Helm of her Secrecy

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:51 am "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 DI" is duplication in text of card of values printed on left bottom corner and left side of the card.
You quoted the rule but got it backwards.

The values in the symbols printed on the left of events duplicate the card text, not the other way around.

The values on the left of EVENTS are not attributes of the event, they are a reminder of the card text that would be covered up by the character card. Only the card text of the event matters. Events do not have prowess, body, or DI attributes, -- characters do.
TomG
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 12:19 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

CDavis7M you make a very compelling argument for HohS not being able to be played multiple times. Thank you for the detailed analysis.
But, which takes precedence: card text or rulesbook?
I ask because when I read text of HohS the condition is that Ewoyn is in your hand and company is facing an attack. The card is played on the company. The card then states: Ewoyn "may" be played. Not "must" be played.
The PE is only discarded following the attack. Until then, it presumably stays in play. And it will have an effect because if Ewoyn is played (say after 2 more HohS are played) she gains the +2/+1 increases, and because the card does not prevent duplication, these are cumulative in my view if more than one HohS is played.
Other PE are also playable while their effect may be deferred to a future time. For example, Nazgul PE which may be tapped later in game for effect.
In any event, from a narrative/conceptual point of view I thought it odd at first that someone could have more than one helmet, but then this card is not an item, but an event. So from a game narrative perspective, I guess in some cases, she is simply more secret than others and hence the higher bonuses (or so I'm thinking)😁.
But, as I said, you make a compelling argument. It seems to all boil down to the "may" be played, and when this PE would be discarded. Seems to me it is after the attack that prompted it's play in the first case. Until there is some definitive ruling, it may be that each player group will have to decide.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

The designer of Helm of Her Secrecy clearly did not intend for the player to declare multiple copies in response to each other. Just because the playability conditions of the card do not prevent the player from doing that does not mean that the rest of the card text actually works when the player tries to do that. And it certainly doesn't allow a card to be played for no effect.

Also, there are a lot of points being raised without support in the rules. It would be helpful to read the rules and then provide quotes as basis for an interpretation of card text.

I have already quoted the rules and explained and addressed these issues regarding HOHS above.
TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm But, which takes precedence: card text or rulesbook?
You are misunderstanding. This is not an issue of card text vs rulesbook. This is an issue of card text and rules vs. a ruling that is supposed to be based on the card text and rules. The entry in the CRF is a ruling. Rulings are specifically required to be based on the card text and the rules. Rulings from the Netrep do not override the rules. This entry on HOHS is a ruling by the Netrep (as shown above) and it does not override the rules.

The CRF itself makes this clear for the non-card rulings in the CRF Introduction which states: "The Turn Sequence and Rulings by Term sections are specifically considered clarifications to the rules, and are therefore overridden by card text that specifically does so."

There are many wrong or outdated rulings in the CRF. The CRF was only overhauled twice to remove old/outdated rulings. In fact, the Netrep acknowledged this and decided not to do anything about it. When the Netrep (Ichabod) was looking for someone to replace him as Netrep, one of the criteria was being able to determine which rulings were outdated. Most people still don't even know which rulings are outdated. There are many outdated or wrong rulings in the CRF and clearly they don't override the actual rules.
TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm The card then states: Ewoyn "may" be played. Not "must" be played.
The use of "may" does not support a conclusion that 3 copies of the card work. Basically every resource event card states "may" instead of "must." This is because the word "may" means that someone is being given permission to do something that they want to do but are not otherwise allowed to do. Resource event cards allow the player to take actions that are not otherwise allowed by the rules. In English, it does not make sense to use the word "must" when giving the player permission to do something that they want to do but are not otherwise allowed to do. I'm not aware of any card in the game that states that the player "must" do something that they want to do. Instead, "must" is used when the player has to do something that they don't want to do (like make a corruption check).

The bottom line is that while HOHS doesn't require that Eowyn "must" be played, she must be played in order for HOHS to be a "Legal Play of a Card" as I explained above.
TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm The PE is only discarded following the attack. Until then, it presumably stays in play. And it will have an effect because if Ewoyn is played (say after 2 more HohS are played) she gains the +2/+1 increases, and because the card does not prevent duplication, these are cumulative in my view if more than one HohS is played.
This is not how the rules work. I already explained this above. Why not point to the rules to explain your interpretation?

The rules are clear: "Permanent-event — The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded... If the play of a card requires other actions (e.g., corruption checks), the actions are resolved in the order in which they appear on the card."

Event cards do not work like Items. The effects of events are resolved in the chain of effects. The effects of Items are not resolved in a chain of effects. If Eowyn is not in play when the "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" effect is resolved, then she does not get the bonuses. This is the same as if Eowyn were not in play when the Wizard plays Kindling of the Spirit "+2 prowess against one attack for all characters in the same company as the Wizard." Eowyn cannot get the bonus of Kindling of the Spirit if she was not in play.

The symbols on the left side of the event are merely reminders because the Eowyn card will be covering HOHS's card text. The rules say that this is merely for emphasis. It is not some universal effect that has an effect on the game.

Compare HOHS to Sacrifice of Form: "If the Wizard is put back into play, return his items to him and place Sacrifice of Form with him. Wizard receives +1 to his prowess, body, and direct influence." If HOHS were intended to be used with multiple copies, it would be worded similar to Sacrifice of Form where the bonuses are applied after the card is placed with the character.
TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm Other PE are also playable while their effect may be deferred to a future time. For example, Nazgul PE which may be tapped later in game for effect.
Again, you are misunderstanding how the rules work. Some cards create an active condition mechanism that allows the player to use the effect later. When those permanent events are resolved, they create the on-going effect that allows the player to declare the "deferred effect" at some point later using the specific active condition. The player declares the Nazgul's effect by tapping (the active condition). The player declares "When You Know More's" effect by tapping the sage.

HOHS does not give the player any sort of active (or passive) condition to trigger the "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" effect. Since no trigger is required, then the effect is implemented immediately.
TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm In any event, from a narrative/conceptual point of view I thought it odd at first that someone could have more than one helmet, but then this card is not an item, but an event. So from a game narrative perspective, I guess in some cases, she is simply more secret than others and hence the higher bonuses (or so I'm thinking)😁.
In any event, the rules do not support this. And from a narrative perspective, there is zero possibility of Eowyn, a Man, being stronger than both the heir of Eärendil and a Calaquendi balrog slayer. We know this because "Men were more frail, more easily slain by weapon or mischance, and less easily healed subject to sickness and many ills; and they grew old and died."
TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm It seems to all boil down to the "may" be played, and when this PE would be discarded.
You are misunderstanding my position and the rules. The word "may" has nothing to do with why HOHS can or cannot be played multiple times.

It all boils down to the fact that the effects of events are resolved in a chain of effects and there is no possibility of those effects coming into play later unless the card text provides some active/passive condition to trigger the effect later, or unless the effect modifies the existing allowances of the game. There is nothing in HOHS that does this.
TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm Until there is some definitive ruling, it may be that each player group will have to decide.
The rules are clear. Many people make decisions without reading the rules, quoting the rules, or understanding the rules.
TomG
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 12:19 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Thanks CDavis. You provide very cogent reasons for your position. I do appreciate your references to the rules.

On that note, you wrote:

"The rules are clear: "Permanent-event — The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded... If the play of a card requires other actions (e.g., corruption checks), the actions are resolved in the order in which they appear on the card.""

As you point out, the rule states: "effects last until the card is discarded". But, I assume that the card is not discarded until after the attack-- it is played on the company initially, not Ewoyn. The effect of potentially providing the additional bonuses therefore in my view last until the card is discarded, by the very rule you quote.

You state: "Event cards do not work like Items. The effects of events are resolved in the chain of effects" .

Isn't it the case that the last HohS played begins that chain if Ewoyn is then in play? I might be wrong to say that. But if correct, then the effects of the other HohS last until the card is discarded (per rule above). They would not be discarded because at the point where that is decided (ie to discard the PE) Ewoyn already appeared to face the attack. And she then should have the bonuses applied.

I am not sure the game designer necessarily thought that multiple copies were not permitted. Would be interesting to be able to ask them that very question 😉

But, I admit I'm not that facile with the rules or various rulings. Although it can be frustrating, it's also what makes this game so engaging, complex and dynamic! And it's great to be able to debate these various points with MECCG enthusiasts. I can say from my experience that hardly a game goes by where there isn't a question about the rules or how some card or other works in the particular circumstances.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:35 pm As you point out, the rule states: "effects last until the card is discarded". But, I assume that the card is not discarded until after the attack-- it is played on the company initially, not Ewoyn. The effect of potentially providing the additional bonuses therefore in my view last until the card is discarded, by the very rule you quote."
The effect already tried to happened and it didn't work. There is no effect to "last."
TomG wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:35 pm Isn't it the case that the last HohS played begins that chain if Ewoyn is then in play? I might be wrong to say that. But if correct, then the effects of the other HohS last until the card is discarded (per rule above).
This statement is wrong, but more than that it just doesn't make sense and doesn't follow the rules. I already quoted them above and gave you the section headers.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:22 am
Legal Play of Cards: A player may not play a card just to discard it (i.e. just get it out of his or her hand). Specifically, a card may only be played if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1) The card must have an immediate effect on the game.
2) The card is a long-event. Long-events can always be played. even if ultimately they will not affect play.
3) The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later. Most permanent-events fall into this category. Only those that are playable on or with a certain entity are restrictive.
Playing Helm of Her Secrecy does not meet any of these requirements.

(1) Helm of Her Secrecy would not have any immediate effect on the game because Eowyn is not played. None of the other actions on HoHS cause any immediate effect when HOHS is resolved.
(2) Helm of Her Secrecy is not a long-event.
(3) There is no potential effect on play that could be triggered later. Merely moving a card from the company to Eowyn has no "effect on play." Moving the card does not give Eowyn the bonuses, that time has passed and the bonuses never happened. Therefore, this is merely getting Helm of Her Secrecy out of your hand for no effect.
If Helm of Her Secrecy were to have a "potential effect on play that could be triggered later" without Eowyn being played then it would need to state:
If Éowyn is in your hand, this card is playable on a company facing an attack (before strikes are assigned)-the company must contain a character with Edoras as a home site. If enough influence is available to control her, Éowyn may be played with (i.e., joins) the company. She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct. If the attack is a Nazgûl, place Helm of Her secrecy with Éowyn following the attack. She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct. Otherwise, discard this card following the attack. Regardless, Éowyn remains in play.
But the card is not worded this way. So playing Helm of Her Secrecy without playing Eowyn is illegal.

Compare Helm of Her Secrecy to cards that actually do have a "potential effect on play that could be triggered later" without a character being played or any other effect happening immediately:

Open to the Summons (Permanent-event): Playable on a minion company. One agent minion may be played with target company at a haven--place this card with the agent. -1 to his mind to a minimum of 1.
Master of Shapes (Permanent-event): Place this card on Radgast if he is in play. In addition to adopting the given attributes, Radagast's skills become Warrior/Ranger.
Shifter of Hues (Permanent-event): Place this card on Radagast if he is in play. In addition to adopting the given attributes, Radagast's skills become Warrior/Diplomat. Radagast may not move.
Winged Change-master (Permanent-event): Place this card on Radgast if he is in play. In addition to adopting the given attributes, Radagast's skills become Scout/Diplomat.

If the bonuses of Helm of Her Secrecy were intended to be triggered later, then they would have been ordered after the "place this card" effect in the card text.
TomG
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 12:19 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Thank you CDavis7M for your explanation.
Cheers,
Tom
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I agree with some points made by CDavis7M.

Regardless of number of copies of Helm of her Secrecy in play, Éowyn receives only single "+2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 DI", until Helm of her Secrecy is placed on her after a Nazgûl attack.

If it would be illegal to play Helm of her Secrecy AND not play Éowyn, then it is mysterious why If enough influence is available to control her, Éowyn may be played with (i.e., joins) the company is used and not just If Éowyn is in your hand and enough influence is available to control her.
Legal Play of Cards: A player may not play a card just to discard it (i.e. just get it out of his or her hand). Specifically, a card may only be played if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1) The card must have an immediate effect on the game.
2) The card is a long-event. Long-events can always be played. even if ultimately they will not affect play.
3) The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later. Most permanent-events fall into this category. Only those that are playable on or with a certain entity are restrictive.
The above does not give the Gates of Morning a chance to be played if there are not hazard environment cards in play, nor hazard environment effects, nor cards/effect that check for presence in play the Gates of Morning.
Gates of Morning does not have an effect on play that could be triggered later.

Conversely:
"If the attack is a Nazgûl, place Helm of Her secrecy with Éowyn following the attack" is effect on play that could be triggered later.
"Otherwise, discard this card following the attack." is such effect too.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:40 am I agree with some points made by CDavis7M.

Regardless of number of copies of Helm of her Secrecy in play, Éowyn receives only single "+2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 DI", until Helm of her Secrecy is placed on her after a Nazgûl attack.
This is an easy thing to be confused about. But I've already addressed this above. Even if the play were not illegal and 3 copies of Helm of Her Secrecy were placed on Eowyn, she would only ever receive a single "+2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 DI" because for EVENTS it is resolution of the card text in the chain of effects that matters, NOT the prowess, body, and DI symbols on those events. The symbols on events are merely reminders of the effect in the card text, they are not actually in play and they have no effect on gameplay. This should be obvious since there are cards that have alternative effects with symbols for both.

The symbols on Character cards actually are in play because character cards have attributes shown by the symbols which can be modified. There are 2 entire pages of rules describing this. There are NO rules describing that attribute modifiers shown by symbols are actually in play, These symbols have NO effect on the game on their own. It is the card text that matters.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:01 am The bottom line is that while you can perform the action of playing Helm 3 times, if there's no Eowyn in play, there is no prowess, body, or direct influence attribute of Eowyn to receive the bonuses -- so they do not happen. Permanent-events do not have prowess/body/direct influence attributes like character cards do. These are just reminders for emphasis: "Clarification: For emphasis, a value used during play is often provided
both in a card's text and in another place on the same card. For example, a character's corruption check modifier is stated both in the text and the lower right corner of the character's card.
"
--------------------
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:40 am If it would be illegal to play Helm of her Secrecy AND not play Éowyn, then it is mysterious why If enough influence is available to control her, Éowyn may be played with (i.e., joins) the company is used and not just If Éowyn is in your hand and enough influence is available to control her.
I have already explained this above. You have to understand English and the definition and use of the word "may." Helm of Her Secrecy provides the player permission to play Eowyn. If the player does not want to play Eowyn, then they should not play Helm of Her Secrecy. If they do play Helm of Her Secrecy and they do not play Eowyn, then there is no effect on the game and Helm of Her Secrecy is returned to the players hand.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:53 pm The use of "may" does not support a conclusion that 3 copies of the card work. Basically every resource event card states "may" instead of "must." This is because the word "may" means that someone is being given permission to do something that they want to do but are not otherwise allowed to do. Resource event cards allow the player to take actions that are not otherwise allowed by the rules. In English, it does not make sense to use the word "must" when giving the player permission to do something that they want to do but are not otherwise allowed to do. I'm not aware of any card in the game that states that the player "must" do something that they want to do. Instead, "must" is used when the player has to do something that they don't want to do (like make a corruption check).
--------------------
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:40 am
Legal Play of Cards: A player may not play a card just to discard it (i.e. just get it out of his or her hand). Specifically, a card may only be played if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1) The card must have an immediate effect on the game.
2) The card is a long-event. Long-events can always be played. even if ultimately they will not affect play.
3) The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later. Most permanent-events fall into this category. Only those that are playable on or with a certain entity are restrictive.
The above does not give the Gates of Morning a chance to be played if there are not hazard environment cards in play, nor hazard environment effects, nor cards/effect that check for presence in play the Gates of Morning.
Gates of Morning does not have an effect on play that could be triggered later.
First of all, Gates of Morning has nothing to do with Helm of Her Secrecy. Second, you seem to be confused about what "triggered" means in this context. "Trigger" does not necessarily mean that the effect is "triggered by a passive condition." You know that different words have different meanings in different contexts.

In the context of Legal Play of Cards, "trigger" includes any later action taken by the player or by the game, not just actions triggered by passive conditions. If you read the Tournament Policy you will see what "trigger" means in this context: "The card has a potential effect on play that could be triggered later (e.g., the second use of Dragon's Desolation)." The second use of Dragon's Desolation is not "triggered" by a passive condition -- it merely allows the player to take an action that could not otherwise be taken: "one Dragon hazard creature may be played on a company at that site this turn." Likewise, Gates of Morning also allows the player to take actions that could not otherwise be taken -- any of the numerous actions requiring Gates of Morning to be in play. So Gates of Morning has a potential effect on play even if there are no hazard environments in play or any cards that check for presence of Gates of Morning -- Gates of Morning would have an effect when such cards are played later. It should be obvious that Gates of Morning is always a legal play of cards.

Other cards played later would cause Gates of Morning to have an effect on play. There are no cards or effects that could be played later to cause Helm of Her Secrecy to have an effect on play. Helm of Her Secrecy could never satisfy Option (3). It could only ever satisfy Option (1).

--------------------
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:40 am Conversely:
"If the attack is a Nazgûl, place Helm of Her secrecy with Éowyn following the attack" is effect on play that could be triggered later.
"Otherwise, discard this card following the attack." is such effect too.
Merely placing or discarding a card is NOT an effect on play. You are completely misunderstanding what Legal Play of Cards is. The first sentence of Legal Play of Cards states "A player may not play a card just to discard it (i.e., just get it out of his or her hand)." The entire point of the restrictions in Legal Play of Cards is that you cannot place a card on the table unless there is an effect on the game or on play. Merely putting a card on the table or even moving it around to different spots has no effect on the game or play by itself. Merely discarding a card has no effect on the game or on play. The entire point is to prevent a player from getting a card out of their hand and onto the table or into the discard pile without that card having any effect on the game or play.

It would have been better time spent to just read the first sentence than the argue about Gates of Morning.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If only "+2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 DI" in text of the card matters and values in the corner and side of the card do not, then it is a mystery, why Helm of her Secrecy is placed on Éowyn. For decorative purposes?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:02 pm If only "+2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 DI" in text of the card matters and values in the corner and side of the card do not, then it is a mystery, why Helm of her Secrecy is placed on Éowyn. For decorative purposes?
You are confused on many things. It is placed on Eowyn so that it is controlled by Eowyn such that it will be discarded when Eowyn is removed from play. In a game with the deck-exhausting game mechanic, it is important that Helm of Her Secrecy be discarded in this way.

Beyond that, as I have pointed out twice before and you yourself have already pointed out before, the symbols are there with Eowyn for emphasis to the player: "For emphasis. a value used during play is often provided both in a card's text and in another place on the same card."

The player cannot see the card text. They can see the reminders.
AtASite.png
AtASite.png (17.42 KiB) Viewed 4839 times
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

And it is a mystery, why Helm of her Secrecy is not placed on Éowyn, if attack is not Nazgûl.
Does not she receive "+2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 DI"?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:37 am And it is a mystery, why Helm of her Secrecy is not placed on Éowyn, if attack is not Nazgûl.
Does not she receive "+2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 DI"?
You didn't read the complete 2 sentences of rules for permanent-events? It solves the mystery.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:01 am (MELE p. 40) 10 · PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS
EVENTS
There are both resource events and hazard events. Each event falls into one of three classifications based upon how long it stays in play.

Permanent-event - The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded. Certain effects can cause a permanent-event to be discarded: these effects are given in the text of specific cards.
Whether the attack is Nazgul or not, Eowyn receives the bonuses during resolution of the Helm permanent-event if she was in play. These bonuses last until Helm is discarded, which would happen after the attack if it were not a Nazgul (If the attack is a Nazgul... Otherwise, discard this card following the attack.) Eowyn no longer has the +2 prowess for any other attacks, even that turn, if the attack was not a Nazgul.

There is no need to place the permanent-event with Eowyn at all if Helm will be discarded.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

OK.
As I understand, Helm of her Secrecy would stay on company, would never be placed on Éowyn and Éowyn still would receive the bonuses. Until Helm of her Secrecy would leave active play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:19 am OK.
As I understand, Helm of her Secrecy would stay on company, would never be placed on Éowyn and Éowyn still would receive the bonuses. Until Helm of her Secrecy would leave active play.
This is still inconsistent with the rules and the card text.
Eowyn does not receive the bonuses until Helm leaves play. There is not some continuous receiving of the bonuses, otherwise she would receive bonuses if played later.

Permanent-event - The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded.

The rules and card text state that Eowyn gains the bonuses immediately and then the bonuses last until Helm is discarded. The action of "gaining" (receiving) is not something that can "last" over a period of game time, it is the effect of that action that lasts.

If Eowyn is not in play when Helm is resolved in the chain of effects, there is no Eowyn to gain the bonuses, and so there are no bonuses to "last".
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I had in mind the bonuses she received after being played.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”