I searched in the CRF and found an entry regarding Here Is a Snake, which has the same effect (just different playability conditions): Playable on a company during its movement/hazard phase after cards have been drawn. Opponent may reveal to you any number of hazards from his hand. He may only play ...

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

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'...

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...

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 th...

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 ...

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...

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

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...

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....

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 valu...

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...

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 ...

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 ...

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...