Council of Elrond

CRF, Ruling by Terms, Targets wrote:You cannot target an opponent's character or resources with your own resources.

I do not know a rule that forbids a targeting of opponent's sites with your own resources. Targeting of opponent's sites with your own resources seems odd.

I propose the following erratum:

You cannot target an opponent's characters, sites or resources with your own resources.

Is there an example of a resource that might cause an issue?

Hidden Haven.

Makes sense, but you obviously target them with certain hazards (I know they are not resources).

But, I think without looking at 1600+ cards, for a a little of course would be neeeded

Like for instance:

Look More Closely Later

Ritual. Tap a sage to untap a site at which "Information" is playable. Sage makes a corruption check. "'We will take this book, the Book of Mazarbul, and look at it more closely later.'"-LotRII

I guess in multi-player (or even 1 on 1) this could not be played on an "teammate's" site then (for whatever reason)...

Or against, needing a tapped site for opponent to play a resource, next turn, etc...

Hidden Haven is good example; I'm convinced.

Look More Closely Later actually would NOT with because you have to be at the site to interest that site according the CRF (see term "site").

Hidden Haven on opponents site is silly. If it is the only example, perhaps it should receive errata.

The other Untapping of Sites proposal mentioned using Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe to untap an opponents site. Seems dumb. But Hidden Haven does have abuse if you can play it on an opponent's site. So I agree with the clarification. And there is a typographical error.

(Proposal) CRF Ruling by Terms - Targets wrote: Targets

• A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Enitities 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."
• Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions declared in the same chain of effects. An exception to this is a dice-rolling action; e.g., a corruption check.
• Annotation 2: A corruption check or any dice-rolling action can be targeted in the chain of effects during which it was declared.
• Annotation 3: Long-events and certain other cards do not have targets because they are not played out through one specific entity, i.e., they generally affect an entire class of things.
• Annotation 4: An action may not target a face-down card nor any element of a face down card. Face down cards include unrevealed new site cards and on-guard cards.
• You cannot target an opponent's characters, sites, or resources with your own resources resource cards or their effects (e.g., Hidden Haven or the on-tap effect of Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe).
• A card that is played on a card continuously targets the card it is on.
• See also Rulings by Term, Active Condition.

Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe (nor other item) does not target a site.

Why bother saying that? We are discussing the effects of the item, not any possible "targeting" of the item itself. Surely you are not making this statement as a rationale for allowing Ring Durin's Tribe to untap multiple sites?

MELE Glossary wrote:Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the “target” of the action. Some possible targets are: characters, corruption checks, strike dice rolls, items, sites, and companies. A card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets an entity. Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War).

Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe states "Tap a Dwarf bearer to untap the site he is currently at." This is an effect. The "target" is a site. The chosen target is "the site he is currently at." In this case, the player does not choose the card. Instead, the text of the effect chooses the target (i.e., "the site he is currently at").

Which site (card) gets untapped should be clear from the phrase "the site he is currently at." Come on. Yes, it's true, characters in different companies may both be "at" Rivendell. And Rivendell is a "site." But tapping and untapping are mechanics for CARD. Not for the abstract concept of a "site" separate from its card. How can the abstract concept of a "site" without its card be untapped? It can't. So clearly "site", as used here in Ring of Durin's Tribe (and in most places in the rules and card text) is short-hand for "site card." The character is only at one site card. And that is the site card that is untapped.


If Hidden Haven is the real issue, then it should receive errata and clarification. When a faithful player refers to the CoE erratum to counter a bogus play of Hidden Haven on his sites by his rules lawyer opponent, he is going to look at Hidden Haven, not "Rulings by Term - Targets."

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:39 am Why bother saying that? We are discussing the effects of the item, not any possible "targeting" of the item itself. Surely you are not making this statement as a rationale for allowing Ring Durin's Tribe to untap multiple sites?

Player has right to target for discard opponent's The One Ring (and his own Gollum) by tapping (his own) Gollum.
This does not count as targeting The One Ring by Gollum.

So mentioning Hidden Haven and Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe as comparable cards in context of targeting makes a confusion.

Whether effects of using resources can/cannot target opponent site cards is not in scope of the proposal.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:49 am Player has right to target for discard opponent's The One Ring (and his own Gollum) by tapping (his own) Gollum.
This does not count as targeting The One Ring by Gollum.

I disagree. Gollum (i.e., Gollum's effect) DOES target The One Ring. Gollum is not an example of the rule on targeting, he is the exception to the rule and an example of an early cards that was poorly written and no longer works in view of later CRF statements. The CRF on "Targets" says that "You cannot target an opponent's character or resources with your own resources." And the CRF of Active Conditions says "Your opponent's resources may be the active conditions for your resources, but may not be the targets for your resources."

For example:

ICE Digest 86 wrote:From: Michael Pureka <mpu...@mdinc.com>
>> >2) Can you play Mallorn at Bag End, if another player previously stored
>> >*Earth of Galadriel's Orchard* there?
>
>> Yes.
>
>Wait... what happened to not using your opponent's resources are
conditions for your own? Does this mean I can plant The White Tree at Minas Tirith if
my opponent has stored a sapling there? Does this mean I can play Gollum's fate using my
>opponent's copy of Gollum if he happens to be at Mt. Doom?

The ruling is that you can't target your opponent's resources with your
resources. Mallorn only uses Earth of Galadriel's Orchard as an active
condition, it doesn't target it. So that's OK. The White Tree discards
the sapling, so it targets, and can't be played that way. Same with Gollum's
Fate. (CRF, Term, Target)

The White Tree has an effect that discards The Sapling of the White Tree (i.e., "discard the Sapling of the White Tree." You cannot target an opponent's Sapling so you need to play your own Sapling.

Similarly, Gollum has an effect that discards The One Ring (i.e., "then both Gollum and The One Ring are discarded."). Clearly this card was intended to discard the opponent's One Ring. However, the CRF was updated to include rules on targeting opponent's resources and Gollum was never updated.

We only have one CRF statement on Gollum from the very first CRF ("The text on Gollum is an ability that you can choose to use, not an effect that happens automatically.") This statement predates the CRF statements on Targets and Active Conditions. Gollum was never updated after those statements were included to be consistent with them.

Why wasn't Gollum fixed? Because obviously the intended use is to discard the opponent's One Ring and 99% of players are not Rules Lawyers.

Gollum's on-tap effect targets The One Ring. Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe (its on-tap effect) targets the site the character is at. Hidden Haven as played targets a site.

But yes, I agree that the CRF statement on targets could be updated to include sites and i have presented one way to do it above.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:18 pmWhy wasn't Gollum fixed? Because obviously the intended use is to discard the opponent's One Ring and 99% of players are not Rules Lawyers.

1) Obvious is subjective.
2) Whether 99% of players are rules lawyers or not is irrelevant.
3) If Gollum wasn't fixed, he should be. If attempting to fix Gollum highlights underlying issues with the structure of the game, those should be fixed first. Since it's starting to look like ICE used "X targets Y" and "effect/action of X's text targets Y" interchangeably, that may need to be clarified or standardized. However, that has no particular bearing on this particular proposal. I think adding opponent's sites to the list of things you may not target with your own resources is worthwhile for covering any potential abuses from popping up while not limiting the likely intended use of one's own resources.

I agree. Gollum should be fixed.

And I agree that adding opponent's sites to the list of things you may not target is a good idea. I propose amending the CRF statements as shown above.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:18 pm I disagree. Gollum (i.e., Gollum's effect) DOES target The One Ring.

I disagree that Gollum is the same as effect of using Gollum.
Latter does not happen at resolution of Gollum.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:18 pm Clearly this card was intended to discard the opponent's One Ring. However, the CRF was updated to include rules on targeting opponent's resources and Gollum was never updated.

You may prefer a blaming the CRF here instead acknowledging a distinction between a resource and effect of using the resource.
The same for minion The Arkenstone.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:42 pm I disagree that Gollum is the same as effect of using Gollum.
Latter does not happen at resolution of Gollum.

I never said Gollum the card is the same as the effect in the card text of the Gollum card. "Gollum" as used here is shorthand for "Gollum's effect" and I indicated that. At least read a single sentence with complete context.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:42 pm You may prefer a blaming the CRF here instead acknowledging a distinction between a resource and effect of using the resource.
The same for minion The Arkenstone.

I acknowledge the distinction between a card and its effects. Of course Minion Arkenstone also has issues based on the CRF statements on Targeting.