Icy Touch (errata + clarification)

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Icy Touch wrote:The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1.
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character). Discard Icy Touch if it is not played with a character. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.
CRF, Errata (Cards), Icy Touch wrote:If two of these are in play, they both trigger at the same time, and the second one is
discarded without effect.
The CRF entry looks like an unfinished sentence, but even if read it as:

"If two of these are in play, they both trigger at the same time, the second one is discarded without effect."

it is simply wrong.

Firstly, Icy Touch has two effects. First effect has nothing to do with Corruption. It is triggered by facing an Undead attack.
Secondly, second effect is triggered by wounding a character by Undead attack. The effect is not playing the Icy Touch on character. It is placing Icy Touch on character.

There is a limit of one Corruption card that may be played on given character per turn. There is no limit of Corruption cards that may be placed on given character per turn.

Related thread:
Curiosity: Icy Touch

I propose to change the clarification to:

"If multiple of these are in play, they all trigger at the same time when next character is wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn), and all are placed on the character. The second effect is not triggered if wounded entity counts as a character for purposes of facing the attack, but is not character otherwise."

Last sentence covers among others allies and agents played as hazards (that may face an Undead attack according to Hidden Knife).

EDIT: Changed the title of thread to reflect a change in status of proposed changes made in later post.
Last edited by Konrad Klar on Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

If placed is not meant to imply "played with", how would you interpret "Discard Icy Touch if it is not played with a character."? Seems like you would just immediately have to discard it when you play it.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:01 pm how would you interpret "Discard Icy Touch if it is not played with a character."?
Good point.
If after attack Icy Touch is not on character, discard it.

I propose to change the clarification to:

"If multiple of these are in play, they all trigger at the same time when next character is wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn), and all are placed on the character. If after attack Icy Touch is not on character, discard it. The second effect is not triggered if wounded entity counts as a character for purposes of facing the attack, but is not character otherwise."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

My personal feeling is that this is too strong and not the intent. Existing CRF suggests that "placed" should be considered to follow the same one-per-turn limit as played. Stacking 4 corruption cards on a character in one turn isn't in the spirit of the rules.

If there is to be a change, my preference would instead be:
  • Replace existing Icy Touch errata with: Change "(on whom a corruption card has not already been played this turn)" to "(on whom a corruption card can be played this turn)". Can be played during an Undead attack.
  • General clarification: Placing a corruption hazard with a character counts as playing a hazard on the character in terms of needing the corruption card to be allowed to be played on the character and counting against the one-corruption-card-play per character per turn.
Remove existing because, as you say, it is wrong. There is no reason to discard a second one immediately when another character could still be wounded by the attack.

First sentence in replacement generalizes to avoid allies, but also avoids Ringwraiths (which your proposal doesn't). I don't know of a reason to believe that agent hazards do or don't make corruption checks, but I'm not sure why Lobelia Sackville-Baggins and My Precious would have bonuses to corruption checks if they could never make them.

Second sentence in replacement actually permits the card to be played, since normally corruption cards must start a chain of effects.

Clarification prevents stacking multiple Icy Touches plus one additional corruption card later in the turn (and generalizes the points of the first Icy Touch errata)
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

So it is better to make errata in separate thread.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

So there is errata in this thread.

I propose the following erratum:

"The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1.
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card can otherwise be played) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character; this count as playing a Corruption card on him). If after the attack Icy Touch is not on character, discard it. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card."

I propose the following change:
Remove existing CRF clarification for Icy Touch.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:51 pm So there is errata in this thread.

I propose the following erratum:

"The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1.
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card can otherwise be played) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character; this count as playing a Corruption card on him). If after the attack Icy Touch is not on character, discard it. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card."

I propose the following change:
Remove existing CRF clarification for Icy Touch.
Just to be completely clear on what you are proposing, in terms of game play:

A company of 3 characters faces an Undead attack with 3 strikes. One of these characters has already been given a Lure of Nature this turn. The hazard player plays Icy Touch x 2 on the attack. The character who received the Lure of Nature this turn faces the first strike, and is wounded... no Icy Touch is placed on him. Next, the second character faces his strike and is also wounded... one of the Icy Touch cards is placed on him. Finally, the 3rd character faces his strike and is also wounded, the second Icy Touch is placed on him.

Do I have that right?

Also... is this the only corruption card that has this problem?
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

the Jabberwock wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:52 pm Also... is this the only corruption card that has this problem?
Any placed corruption currently can be stacked on the same character in one turn, in addition to another corruption card played. Example: 3x Nazgul attacks, each with Morgul Knife.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

@ Theo -
the Jabberwock wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:52 pm Do I have that right?
This was not answered. Please confirm.
Theo wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:14 pm
the Jabberwock wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:52 pm Also... is this the only corruption card that has this problem?
Any placed corruption currently can be stacked on the same character in one turn, in addition to another corruption card played. Example: 3x Nazgul attacks, each with Morgul Knife.
Right, so why is Icy Touch the only one receiving its own ARV submission?
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:37 am @ Theo -
the Jabberwock wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:52 pm Do I have that right?
This was not answered. Please confirm.
I was refraining from speaking for Konrad, but I would read your example as conforming to his latest proposal.
the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:37 am
Theo wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:14 pm
the Jabberwock wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:52 pm Also... is this the only corruption card that has this problem?
Any placed corruption currently can be stacked on the same character in one turn, in addition to another corruption card played. Example: 3x Nazgul attacks, each with Morgul Knife.
Right, so why is Icy Touch the only one receiving its own ARV submission?
My guess is that Icy Touch alone had a preexisting CRF that made no sense. This was probably because Icy Touch is unique in that it stipulates placement selection on the Next wounded character (which leads to an ambiguous state if one assumes it followed the 1 corruption per turn per character limit for placing but not for determining the precondition if two were in play, which presumably the CRF strove to disambiguate).

Some may consider it intentional that 3x Morgul Knife can be placed on the same character in one turn. The original post in this thread was also in that vein for Icy Touch. I had made an alternative proposal since I don't believe corruption placement was meant to circumvent the one corruption "play" per turn per character limit.
http://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewto ... 145&t=3703
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Theo wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:34 am
the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:37 am @ Theo -
the Jabberwock wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:52 pm Do I have that right?
This was not answered. Please confirm.
I was refraining from speaking for Konrad, but I would read your example as conforming to his latest proposal.
HAHA!! When you quoted my post and replied, I erroneously assumed you were the one who wrote the post I questioned. Sorry about that. :lol:

Theo wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:34 am My guess is that Icy Touch alone had a preexisting CRF that made no sense. This was probably because Icy Touch is unique in that it stipulates placement selection on the Next wounded character (which leads to an ambiguous state if one assumes it followed the 1 corruption per turn per character limit for placing but not for determining the precondition if two were in play, which presumably the CRF strove to disambiguate).

Some may consider it intentional that 3x Morgul Knife can be placed on the same character in one turn. The original post in this thread was also in that vein for Icy Touch. I had made an alternative proposal since I don't believe corruption placement was meant to circumvent the one corruption "play" per turn per character limit.
http://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewto ... 145&t=3703
Thanks for your thoughts.
User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Ex Council Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:51 pm "The prowess of one Undead attack is modified by +1.
Corruption. The next character wounded by the attack (on whom a corruption card can otherwise be played) receives 2 corruption points (place this card with the character; this count as playing a Corruption card on him). If after the attack Icy Touch is not on character, discard it. During the organization phase, a character with this card may tap and attempt to remove it. Make a roll (or draw a #): if this result is greater than 6, discard this card."

I propose the following change:
Remove existing CRF clarification for Icy Touch.
I refer to your last proposal: Do you essentially mean:
1) Icy touch is placed on the first wounded character on whom was not yet played or placed a corruption card this turn. If there is no such character, Icy Touch is discarded.
2) If there are multiple copies of Icy Touch in play, the first one is placed on the first character wounded (and no corruption card played/placed on him yet) and the second on the next character wounded (and no corruption card played/placed on him yet) and so on.
(Proper wording to be proposed later)

My understanding of the CRF was:
If a character is wounded and no corruption cards have been played or placed on him before, 1 copy of Icy touch is placed on him and all other copies are discarded.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Khamul the Easterling wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:28 pm I refer to your last proposal: Do you essentially mean:
1) Icy touch is placed on the first wounded character on whom was not yet played or placed a corruption card this turn. If there is no such character, Icy Touch is discarded.
2) If there are multiple copies of Icy Touch in play, the first one is placed on the first character wounded (and no corruption card played/placed on him yet) and the second on the next character wounded (and no corruption card played/placed on him yet) and so on.
(Proper wording to be proposed later)
Effectively: yes.
Internally it works in such way that when character that qualifies is wounded, then multiple actions "place Icy Touch on the character" are declared, but only last of them resolves.
That all before body check.
Khamul the Easterling wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:28 pm My understanding of the CRF was:
If a character is wounded and no corruption cards have been played or placed on him before, 1 copy of Icy touch is placed on him and all other copies are discarded.

Plus that there is only one bonus to Undead attack prowess.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Ex Council Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 04, 2019 7:30 am Plus that there is only one bonus to Undead attack prowess.
My interpretation of the (unfinished?) CRF ruling was that it only referred to the corruption part. Otherwise, it would be equivalent to "multiple copies of the card in play are treated as if there was only 1 copy" or even "may not be duplicated".
So my previous (house-rule) understanding was: +1 modifications to the Undead's prowess are cumulative if multiple copies of the card are in play, but concerning corruption, only 1 card will be placed with a character and the others are discarded.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Yes, I do not see a limitation to only one +1 modification.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”