I can live with the fact that what CRF says is meaningless for some playgroups.CRF, CRF v.3, General, Dual-Purpose Cards wrote:A card that can be played as either a resource or as a hazard can be counted in either
the resource mix or hazard mix of a deck for the purposes of including an equal number of resources and hazards.
Twilight vs Many Sorrows Befall
-
Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4352
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
I do not know it for a fact, however am pretty sure that the CRF came later than the card itself. But not even CRF is overwriting the very fact that you can't play a hazard in your own turn unless the card clearly states that. Like this: "you can play this card as a hazard in your own turn".
But yet another example that it is not the game that is broken but the rash errata.
But yet another example that it is not the game that is broken but the rash errata.
What have you guys done to ![[-me_eye-]](./images/smilies/me_eye.png "Burning Eye")
I used to love?!
I used to love?!
I feel like taking this moment, since I don't know if this comes across often enough in our discussions, to mention that I really appreciate Konrad's general mastery of the linguistics of this game, his cohesive thought and thorough process, the calm demeanor with which his writing generally comes across to me, and willingness to help this community (and individuals therein) increase its understanding of this game.
Most other's here also exhibit many of these attributes that I admire, or others, in different mixes.
I appreciate Hombarus giving voice to his rules concerns, perhaps the more so because neither I nor many others share them. But I have not appreciated his approach or demeanor on these forums one bit. If Hombarus only wants to think what he thinks, and is not here to learn and help others learn, I have nothing more to say to him.
Most other's here also exhibit many of these attributes that I admire, or others, in different mixes.
I appreciate Hombarus giving voice to his rules concerns, perhaps the more so because neither I nor many others share them. But I have not appreciated his approach or demeanor on these forums one bit. If Hombarus only wants to think what he thinks, and is not here to learn and help others learn, I have nothing more to say to him.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Oh Theo!
We all know that the context is more important than the content itself. However, when you establish rules what we are doing here - well at least debate the establishment - the content should be the only focus.
You are the guy who claims that if you beat the generated attack by Spider of the Morlat, you should get the 4 MP's and you stick by it with a truly bonehead approach, yet you claim that I am the one who is overly stubborn and of course rude. Well never mind my style mate this is a debate not a "grease their ..." contest. Of course I will stand by my point especially that it is perfectly valid.
Throughout this clash of opinions, because that is what it is, I have brought up facts and quotes. The opposition, in their frankly broken language, brought up misfitting examples where the cards, or the errata were stating the exceptions to the rule. Not once they brought solid facts to oppose the trivia I have stated - well, quoted.
I do appreciate people for nurturing the game. I do appreciate the fact that Konrad puts up a fight for his side. What I cannot stomach is the fact because I am the 'new kid on the block' you and Kjeld are trying to discredit my opinion based on my style. - You dislike my style. Point taken. Join the mile long queue, nobody gets to jump it. -
Vastor and I had a similar argument where he made his point saying, 'well, there are just a handful of cards used in practically every deck and the rest are ignored'.
In Cardnum, where all cards are equally available his statement makes sense. However this whole game is a collectible card game. Therefore there are common, uncommon and rare, well in this case also fixed cards. It is quite reasonable that a common card does not have the potency of a rare card.
But when you nerf these cards to fit not the meta-game itself but the macro of one particular play-style what you do is creating just another circle of cards that are overly potent. Then you nerf these too, and so on and so forth. In the end you get a totally broken game and the fracture itself is the nerfing upon nerfing. Then you go on and bend the rules to the new-ish set of cards which creates a lot of tension between the compact rules of the original and the new rules that never took the entire system into consideration when the ruling was made, but just a tiny focus of a few steps and rules. What you guys are facing here is simple: management issues. When you make a rule that has to be black and white. Where there is a grey area people will bend it to their own benefit. This is very simple stuff here.
The true problem with allowing twilight to be played as a hazard in your own turn is that you create a precedent. This precedent will be used by other cards too where you will sit over it and rule again. And every single ruling that bends the foundations of the system weakens it. This is a fact.
Right now this game, has 2 major problems in my personal view:
Someone who understands the game yet stayed away from it for a while tries to play it the way it is clearly stated on the cards and the rules plus the errata would not be able to play it as the rulings are not in sync with the rules but more so with a specific style of play.
Secondly the whole game is becoming a structure that has tiny foundation and is top heavy. Meaning that it is so far away from the foundations of it's own that the structure is destabilized. You will only have more and more rulings built upon each other. And only one ruling needs be shaky the entire structure becomes incoherent.
We all know that the context is more important than the content itself. However, when you establish rules what we are doing here - well at least debate the establishment - the content should be the only focus.
You are the guy who claims that if you beat the generated attack by Spider of the Morlat, you should get the 4 MP's and you stick by it with a truly bonehead approach, yet you claim that I am the one who is overly stubborn and of course rude. Well never mind my style mate this is a debate not a "grease their ..." contest. Of course I will stand by my point especially that it is perfectly valid.
Throughout this clash of opinions, because that is what it is, I have brought up facts and quotes. The opposition, in their frankly broken language, brought up misfitting examples where the cards, or the errata were stating the exceptions to the rule. Not once they brought solid facts to oppose the trivia I have stated - well, quoted.
I do appreciate people for nurturing the game. I do appreciate the fact that Konrad puts up a fight for his side. What I cannot stomach is the fact because I am the 'new kid on the block' you and Kjeld are trying to discredit my opinion based on my style. - You dislike my style. Point taken. Join the mile long queue, nobody gets to jump it. -
Vastor and I had a similar argument where he made his point saying, 'well, there are just a handful of cards used in practically every deck and the rest are ignored'.
In Cardnum, where all cards are equally available his statement makes sense. However this whole game is a collectible card game. Therefore there are common, uncommon and rare, well in this case also fixed cards. It is quite reasonable that a common card does not have the potency of a rare card.
But when you nerf these cards to fit not the meta-game itself but the macro of one particular play-style what you do is creating just another circle of cards that are overly potent. Then you nerf these too, and so on and so forth. In the end you get a totally broken game and the fracture itself is the nerfing upon nerfing. Then you go on and bend the rules to the new-ish set of cards which creates a lot of tension between the compact rules of the original and the new rules that never took the entire system into consideration when the ruling was made, but just a tiny focus of a few steps and rules. What you guys are facing here is simple: management issues. When you make a rule that has to be black and white. Where there is a grey area people will bend it to their own benefit. This is very simple stuff here.
The true problem with allowing twilight to be played as a hazard in your own turn is that you create a precedent. This precedent will be used by other cards too where you will sit over it and rule again. And every single ruling that bends the foundations of the system weakens it. This is a fact.
Right now this game, has 2 major problems in my personal view:
Someone who understands the game yet stayed away from it for a while tries to play it the way it is clearly stated on the cards and the rules plus the errata would not be able to play it as the rulings are not in sync with the rules but more so with a specific style of play.
Secondly the whole game is becoming a structure that has tiny foundation and is top heavy. Meaning that it is so far away from the foundations of it's own that the structure is destabilized. You will only have more and more rulings built upon each other. And only one ruling needs be shaky the entire structure becomes incoherent.
What have you guys done to I used to love?!
I used to love?!-
Moriquendi
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:46 pm
- Location: Denver
Hombarus -
I appreciate your point of view and challenging the established rules. There are many times I have also disagreed with certain rulings and felt as if the CRF and erratum updates have steered MECCG toward a competitive meta-game type of play that favors specific avatars and a narrow subset of competitive deck builds.
Do these updates and errata ruin the game? That really depends on who you play with, what format of the game you play, and what your reasons for playing the game are in the first place. Keep in mind, nobody is forcing you to play by these updates.
I build and play decks primarily to have fun and explore Middle Earth. I am fortunate enough to have a local group of gamers that also enjoy the variety this game offers. We aren't meeting up every month and simply playing the competitive meta-game over and over again. As a group, we agreed to follow the informal community errata and CRF rulings here on CoE since they are the most complete, active player/community driven, and updated source of rules. Again, I don't necessarily agree with all of these rulings, but I agree to abide by them so that our games can be played cohesively. Everyone here that actively plays this game has run into the odd situations this game presents. Having to crack open the rule books and hold a rules debate in the middle of an already multiple-hours-long match is frustrating.
The timing in which I.C.E. lost the license to Tolkien-related products created many problems for the game. A re-issue of the original METW release would clarify numerous rules issues documented throughout the Player Guides, Companions, etc. Even official Player's Guides for MEAtS, MEWH, and MEBA could have included many of the errata and updates needed to maintain balance and clarity for the later expansions, but those were never released. It was left to the player community to drive these updates on their own over the years.
The rules here are debated, proposed, voted on, etc. by the player community at large, not just a select few of elitist players. Anyone can propose a new rule, erratum, etc. Everyone gets a chance to vote on those rules. Once again, nobody is forcing you to play by any of these rules. There aren't really any sanctioned/official tournaments for MECCG since the I.C.E. lost the license. You are absolutely free to write your own rulebook and play this game however you'd like with whomever you'd like.
Being condescending to everyone that disagrees with you weakens your position.
This isn't MTG where you can find thousands of active players in any given city and sanctioned events occur multiple times a week. I would venture to guess the number of active remaining players globally for MECCG is in the neighborhood of 500-1000.
Even with player numbers that low, I wouldn't spend my free time playing MECCG with someone that so casually and unapologetically disrespects everyone around them. So why should I consider your interpretation of the rules? This is why content is far from the only thing that matters.
I appreciate your point of view and challenging the established rules. There are many times I have also disagreed with certain rulings and felt as if the CRF and erratum updates have steered MECCG toward a competitive meta-game type of play that favors specific avatars and a narrow subset of competitive deck builds.
Do these updates and errata ruin the game? That really depends on who you play with, what format of the game you play, and what your reasons for playing the game are in the first place. Keep in mind, nobody is forcing you to play by these updates.
I build and play decks primarily to have fun and explore Middle Earth. I am fortunate enough to have a local group of gamers that also enjoy the variety this game offers. We aren't meeting up every month and simply playing the competitive meta-game over and over again. As a group, we agreed to follow the informal community errata and CRF rulings here on CoE since they are the most complete, active player/community driven, and updated source of rules. Again, I don't necessarily agree with all of these rulings, but I agree to abide by them so that our games can be played cohesively. Everyone here that actively plays this game has run into the odd situations this game presents. Having to crack open the rule books and hold a rules debate in the middle of an already multiple-hours-long match is frustrating.
The timing in which I.C.E. lost the license to Tolkien-related products created many problems for the game. A re-issue of the original METW release would clarify numerous rules issues documented throughout the Player Guides, Companions, etc. Even official Player's Guides for MEAtS, MEWH, and MEBA could have included many of the errata and updates needed to maintain balance and clarity for the later expansions, but those were never released. It was left to the player community to drive these updates on their own over the years.
The rules here are debated, proposed, voted on, etc. by the player community at large, not just a select few of elitist players. Anyone can propose a new rule, erratum, etc. Everyone gets a chance to vote on those rules. Once again, nobody is forcing you to play by any of these rules. There aren't really any sanctioned/official tournaments for MECCG since the I.C.E. lost the license. You are absolutely free to write your own rulebook and play this game however you'd like with whomever you'd like.
Being rude and offensive =/= "style"- You dislike my style. Point taken. Join the mile long queue, nobody gets to jump it. -
Being condescending to everyone that disagrees with you weakens your position.
What you seem to forget here is that this is a game, not a court case, not a job, not something any of us are paid to do. We all spend our free time on this game, for fun. That time could be spent with family, friends, other hobbies, etc.We all know that the context is more important than the content itself. However, when you establish rules what we are doing here - well at least debate the establishment - the content should be the only focus.
This isn't MTG where you can find thousands of active players in any given city and sanctioned events occur multiple times a week. I would venture to guess the number of active remaining players globally for MECCG is in the neighborhood of 500-1000.
Even with player numbers that low, I wouldn't spend my free time playing MECCG with someone that so casually and unapologetically disrespects everyone around them. So why should I consider your interpretation of the rules? This is why content is far from the only thing that matters.
-
the JabberwocK
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am
Because Twilight was printed as a hazard and identified as such with its background color, I believe ICE is trying to say that "Twilight may also be played as a resource by the resource player" but opted not to be overly verbose (or rather, didn't expect players to interpret it otherwise), and so they simply said "Twilight may also be played as a resource"Theo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:12 am Indeed, the comma hides whether they mean "it can be played at anytime and can be played either as a resource or as a hazard", or whether they mean "it can be played at anytime because it can be played either as a resource or as a hazard.
Fortunately, the MELE rewording for the card does not suffer from the same comma ambiguity, but allows (underline my emphasis):
"Twilight may also be played as a resource, and may be played at any point during any player's turn."
Note that these two allowances are not conditional upon one another, but independent. I can opt to not use the first may, and then opt to use the second may.
Before, I thought otherwise (eg that twilight said that it could be played as a resource by the Hazard player) because it doesn't count against the Hazard limit. But then, rereading these arguements, I was convinced that Twilight can only be played as a resource by the resource player.the Jabberwock wrote:Because Twilight was printed as a hazard and identified as such with its background color, I believe ICE is trying to say that "Twilight may also be played as a resource by the resource player" but opted not to be overly verbose (or rather, didn't expect players to interpret it otherwise), and so they simply said "Twilight may also be played as a resource"Theo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:12 am Indeed, the comma hides whether they mean "it can be played at anytime and can be played either as a resource or as a hazard", or whether they mean "it can be played at anytime because it can be played either as a resource or as a hazard.
Fortunately, the MELE rewording for the card does not suffer from the same comma ambiguity, but allows (underline my emphasis):
"Twilight may also be played as a resource, and may be played at any point during any player's turn."
Note that these two allowances are not conditional upon one another, but independent. I can opt to not use the first may, and then opt to use the second may.
BUT! then I pulled out my Unlimited Starter Rulesbook and Twilight, and the winds have changed again...
His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died.
Looking at the box for Twilight in the rules book, it is provided directly as an exception to the rule being quoted in this thread here (ie that (A) a player may only play resource cards during his own turn, and (B) a player may only play hazard cards during during his opponent's movement/hazard phase).
The card Twilight is an exception to this [compound] rule -- it may be played at anytime (exception to B), either as a resource or as a hazard (exception to A).
Next month, the winds will change again and I'll be back in the other camp.
EDIT: literally only a few minutes later... I think maybe I am misreading... It could be interpreted as:
The card Twilight is an exception to this rule -- it may be played at anytime, either as a resource [this statement is superfluous as resources can be played at any time] or as a hazard (exception to B). I agree with Jabberwock's reasoning again.
....No wonder it is open to interpretation....
By the way, I still like the water color look of the METW art.
Follow up thought: of course Twilight due not count against the Hazard limit when played outside of the movement/hazard phase (as the hazard limit it's not in effect). But would Twilight played (as a hazard) in the movement/hazard phase count against the Hazard Limit? I think it would.
Edit 2:
NetRep#49:
can i use twilight during opponents movement phase as a resource?
*** Yes.
This note from the The Dragons Player Guide cleared some of these questions for me.
Twilight can be played as a hazard during your opponent's turn, while you are playing hazards, and if played as a hazard it would count against the hazard limit.
Why would you play twilight as a hazard during the M/H phase? I don't know.
Twilight can be played as a hazard during your opponent's turn, while you are playing hazards, and if played as a hazard it would count against the hazard limit.
Why would you play twilight as a hazard during the M/H phase? I don't know.
