There are hazards that are played against a company, but not on member or entity associated with the company.
Snowstorm, Rank upon Rank are not played on company.
And to repeat to chuck up:
By general rule it is forbidden to play a hazard against or on other company or entity associated with other company than a company taking its M/H phase.
But there are exceptions.
Adûnaphel
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
The ICE Netrep already ruled that "any one character" in Hazard Adunaphel is not such an exception. The ruling is supported by the rules.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:23 pm And to repeat to chuck up:
By general rule it is forbidden to play a hazard against or on other company or entity associated with other company than a company taking its M/H phase.
But there are exceptions.
Your argument seems to be that your command of the English language is superior to that of the ICE Netrep's. But that is not an issue worthy of a community vote.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
They could rule that a+b=5, while a=1 and b=3.
An errata that would change the value of a to 2 OR the value of b to 4, would make the ruling correct.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Craig Ichabod O'Brien 8/16/98
I have resurrected the FAQ, for some of the more common questions. This will eventually go up on the web site, and should be the first resource for confused new players.
MECCG FAQ 9808
Q: While company A moves, can I tap Adunaphel to tap a character in company B?
A: No. Hazards cannot target characters not in the currently moving company
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Even better for non-moving companies.
I believe that author wrote the ruling so carefully as carefully he read the text of Adûnaphel.
I believe that author wrote the ruling so carefully as carefully he read the text of Adûnaphel.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
At issue is the following conundrum: there are two possible interpretations for this portion of Adûnaphel's text.Adûnaphel wrote:When tapped, Adûnaphel becomes a short-event and causes any one character to tap.
1. Adûnaphel overrides the rule that restricts targeting to characters in the company which is taking its M/H phase, and thus may target any character in play.
-OR-
2. Adûnaphel does not override that rule, and may only target characters in the company which is taking its M/H phase.
The main problem is determining if ICE intended that the word "any" should override this rule or not. I believe that it could be either way.
It is perfectly possible that the word "any" in this case has no actual meaning. Such superfluous words are not uncommon in the English language, and ICE has shown many times before that they were not always careful choosing their words. Thus, the line in question could be shorthand for, "When tapped, Adûnaphel becomes a short-event and causes any one character [in the company currently taking its M/H phase] to tap." Or it could be shorthand for, "When tapped, Adûnaphel becomes a short-event and causes any one character [in play] to tap." Simply from the card, we do not know. Moreover, it does not seem that there is a standard definition, i.e. a rule, stating precisely what "any" means when written on a card. Again, we do not know.
However, given that there is an existing ruling from an official ICE representative in favor of interpretation #2, I would argue that the weight of the evidence is in favor of the second interpretation of ICE's intentions for Adûnaphel.
It is certainly possible that the MECCG community could choose to reverse this ruling and choose interpretation #1. If this were to happen, though, it would be a preference rather than an incontrovertible fact.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
They did not plan so, but they made it.
And players must live with a result, but not with an intention.
Not first, not last time. Please read texts of Foolish Words and the errata for them (yes, both versions are legitimized by the errata). Sometimes they were not realizing what they were doing.
And players must live with a result, but not with an intention.
Not first, not last time. Please read texts of Foolish Words and the errata for them (yes, both versions are legitimized by the errata). Sometimes they were not realizing what they were doing.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Konrad Klar » Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:30 am
It would be more fair to say: "this is serial error present in texts of Nazgul cards. Read <any one character> as just <character>.
by zarathustra » Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:45 pm
Since this ruling has already been made, I will not put it in another digest.
Done Locked
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Making an errata is even more fair, than just to say that there is an error and leaving the error as it is.It would be more fair to say: "this is serial error present in texts of Nazgul cards. Read <any one character> as just <character>.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.