Council of Elrond

CoE 105 wrote:The Q on CvCC can be found at the following thread: http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=1040
"Do hazards like Despair of the Heart and Something has Slipped trigger when characters are wounded in CvCC?"
*** No. Hazards have no effect on CvCC.

Just like the others, this CoE Ruling on CvCC is incorrect because the CoE didn't realize that there was errata to the rules on CvCC. Instead of "hazards have no effect on CvCC," the rule is "Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on company vs.company combat."

CoE Digest 102 wrote:In Digest #61, it was asked: How do Unabated and Tidings interact? I answered:
*** Given that Unabated in Malice is played and resolved on the automatic-attack in question when Tidings of Bold Spies resolves, then all effects of Unabated in Malice will be duplicated, per the text of Tidings of Bold Spies, including the cancellation clause of Unabated in Malice.
*** This ruling is correct. To further clarify, if Unabated in Malice is cancelled during the Tidings of Bold Spies attack, its full effects are still in play, and will be applied to the actual automatic attack during the site phase.

No it won't because Unabated in Malice states "the first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the effects of this card." It's not just that the effects on that particular attack are canceled, the effects of the entire card are canceled. There is no way for canceled effects to somehow apply to the automatic attack during the site phase--they are canceled.

CoE 98 wrote:Why does TotV supersede the WH ruleset by allowing the play of Orcs and Trolls?
*** If it isn't there, it isn't there. Thrall of the Voice says to bring into play a character. An orc or a troll is a character. If it stated something to the effect of the play needing to be otherwise legal, then orcs and trolls could not be played with Thrall of the Voice without Bad Company in play.

This is incorrect as mentioned before. Thrall of the Voice cannot be used to play Orcs or Trolls. The White Hand rules explicitly state "you may not play Orc or Troll characters until you have played the appropriate card (e.g., Bad Company)." The rules have an explicit restriction against playing Orc or Troll characters. Thrall of the Voice is not an "appropriate resource" because it says nothing about Orc or Troll characters.

The CoE misunderstands "If it isn't there it isn't there." This ruling paradigm does not allow a card to take an action that is banned by the rules. It means that cards do not allow actions unless they explicit state that such actions can be taken for that purpose. "If a card says a site counts as a Haven for purposes of healing, that does not mean the site counts as a Haven for any other purposes. If a card says it can be played as a resource, that does not mean it counts as a resource at any time except when it is being played."

The rules have explicit restrictions on playing Agents: minion agents may not be in the starting company. Thrall of the Voice explicitly overcomes this restriction because it states "(including a minion agent) ... Such a character may also be in your starting company." Thrall of the Voice says nothing about Orcs or Trolls and so it does not overcome the restriction.

ICE Digest 55 wrote:Craig Ichabod O'Brien Mar 12, 1998 12:00 AM

>Can Thrall of the Voice be played to play a Troll character when Bad Company is
>not in play?

No.

Another:

ICE Digest 88 wrote:Question: Hey, I was wondering if anyone could answer me this question... While a fallen wizard, do you need to have Bad Company in play to play with Half-Orc characters??

Answer: Either that or a Strident Spawn. That is required to bring them into play. Once they are in play the no longer care.

CoE 97 wrote:*** After much deliberation, here are the final rulings:
A Merrier World and Alatar's kill MP effect apply to creatures killed before either of those two cards are brought into play.

Hopefully not too much deliberation because they could have just read ICE's ruling.

ICE wrote:>4) Does *A Merrier World* increase the MP value of hazard creatures defeated before AMW came into play?

Yes.

Lidless Eye wrote:This attack is declared and enacted at the end of the site phase following all other actions your company takes during

Beginning / End of Phase and Turn {rules clarification}

simplifies the things (for anyone who accepts it).
Actions that are not specifically allowed to be taken at end of site phase, end of any phase, during CvCC, cannot be declared between strike sequences.
So no Malady Without Healing on scout enacting A Nice Place to Hide. But Ire of the East on A Nice Place to Hide is OK.

Theo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:20 pm

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:49 pm

Theo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:21 pm Except the CRF allows resources to be played that affect the attack, independent from those that affect a strike.

The CRF doesn't override the rules unless the ruling says so. As mentioned in the Abductor discussion, this ruling on CvCC is a secondary rule derived from the primary rules. It is not a new rule or a change to the rules. You can't take the CRF literally without understanding the primary rules and fitting the CRF ruling into those rules.

Presume that blanket statement was true. What rules could this be clarifying, other than the note that you want to claim is restricted to only the strike sequence?

Theo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:40 pm I would say that the attacker cannot play A Malady Without Healing on the defending character declared as the scout playing A Nice Place to Hide because of the CRF. It would affect the attack and possibly some strike, but not an individual (specific) strike.

Well, that is not how the CRF should be interpreted according to the author of the CRF. It cannot be interpreted on it's own, it should be interpreted as an explanation of the rules. Ichabod literally says that this CvCC ruling shouldn't be interpreted literally as you are asserting. If this CRF ruling on CvCC were intended to be a change to the rules, the Netrep would have said so when making the ruling. There are numerous cases where the rulings did change the rules, and such cases are always indicated as being changes.

ICE 91 wrote:Player: Bizzare Restriction #2: Company vs. Company combat. Works similarly, except now the CRF, under Turn Sequence Rulings, Site Phase, Company vs. Company Combat, restricts not only resource play but any actions at all. So, if you are the defender you may not use your Cram to untap because it is an action that does not directly affect the STRIKE or the ATTACK - it affects the character.

Ichabod: The CRF is not clear on this issue, but the rule only disallows the attacker from playing resources that the whole attack. It does not restrict other resource play at all. CvCC is like a normal attack otherwise.

The CRF on CvCC only disallows certain resources for the attacker. The rule does not prevent the attacker from playing other resources as they normally could during their own turn. The actual rules allow the attacker to play resources on their own turn and they do not prevent the attack from playing resources during CvCC. So there is no possibility for the CRF to change this.

----------

There are multiple examples of the ICE Netrep explaining to players that the CRF rulings cannot be taken solely at their word, and that the actual rules still govern. So it's clearly inappropriate to pretend that the CRF rulings change the rules when they can be interpreted within the existing rules.

CoE 82 wrote:My opponent plays Doors of Night. In response, I play Balance between Powers. Does Doors fizzle?
*** No. Doors of Night is in play before Balance Between Powers resolves to prevent its play. According to the CRF, playing a card is the act of taking it out of your hand and putting it in play. Resolution happens afterwards.

This ruling is incorrect. If Balance Between Powers was played in response to Doors of Night, then Balance will resolve first such that"no environment cards can be played." Doors of Night would not resolve since this effect negates the conditions required to bring Doors into play (METW p. 63 and Annotation 7).

CRF wrote:Playing a Card

• Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play.
• You may not play a card which has no effect on the game. Causing a dice roll is considered to be having an effect on the game.

The CoE misquoted the CRF. "Playing a card" is not a single "act" (as stated by the CoE), it is a "process" (as stated in the CRF). In other games, playing a card is the same as implementing that card. But MECCG has timing rules where cards are declared and do not come into play until later declared cards are resolved in the same chain of effects. Playing a card is the complete chain of effects process for that card, not the single act of laying a card on the table.

It's clear that "playing a card" includes resolution since the card comes "into play" per the definition and a card is not inplay until it is resolved (Annotation 1). This is also clear from reading both CRF entries on "Playing a Card" since effects that have not resolved would always have "no effect on the game."

CoE 77 wrote:Situation : Player 1 and 2 both have 19 MPs, but the wizard of Player 2 is dead.
Event : Player 1 tries to play The white Council. Player 2 says it cannot be played - who is correct?
*** Player 2 is correct, because the five MPs for the dead wizard are only subtracted at the Free Council.

This ruling is wrong. The -5MP are also considered when Calling the Free Council per the CoL policy. The error was recognized later in CoE 114:

CoE 114 wrote:(3) Jaded pointed out an incorrect ruling from digest 77.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the digest, the -5 MPs for a dead avatar only apply at council. But:
CoL Tournament Policy wrote:
End-of-Game MP Modifications-Players and the coordinator should make certain that, for standard rules
games, all of the marshalling point modifications printed on page 39 of the Middle-earth: The Lidless Eye
Companion are properly accounted for. The MELE Companion contains the most current version of the
End-of-Game rules for all players. Interpret Audience with Sauron as End-of-Game for the general case.
These modifications are to be interpreted in the order they are printed. Subtractions for eliminated
characters are applied before these modifications, although subtractions for eliminated Wizards or
Ringwraiths are applied after these modifications.
CoE Tournament Rulings wrote:
# Eliminating a Wizard or Ringwraith does not end the game. An eliminated Wizard or Ringwraith is
placed in the out-of-play pile, and gives -5 MP to the final total. That player may not reveal another
Wizard or Ringwraith. This includes Wizards who fail corruption checks.
# The -5 MPs apply immediately, and affect your MPs for calling the end of the game.
Jaded is right.

This one is probably my favorite CoE ruling.

CoE 107 wrote:>From a request for an official ruling
(http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=1805):
My minion character faces a detaintment attack. When I play Under His Blow, what happens:
A: The character receives no -3, but must roll and tap if he loses.
B: Under His Blow prevents the tapping against a strike, so the detainment tap doesnt work either.
*** B is correct. The character will normally tap after the strike sequence is complete, either due to the normal rules of facing an attack or due to failing a strike from a detainment attack. Under His Blow prevents a character from tapping for one strike, so if the strike would cause the character to tap, Under His Blow prevents it.

It took 7 months to figure out

(2) The question has arisen whether it is possible to use Under His Blow and similar cards to avoid being tapped by a detainment attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may of course us Under His Blow and similar cards in order not to receive -3 prowess for not tapping against a strike. However, if the sum of the die-roll and the character's prowess is less than the prowess of the creature, the character will still tap.

CoE 74 wrote:Is it possible to MT In the Heart of His Realm prior to its effect of nullifying the sage skill and ability to use spells, etc?
*** Yes. You play Marvels Told in response to the declaration of its effect and it will get discarded before the effect resolves.

This is incorrect. Marvels Told is a Ritual. In the Heart of His Realm states "No character at a site in a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth, or moving with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in his site path, can use spells, light enchantments, or rituals." So In the Heart of His Realm immediately negates the conditions for playing Marvels Told once In the Heart of His Realm is resolved. This effect does not operate by passive conditions. Otherwise it would never be possible to cancel anything by this effect. Bane of the Ithil Stone would fail to prevent searching/looking by the CoE's reasoning.

Although the Sage could still use their Sage skill in response to the declaration of In the Heart of His Realm's sage-removal effect, which does operate by passive conditions, but only for non-spell non-light enchantment non-ritual cards.

CoE 73 wrote:Is it possible (during the organization fase, in a non-dark haven) to play a leader with a company already containing a leader?
*** Yes, a leader can be played at a site where another comapany with a leader exists. One or both of the companies must move away that turn.

This is incorrect. You can't have 2 leaders in one company even if one of the leaders splits. Just because there is an exception for Ringwraiths does not mean there is an exception for leaders.

MELE p. 57 wrote:Unless at a Darkhaven, a company may only contain one leader. A leader is a character with the keyword "leader," in its text box.

ICE Digest 12 wrote:Q: Can Minion companies not have two leaders?
A: Unless they are at a Darkhaven, minion companies can only have one leader.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:22 am

CoE 74 wrote:Is it possible to MT In the Heart of His Realm prior to its effect of nullifying the sage skill and ability to use spells, etc?
*** Yes. You play Marvels Told in response to the declaration of its effect and it will get discarded before the effect resolves.

This is incorrect. Marvels Told is a Ritual. In the Heart of His Realm states "No character at a site in a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth, or moving with a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth in his site path, can use spells, light enchantments, or rituals." So In the Heart of His Realm immediately negates the conditions for playing Marvels Told once In the Heart of His Realm is resolved. This effect does not operate by passive conditions. Otherwise it would never be possible to cancel anything by this effect. Bane of the Ithil Stone would fail to prevent searching/looking by the CoE's reasoning.

Although the Sage could still use their Sage skill in response to the declaration of In the Heart of His Realm's sage-removal effect, which does operate by passive conditions, but only for non-spell non-light enchantment non-ritual cards.

I agree that the ruling is wrong. I disagree with last sentence. It is like saying that Wolves AA from Fell Winter appears at site as result of action triggered by passive condition which is type of site Border Hold.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:06 am

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:22 am Although the Sage could still use their Sage skill in response to the declaration of In the Heart of His Realm's sage-removal effect, which does operate by passive conditions, but only for non-spell non-light enchantment non-ritual cards.

I agree that the ruling is wrong. I disagree with last sentence. It is like saying that Wolves AA from Fell Winter appears at site as result of action triggered by passive condition which is type of site Border Hold.

Saying that you disagree with a description of game timing by bringing up a case like Fell Winter where there will never be any timing issue is pointless.

And of course Fell Winter's wolf-AA creation effect works by passive condition timing. The game does not provide for any other timing possibilities besides (A) implementing the effect immediately when resolved in the chain of effects and (B) triggering the effect by a passive condition and implementing that effect when it resolves in the following chain of effects. Fell Winter's wolf-AA clearly works by passive conditions because it applies to new sites that come into play after Fell Winter has resolved, not just the sites that were already in play when it resolved. It IS triggered by a passive condition of the site type being Border-hold.

In the Heart of His Realm's effect to remove Sage skill clearly uses passive condition timing. Being "in a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth" is a condition. A character's Sage skill is an attribute of a character. So ITHOHR's effect modifying the Sage skill is triggered by that condition. It works the same as other attribute modification effect triggered by passive conditions (Minions Stir, Rank Upon Rank, etc). Once the character moves in a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth, the Sage-removing effect is triggered and it will be declared in the following chain of effects. If the Sage-removing effect were not triggered by passive conditions then it would not be able to apply to character's in Gorgoroth that moved there after resolution of ITHOHR.

ITHOHR's on-going effect to prevent Spells/Rituals/Enchantments from being played does have a condition of the card being played by a character "in a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth," but this effect does not affect an attribute of a card in play, it is an ongoing effect that negates the conditions for playing certain cards. So this negation effect is implemented immediately and does not (nor does it need to) use passive condition timing--it is an on-going effect already in play since its resolution.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:05 pm And of course Fell Winter's wolf-AA creation effect works by passive condition timing. The game does not provide for any other timing possibilities besides (A) implementing the effect immediately when resolved in the chain of effects and (B) triggering the effect by a passive condition and implementing that effect when it resolves in the following chain of effects.

This is so clear as... Clear Skies, for instance.
Effect of the card is not implemented immediately to any object. Rather objects (characters) are under effect of the card as long the card is in play.
Effect of Sun is not triggered by presence of Dúnadan character.
There is a difference between an effect (under which some object is located) and a result (implemented to object).

If Fell Winter's wolf-AA creation would be a result implemented to a site, then it would work like Whole Village Roused, it would persist even if later site type would change.
If loss of sage skills would be a result of action activated by some passive conditions, then it would be persistent result, like result of tapping.
Sites tapped in result of Long Winter tapping action do not untap when Long Winter leaves active play, or when they site path changes.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:59 pm Effect of Sun is not triggered by presence of Dúnadan character.

Sun IS triggered by presence of a Dúnadan character. The game does not allow for any other possiblity. Same for Clear Skies. It should be clear that Sun is triggered because effects are either targeted or non-targeted (triggered by a passive condition). If Sun were targeted (and not triggered) then it would not affect minion characters (since they cannot be targets of opponent's resources) -- but ICE has told us that Sun does affect minion companies. Sun's effect is a triggered effect.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:59 pm There is a difference between an effect (under which some object is located) and a result (implemented to object).

The rules of the this game do not describe such a difference (between "effect" and "result") and its design does not require it. Instead the game provides effects that modify attributes of cards and effects that change the game state (location of the card in the play area and the untapped/tapped/wounded orientation of the card).

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:59 pm If Fell Winter's wolf-AA creation would be a result implemented to a site, then it would work like Whole Village Roused, it would persist even if later site type would change.

It would not. An on-going effect triggered by a passive condition changes when the conditions change. If Doors of Night leaves play, or Gates of Morning comes into play, or a once-border-hold is no longer a border-hold, then the effect is removed or re-triggered according to the current conditions.

Whole Villages Roused is a short even that has an effect implemented immediately at resolution. It's not triggered by a passive condition. It's effect cannot change after it has resolved.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:59 pm If loss of sage skills would be a result of action activated by some passive conditions, then it would be persistent result, like result of tapping.
Sites tapped in result of Long Winter tapping action do not untap when Long Winter leaves active play, or when they site path changes.

The consequences of an effect leaving play are not relevant to the timing of how that effect entered play. So, no, loss of Sage skill is not like tapping. There is no specific target for In the Heart of His Realms sage-removing effect. If there is no specific target defined at resolution then the effect of that card cannot be implemented at resolution. It's that simple.

An effect modifying an attribute of a card (e.g., Prowess or a Skill) does not change the game state. Such effects can be an on-going effect implemented immediately (Potion of Prowess and Narya) or an effect implemented using passive conditions (triggered effects of Clear Skies and Sun). When the modification effect leaves play (end of the turn, or when the corresponding card is discarded), the on-going modifications also go away. And the game state still does not change.

An effect that changes a card's location or orientation in the play area (e.g., tap or discard) does change the game state. Such effects can be can be implemented immediately (e.g., New Moon) or using passive conditions (triggered effect of Long Winter). This is not an on-going effect nor does it need to be. Changing the game state is a single action. Reverting the game state would require a new and different action. The rules do not provide a mechanism for performing reversion actions when non-targeting events operating using passive conditions leave play. When such an effect leaves, the game state does not change.

The rules describe how on-going effects that modify attributes can be removed, removing the attribute modifications. The rules do not describe the player performing reverting actions to move the game state back to how it was if a long-event leaves please.