Search found 153 matches

by Bruce
Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:43 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: ruling on this please?
Replies: 16
Views: 5145

IMO the point about necessary and sufficient conditions that I stated a couple of posts ago shows how the two rules only apparently conflict. Anyway, I hope the NetRep team will eventually find a solution. It's crazy how the least used cards raise the most twisted and complicated rules questions... :P
by Bruce
Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:30 pm
Forum: GCCG
Topic: IV. GCCG Nations Cup 2010 (Talk)
Replies: 173
Views: 56554

Good news! 2 more teams would be great. Where are you, Italy and Finland and all others? We only need to decide our 3rd member. We have 2 candidates, but neither is 100% sure he could take part and then no final decision was taken yet. Anyway, I assure that team Italy will be in: if this thing isn'...
by Bruce
Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:43 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: ruling on this please?
Replies: 16
Views: 5145

As you correctly pointed out, the following are all sufficient conditions for an attack to be detainment: # Card text will sometimes state that an attack is a detainment attack. # Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack. # Any attack keyed to Dark-domain, Shadow-hold, or Da...
by Bruce
Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:05 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: ruling on this please?
Replies: 16
Views: 5145

The point is not which adverb has the strongest meaning: "always", or "any". Both sentences clearly are formulated in such a way to have full coverage: the one with regard to 100% of the nazgul attacks*, the other with regard to 100% of the automatic-attacks. If you simply pit the two sentences agai...
by Bruce
Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:39 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: ruling on this please?
Replies: 16
Views: 5145

Yesterday I was reading my latest MECCG-related purchase and found something interesting regarding the issue: Detainment Attacks (clarification) - Automatic-attacks are not detainment attacks unless specifically stated on the site card Which should definitely settle the whole debate. According with ...
by Bruce
Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:53 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Spying out the Land
Replies: 12
Views: 3190

Spying out the Land

Short event Magic. Spirit-magic. Playable on a spirit-magic-using character during the organization phase. Opponent may reveal to you any hazards from his hand, and only those hazards can be played during the character company's movement/hazard phase. Unless he is a Ringwraith, character makes a co...
by Bruce
Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:09 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Sacrifice of Form vs agents
Replies: 2
Views: 1145

Sacrifice of Form vs agents

Can Sacrifice of Form be played against an agent attack? If that's the case, what happens to the agent if the body check is unsuccessful? does the agent remain in play? Is the agent wounded or simply tapped?

Thanks in advance
by Bruce
Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:03 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: That Ain't no Secret + Man of Skill
Replies: 26
Views: 5857

Btw, I'd be glad if we'd stick to the main point, i.e. Man of Skill. If we want to talk about Remnants of old Robberies (and I have some doubt about it, given the fact that nobody ever plays that card) we can open another topic for that. ;) I would be glad if it would be possible to speak about suc...
by Bruce
Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:12 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: That Ain't no Secret + Man of Skill
Replies: 26
Views: 5857

I refer to the value , i.e. the mere amount of MPs. I'm not referring to as what it is counted. It would not be counted (as kill MPs) and is now counted (as misc MPs) thanks to RooR. Where did I say that a kill MP is the same thing as a misc MP? Btw, I'd be glad if we'd stick to the main point, i.e....
by Bruce
Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:31 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: That Ain't no Secret + Man of Skill
Replies: 26
Views: 5857

That's not the point of my argument. Frankly speaking, I'm not interested in "the company receives" or "the player receives", or other details regarding that card's wording. The point is that Remnants does not create any MP value on itself, basically its effect is that an MP value which would not be...
by Bruce
Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:02 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: That Ain't no Secret + Man of Skill
Replies: 26
Views: 5857

What I'm trying to point out is that rules create the framework for a card's interpretation. A card's text prevails over a conflicting rule, but the card text's interpretation cannot be pushed to the extent that it brings about a situation which is excluded in any case by the rules. Helms of Iron, R...
by Bruce
Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:31 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: That Ain't no Secret + Man of Skill
Replies: 26
Views: 5857

The key point in this whole discussion is the difference between: 1) Modifying the MP value of a resource 2) Creating an MP value for a resource which is worth no MP at all My point is that MoS can only do 1), your point is that MoS can do both 1) and 2). Modifying the MP value of a resource can be ...
by Bruce
Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:51 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: That Ain't no Secret + Man of Skill
Replies: 26
Views: 5857

IMO the Man of Skill trick is not legal: That Ain't no Secret gives no MPs until stored (it doesn't give 0 MPs , which is a completely different thing), even if Man of Skill is in play. Basically, the effect of MoS is rising the number in the top left corner of TAnS from 1 to 2, but it doesn't wipe ...
by Bruce
Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:07 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Gangways over the Fire vs failed underdeep roll
Replies: 5
Views: 2060

Well, that ruling rests on a absolute lack of logic and reasoning. Er . . . until you've seen the logic and reasoning behind the ruling, perhaps such statements are better left unwritten? ;) OK, maybe I got carried away a little... actually I was contesting basically the fact that the ruling mentio...
by Bruce
Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:16 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Gangways over the Fire vs failed underdeep roll
Replies: 5
Views: 2060

Well, that ruling rests on a absolute lack of logic and reasoning. GotF's text clearly says that only the moving companies can use its ability. A moving company is, by definition, "a company en route between its site of origin and its destination site" . A company failing its underdeep roll has no d...

Go to advanced search