Search found 2811 matches
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:54 pm
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Ready to his will
- Replies: 27
- Views: 10772
Re: Ready to his will
The "one strike" is technically the current as-modified number. But in actuality it is the the normal printed number because the timing rules. A bit misleading. it is technically and in actuality the current as-modified number. If Hoarmurath of Dir +1 strike effect is declared in response...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:49 pm
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
- Replies: 298
- Views: 81653
Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings
You do not (want to) see "Instead of a normal character". So you are seeing similarities between Thrall of the Voice AND A Chance Meeting or We have Come to Kill. "Instead of a normal character" simply means that the effect of Thrall can only be used in lieu of playing a charact...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:27 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity
- Replies: 54
- Views: 18606
Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity
By the way, was the original post trying to suggest that when you play Ancient Deep-hold you can select FW Deep-mines as the adjacent site???
I find that it helps to actually play the card to see how it works, or in this case why it doesn't.
I find that it helps to actually play the card to see how it works, or in this case why it doesn't.
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:26 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity
- Replies: 54
- Views: 18606
Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity
Question: A character is at a protected WizardHaven (other than Rhosgobel) and decides to move to the Deep Mines site (the player has SP>6). Normally, the site of origin is returned to the location-deck (or discarded) at the end of the movement/hazard-phase. (I like to keep it with the Deep Mines-c...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:24 am
- Forum: 2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions
- Topic: Deep Mines
- Replies: 50
- Views: 32122
Re: Deep Mines
Question: A character is at a protected WizardHaven (other than Rhosgobel) and decides to move to the Deep Mines site (the player has SP>6). Normally, the site of origin is returned to the location-deck (or discarded) at the end of the movement/hazard-phase. (I like to keep it with the Deep Mines-c...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:12 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
- Replies: 298
- Views: 81653
Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings
Fact check: MELE specified that minion cards are character cards, so agent cards that are minion cards are character cards. Without the rule refinements of MELE, there would be no basis for agent cards counting as character cards. MELE only specified that minion cards are character cards. MELE did ...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:05 am
- Forum: 2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions
- Topic: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)
- Replies: 50
- Views: 31356
Re: Creatures played as an automatic-attack (playabilty conditions)
Question: Can someone explain the meaning of "normally" keyable? I mean, consider the following statements: Normal means as written on the card, not considering other cards effects. 3. If DON is in play (or a character is wounded), Morgul-rats can be played as an auto-attack at certain un...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:51 am
- Forum: 2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions
- Topic: Deep Mines
- Replies: 50
- Views: 32122
Re: Deep Mines
Antonio has a mean One Ring characterless deck, just dumping resources on the table (Armories etc), while waiting for characters to appear at Lórien, then Lucky Search for a ring at Mount Doom with an almost empty playdeck. He's been making lots of friends with this deck :-) I have a deck like this...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:49 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity
- Replies: 54
- Views: 18606
Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity
You can only have 1 Deep Mines to/from Isengard even if you have 4 copies of Isengard in play. You don't get to have 4 Deep Mines. If you move to Deep Mines from your own DIY Wizardhaven and you don't leave a company back up there, and the "protection" effect leaves play, you are stuck. I...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:33 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
- Replies: 298
- Views: 81653
Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings
Thanks for finding that. I did look at "CvCC" CoE rulings but didn't pick up on that. I had selected the previous ruling because it was highlighted in the URD, and so many people are following it for that reason.
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:31 am
- Forum: 2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions
- Topic: Deep Mines
- Replies: 50
- Views: 32122
Re: Deep Mines
3 b) Or, when it’s Ettenmoors and it returns to deck I lose all stages at this site and it isn’t a haven anymore - Deep Mines is still connected with this site or not? --------------------------------------------------- If Ettenmoors became the surface site of a Deep Mines, it will remain as such a...
- Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:04 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
- Replies: 298
- Views: 81653
Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings
CoE weekly Rulings/Clarifications 17 17. If you kill an ally in CvCC, do you get kill MPs? rules say you recieve that chartacter's kill marshalling points if you kill a character, and also that allies are characters for the purposes of combat. *** Yes, you get "kill MPs" if you kill an al...
- Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:49 pm
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
- Replies: 298
- Views: 81653
Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings
From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:10 AM Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #67 Does One Foe to Breed a War really have no effect in CvCC? *** CRF, Turn Sequence Rulings, Site Phase, Company vs. Company Combat: Hazards have no effect on company vs. company comba...
- Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:17 pm
- Forum: Decks, Strategy, Tips, Ideas
- Topic: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)
- Replies: 31
- Views: 16101
Re: Simplified Timing Rules (Active & Passive Conditions)
But from the minimal exposure I get from reading the old lists, there also seemed to be a lack in the community of people challenging such an on-the-fly approach to handling things. Don't say that in front of Martin Toggweiler. There were numerous people challenging the ICE rulings and asking for c...
- Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:45 pm
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
- Replies: 298
- Views: 81653
Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings
You may not play Orc and Troll characters until you have played the appropriate card (e.g., Bad Company). I know the rule. However, Thrall of the Voice is not an "appropriate card" that allows a Fallen Wizard player to play Orcs or Trolls: Craig Ichabod O'Brien Mar 12, 1998 12:00 AM >Can ...