies: 54
Views: 1239

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

"Directly effect"? Receiving kill MP for eliminating a character is combat, a part thereof. No. Receiving kill MP for eliminating a character is less of a "combat purpose" than being wounded. And even wounded allies do not count as wounded characters. So eliminated allies do not award MP when elimi...
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 9:34 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings
Replies: 10
Views: 287

Re: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings

The CoE has been making rulings for almost 20 years ignorant of the ICE rulings. The URD has been around for 10 years and no one bothered to point out the mistakes. The primary reasons why people misunderstand the rules are (A) they fail to recognize that the rules changed and (B) they take the CRF ...
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 9:07 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings
Replies: 10
Views: 287

Re: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings

No one considered that the attribute bonuses on Permanent Event are just there for emphasis only (METW p. 12) and they don't actually have any effect on their own. Instead, the effects of permanent-events are resolved immediately (METW p. 46). Therefore, if Eowyn is not in play when the 1st and 2nd...
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 8:09 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Potential Carambor Fix
Replies: 86
Views: 23832

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

To me ICE clearly used revealing of the new site to mean declaration and resolution of the new site . If the site card is face down, part of that declaration is turning it over. Otherwise everything that happens according to the rules when a site is revealed would happen only if the new site starte...
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 7:08 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings
Replies: 10
Views: 287

Re: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings

By the way, the old Helm of Her Secrey ruling (mentioned in Ichabod's question to Reynolds above) is one of the few instances where the ICE rulings were incorrect but never corrected. The original ruling was made by Scott Frazer (Ichabod was around). Originally it was ruled that playing multiple cop...
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 5:29 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings
Replies: 10
Views: 287

Re: Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings

Shapeshifter wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 4:33 pm
What makes you think, however, that the old ICE digests that didn‘t make it into the CRF may still be counted as official?
Because the ICE Netrep has said so.

Many obviously correct rulings have been removed overtime. The CRF is large enough.
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 6:52 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 50
Views: 2880

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Technically correct is the best kind of correct. You either follow the rules or you don't. If the rules need to be clarified/amended, we have a process for that. I am following the rules. Annotation 25a technically doesn't apply to situations where a company returns to it's site of origin. The exis...
by CDavis7M
Mon May 18, 2020 6:30 am
Forum: 2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions
Topic: When a Company is at a Site
Replies: 54
Views: 7737

Re: When a Company is at a Site

Yeah, but when you play by the rules, and people still complain about things over and over and they want to cry out to someone... But when I make a post it's about the 1 or 2 repetitive things that ALLWAYS come up Yeah but this is because people are confused because they didn't realize that rules o...

Go to advanced search