The Ring's Betrayal

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

If the company has more than one character who possess a ring, who decides which character makes the corruption check, the hazard player or the resource player?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

A player who declares an action specifies a targets of the action, also at declaration; if the action has any target.

The Ring's Betrayal has two targets, a character and a ring.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Ok so the hazard player chooses the character. Thank you.

I was confused because hazards such as these are worded more precisely:

Dragon-Sickness: Playable on a character bearing a major or greater item.
The Burden of Time: Playable on an elf not in a haven.

Seems like for consistency, The Ring's Betrayal should say: Playable on a character bearing a Ring.

The wording used on this card makes it sound like any character who bears a ring may make the check.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

the Jabberwock wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:21 pm Seems like for consistency, The Ring's Betrayal should say: Playable on a character bearing a Ring.
A cards not always say explicitly on what (through what) they are played.
For instance the resource And Forth He Hastened says:
"Untap a character in your Wizard's company"
It does not say that it is playable on a character in your Wizard's company.

There are rules that limit a range of possible targets. Resources cannot target opponent's characters or resources*.
Hazards may not target characters in other companies than a company against which they was played.

For this reason "playable on" phrase seem redundant (and "your" in And Forth He Hastened too).
Rather they need to say explicitly that they are playable on an object otherwise not allowed by rules to overcome the limitations.


*) funnily they do not forbid a playing resources on opponent's site :!:
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Okay, my mind was just blown while reading NetRep Digest # 4:
1. Rolled Down to the Sea says: "Opponent must discard a ring from his hand or from one of his
companies if available. If no rings are available as such, he must reveal his hand to you."
So, do both the gold ring item cards like Beautiful Gold Ring/Fair Gold Ring/Precious Gold Ring and
the actual ring cards like the Magic/Dwarven/One Ring fit the definition?

*** Yes.

And, does the opponent get to decide whether he discards from his hand or from a company?

*** No.
(bold mine)

So this NetRep ruling is consistent with what Konrad said above about The Ring's Betrayal: that the hazard player chooses the targets for the card.

So the hazard player gets to decide where the ring is discarded from while playing Rolled Down from the Sea?

I have never played this way, and personally, I think this is an over-reach for an already very powerful card. It also somewhat negates some of the established ways for ring decks to deal with Rolled (e.g. including minion minor item rings or holding extra gold rings in hand).

Is this how Rolled works? -
The hazard player would specify the discard must come either from his opponent's hand OR name a specific company in play. He may not choose a specific ring if there are more than one ring in the same company, correct? If there is a ring in a company, but the hazard player chooses "hand" and there is no ring in opponent's hand, then is opponent's hand now revealed BUT the ring in the company remains in play and is not discarded?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I'm suspecting that in fragment:
the Jabberwock wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:07 am And, does the opponent get to decide whether he discards from his hand or from a company?

*** No.
"the opponent" has been mistaken by answering person as an opponent of player that has to discard a ring.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Well that makes me feel better if that's the case. :)
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”