A Malady Without Healing

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

A Malady Without Healing

Post by the Jabberwock » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:52 am

I propose the following erratum be issued for this card (bold mine):

A MALADY WITHOUT HEALING
Magic. Shadow‐magic. Playable during the site phase on a non‐Ringwraith, non‐Wizard character at the same site as a shadow‐magic‐using character. Target character must make a corruption check modified by ‐1 followed by a body check (modified
by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic-user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by ‐5. May target an opponent's character.

The current status quo for this card as actually played by the community is in agreement with my suggested erratum (ie. it is widely accepted to allow play of this card on your opponent's characters).

The current strict rules interpretation, however, does not permit this card to target an opponent's character due to the rule which states that your resources may not target an opponent's characters or resources. While Malady suggests that it overrides this rule, it is not explicitly so stated.

It is without doubt that ICE intended for this card to be able to target opponent's characters as evidenced from the following ICE Rulings Digest. In ICE Ruling Digest 582, the following question was asked and the answer given by Van Norton as posted below:

"2. If my opponent plays A Malady Without Healing against me, can I respond to the corruption check with A Friend or Three (or any other resource) despite the fact that it is not my resource turn?

No. You may only play resources during your turn."


Clearly, the assumption was that Malady could be played on opponent's characters, and if that was not the case, then Van would have simply amended his answer to state that Malady may not be played on an opponent, and thus the question proposed is irrelevant.

Further discussion on this topic can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2739&hilit=target+ ... +resources

User avatar
rezwits
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by rezwits » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:04 pm

Aye
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:48 pm

Sure, a no-brainer.
Though the consensus is such that a CoEOE (Council of Elrond Officil Erratum:-)) is hardly needed. There have been major GO tournaments where nobody objected to Malady decks.

On another note, though, about procedure, I thought we would discuss in the ROC which cards/issues would be up for an erratum. Or is this it? This proposal is very elaborate, hence the confusion.

And yet another note, perhaps it should include a broader perspective, 'resources playable on/or affecting opponent's resource or site', such as Spies Feared?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2653
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:50 pm

A card-by-card basis is a better approach, IMO. The whole problem is that blanket rules are insufficient to cover ICE's highly variable wording.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by the Jabberwock » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:21 am

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:48 pm
Sure, a no-brainer.
Though the consensus is such that a CoEOE (Council of Elrond Officil Erratum:-)) is hardly needed. There have been major GO tournaments where nobody objected to Malady decks.
Part of my agenda in cleaning up the rules is to provide clear answers for currently unclear situations. A player comes to our forum and asks "Can I play A Malady Without Healing on my opponent's character? He gets 2 answers: one saying that the rules don't allow this, and the second saying that everybody does it anyways. That is confusing.
All rules which do not agree with how the masses play a particular card or situation will need to eventually be clarified, one way or the other.

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:48 pm
On another note, though, about procedure, I thought we would discuss in the ROC which cards/issues would be up for an erratum. Or is this it? This proposal is very elaborate, hence the confusion.
To clarify: this sub-forum is to compile all rules erratum/clarifications suggested by members of the community to be included in the next Annual Rules Vote ballot. Any community member (as well as any Council member) is free to create a thread making a suggestion. Which is what I have done with this thread.
This is not to be confused with my role as part of the ROC, which is a completely separate function. When the time comes, the ROC will jointly review all of the threads in this sub-forum and determine which ones to include for the upcoming Annual Rules Vote.
Again, all members of the community (and Council) are encouraged to submit recommendations in this forum for review that they feel passionate about.
Yes, my proposal is a bit detailed, but it is simply to provide as much information up front to others in advance, because I already had that information on hand. Others who submit a proposal are not required to include so many details, however they are encouraged to include whatever information they are aware of and have easy access to. Sorry about the confusion.

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:48 pm
And yet another note, perhaps it should include a broader perspective, 'resources playable on/or affecting opponent's resource or site', such as Spies Feared?
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:50 pm
A card-by-card basis is a better approach, IMO. The whole problem is that blanket rules are insufficient to cover ICE's highly variable wording.
I tend to agree with Bandobras on this point. IMO, it is probably more straight forward to address each card individually. If we make a blanket rule, then perhaps it will create additional unintended consequences on cards we hadn't thought about or lead to additional confusion interpreting the new rule in unfamiliar situations. If Spies Feared needs a clarification, I would suggest that be submitted independently.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:44 am

Yes of course 1 CoEOE per card is better, but as you say, if this section is for compiling proposals, issues and suggestions, then add Spies Feared to that list. It's in a similar category.

The downside to such a detailed proposal here is that is gives the impression it is a final version, and that it is voting time. But ok, I applaude the thorough and accurate approach.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 519
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by Shapeshifter » Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:45 pm

From my point of view there is neither an erratum nor a clarification needed because the CoE Rulings Digest already covered this problem sufficiently (bolds are mine).
Rulings Digest 21 wrote:I just realized this, Malady is only playable on your own characters!!! The
CRF says under Rulings By Term, the emphasis is mine.
Targets
* A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Entities are
only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number
and type. Note that "the foo" counts as specifying one "foo."
* **You cannot target an opponent's character or resources with your own
resources. **
So, what can be done about this?
*** Since AMWH specifically refers to targetting hero characters, it overrules
this section of the rules. Cards can override the rules.
Rulings Digest 46 wrote:Even though the CRF states that "You cannot target an opponent's
character or resources with your own resources." , you must be able to
target an opposing character with Malady, right?
*** Since the card is a minion resource released two expansions before
ME:WH, and the card implicitly says that you may target a hero character
with it, A Malady Without Healing is an exception to the rules, and can
target an opponent's character. Also note that this doesn't restrict
you from playing A Malady Without Healing on your own characters.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2653
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:48 pm

That, however, is, to put it bluntly, an incredibly stupid argument.

MELE was released in 1997. MEWH was released in 1997.

Dark Minions knew that Agents would be used in a non-agent fashion in 1996, before MELE came out.

Also, consider Flatter A Foe, from The Dragons set.

It lists Elves as a possible attack type. There were no possible Elf attacks at that time. (Unless the erratum for Traitor had already been issued by this point, which even then is an extreme corner case.)

The idea that ICE didn't know what was coming up and couldn't release cards in one set anticipating a future release (one that was going to occur within a year) is ludicrous.

More to the point, though, is that a NetRep ruling that boils down to "If you can interpret a resource such that it can be played on your opponent's characters, go right ahead" is disastrous for both consistency and game health. An erratum that takes a badly worded card and gives it proper wording is far more limited in scope and doesn't run into inconsistencies.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:31 am

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:44 am
Yes of course 1 CoEOE per card is better, but as you say, if this section is for compiling proposals, issues and suggestions, then add Spies Feared to that list. It's in a similar category.
Will you kindly submit Spies Feared then with its own thread? You need not include any more detailed information than is necessary to understand what the rule issue is with this card. Of course you are welcome to include as much detail as you like. I prefer not to submit a card myself for consideration which I know nothing about and have not thought about. Thanks.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:44 am
The downside to such a detailed proposal here is that is gives the impression it is a final version, and that it is voting time. But ok, I applaude the thorough and accurate approach.
Thanks for the accolades. :)

I understand your point. However, the Charter states that the Rules Vote will take place in June and nowhere do I indicate that it is time to vote on this. The Submission Rules Announcement viewtopic.php?f=143&t=3206 at the top of this forum also spells out that this forum is to post recommendations to be considered for the Annual Rules Vote. Once the ROC decides on a timeline, I will announce that information as well so the community has a clearer understanding of what is happening when.

My submission for this card was detailed because I had the time and inclination at that moment to make it so. If chosen to be included in the Annual Rules Vote, this submission may be ready to go without much more attention from the ROC prior to the Annual Rules Vote opening. Other submissions with less detail/information may need to be revamped by the ROC prior to the vote in order to make them clear and presentable to those voting. Any person making a submission in this forum is encouraged to provide as much information/argument/analysis as possible to help with understanding of the issue being submitted. That said, any person making a submission is only required to provide the basic fundamentals of their proposed rule erratum/clarification.
Shapeshifter wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:45 pm
From my point of view there is neither an erratum nor a clarification needed because the CoE Rulings Digest already covered this problem sufficiently
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:48 pm
More to the point, though, is that a NetRep ruling that boils down to "If you can interpret a resource such that it can be played on your opponent's characters, go right ahead" is disastrous for both consistency and game health. An erratum that takes a badly worded card and gives it proper wording is far more limited in scope and doesn't run into inconsistencies.
Without getting into a debate about whether prior NetRep rulings should be taken as law.....

I feel that Malady is still a source of confusion and heart ache for some players. There is nothing to lose by allowing the community to make an official erratum for this card, and there is something to gain. It is also much preferred (IMO) to have the democratic process make the decision rather than a single person making a judgment who was acting as NetRep at the time.

User avatar
rezwits
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by rezwits » Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:33 am

Shapeshifter wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Rulings Digest 46 wrote:Also note that this doesn't restrict you from playing A Malady Without Healing on your own characters.
I think the only erratum, which is hilarious, but definitely needed is:

Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable during the site phase on a non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character at the same site as a shadow-magic using character. Target character must make a corruption check modified by -1 followed by a body check (modified by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by -5.

If you are playing Fallen-wizard, and you kill your own character, you DON'T receive the kill marshaling points. But maybe no erratum is necessary because most of us know:

You still cannot receive MPs from your own
hazards [CoE 40].

Now it's not your own Hazard, but it's similar.

What a funny deck, you are a Fallen-wizard, and very evil, and just WHACK your own guys turn after turn recycling Malady! Netting you about 6-8 extra bonus MPs...

This is too much tho... I gotta go...
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 23, 2018 5:18 am

Any thoughts on this language?
Magic. Shadow‐magic. Playable during the site phase on a non‐Ringwraith, non‐Wizard character at the same site as a shadow‐magic‐using character you control. Target character must make a corruption check modified by ‐1 followed by a body check (modified by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero you do not control and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic-user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by ‐5. May target an opponent's character.
- Allows targeting of an opponent's character.
- Prevents gaining marshalling points from killing your own hero characters.
- Prevents using your opponent's shadow-magic using character at same site to play this card.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Jun 24, 2018 6:18 am

This one for Bandobras Took (and will be the last P.G. excerpt I will post for this ARV as it's too late in the process to really matter):

Lidless Eye Players Guide - A Malady Without Healing:
A Malady Without Healing is better than a hazard creature for getting rid of your opponent's characters. It targets the character you want, and since you play it during your site phase, your opponent is unable to play resources in defense. You get two chances to kill the character, one with a body check and one with a corruption check. Try to wait for the character to go to a site you can play other resources at, so that you do not have to spend the turn just killing off the character. This is also a perfect card against heroes, who not only have a harder time dealing with corruption than minions, but can also give you marshalling points.

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”