Council of Elrond

INFORMATION
The movement restriction listed on the hero ally cards Leaflock and Skinbark include a region named “Redhorn Gap.” There is no region card named "Redhorn Gap." There is, however, a region card titled “Redhorn Gate.” The ally Treebeard who also was given the same movement restriction, was later issued an erratum: Replace “Redhorn Gap” with “Redhorn Gate.” Leaflock and Skinbark were apparently overlooked when this erratum was issued.

BALLOT ITEM # 1:
Are you in favor of issuing the following errata?

LEAFLOCK
Change This:

Unique. Playable at Wellinghall. Tap to cancel the effects of one hazard that targets his company. May not be attacked by automatic‐attacks or hazards keyed to his site. Discard Leaflock if his company moves to a site that is not in: Fangorn, Rohan, Gap of Isen, Wold and Foothills, Enedhwaith, Old Pûkel‐land, Brown Lands, Anduin Vales, or Redhorn Gap.

To This:

Unique. Playable at Wellinghall. Tap to cancel the effects of one hazard that targets his company. May not be attacked by automatic‐attacks or hazards keyed to his site. Discard Leaflock if his company moves to a site that is not in: Fangorn, Rohan, Gap of Isen, Wold and Foothills, Enedhwaith, Old Pûkel‐land, Brown Lands, Anduin Vales, or Redhorn Gate.

(changes in bold for clarity)

SKINBARK
Change This:

Unique. Playable at Wellinghall. May not be attacked by automatic‐attacks or hazards keyed to his site. Discard Skinbark if his company moves to a site that is not in: Fangorn, Rohan, Gap of Isen, Wold and Foothills, Anduin Vales, or Redhorn Gap.

To This:

Unique. Playable at Wellinghall. May not be attacked by automatic‐attacks or hazards keyed to his site. Discard Skinbark if his company moves to a site that is not in: Fangorn, Rohan, Gap of Isen, Wold and Foothills, Anduin Vales, or Redhorn Gate.

(changes in bold for clarity)


CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR VOTE:
If you vote YES, then Leaflock and Skinbark will be allowed to move within the Redhorn Gate region without being discarded.

If you vote NO, then Leaflock and Skinbark will remain unchanged. It will be up to each playgroup and tournament judge to decide whether or not these allies are permitted to move in the Redhorn Gate region without being discarded.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Most players currently ignore the "Redhorn Gap" typo and play as if it says "Redhorn Gate." This is without doubt what ICE intended.

REFERENCE TOPICS:
None

This was covered back in 1996 and it's also in the CRF under Treebeard. Low hand but worthless fruit.

From: ich...@cstone.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: [METW] Treebeard errata?
Date: 1996/03/05
>Redhorn Gap! Redhorn GAP? where the f*ck is that. Shave my hobbit foot if
>you can find it, I will. Nearly put a fist in my opponents face when he
>said: "It must be a site somewhere, I dunno, anyhows your treebeard is a
>gonner because you went to Redhorn GATE!"
>
I would advise shaving your opponent's foot first. Yes, it is supposed
to be Redhorn Gate. It will be in the next FAQ.

I forget. What were we trying to do here, again?

Did people prefer the typo?

Some would say that we are saving you the nearly 2.5 months between your posts (and unknown time before the first post) to realize the unlimited print.

Instead, it seems worth noting that the "complete list of errata" from ICE did not list this errata. If it isn't in the "complete list", it seems reasonable for players to not believe it is an errata.

I further think this vote highlights an underlying problem with statements such as "The mechanics of any given card will be determined from the most recent English printing (as well as from official errata and the official rulings)." That is: not all players have access to the most recent English printing! CoE hosts a "Full Spoiler List", but it contains Redhorn Gap as well (presumably from the mentioned lack of ICE's "complete list of errata"). Plug for viewtopic.php?f=68&t=3325

Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:00 pm I further think this vote highlights an underlying problem

I think so too. 60 people just made a decision without bothering to read the card. To be fair, it is the CoE's M.O.

No wonder the ARV process failed to do anything besides introduce more errors and needless complexity.

Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:00 pm Instead, it seems worth noting that the "complete list of errata" from ICE did not list this errata. If it isn't in the "complete list", it seems reasonable for players to not believe it is an errata.

By the way, you're misunderstanding what the complete list of errata is.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:51 pm I think so too. 60 people just made a decision without bothering to read the card. To be fair, it is the CoE's M.O.

You get to decide whether you believe your hallucinations are truth.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:05 pm By the way, you're misunderstanding what the complete list of errata is.

A curious statement since I did not state my own beliefs about what the complete list of errata is in my previous post. More hallucination?

Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:12 pm

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:05 pm By the way, you're misunderstanding what the complete list of errata is.

A curious statement since I did not state my own beliefs about what the complete list of errata is in my previous post. More hallucination?

I can understanding your beliefs based on your statement:

Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:00 pm Instead, it seems worth noting that the "complete list of errata" from ICE did not list this errata. If it isn't in the "complete list", it seems reasonable for players to not believe it is an errata.

From this statement:

(A) You believe that "this" (i.e., the Unlimited printing or the changes therein) is "errata".

• "This" is not errata. Your statement misunderstands what "errata" is. An "errata" is a correction to an error in a printing. The Limited card is one printing. The Unlimited card is a separate and distinct printing compared to the Limited printing. The Unlimited printing is not "errata" to the Limited printing. Sure it has changes in the text, but it would be improper to call this "errata."

(B) You believe that it is reasonable for players (presumably including yourself) to not believe that "it" is an errata.

• This statement is a tautology: "it is not errata because it is not in the complete list of errata." So there is no point in even making this statement. But further, your statement suggests a misunderstanding of what the complete list of errata actually is. It is a listing of errors or changes in a printing, not a list of changes to specific cards in general regardless of printing.

The statement "Redhorn Gate" in the Unlimited printing is not "errata." It is just a change in a new printing. Changes on the newer printings are NOT listed in the "complete listing of errata." This would be clear if you looked around.

I cannot prevent anyone from claiming whatever they want regardless of the truth of those claims. Claims made irrespective of refutations of them do not demonstrate any ability to listen or communicate effectively.

-----

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:49 pm

Theo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:00 pm Instead, it seems worth noting that the "complete list of errata" from ICE did not list this errata. If it isn't in the "complete list", it seems reasonable for players to not believe it is an errata.

From this statement:

(A) You believe that "this" (i.e., the Unlimited printing or the changes therein) is "errata".

Except "this" refers to the error in the Limited printing (and correction thereof). Last I checked, an error in writing can also be called an errata; the common translation of errata from Latin is "mistakes". I'm sorry your basis for claiming you know my beliefs seems to have been based on misattributing "this".

Regardless of whether your opinion is that the Unlimited printing was the correction to the Limited error, or whether there was no correction to the Limited error and the Unlimited printing simply made it irrelevant, I hope you can agree that the Limited printing did have an error, and that the text from the Unlimited printing could be one way to correct that error. At least some of the voters on this Ballot thought so.

-----

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:49 pm your statement suggests a misunderstanding of what the complete list of errata actually is. It is a listing of errors or changes in a printing, not a list of changes to specific cards in general regardless of printing.

My point is that "the complete list" is not actually a complete list for exactly this reason. I think it is reasonable for players to be confused by the discrepancy between name and practice.