New to the game and have some questions.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

Good enough. Sorry if that question was annoying.

[Theo]

Negative HL requires to be increased to at least 1, to allow to declare actions that count against HL.

This seems like your opinion rather than rules? Seems very awkward to jump over 0. It has been reinforced by previous CoE digests that hazard limit may be 0. Further, I found:

Can a hazard limit go below 0?

*** No.

---

Hazard limit is not equal to the "number of hazards that may be played". Some hazards do not count against HL, some actions that are not hazard count against HL.

Definition:

the number of hazard cards that you may play on one of your opponent's companies is that company's hazard limit

Some hazards say that they do not count against the hazard limit. Some actions that are not card play (such as tapping a Nazgul permanent event) do count against the hazard limit. These truths do not change this definition.

[Konrad Klar]

I do not have an ambition to be compliant with CoE digests.

Some hazards say that they do not count against the hazard limit. Some actions that are not card play (such as tapping a Nazgul permanent event) do count against the hazard limit. These truths do not change this definition.

Or untapping Power Built by Waiting (tapping a Nazgul permanent-event counts as a playing a short-event or long-event from hand; tapping and discarding does not count so).
It turns out that number of hazard that can be played in M/H phase against a company may exceed HL of the company.
No problem?
So why negative HL would be a problem?

[the JabberwocK]

6. Twilight can be played as both a resource or a hazard, and at any phase of the game of either player's turn. (Right?) So if my hazard limit is two, and my opponent plays a doors of night > drowning seas, and I twilight the doors of night, can he still play a twilight to cancel my twilight claiming its a resource? Or is it always considered a hazard during movement/hazard phases and must not exceed the hazard limit?

He can still play Twilight as a resource.

I disagree, as discussed here: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 773#p29958
Nowhere does it explicitly say that Twilight may be played as a resource by the hazard player.
Regardless, it still doesn't count against the hazard limit, even if played during the M/H phase by the hazard player as a hazard.

Twilight
Card Erratum: Add "This card may be played at any time during any player's turn."
Can target a card that has not yet resolved.
Can be played as a resource during your opponent's turn.

(bold mine)
What is the point of this statement in bold if the hazard player may play Twilight as a resource? Why specify "during your opponent's turn"? Instead it should say "Can be played as a resource by either player during any turn."

5. I need clarity on "Unique" events. Many Sorrows Befall, The Balance of Things, Favor of the Valar...if one of these cards has been played, is there any scenario later in the game when they can be played again? It is my current understanding that once a card like Many Sorrows Befall is played, afterward it is gone from the game for good. But it just feels wrong.

"Unique" keyword means that only one copy of a card with it may be currently in play and that only one copy of such card may be included in play deck and sideboard and pool combined.
Unique cards in out of play pile count as being in play for the purposes.
Favor of the Valar is removed from game, according to its text (for good). Many Sorrows Befall is not (why it would be)?

Duncan, you may also want to take a look here: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 103&t=3457
Since MSB does not state it is removed from the game NOR removed from play, it is simply discarded and may be played again by either player.

[Konrad Klar]

What is the point of this statement in bold if the hazard player may play Twilight as a resource? Why specify "during your opponent's turn"? Instead it should say "Can be played as a resource by either player during any turn."

Twilight, by its text, may be played also as a resource.
Because for some it was unclear whether Twilight may be played as a resource only in player's turn, or also in opponent's turn.
Someone may interpret it as "as a resource in my turn, as a hazard otherwise".

If you accept "Can be played as a resource during your opponent's turn." then ask yourself: who, if not hazard player, may play anything during opponent's turn? Resource player?

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

This game needs a serious language overhaul. If I had the means (I were filthy rich), I would try to get the rights to it and try to work with the top experts of the game to try to perfect the language, then reissue new sets...commission better artwork for some cards. (I sometimes fantasize about this).

@ The Jabberwock: I think I'm good on the Unique event ruling now. Thanks!

So anyway...Roac the Raven has some tricky abilities. His card errata is as follows:

1. Replace "no modifications to the influence check are required." with "treat this influence check as if it was made by a diplomat."
2. His special ability may only be used during the site phase.
3. He can make the attempt by himself.
4. Using this ally to make an influence attempt does not tap a site, and may be done if his company is at a tapped site.

The third erratum "He can make the attempt by himself" gets me thinking: It doesn't say he must make the attempt by himself. Who else can be involved in the attempt? Can other characters in his company make the attempt? Roac the Raven is never "by himself" and is always controlled by a character. I'm not aware that multiple characters can make ONE influence check together.

So here's my question: If Elrond controls Roac the Raven, and I tap and discard Roac to attempt to bring any faction into play, can I somehow use Elrond's unused direct influence for the check? If not, what on earth does that third erratum mean? And I take it that factions with special requirements like Returned Exiles or Army of the Dead are out the question?

[Konrad Klar]

Replace "no modifications to the influence check are required." with "treat this influence check as if it was made by a diplomat."

is the only erratum for Röac the Raven.

Rest are clarifications.

If "He can make the attempt by himself" is ambiguous (someone may ponder: "has he other options?"), then what to say about:
"He must make the attempt by himself"?
Someone may ponder: "During site phase I cannot help, but I must use Röac the Raven ability (and what if I do not have a faction card in hand, Röac the Raven is tapped/wounded, his company may not do anything in site phase)?" .

If not, what on earth does that third erratum mean?

Probably this is one of clarifications that rather make more doubts than clarifying something.
I think that someone could understand the text of Röac the Raven in such way that tapping and discarding Röac the Raven allows to make attempt to bring a faction, obviously performed by other character, because in such case Röac the Raven is not in play at this point.

Röac the Raven makes the attempt by himself. Tapping and discarding him is declaration of the attempt.

[CDavis7M]

In other "new to the game" news:
My hazard-player informed me that I Sacrificed Bilbo and Balin along with Gandalf when he used Sacrifice of Form to defeat a Dragon. It was a BIG surprise to me.

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

[the JabberwocK]

What is the point of this statement in bold if the hazard player may play Twilight as a resource? Why specify "during your opponent's turn"? Instead it should say "Can be played as a resource by either player during any turn."

Twilight, by its text, may be played also as a resource.
Because for some it was unclear whether Twilight may be played as a resource only in player's turn, or also in opponent's turn.
Someone may interpret it as "as a resource in my turn, as a hazard otherwise".

If you accept "Can be played as a resource during your opponent's turn." then ask yourself: who, if not hazard player, may play anything during opponent's turn? Resource player?

Aha! I see now. I read the sentence differently initially.

Can be played as a resource during your opponent's turn.

I interpreted this as "Can be played as a resource by your opponent during his turn."
However, if this is what ICE meant, why not just say "Can be played as a resource during your turn."

By phrasing this CRF entry the way they did "Can be played as a resource during your opponent's turn", they are saying that you (the hazard player) may play it as a resource during your opponent's turn.

Okay, this makes sense now, thank you for clarifying. I had misinterpreted the statement.

Someone may interpret it as "as a resource in my turn, as a hazard otherwise".

Indeed, that is how I interpreted it. But the CRF entry is now clear to me, thanks.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

Many Foes He Fought: If defender chooses a warrior to be the target of a strike from an attack, that character may choose to face any number of the strikes from that attack. The character suffers a cumulative -1 prowess/-1 body for each additional strike faced. The character faces a separate strike sequence for each strike.

If Elrond's company is facing Dire Wolves (four strikes at 8 prowess), and I play Many Foes He Fought and select Elrond (7 prowess/9 body) to tap and face all four strikes, with no other modifications to Elrond's prowess, how exactly do these strikes transpire? I have two interpretations.

First possibility:

Strike #1: Elrond at 7/9 faces one strike of 8 prowess
Strike #2: Elrond at 6/8 faces one strike of 8 prowess
Strike #3: Elrond at 5/7 faces one strike of 8 prowess
Strike #4: Elrond at 4/6 faces one strike of 8 prowess

OR

Second possibility:

Elrond at 4/6 faces four separate strikes of 8 prowess

Which scenario is the correct one?

[the JabberwocK]

First possibility:

Strike #1: Elrond at 7/9 faces one strike of 8 prowess
Strike #2: Elrond at 6/8 faces one strike of 8 prowess
Strike #3: Elrond at 5/7 faces one strike of 8 prowess
Strike #4: Elrond at 4/6 faces one strike of 8 prowess

This is correct.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

For the purposes of meeting the 10 hazard creature minimum in the hazard deck, I heard Nazgul hazards count as 1/2 a hazard creature each instead one 1. Is this true? If so, do dragons at home and ahunt also count as 1/2?

If my opponent has revealed sites that apply and are untapped, if my opponent plays Long Winter or Foul Fumes against me, does it also tap his sites too IF THEY APPLY?

[CDavis7M]

For the purposes of meeting the 10 hazard creature minimum in the hazard deck, I heard Nazgul hazards count as 1/2 a hazard creature each instead one 1. Is this true? If so, do dragons at home and ahunt also count as 1/2?

If my opponent has revealed sites that apply and are untapped, if my opponent plays Long Winter or Foul Fumes against me, does it also tap his sites too IF THEY APPLY?

10 creatures minimum in a 25+25 card deck. 12 creatures minimum in a 30+30 card deck. (40%). All hazards that are creature/event only count for half a creature. Dragons ahunt and at home (non-creatures) count as half a creature. And agents count as half a creature.

Yes. Hazard long events and permanent events apply to both players. That is, your Long Winter applies to your opponent when you play it and it also applies to you on your turn. So you need to be careful with this.

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk

[the JabberwocK]

For the purposes of meeting the 10 hazard creature minimum in the hazard deck, I heard Nazgul hazards count as 1/2 a hazard creature each instead one 1. Is this true? If so, do dragons at home and ahunt also count as 1/2?

Yes, this is a commonly accepted tournament convention.

CRF - Tournament Rulings
The following count as 1/2 a creature for deck construction: hazards that can be played as creatures or events, At Home Dragon manifestations, Ahunt Dragon manifestations, and agents. Note that agents count as characters in Ringwraith decks, not as 1/2 creatures.

Everyone that I know also adopts the tournament conventions for casual play. Also, the creature minimum is 12, not 10.

If my opponent has revealed sites that apply and are untapped, if my opponent plays Long Winter or Foul Fumes against me, does it also tap his sites too IF THEY APPLY?

Yes it does.

[DuncanNeeds2Shave]

Whaaat?? 12?? That's a bummer. Me no likey hazard creatures...