Why did everyone vote on this without mentioning ICE's numerous rulings on this same point? I can't speak for "everyone", but many community members may have been aware of this CRF 13, 14, 15 entry overturning the previous rulings: Guarded Haven You may not use this card as a starting sta...

Once more into the breach, dear friends! When a card is removed from play in all other cases, the card is discarded unless the card specifically states otherwise. Opponent reveals four cards at random from his discard pile. You may choose a non-unique one and remove it from play. Opponent discards t...

Another case for viewtopic.php?f=129&t=4257

"'X or Y only' means 'X only or Y only'" is not an absolute truth. You are adding an assumption of a distributive property in keywords that is not there. Instead, a card with "X or Y only" is quite literally NOT a card with "X only" (we can still argue intended parsing ...

Any news on this? Do I need to draft a better justification?

But there would NEVER be "an infinite number of declarations of canceling" because non-targeted (non-attack cancellation) cancellation effects are not triggered, they are on-going effect that comes into play once, immediately at resolution. Attack cancellation works differently because it...

" Discard when Shelob attacks " a restriction to the player invoking the action of " opts to attack ." Therefore, discarding is a cost of attacking and so discarding is an active condition, which must be satisfied at declaration. I do not read these notions in that text. "r...

War-forges: "Discard when this deck is discarded" -> "Discard when this site is discarded"

Otherwise, explain the purpose of "Once the effects of an environment card have been applied to a target during a given movement/hazard phase, that effect is not applied again to that target during the current turn." I'd say it is a clarification. Just because it was written to clarify en...

I would think "when Shelob attacks" would to be triggered by the resolution of the declaration of the attack. Up until that resolution, Marvels Told would be possible (and fizzle the declared attack).

Indeed... except that wouldn't be possible to fizzle it if the effect it wanted to cancel was from the same card play as the effect lowering the hazard limit.

Scott didn't say that Shelob would actually become a creature when attacking as a permanent-event (just "essentially," which is true since it's just an attack). Perhaps you only looked at the 1/6/96 correspondence. This wording is more definitive than "essentially", to me (under...

Scott Frazer's opinion (1/6/96 and 1/9/96) was that it becomes a creature. Presuming this becoming is at declaration, Marvels Told would not be possible. The card itself doesn't explicitly say it becomes a creature (unlike, e.g., Nazgul becoming events), so without Scott's opinion appearing in a CRF...

8. Let's suppose my moving company has a hazard limit of one (all hazards but one have been played) and my opponent plays a dragon. I respond _to the play of the dragon_ with Dragon's Hunger. He discards a hazard creature and the hazard limit is reduced by one (to zero). Since the haz limit is now ...

I agree with Konrad that "becomes" language should indicate a one-time effect. I'm not convinced that the removal of King Under the Mountain should not keep the site a Border-hold and Dwarf-hold permanently, though. There are many other cards with this same problem. To my knowledge, none o...