Thorsten the Traveller wrote:In the case of Healing Herbs, one can (and should) read "alternatively" not as constituting a whole new set of properties for the card, but one building on the previous sentence. Otherwise the "that is not wounded" would be totally redundant.
This is perfectly acceptable when it concerns playability requirements, for example,
Darkness Wielded writes:Clearly you cannot use the cancelling ability on The Balrog if he's not in Great Shadow.Playable on an attack against The Balrog's company if Great Shadow is in play. The attack receives -2 prowess....Alternatively, cancel this attack and a latter attack.
Following rule:Darkness Wielded (full quote) wrote:Balrog specific. Playable on an attack against The Balrog's company if Great Shadow is in play. You may bring this card from your sideboard into your play deck and reshuffle during your organization phase. The attack receives -2 prowess, -1 body, and is reduced to one strike. Alternatively, cancel this attack and a latter attack of your choice against his company this turn.
says about playability, not about conditions of use of card that is already in play.CRF, Rulings by Term, Active Conditions wrote:If an "alternative" or "additional" effect does not have any "playable ..." conditions,
then the "playable on ..." conditions from the primary effect of the card apply. The
following cards are exceptions to this rule:
• Gloom
• Good Sense Revolts
• Half an Eye Open
• Heedless Revelry
• Here is a Snake
• In the Name of Mordor
• Inner Cunning
• Nobody's Friend
• Withdrawn to Mordor
• Wolf-riders
Phrase "Alternatively, cancel this attack..." refers to the description of the attack, given earlier in the same text. That is sense of use a word "this" - to not repeat a description of something, what has been described earlier. If this attack would not be described earlier, the phrase would not make a sense.
So it is not that without this rule, the second effect of Darkness Wielded could be used against other attack, or under other conditions than first effect.
Even if second effect of Healing Herbs would have a condition "in his company", conditions of first and second effect would not be 1:1, as they are in case of Darkness Wielded. Character that can heal is not the same character that can untap.
Conditions of alternative uses of an item do not need to have anything in common with conditions of primary use. See the text of Phial of Galadriel.
See also text of Secret Book, and Records Unread. ICE's authors had tendency to correct a problems by not touching their sources. Instead to correct a texts of some cards, they issued class-actions. One of them is:
Other are:CRF, Turn Sequence, Combat, Attack, Annotation 15: wrote:[...]In order to cancel an attack or to directly affect an attack, the character doing so must be in the company facing the attack.[...]
and mentioned above "CRF, Rulings by Term, Active Conditions".CRF, Rulings by Term. Site wrote:To untap a site the character doing so must be at that site.
That works but does not eliminate the problem which is a badly written text of a card.
Thanks to "To untap a site the character doing so must be at that site." to untap a Free-hold a bearer must be at the Free-hold, but nothing stops them to discard the card to make Information playable at any Ruins & Lairs in play, where he is not.Secret Book wrote:Cannot be included with a starting company. Discard: to untap a Free-hold [F] or to make Information playable at any Ruins & Lairs [R]. Cannot be duplicated in a given party. 'I must be the only one in the Shire, besides you and Frodo, that has ever seen the old fellow's secret book.'-LotRI
Minor items from Dark Minions that may be discarded to make Information playable at some site are free from such problem. Texts of Forgotten Scrolls and Lost Tome include condition that bearer must be at such site.
Sometimes a problem is text of particular card. There is no need to make a corrections in rules.
A bad guy is not that who noticed a problem, nor his logic, but just that text of particular card.