Morgul-horse

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Morgul-horse

Post by Konrad Klar »

Morgul-horse wrote:This card allows you to place a tapped Nazgûl permanent event back into your hand instead of discarding it. Alternatively, allows a Nazgûl to be played keyed to Shadow-land [-me_sl-] ...it was huge and hideous, and its face was a frightful mask...and in the sockets of its eyes and in the nostrils there burned a flame.-LotRV
CRF, Errata (Cards), Morgul-horse wrote:To bring a Nazgûl permanent-event back into your hand, Morgul- horse must be
declared after tapping the Nazgûl is declared and before it resolves. The alternative
effect of this card can be played and resolved before any Nazgûl is played with it. A
Nazgûl must be played as the first declared action in the chain of effects following the
resolution of the alternative effect of Morgul-horse.
If a Nazgûl is not played immediately following the resolution of this card, this card is
returned to its player's hand. This card cannot be played for no effect just to discard it.
Because a player taking its turn has option to declare an action before his opponents, he can use this advantage to prevent a hazard player from playing a a Nazgûl according to alternative effect of Morgul-horse.

I propose the following change:
To bring a Nazgûl permanent-event back into your hand, Morgul- horse must be
declared after tapping the Nazgûl is declared and before it resolves. The alternative
effect of this card can be played and resolved before any Nazgûl is played with it. A
Nazgûl must be played as the first declared action in the chain of effects started by a hazard player following the
resolution of the alternative effect of Morgul-horse.
If hazard player has a possibility to start of a chain of effects, but does not play Nazgûl, this card is
returned to its player's hand. This card cannot be played for no effect just to discard it.
Last edited by Konrad Klar on Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1503
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Morgul-horse (clarification)

Post by CDavis7M »

edit: update below.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1503
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Morgul-horse (clarification)

Post by CDavis7M »

A bit off topic, but I noted that this clarification of the alternative effect of Morgul-horse was issued by ICE NetRep Scott Frazer. From what I can tell he made a bunch of off-brand rulings in his seemingly short tenure before apparently leaving the Middle Earth team. Almost all of his rulings were modified or removed over time by the subsequent NetRep Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien or series editor Mike Reynolds.


Back to the point, it is misleading to say:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:48 pm
Because a player taking its turn has option to declare an action before his opponents, he can use this advantage to prevent a hazard player from playing a a Nazgûl according to alternative effect of Morgul-horse.
The prevention is merely temporary, not complete. It doesn't matter whether a resource player demands to "back up" in order to declare an effect before the Hazard player in order to prevent the Nazgûl from being the first declared effect in the chain of effects following resolution of the alternative effect of Morgul-horse because Morgul-horse would be returned to the Hazard Player's hand per this clarification such that it could be played again and again until the Resource Player finally ran out of effects to declare. Which presumably has the same end result on game play as if the Resource Player had declared those same effects in the same chain as the Nazgul.

This proposal does change gameplay.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Morgul-horse (clarification)

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:33 pm
[...]it could be played again and again until the Resource Player finally ran out of effects to declare.[...]
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:33 pm
Which presumably has the same end result on game play as if the Resource Player had declared those same effects in the same chain as the Nazgul.
Expect that each time Morgul-horse is declared it counts against hazard limit.
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:33 pm
This proposal does change gameplay.
Maybe.
It is not planned that a regulation will not have an impact on game.
It may give an answer for some who is not certain how to play in given situation. It may also change a gameplay of someone who developed (or his playgroup developed) his own, different regulation.

In letter case it may be a reason to vote against the regulation. Voting yes/no may* have an impact on interpretation other texts that say that some action may only happen immediately after other.

*) does not must. There may double standards, or no standards (only particular cases).

EDIT:
Changed two instances of "clarification" to "regulation".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Morgul-horse (clarification)

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:33 pm
This proposal does change gameplay.
Yes. Therefore I will remove "(clarification)" from thread's title.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1503
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Morgul-horse (clarification)

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:36 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:33 pm
[...]it could be played again and again until the Resource Player finally ran out of effects to declare.[...]
Expect that each time Morgul-horse is declared it counts against hazard limit.
. . .The CRF statement on Morgul-horse returning to your hand is describing "Legal Play of Cards."

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by Konrad Klar »

I do not know what you are speaking about.

Many short-events has potential to have an effect on play.
Rumor of Wealth or Dragon's Desolation (2nd effect) have such potential, that does not necessarily must be discharged.
ICE has decided the potential of Morgul-horse must be discharged under rigor of returning the card to hand.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1503
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:35 pm
ICE has decided the potential of Morgul-horse must be discharged under rigor of returning the card to hand.
The CRF statement on Morgul-horse did not make a decision, it merely explains the result of the rules on "Legal Play of Cards."

This is a workaround to forgo errata.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by Konrad Klar »

CRF wrote:A player may not play a card just to discard it (i.e., just get it out of his or her hand).
Specifically, a card may only be declared if it meets at least one of the following
criteria:
• The card must have an immediate effect on the game.
• The card is a long-event. Long-events can always be played, even if ultimately
they will not affect play.
• The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later (e.g., the
second use of Dragon's Desolation). Most permanent-events fall into this
category. Only those that are playable on or with a certain entity are restrictive.
For example, you cannot play a corruption card if no character exists that would
be affected by it.
In all cases, if a card "cannot be duplicated," a second copy of that card cannot be
declared-unless the first copy of the card is targeted for removal earlier in the same
chain of effects when the second copy is played. This is a clarification of Annotation
11 given on page 50 of the Middle-earth: The Wizards Companion.
The part of CRF is just redundant. It does not add any other meaning to game.
For example, you cannot play a corruption card if no character exists that would
be affected by it.
Is example of it.
With or without the statement you cannot play a corruption card if target of the card does not exist.
The chapter seems like to be a residue of attempt to regulate the issues ultimately regulated by Active Condition chapter.

Does it prevent me from playing the Sentinels of Númenor in end-of-turn phase of very last turn of game?
I do not know how to play a faction in end-of-turn phase, but maybe someone knows.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1503
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 7:49 pm
The part of CRF is just redundant. It does not add any other meaning to game.

The chapter seems like to be a residue of attempt to regulate the issues ultimately regulated by Active Condition chapter.
"Legal Play of Cards" has a completely different purpose and structure compared to "Active Conditions."

Legal Play of Cards requires an immediate or possible effect on the game in order to prevent players from dumping cards (e.g., Block on tapped Warrior or "Lost In ___" on a company moving without such regions) while Active Conditions ensure that certain actions (e.g., tap and discard) are taken upfront to prevent players from abusing the timing rules.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M: allowing a Nazgul to be played is having an effect (or potential thereof) on gameplay, so your theory that the Morgul-horse CRF is just describing "Legal Play of Cards" does not match how the rules were written. Once again you have demonstrated the dangers of believing the rules are about what you imagine them to be about instead of reading them as they are actually written.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by Konrad Klar »

"Lost In ___" on a company moving without such regions: such regions may appear/disappear between declaration and resolution of "Lost In ___" (unlikely in Under-deeps movement).
Warrior only. Warrior does not tap against one strike (unless he is wounded by the strike). "...there was a twang of bowstrings: several arrows whistled over them, and some fell among them. One smote Frodo between the shoulders...but the arrow fell back, foiled by his hidden coat of mail."-LotRII
"Warrior does not tap against one strike (unless he is wounded by the strike)." is funny statement.
It implies that the Warrior taps if he is wounded by the strike.
If the function that the card would serve is a preventing the Warrior from automatic tapping after facing the strike, then I do not see a reason for which Block could not be played on tapped or wounded Warrior. After all something in Strike Sequence may make him untapped.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1503
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:03 am
CDavis7M: allowing a Nazgul to be played is having an effect (or potential thereof) on gameplay, so your theory that the Morgul-horse CRF is just describing "Legal Play of Cards" does not match how the rules were written.
There is no potential effect on gameplay if the Nazgul is not played. That is the whole point of the CRF entry - Morgul-horse cannot be played without a Nazgul just to be discarded. Instead it is returned to hand. This is the principle of Legal Play of Cards.

The Nazgul playing effect of Morgul-horse doesn't last until the end of the turn like Dragon's Desolation. The CRF statement "The alternative effect of this card can be played and resolved before any Nazgûl is played with it" is nice but if anything, the "allows" effect plays a Nazgul at resolution as an immediate effect of a short event.

If the Morgul-horse/Fell Beast CRF were written by the subsequent Netrep they would not use this poor solution.
Theo wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:03 am
Once again you have demonstrated the dangers of believing the rules are about what you imagine them to be about instead of reading them as they are actually written.
You mad bro?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1503
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by CDavis7M »

Image
Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:53 am
"Lost In ___" on a company moving without such regions: such regions may appear/disappear between declaration and resolution of "Lost In ___" (unlikely in Under-deeps movement).
Legal Play of Cards states that "A player may not play a card just to discard it (i.e. just get it out of his or her hand)." Legal Play of Cards is only concerned about what the player does, not what their opponent does. If a Player declares an environment card later in the same chain of effects causing a "Lost in ___" card to have an effect on the game, then the "Lost in ___" card has an effect on the game. This is Legal. If the player does not declare the environment card, then the play was not Legal.

Legal Play of Cards does not concern effects declared by the Player's opponent. If the Player declares the "Lost in ___" card and their opponent declares an environment card causing the "Lost in ___" card to resolve with no effect, this does not involve Legal Play of Cards since the player did not play a card for no effect just to discard it, their opponent caused the card to have no effect.


Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:53 am
I do not see a reason for which Block could not be played on tapped or wounded Warrior. After all something in Strike Sequence may make him untapped.
Image

I do not see a reason for which "something in Strike Sequence may make him untapped" could not be played before Block such that Block will have an "immediate effect" on the game and be Legal. All of these cards are played at Step 4. There is no later point to become untapped for the Strike after Step 4. The effect of Block is well defined -- there is no potential effect that could be triggered later.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Morgul-horse

Post by Konrad Klar »

Whether one likes it or not, a player may be more interested with disposing a card from hand than with a result of the card.
Preventing him from doing so is as hopeless task, as preventing him from playing stupidly.
Playability conditions may greatly limit him in former, but do not prevent him completely from doing so.
Victory conditions may encourage a player to do not play stupidly, but do not force him to making attempts to play not stupidly.
His opponent's judging what is/is not stupid (in)activity is not an objective criterion.

Someone wants to play Beorning Skin-changers as short-event against a hero company containing six untapped warriors, each with prowess at least 5, and including Beorn. Someone may estimate that it is not possible to remove Beorn and cause to tap/to remove from company/to lower prowess below 5/to lose warrior skills for other warriors in the company, between declaration and resolution of Beorning Skin-changers. The estimation is no evidence.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:10 pm
[...]
This is Legal. If the player does not declare the environment card, then the play was not Legal.
I do not imagine how to implement it.
I can imagine that if playability conditions for a card did exist at declaration but do not exist at resolution, then the card has no effect and is discarded.
How if playability conditions exist both at declaration and at resolution, but the card after resolving do not have an effect?
What, for instance, for Beorning Skin-changers, if after resolving it does not cause a returning of the target company?
Should be it returned to hand?
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:10 pm
I do not see a reason for which "something in Strike Sequence may make him untapped" could not be played before Block such that Block will have an "immediate effect" on the game and be Legal.
"I do not see a reason for which "something in Strike Sequence may make him untapped" could not be played before Block."
For the part I can say "me too'.
I also do not see a reason for which "something in Strike Sequence may make him untapped" could not be played after Block.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”