Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

[Konrad Klar]

If it is not known, at the point when the starting cards have to be revealed, whether a starting company will start at FW The White Towers or at in Arthedain or Rhudaur, then conditions to play Hidden Haven do not exist. And only then a possibility of attempt to start with Hidden Haven may be considered special allowance. Otherwise it is not special allowance.

Player may do not know whether his non-Dwarf, non-Hobbit sage from pool will be in starting company. Does it prevent him from attempt to start with Pallando's Apprentice?

BTW.
What prevents a player from playing in organization phase Double Dealing on FW verion of site? Some FW site cards may be forcefully replaced with hero or minion version in result of effect of some cards. Useless effect of Double Dealing may then become potentially useful.

EDIT: replaced sloppy worded "starting" with "attempt to start". Changed fragments in bold.

[CDavis7M]

If it is not known, at the point when the starting cards have to be revealed, whether a starting company will start at FW The White Towers or at in Arthedain or Rhudaur, then conditions to play Hidden Haven do not exist.

It would help if you quoted or at least referenced the rule being discussed if you want others to discuss it with you. You might then also notice the words being used in the rule. For instance:

I parsed this discussion
Based on patterns I recognized 3 prominent strings of characters : "reveal," "play," and "start"
When parsing these strings I noticed that they have different letters in different orders.
I conclude that they are different words.
Upon querying my dictionary I determine that these different words are associated with different meanings.
My processing ends.

---------

And only then a possibility of attempt to start with Hidden Haven may be considered special allowance. Otherwise it is not special allowance.

"Start"... "start" what? What is being started? Who is the actor that starts what? What definition of "start" are you using? And why do you think it applies in this context?

And... hmm... "attempt to start"... Why say "attempt"? Is it from a rule? I don't see which one. What is the "attempt" of exactly? The rule I see says "You may not start such a card if the conditions required to play the card do not exist". It does not say attempt. Are you saying that someone is actually starting with a card they are not allowed to start? And that was merely an "attempt" since it was not within the game?

I checked the definition of "start" (concise OED 12th ed.) and then I looked at the header under which that rule in MEWH was made, and then I read the rules on "USING MEWH" and then I read the other MECCG rules referenced by that section. Seems clear enough to me.

When I read the context I can understand the statement from the context.

-----

BTW.
What prevents a player from playing in organization phase Double Dealing on FW verion of site? Some FW site cards may be forcefully replaced with hero or minion version in result of effect of some cards. Useless effect of Double Dealing may then become potentially useful.

When I am wondering whether/how a card is playable, I first go back and read the rules about playing cards. Out of curiosity I read those rules and I think they address your question.

[Konrad Klar]

It would help if you quoted or at least referenced the rule being discussed if you want others to discuss it with you. You might then also notice the words being used in the rule.

For instance, I noticed that 3 strings of characters in particular: "reveal," "play," and "start"

You must attempt to start with one, two, or three (your choice) stage resource
permanent-event cards in play. These cards must have a combined total of 3 stage
points. At least one of these cards must be non-unique. You may not start such a card
if the conditions required to play the card do not exist. These cards should be revealed
as if they were starting characters with duplicate unique cards being discarded.

Already quoted by you earlier in this post...

"Start"... "start" what? What is being started? Who is the actor that starts what? What definition of "start" are you using? And why do you think it applies in this context?

... so I was not expecting any confusion here.

[Konrad Klar]

Definition of attempt to start with card:
Including a card in pool in order of revealing the card.

[CDavis7M]

Definition of attempt to start with card:
Including a card in pool in order of revealing the card.

Ah ok. This explains the discussion for me. I was suspecting that I was not following the discussion for some reason like this.

I don't think "start" is talking about "Including a card in pool in order of revealing the card." That's different from the most relevant definition in my dictionary and from my understanding given the context within which I read the word. I think it's referring to the start of "player turns". Or, start of play -- the thing that you are "GETTING READY" to do.

MEWH conveniently has a section labeled "GETTING READY TO PLAY" which suspiciously seems very similar to the section in the METW rules that it tells the player to use. When MEWH makes the statement "you may not start such a card [(a starting stage card]) if the conditions required to play the card do not exist" it sure seems (to me anyway) like it is saying that you cannot start to play (after following the 7 steps for getting ready to play) if the conditions do not exist (at the start of play, after having gotten ready to play).

I'm just reading the words carefully and matching the words to the same words in that context, referencing other sections of the rules when told to do so.

GetReady.PNG (63.95 KiB) Viewed 2377 times

[Konrad Klar]

1.
Player may ultimately not reveal any stage card, even if he included them in pool.
In multiplayer game against three opponents, a FW Gandalf#1 player, may encounter FW Gandalf#2 player and two other FW players.
He may include Gandalf's Friend, Grey Hat, Hidden Haven.
If draft is used he may be preempted by others. There are three eligible in Rhudaur and Arthedain and
"You must attempt to start with one, two, or three (your choice) stage resource
permanent-event cards in play."
will not force him to reveal any of the cards.

"you may not start such a card [(a starting stage card]) if the conditions required to play the card do not exist" it sure seems (to me anyway) like it is saying that you cannot start to play (after following the 7 steps for getting ready to play) if the conditions do not exist (at the start of play, after having gotten ready to play).

Just that. He may attempt to start but he may be unable to reveal and unable to play.

2.

If both players reveal this as a starting stage card, on the same site, at the same time, it
is set aside, and may not be played on that site by either player until the game begins.

From where, for what " on the same site, at the same time, it is set aside" if not assumption that draft is used?

[CDavis7M]

I think all of these questions are answered in the rules we've mentioned. Happy to talk about the draft process but I think it's already been covered and and I don't want to add to the search results within "Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules."

[CDavis7M]

I searched and I don't think this was covered here, and maybe because it was later corrected, but it is such a good ruling it's worth repeating.

From: Chad Martin <chad@t...>
Date: Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:53 am
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #43

what about playing cave-drake (it is called dragon, not drake!) at an
underdeep-ruin as automatic attack?? so if the opponent is nice enough
to play that creature: two hoard greater items at iron-deeps??
*** In this case, yes, the Cave-drake would cause the site to become a
hoard site for that turn.

Never mind that such sites don't have a Dragon automatic-attack but have "opponent may play one creature as an automatic attack" as their automatic attack. A site allowing the opponent to play a creature as an automatic attack which may or may not be a dragon is not the same as the site having a dragon automatic attack.

Never mind that the Cave-drake would be discarded and not in play before the item can even be played. So even if the cave-drake were actually considered to be the site's automatic attack, it would not even be there at this point.

Never mind that The Dragon rules have errata: "Each site which had a Dragon automatic-attack at the beginning of the turn contains a hoard."

Oh... never mind

[Konrad Klar]

A site allowing the opponent to play a creature as an automatic attack which may or may not be a dragon is not the same as the site having a dragon automatic attack.

A site allowing the opponent to play a creature as an automatic attack which may or may not be an Undead has at least at some point Undead AA, if Corpse Candle is played as such AA. Otherwise the AA could not be affected by Moon is Dead.

[CDavis7M]

A site allowing the opponent to play a creature as an automatic attack which may or may not be a dragon is not the same as the site having a dragon automatic attack.

A site allowing the opponent to play a creature as an automatic attack which may or may not be an Undead has at least at some point Undead AA, if Corpse Candle is played as such AA. Otherwise the AA could not be affected by Moon is Dead.

The Moon is dead affects "automatic-attacks" generally, not specifically the site's automatic-attacks. There is a difference between the property of the site listing the attacks which will attack a company if they enter the site and those actual combat-attacks that must be resolved by rolling dice. The term "automatic-attack" refers to both the property of the site card and the combat-attack. But the "Hoard" rules specifically refer to the property of the site card itself, not some combat-attack resolved by rolling dice.

-----

ICE sometimes used the same term for slightly different things when the plain meaning covered both (the term was not specifically a "term of the game"). Like "strike". "Strike" is used to refer to both the strikes of an attack and to the dice rolls made in combat. Both uses are related but I believe some confusion about how the strike sequence works (which hazards and resources are playable against the strike) arises because people think the rules are referred to the strike of the attack but they are actually referring to the strike dice roll. The rules are clearly referring to the "strike" (dice roll) given the preceding paragraphs.

This also comes up with "cancel" and "target".

[Konrad Klar]

The Moon is dead affects "automatic-attacks" generally, not specifically the site's automatic-attacks. There is a difference between the property of the site listing the attacks which will attack a company if they enter the site and those actual combat-attacks that must be resolved by rolling dice.

Yes. Property of site, like number of AAs at site, is not actual AA.
Still, if a company is facing AA and this AA is Undead attack, the site at the moment has Undead AA.

Hero The Under-Leas has 2nd AA:
"Opponent may play as an automatic-attack one non-unique hazard creature from his hand normally keyed to "
and had the AA at beginning of the turn or at least since the site is in play.
At some moment it appears that the AA is Undead AA. In the same turn, if AAs are faced again, e.g. in result of triggering the action from Troll-purse, the AA may be Dragon AA.

The site had AA at beginning of turn and the type of AA in this turn was Undead and Dragon.

[CDavis7M]

But the site did not have a dragon automatic attack at the beginning of the turn, and that is what matters.

[Konrad Klar]

Had an automatic-attack at the beginning of the turn that at some point of turn appeared to be Undead AA, and later Dragon AA.

Strange like Bill Ferny, that/who was all the time at his home site, but at some moment it appeared that the site is Bree, not Cameth Brin.

[CDavis7M]

I don't even bother checking CoE rulings but someone mentioned one and of course it's wrong. But I didn't mention it here. Shame on me for missing it the first round.

I don't think anyone reads this anyway, but if you are wondering whether this is all that's wrong. it's not.