It's unbelievable what kind of things pop up after 15 years of this game...
finaly it doesn't seem possible anymore to test your One Ring at mount doom....
*I just had to laught so much I nearly fell from my chair!*
Testing For The One At Mount Doom -- no victory?
- Nerdmeetsyou
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 pm
okay....
I don't understand why.... and on the basis of which rule...
but if you say so....
I don't understand why.... and on the basis of which rule...
but if you say so....
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Ok men. Now I will try to be strict.METW Rulebook Victory Conditions wrote:If you move the One Ring to Mount Doom and play certain cards -- The One Ring is destroyed and you win.
Even if your company containing bearer of The One Ring successfully move to Mount Doom it is not even half of success.
Now you must move The One Ring to Mount Doom!
No need to say that there is distinction between you (player) and your company (companies), your characters and your other cards.
How? This is your business. Don't be tolerable for vague interpretations. It is written and it must be respected. Use all your means, take The One Ring and go to Mount Doom.
P.S.
I can only imagine the reaction of players if quoted rule would be, for example:
"If one of your companies move the One Ring to Mount Doom and you play certain cards -- The One Ring is destroyed and you win. Clarification: You don't need move the One Ring to Mount Doom."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
The Netrep team seems to be discussing it.
Privately, I'll be fascinated to find out whether the cards in question override this rule even though Adunaphel can't override hers.
Privately, I'll be fascinated to find out whether the cards in question override this rule even though Adunaphel can't override hers.
Sorry, can't resist adding some further nitpickery to this discussion...Bandobras Took wrote:According to this, you only win by cards allowing such a victory (Cracks of Doom, Gollum's Fate) if you have moved The One Ring to Mount Doom.METW Rulebook Victory Conditions wrote:If you move the One Ring to Mount Doom and play certain cards -- The One Ring is destroyed and you win.
Thoughts?
...but from a logical point of view, the 'moving the one ring and playing certain cards' - part of the if-then - sentence is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for winning, so it's not strictly true there is no other option to win besides satisfying those conditions.
Seriously though, that sentence appears to be describing rather than defining victory with the one ring, as there's no such thing as moving items between sites as Manuel pointed out. Furthermore, the text of cracks of doom for example only lists the one ring being at mt.doom during the site phase as a condition for playing the card and the effect of it is then printed on the card - '...it's bearer's player wins' - overriding any rulesbook text.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
-David Hume-
-David Hume-
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Perhaps you'd care to explain how RWs win One Ring, then.Manuel wrote:On the other hand, items do not move, companies do. You are trying to put a literal view into something that isn't.
This is MELE -- no excuse for bad wording.2. If you move The One Ring to Barad-dûr - Sauron is reunited with the One Ring and you win.
It doesn't say "if the One Ring is at Barad-Dur."
Minions have to move the One Ring to Barad-dur to win.
Since the rules say you have to move an item to win (there is no other way for RWs to win a One Ring victory), you certainly can move items.
In my view, it is not that METWor MELE have a "bad wording" there, it's just that both MELE and METW sentences about it aren't intended to be implementing a new concept: moving items. In other words, they are not to be interpreted so strictly.
There are also some other examples of things that shouldn't be so strictly taken into account, like this sentence Konrad Klar found in the MELE rules:
There are also some other examples of things that shouldn't be so strictly taken into account, like this sentence Konrad Klar found in the MELE rules:
According to a strict reading of that, you could move with a company from Rivendel to Lorien (4 wildernesses) and then use a bridge to move to Dunharrow (only 1 wilderness) and your opponent could hit you with a Rain Drake on that second mov/haz phase because your company actually moved through 3 wildernesses during this turn. I personally wouldn't do a strict interpretation of that, and I imagine that there are more examples spread along the rulesbooks...At least one of the region symbols on the creature's card matches one of the region types the company moved through this turn (see below). If the creature's card has two region symbols of the same type (i.e., a deep Wilderness creature), then the company must have moved through at least two regions of that same type.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
No -- the card needs that phrase because otherwise you wouldn't win by playing it.Trossell wrote:Furthermore, the text of cracks of doom for example only lists the one ring being at mt.doom during the site phase as a condition for playing the card and the effect of it is then printed on the card - '...it's bearer's player wins' - overriding any rulesbook text.
I can't move the One Ring to Mount Doom and win by playing Quiet Lands -- it lacks the phrase "you win the game." I have to use a card that tells me I win the game. The rule for Heroes winning by the One Ring is that you move the One Ring to Mount Doom and play certain cards -- the phrase "you win the game" tells you which cards will let you win this way, and the playability conditions tell you when you are allowed to play them, but neither of those touch the basic rule that you must move the One Ring to Mount Doom and play certain cards in order to win that way.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Why is this a new concept? Since they went through the trouble of putting it in the first rulebook and in the MELE rulebook, it seems to me that the concept is new to players, not to the game itself.Manuel wrote:In my view, it is not that METWor MELE have a "bad wording" there, it's just that both MELE and METW sentences about it aren't intended to be implementing a new concept: moving items. In other words, they are not to be interpreted so strictly.
Allies can move. Why not items?CRF, Companies wrote:Entities associated with a company include the characters, allies, and items in the company, and any events played on the company or on another entity in the company. The new site and site of origin are not entities associated with the company.
How can items be stored at a Haven if they never move from the site where they are played?
How can Thror's Map untap a site if it never moves from the place where it was played?
It's patently obvious that items can be at different sites. Even if they teleport there, they move along with their companies, just like allies.
And I'll say it again -- we can't pick and choose which rules should be taken literally and which shouldn't. If we're going to say that the rules do not actually say what they say, then the first things to go ought to be rules about cards playable on automatic attacks and the ruling about Adunaphel targeting any character.There are also some other examples of things that shouldn't be so strictly taken into account, like this sentence Konrad Klar found in the MELE rules:
- Nerdmeetsyou
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 pm
AS long as there is no errata.... or a new rulebook....
the rules must be enforced as written....
it's not a fault of the player who finds a hole in the rules.... it's a problem of the rules that must be solved.
And we definitly should rewrite the rulebook some time, like stated in another thread.
the rules must be enforced as written....
it's not a fault of the player who finds a hole in the rules.... it's a problem of the rules that must be solved.
And we definitly should rewrite the rulebook some time, like stated in another thread.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
One example of ally card where it is worded in such way, please.Bandobras Took wrote:Allies can move. Why not items?CRF, Companies wrote:Entities associated with a company include the characters, allies, and items in the company, and any events played on the company or on another entity in the company. The new site and site of origin are not entities associated with the company.
Companies may move, characters may move. Allies and items are moving only if its controlling characters moves.
See above.Bandobras Took wrote: How can items be stored at a Haven if they never move from the site where they are played?
How can Thror's Map untap a site if it never moves from the place where it was played?
Just like allies.Bandobras Took wrote: It's patently obvious that items can be at different sites. Even if they teleport there, they move along with their companies, just like allies.
If we can estimate (decide, judge...) which parts of rulebooks are brief explanations and which are precisely written procedures - we can.Bandobras Took wrote: And I'll say it again -- we can't pick and choose which rules should be taken literally and which shouldn't. If we're going to say that the rules do not actually say what they say, then the first things to go ought to be rules about cards playable on automatic attacks and the ruling about Adunaphel targeting any character.
Basic difference is just level of details. For brief explanations it is so low, that it is difficult to say how exactly explained things are working.
Personally I cannot do more than comparition of text in question with its ambient - other rules, cards, known (i.e. agreed) game mechanics.
If this comparition is unconvicable to someone, then I'm sorry (it is possibe I'm wrong on certain topic).
Ultimately here is forum, not court.
I agree with you in question of Adunaphel. Current (official) ruling is nothing else than Card Erratum. It does not derive from text of card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.