Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Theo » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:25 am

Previously it has been implied by CoE Netrep Digests that Bring Our Curses Home played on the attack generated by an Ahunt dragon will cause that attack to occur every turn. Then the Digests communicated that the attacks would only occur "in the designated regions".

I would like to propose officially renouncing these repeated communications.

This proposal is not implying that Bring Our Curses Home cannot be played on the creature attack of an Ahunt dragon, only that there will be no future attacks from doing so.

Specifically, the key line from Bring Our Curses Home is (underline mine):
Bring Our Curses Home wrote:Target character's company faces an attack from creature at the start of each movement/hazard phase if creature is playable.
The creature is an attack generated by a passive condition. The creature, then, is NEVER played/playable. The Netrep clearly confused this point, as shown below.

Relevant quotes:
CoE #27 wrote:Re: Bring our Curses Home and Foes Shall Fall
Also, the Dragon Ahunt cards count as a creature attack, so these cards can be played on a company facing an Ahunt. Will the Ahunt be placed off to the side as well? If so, will the company ever be attacked by it? If the company can be attacked by the Ahunt, then the company would be attacked at the start of each M/H phase if the creature is playable, so technically speaking the company will be attacked every turn no matter where they are going, as Ahunts are always playable (Unless eliminated or already in play).

*** The Ahunt card is placed off to the side if either card is played on the Ahunt and a character is elimated [sic]. The company will be attacked during every movement/hazard phase, unless another effect makes the Ahunt unplayable.
CoE #46 wrote:Bring our curses home/Foes shall fall can be played on a character
whose company is facing a dragon hazard creature attack. Since ahunt
dragons are hazard creature attacks, I suppose you could play BoCH and
FSF whith [sic] them?

*** That is correct.
--------
BoCH/FSF makes this creature attack the company in the start of every
movement/hazard phase, if it is playable. Ahunt dragons, being
long-events and not creatures, are always playable. So it will attack
the company every turn, even if it stays at a haven?

*** When using Foes Shall Fall or Bring our Curses Home with an ahunt
dragon, the attack will only occur if the company is in a region where
the attack would normally occur. For instance, if a company is at a
haven, the ahunt dragon would not attack.
CoE #55 wrote:A) According to its playability sentance [sic] Bring Our Curses Home can be
played any creature attack and thus it can be played on a dragon Ahunt.
The NetRep has previously ruled that the attack only happens in the
designated regions.
---

Meanwhile, these communications should not be construed as overruling whether the Ahunt card itself should be treated as a hazard creature, since this same Netrep also communicated:
CoE #41 wrote:Do "Dragon ahunt manifestation" and "Spider of the Morlat permanent
event attack" override the following card effect?

Stealth,Sneakin',Down Down to the Goblin-town,etc.

These cards only prohibit "Play of hazard creatures"

This does not prevent playing long event or permanent event.

Or Dragon ahunt attacks are just considered as played creature attack?
How about Morlat?

*** Attacks caused by hazard events are not considered playing a hazard
creature.
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:40 am

I agree with factual part but Netrep Digests are not parts of rules.
Issuing and correcting them is responsibility of Netrep Team.
Netrep Team is responsible to be compliant with rules, but rules (errata) creators do not need to care to be in sync Netrep Digests.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1131
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:01 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:I agree with factual part but Netrep Digests are not parts of rules.
Issuing and correcting them is responsibility of Netrep Team.
Netrep Team is responsible to be compliant with rules, but rules (errata) creators do not need to care to be in sync Netrep Digests.
First, there is no longer a NetRep team, thus there is no way for the NetRep team to correct any of their own mistakes.

Second, I agree that rules/errata creators do not need to be compliant with NetRep digests. However, when a rule is unclear and a NetRep has made a ruling or clarification on such a rule, it is generally accepted as “the rule” if there is no subsequent rule/erratum which has been created.

In short, most players comply with NetRep rulings in absence of later errata.

So if a faulty/undesirable NetRep ruling exists, there IS a need to correct it. Preferably not by renouncing the ruling, however, but rather by issuing an official erratum/clarification which negates it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Theo » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:53 pm

the Jabberwock wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:01 pm
Preferably not by renouncing the ruling
*pout*

:wink:

My intent was for there to be a clarification. If you want me to also suggest the actual words, how about:

"Bring Our Curses Home: If used on a hazard creature attack created by an event card, this will place the event card off to the side. However, Bring Our Curses Home will only cause additional attacks when the created attack in particular (not the event card) is playable.
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:43 am

If there is no creature's card, nothing is placed with Bring Our Curses Home off to the side.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:30 am

the Jabberwock wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:01 pm
So if a faulty/undesirable NetRep ruling exists, there IS a need to correct it. Preferably not by renouncing the ruling, however, but rather by issuing an official erratum/clarification which negates it.
It will not fix the ruling. Likewise any existing earlier rule could not prevent an issuing a ruling that contradicts with the rule.

Any references to NetRep rulings made in errata could make an impression that NetRep rulings are "first class citizen" statements i.e. that they should be treated as rules or erratas, and that in case of incompatibility a relevant NetRep ruling need to be revoked along with issuing erratum/clarification.

NetRep rulings are not "first class citizen" statements in the game. They are interpretation of rules.
Wrong decision of judge in football match does not need and should not be corrected at the level of rules of football.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Zakath
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:15 am
Location: United States

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Zakath » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:01 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:30 am
NetRep rulings are not "first class citizen" statements in the game. They are interpretation of rules.
Wrong decision of judge in football match does not need and should not be corrected at the level of rules of football.
Konrad, this might be how you personally feel (and might be a true statement), but in my experience it does *not* square with how NetRep rulings have historically been viewed or used by the community. They absolutely have been regarded as authoritative statements on how the rules should be interpreted. This disregard for the role of the NetRep I've observed since I started keeping an eye on these boards again feels like a very recent thing.

I do think there is value in official clarifications or errata if it seems like a NetRep ruling is wrong, anti-thematic, or bad for the game. Absent such, there *will* be players who look at the NetRep rulings as binding if they are aware of them.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:15 pm

Without offending anyone and whiteout diminishing his/its role:

There is a legislation level and there is a court level.
Mistakes made at court level cannot be and should not be corrected at the legislation level.
And obviously if for some reasons courts do not function, legislation organization cannot take their role.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Theo » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:49 pm

On that front, my impression is that most court systems have a concept of precedent setting standards. I think it is the responsibility of the legislature to create/clarify rules when needed to overcome standards that do not align with legislating intent, original or new.

---
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:43 am
If there is no creature's card, nothing is placed with Bring Our Curses Home off to the side.
This would also be fine with me mechanistically. But the creature does have an associated card, which I think it is fair to call the "creature's card".
METB Clarifications wrote:Certain hazard permanent-events indicate that they give “kill” marshalling points (e.g., Dragon “At Hunt” and “At Home” cards, the “Spawn” hazards from Middle-Earth: The Balrog, etc.). Each of these cards has an attack associated with it. If such an attack is defeated, treat the associated card as a defeated creature.
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:06 pm

Theo wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:49 pm
On that front, my impression is that most court systems have a concept of precedent setting standards. I think it is the responsibility of the legislature to create/clarify rules when needed to overcome standards that do not align with legislating intent, original or new.
I can only repeat: there is no rule that would prevent an issuing a ruling that contradicts with the rule.
Theo wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:49 pm
This would also be fine with me mechanistically. But the creature does have an associated card, which I think it is fair to call the "creature's card".
Bring Our Curses Home does not cope with defeated creature.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Zakath
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:15 am
Location: United States

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Zakath » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:07 pm

Perhaps this should be split off into its own post? It's gone kind of meta - more about the rule-making process than about Bring Our Curses Home.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:30 am
Any references to NetRep rulings made in errata could make an impression that NetRep rulings are "first class citizen" statements i.e. that they should be treated as rules or erratas, and that in case of incompatibility a relevant NetRep ruling need to be revoked along with issuing erratum/clarification.

NetRep rulings are not "first class citizen" statements in the game. They are interpretation of rules.
I want to go back to this because it seems to me to be the crux of the disagreement. (Apologies if the tone of my earlier reply came across as more personal than I intended - I will try to be more diplomatic :wink:).

Konrad, I know you've been around this game about as long as I have or more. Let's take a little stroll back in time, shall we?

I don't know where the original CoE charter can be found in full, but in the discussions here you can find the text related to the appointment of the NetRep, prior to the updating of the document in 2011:
"The Council shall maintain at least one spokesperson during each session whose duties shall consist of announcing rules, modifications to rules, announcing the recognition of an active council, the announcing of councils who have lapsed into non active status, adjudicating rules disputes, clarifying game play questions posed to the Council, and maintaining the collected rulings file. The title of said office shall be NetRep."
Actually going back and reading the old NetRep digests makes it clear that those were not empty words. Though most of what you will find are clarifications and interpretations, you will also find the NetRep effectively making new rules (i.e. as I pointed out here). And I absolutely remember the community treating those rulings as having the full, official weight of the Council of Elrond's authority behind them - reference our old friend Bandobras Took's signature on these very forums:
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.
I would also argue that this was simply a continuation of the NetRep's authority from before ICE went under. The CRF, which to the best of my knowledge is an undisputed rules authority, is itself a compilation of rulings from the former ICE NetReps Craig O'Brien and Van Norton. And they absolutely had the power to invent rules to fill in the gaps. There's a ton of things in the CRF that cannot be inferred simply from the written rulebooks.

So when the Jabberwock said earlier:
However, when a rule is unclear and a NetRep has made a ruling or clarification on such a rule, it is generally accepted as “the rule” if there is no subsequent rule/erratum which has been created.
I would say he did not go far enough. Those rulings aren't just 'accepted' as the rule, they are the rule.

Now if you want to look at the revised CoE charter from 2011 to today, I would agree that the authority of the NetRep (if we had one) was scaled back. But that does not retroactively de-legitimize all of the rulings from 1999-2011. And let's not forget that in the end what we are really after is what's best for the players and their ability to figure out how to play the game correctly. Explicitly referencing the rulings a new erratum, clarification, or rule change is overriding helps with consistency, both for players who are trying to figure out what the current state of the rules is and with regard to the language used for amendments to the CRF or the rulebook.

Aside - the CoE really should try to get a comprehensive, updated CRF which incorporates all of the old NetRep rulings and the official CoE errata posted to the main page under 'Rules'. All that's there now are the rulebooks, not even the old CRF.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1131
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:37 am

Zakath wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Aside - the CoE really should try to get a comprehensive, updated CRF which incorporates all of the old NetRep rulings and the official CoE errata posted to the main page under 'Rules'. All that's there now are the rulebooks, not even the old CRF.
The new URD which is being worked on behind the scenes will incorporate everything into a single document, eliminate duplicate entries, eliminate reversed decisions, include new features like hyper links to skip through the document easily, etc. Hoping to have this released by the end of this year. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:38 am

When legislature is defunct, courts may try to take its function.
When courts are defunct, legislature may try to make judgements.

In both cases it is abuse of roles of both bodies.

If it is OK that interpreter of rules create them and creator a rules creates clarification aimed to fix wrong interpretation made by interpreter, then continue this practice and enjoy it.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1131
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:48 am

Theo wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:53 pm
the Jabberwock wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:01 pm
Preferably not by renouncing the ruling
*pout*

:wink:

My intent was for there to be a clarification. If you want me to also suggest the actual words, how about:

"Bring Our Curses Home: If used on a hazard creature attack created by an event card, this will place the event card off to the side. However, Bring Our Curses Home will only cause additional attacks when the created attack in particular (not the event card) is playable.
Getting back to the actual proposal.... I'm not entirely clear on what you are proposing. Are you looking to change exact wording, or change the actual effect of the NetRep rulings on this matter? Personally, I agree with the NetRep rulings so far that: BOCH should be allowed to target an Ahunt and that a company would only face the Ahunt again if traveling through the regions where that Ahunt attacks. So, are you:

- In agreement with the NetRep, but seeking a language change to "fix wording."
- In disagreement with the NetRep, and looking to change Ahunts being playable with BOCH per the NetRep.

It seems you are looking to do the former, but would like to clarify.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Bring Our Curses Home + Ahunts

Post by Theo » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:35 am

Nope, the latter. Ahunt cards (always playable) are long-events, not creatures. Only the attack they create is a creature, and those attacks are never "playable" nor ever played.
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.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?
Look up "e.g." if e.g. you think that it is an all-encompassing list.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”