On-Guard Foolish Words

[miguel]

I made an unexpected but welcome discovery. It seems some entries from early (no longer available) ICE digests were edited into the METW Unlimited Edition Rules presented on the Dutch Council's website. Most of those entries are now of course in the CRF, but some had been shortened for that purpose. Of particular interest for this thread was the rules erratum which we intend to remove.

The spirit of the on-guard card is to represent a hazard threat that existed during a company's movement/hazard phase, but of which the company was not aware. The actual rule that portrays this spirit is: an on-guard may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase--this is a slight modification from the rule printed on page page 61 of the METW Unlimited Rulesbook. Practically, this means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.

I still think we should get rid of the CRF entry altogether because of the unforeseen issues it is now presenting. But, the quote above clearly states the on-guard is intended for the company it was placed for, not just any company that happens to wander to the same site. Therefore, at the risk of repeating myself:

I think the on-guard placed for a company, next to a site card (or on it, doesn't really matter much) is always related to both. The on-guard can only be revealed for that company at that site.

And on-guards placed for companies that join affect the new company, this has been covered in a CoE Digest.

[Bandobras Took]

How dare ICE go by the spirit of the rule?

[dirhaval]

This is a nice debate to read. I personally do not like the on-guard option. I feel it slows the game down, but I play for theme-style purposes.
I feel that hazards should be played in order of the region and types. As if you play Ambusher on a company from Rivendell to Bag End then
you cannot play Huorn since the company already left the Wilderness. Side point I know. My opinion.

[miguel]

MeCCG is not an RPG, and should not be treated that way.

[Bandobras Took]

MeCCG is not an RPG, and should not be treated that way.

Absolutely, solidly, and 100% agree.

[dirhaval]

I agree with RPG, but my comment was not directed as such. Targeting hazard creatures based on movement like I mentioned before
indicates a higher level of strategy on both sides. Not everyone sees it has joy to win in four or less turns.

[miguel]

Well, when you wish to make the game more like an approximation of 'real life in Middle-earth' for theme-style purposes, it does seem pretty RPGish. And I don't agree with your assessment of higher level of strategy (please feel free to explain how that would be). I only see diminished tactical play (fewer options for the hazard player) because of the restriction you propose.

The comment about winning in four or less turns seems misplaced. How is that relevant? If someone makes a deck that wins very fast it's usually because of the resources, and hazards are just cycled quickly trying to slow the opponent down a bit. Restrictions on hazard play would only work in favor of those decks. Competent decks in 2-deck certainly do win in around four turns. 1-deck games are even faster. If you want longer games, the answer is playing 3-deck/4-deck.

[CDavis7M]

I found this post while looking at the other recent post on Foolish Words.

I made an unexpected but welcome discovery. It seems some entries from early (no longer available) ICE digests were edited into the METW Unlimited Edition Rules presented on the Dutch Council's website. Most of those entries are now of course in the CRF, but some had been shortened for that purpose. Of particular interest for this thread was the rules erratum which we intend to remove.

The spirit of the on-guard card is to represent a hazard threat that existed during a company's movement/hazard phase, but of which the company was not aware. The actual rule that portrays this spirit is: an on-guard may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase--this is a slight modification from the rule printed on page page 61 of the METW Unlimited Rulesbook. Practically, this means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.

The old ICE Digests have always been available it's just that they required a subscription service until 2001 (or was it 2003?) and after that they were freely available when Google bought Usenet.

I know that reading and using Google can be difficult but in the beginning of the CRF it states "Post the message to the Usenet news group rec.games.trading-cards.misc, with "[MECCG]" in the subject line." If anyone just Google'd "rec.games.trading-cards.misc" they can go read the old ICE rulings. I don't know why no one in the CoE bothered to refer back to the ICE rulings but my impression from the old METW mailing list (archived by Yahoo up until August 2018 or so) is that some of the earlier council members didn't like how ICE ruled and they wanted to do things their own way. So there was simply no need for them to go back.

Usenet.PNG (45.71 KiB) Viewed 1462 times

This supposedly "no longer available" ICE ruling can be read here: https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.t ... vxsWRY2QMJ

There's lots of useful information and rulings in the Usenet archives.