Yet, technically, 'stolen' doesn't seem to be defined. One could assume that "Thief" can steal items, but Thief's text isCard Erratum: Replace "Ignore any effect that would discard this item" with "Cannot be stored,
stolen, or transferred."
So, if a company with Wizard's ring is successfully attacked by a thief, a Wizard's ring can be discarded, right?.. For each successful strike, an item held by the defending company must be discarded (...)...
Neither rules, nor cards make difference between discarding of item according to Thief, Brigands, Were-Worm, Drowning Seas.MELE wrote:Company vs. Company Combat - When one player is a Ringwraith and his opponent is a Wizard (see Using MELE with METW), combat can occur between companies (see Company vs. Company Combat). After such a combat, if your opponent's company has only wounded characters you may attempt to "steal an item." To steal an item, you must tap a character in your company that was involved in the combat. Then, you can force your opponent to discard an item of your choice in his company that was involved in the combat. Finally, if you have a manifestation of the discarded item in your hand, you may play it with the character you just tapped.
I agree that the intention of the erratum was as you say. But intentions are not acceptable as interpretation of rulings. There are many examples where intentions were probably different from the way cards can be played legally (Paths of the Dead, Sneakin' , ...) I need some more convincing reason to accept that a successful strike from Thief cannot lead to a Wizard's Ring being discardedMordakai wrote:....
By this errata the idea is avoiding the wizard getting rid of the ring by any means ...
