Council of Elrond

Hi!
If I use Ride Against the Enemy with a Ringwraith, may I play - after the attack resolves - a card like Black Breath?
Is the attack considered a 'nazgûl' attack? I know that "Hazards have no effect on the attack" of RATE, but I think that Black Breath doesn't affect the attack, it starts just after the attack is resolved.
What about Press Gang, I've read a thread in this forum about playing it after RATE but I don't know if it has been discussed again or reinterpreted.
Thank you in advance

I agree that Black Breath does not affect the attack.
But Ringwraith is not Nazgûl and Wizard is not Maia.

Character used with Ride Against the Enemy is in play. It just is not under control of owner.
So if it will survive the attack it should be placed with Press-Gang, if the card is in play.

Thanks Konrad, that combo was too good to be true

Konrad Klar wrote:So if it will survive the attack it should be placed with Press-Gang, if the card is in play.

I should say rather:

"So if it have to be discarded it should be placed with Press-Gang, if the card is in play."

(Ringwraith may survive attack, but in result of body check it may be returned to hand).

Konrad, does this mean that, if I play RATE with an Avatar/Character, there are these scenarios?:

- Attack defeated : Avatar/Character is discarded (not eliminated).
- Attack non defeated : Avatar/Character goes back at hand.

I though it worked this way: you play RATE, show the Avatar/Character just to create the attack but you keep that card at hand...

"Playable on a company moving through a Wilderness region if you have a character in your hand. Reveal the character. A
single‐strike hazard creature attack is made on the company with the attributes of the revealed character with +7 prowess. Other cards have no effect on this attack. The attack is detainment if the revealed character and company are both minion or both hero."

Does reveal here means to put it on the table, not just show it?

Thank you

EDIT: Just read a CoE where says that with RATE you bring the character in to play, not just show the card as I thought. Knowing this, are the two scenarios described above still valid?

panotxa wrote:Does reveal here means to put it on the table, not just show it?

[...]

EDIT: Just read a CoE where says that with RATE you bring the character in to play, not just show the card as I thought. Knowing this, are the two scenarios described above still valid?

Official Rulings Digest #39 wrote:*** On a related note, I'm overturning a previous ruling I made saying
that you may play a character with Ride Against the Enemy when another
manifestation of that character is in play. You now may not do so, as
Ride Against the Enemy will bring the character into play for the attack.

"Reveal" does not mean "play", but Official Rulings Digest #39 is actually (legitimate or not) errata for Ride Against the Enemy.
Without that errata nothing would stop a player from using and potentially eliminating an unique character already in active play, or an unique eliminated character.

All I wrote before in this thread is with assumption that CoE#39 is valid (at least in quoted part).
Where I was wrong was the comment:

(Ringwraith may survive attack, but in result of body check it may be returned to hand)

Sorry. I overlooked that:
"A single‐strike hazard creature attack is made on the company with the attributes of the revealed character with +7 prowess"
so no actual character is involved in combat, even if it is eliminated if the attack is defeated. Consequently a body check is made against s single‐strike hazard creature attack, not against character (not against Ringwraith).

Thanks for your watchfulness.

panotxa wrote: - Attack defeated : Avatar/Character is discarded (not eliminated).
- Attack non defeated : Avatar/Character goes back at hand.

"The attack is detainment if the revealed character and the company are both minion or both hero. If defeated, place the character in your opponent's marshalling point pile-he receives the character's marshalling points as kill points. Otherwise, discard the character."

With or without CoE#39 a result of defeating is the same - the character goes to MP pile.
CoE#39 has impact on "Otherwise, discard the character." . Without CoE#39 character is considered revealed and not in play, with CoE#39 it is considered in play so discarding it may be alternated by Press-Gang.

Thank you Konrad, this game is tough as hell but having a helpful and friendly community makes things easier

One think that came to my mind about playing RATE with a Ringwraith and Black-breath... What if Eowyn fights my RATE+Ringwraith, will she get the +6 plus? If yes, why is not possible then to use Black breath after this kind of attack? Thx!

CRF, Rulings by Term, Ringwraith wrote:Characters with combat bonuses against Nazgûl also get those bonuses against
Ringwraiths. However, other effects that affect Nazgûl do not affect Ringwraiths.

panotxa wrote:What if Eowyn fights my RATE+Ringwraith, will she get the +6 plus?

Yes. Due to first sentence.

panotxa wrote:If yes, why is not possible then to use Black breath after this kind of attack?

Not due to second sentence. Black Breath even does not affect Nazgûl attack. It just refer to the Nazgûl attack, but attack from RATE+Ringwraith is Ringwraith attack, not Nazgûl attack.

Thank you man!

Sorry for refloating this thread...
I read this old analysis on this card (http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=474) and I'd like to know if it is still valid (that post was from 2004) that being Sauron or the Lidless Eye (after having played the specific permanent resource) Using RATE with a Ringwraith.
I've been asked during a game to justify the legality of the combo (becoming Sauron and then revealing Ringwraiths with RATE) and I couldn't work any good explanation out
Lure is getting closer and maybe I'll have to redo my deck please help me
Thanks in advance!

The Lidless Eye wrote:Playable if your opponent is a Wizard and you have not revealed a Ringwraith. You are Sauron, not a Ringwraith. You may not reveal a Ringwraith or play Ringwraith followers. +7 to your general influence. You may keep one more card than normal in your hand. Once during each of your organization phases, you may: bring a resource or character from your sideboard into your play deck and shuffle or choose and discard a card from your hand to look up to 5 random cards at once from your opponent's hand. Cannot be duplicated.

Sauron wrote:Manifestation of The Lidless Eye. Playable if your opponent is a Wizard and you have not revealed a Ringwraith. You are Sauron, not a Ringwraith. You may not reveal a Ringwraith or play Ringwraith followers. +10 to your general influence. Discards and prevents the subsequent play of Bade to Rule. During your organization phase, you may bring a resource or character from your sideboard into your play deck and shuffle and there is no limit to the number of characters you may bring into play. Cannot be duplicated.

Playing a card involves revealing the card.
The Lidless Eye/Sauron just refer to the revealing a Ringwraith and does not specify any condition of that revealing (e.g. revealing as your avatar).
And that would be enough to say that:
- player cannot play Lidless Eye/Sauron if he had played Ride Against the Enemy in conjunction with Ringwraith,
- player cannot play Ride Against the Enemy in conjunction with Ringwraith if he has Lidless Eye/Sauron in play.

One curious thing is, however, why Lidless Eye/Sauron says: "You may not reveal a Ringwraith or play Ringwraith followers." and not just "You may not reveal a Ringwraith."?
If playing a card involves revealing the card, that "You may not reveal a Ringwraith." would be sufficient to prevent a playing a Ringwraith followers.


One of possible explanations may be that ICE did not say exactly what it/they want to say.
ICE would have in mind "you have not revealed a Ringwraith as avatar" instead "you have not revealed a Ringwraith".
ICE would have in mind " You may not reveal a Ringwraith as avatar" instead "You may not reveal a Ringwraith".
Then additionally mentioning "or play Ringwraith followers." makes sense.

Of course I do not have a rights to make an errata. Both options - texts of Lidless Eye/Sauron is taken as is (literally), or is modified to "Ringwraith as avatar" can work. But first option has limitation mentioned earlier.

Thanks for the fast answer - as usual - Konrad.
I'm wondering what happened since that post from Jambo (with a positive replay from Zarathustra) was written because that post is from 2004 and CoE #39 is from 2002 and both users are/were renowned community members.
I'd be really happy to find some other CoE that contradicts your last answer (because my deck just got ruined ) but for the moment I'll have to deal with it

EDIT:
I just found this in the [NetRep] Rulings Digest #105 from 2006:

*** CoE digest 39 states (correctly) that the player using Ride Against the Enemy thereby brings the character into play for the attack. This means that if the attack is defeated and the character thus dies:

- the attacker suffers the negative MPs as normal if the character gives negative MPs when eliminated (like Elrond, Aragorn, etc. do),

- the attacker suffers -5 MPs and the other normal consequences if the character was his own declared avatar. (This is relevant for example for fallen wizards, the Balrog and wizards unrevealed via Sacrifice of Form.)

- the attacker suffers no penalties if the character was a wizard or ringwraith other than his own declared avatar.

The underlined is mine.

Does this mean, in an implicit way, that I can be a declared avatar (Akorahill for example) and use RATE with another one (Khamul for example)? Does this contradict, if playing involve revealing, the rule on not being able to play a different avatar once revealed the first one?

When all else fails, go to the rulebook.

MELE wrote:You may play a Ringwraith card if you do not have one in play. This is called "Revealing your Ringwraith."

The term "avatar" is not actually part of the rules.

Therefore, it's just fine to use Ringwraith characters for Ride Against the Enemy if you have the Lidless Eye in play. When Lidless Eye forbids revealing a Ringwraith, it refers to Revealing your Ringwraith, which is a different thing than revealing a card in general.

ICE was never precise nor consistent in their wording. The intent of Lidless Eye is to ensure that you do not have the card out while also having a Ringwraith character in play.

Bandobras Took wrote:The term "avatar" is not actually part of the rules.

Right, term "avatar" is alien here. But texts of The Lidless Eye/Sauron do not say even "your Ringwraith".
If someone asks whether playing the Khamul with RATE involves revealing the Khamul, I cannot deny.

panotxa wrote:The underlined is mine.

Does this mean, in an implicit way, that I can be a declared avatar (Akorahill for example) and use RATE with another one (Khamul for example)? Does this contradict, if playing involve revealing, the rule on not being able to play a different avatar once revealed the first one?

A Ringwraith character is not being played as avatar if it is being played with RATE, or as Ringwraith follower.