Special Orc & Troll Rules for Fallen Wizards: hero permanent-events

[Shapeshifter]

You may not play a hero resource permanent-event on a company with an Orc or Troll in it.

Does this rule simply prohibit the play of hero resource permanent-events that are playable on a company as a whole (e.g. Fellowship)?
Or is it even more restrictive and disallows also the play of hero resource permanent-events on single characters in such a company (e.g. Dark Numbers on a man scout)?

[CDavis7M]

I'm interested to see what others think.

This type of question comes up often and I see different opinions.

[Konrad Klar]

There was (and is) some mess in question whether a card that is played on member of company counts as played on the company.

Card Erratum: Change "that targets a company" to "that targets a company, or an entity associated with a company."

Such imprecise texts have been later changed.
Probably not all.

Stipulation like that in text of Stormcrow:

"Discard all resource permanent-events that have been played on each company with a Wizard (i.e., on the company as a whole, not individual characters, e.g., Fellowship)."

does not improve the situation.

You may not play a hero resource permanent-event on a company with an Orc or Troll in it.

has not been changed.

[CDavis7M]

There's a long list of situations where people misunderstand the game based on an idea of what "makes sense." Something like "It makes sense that cards playable on characters are 'played on the company' because characters are a subset of the company." But the game isn't based on what makes sense. It's based solely on what is written in the rules.

I see this type of reasoning with the rules on agents, CvCC, FWs, the Ringwraith followers, on-guard cards, playing resources in the site phase, and on and on. People make up indirect links to justify a position. But there is no possible end of such links. That should be a clue that this type of reasoning is wrong.

Instead, the rules are really simple. The only hero resources covered by the rule "You may not play a hero resource permanent-event on a company with an Ore or Troll in it" are the ones that say "playable on a company."

[Konrad Klar]

Instead, the rules are really simple. The only hero resources covered by the rule "You may not play a hero resource permanent-event on a company with an Ore or Troll in it" are the ones that say "playable on a company."

I would wish such state of things.

Currently, where Tom Bombadil deserved an errata, Leaflock only received an entry in CRF:

Allows the canceling of one creature or the canceling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.

[CDavis7M]

Instead, the rules are really simple. The only hero resources covered by the rule "You may not play a hero resource permanent-event on a company with an Ore or Troll in it" are the ones that say "playable on a company."

I would wish such state of things.

There are lots of rules. And many are hard to find. But they are all simple individually.

Currently, where Tom Bombadil deserved an errata, Leaflock only received an entry in CRF:

Allows the canceling of one creature or the canceling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.

You are pretending as if the CRF is the only place that a ruling can be found, but it's not. Tom Bombadil has a clarification. If you consider all of the rulings, these two cards work the same.



Many rulings never made it into the CRF and many rulings were removed from the CRF. Many people misunderstand what the CRF is, how it was made, and what it's intended to do.

Of course, the rulings changed overtime. And even the more recent rulesbooks did not always include the new rulings, and sometimes included outdated rules. You can't just read one document and think that you know all of the rulings.

[Shapeshifter]

So there is no clarification / ruling that would support an interpretation "what is played on an individual character in a company is also played on the company". Nice, that would have been my assumption. The CRF/clarifications/errata on Tom Bombadil and Leaflock will not support this as well as they refer to these single cards only. Stormcrow seems to be the only card that has a clarification printed on the card about what is ment by "playable on a company". This doesn't mean anything, though.

I agree with CDavis7M's reasoning and will go with that interpretation.

This will make a Tower Raided deck for Bad Companys much more viable. At least in DC.

[CDavis7M]

This will make a Tower Raided deck for Bad Companys much more viable. At least in DC.

Not sure what other DCs you will be using. But orcs still cannot be the Scout needed to fulfill the requirement of Tower Raided.

[Konrad Klar]

You are pretending as if the CRF is the only place that a ruling can be found, but it's not. Tom Bombadil has a clarification. If you consider all of the rulings, these two cards work the same.

I am pretending that there is a difference between an errata and a clarification.
The card A requires an errata, because with some phrases of its original text it is too limited.
The card B, despite having the same phrases, does not have such limitations, and some clarification says that it does work similarly to the card A.

Either the errata for the card A was not needed, or the clarification for the card B has power of overcoming limitation of rules and/or text of card.

[CDavis7M]

the clarification for the card B has power of overcoming limitation of rules and/or text of card.

That's exactly how this game works. Both errata and clarifications can change how the card works. It's just that errata changes the text of the card while a clarification essentially adds to it. Look at the Challenge Deck printing. Many clarifications were added to the card text. ICE's "clarifications" are not merely explanations as some people think. Though some of the rulings are explanations.

[Shapeshifter]

This will make a Tower Raided deck for Bad Companys much more viable. At least in DC.

Not sure what other DCs you will be using. But orcs still cannot be the Scout needed to fulfill the requirement of Tower Raided.

There may still be men in a Bad Company

Gesendet von meinem FIG-LX1 mit Tapatalk

[Konrad Klar]

Tower Raided targets a site, an item, a company, but it is played only on a site.

[CDavis7M]

Tower Raided targets a site, an item, a company, but it is played only on a site.

This statement is mostly wrong. Tower Raided targets the site but it does not target the item or the company.

Tower Raided targets the site because it is "Playable ... on an untapped site." This is clear from the rules: "a card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets that entity."

Neither Tower Raided nor its effects target an item. The discarding of the item (worth 2MP) is an active condition because of the rule "if an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared." Only actions can have targets. The target is the entity that the action is played out through. Since discarding an item as an active condition is not an action, then it does not have a "target." The discarding of the item in Tower Raided does not follow any of the rules on "targeting."

Tower Raided does not target the company -- it is not played on the company. The Orc attack created by Tower Raided does target the company, but the effect of Tower Raided that creates the attack does not target the company because the company is not chosen as the specific entity through which the attack is played out. Instead, site is targeted and the company to be attacked is determined based the targeted site.

[Konrad Klar]

Set pieces of game.

It excludes each other - having a X as active condition AND discarding the X as active condition; having untapped X as active condition AND tapping the X as active condition.

If some action requires a having a X as its active condition, the action may be fizzled if the X (present at declaration) is not present at resolution of the action.
If some action requires a discarding of X as its active condition, the action may not be fizzled for this reason; the state of X is not checked at resolution of the action.

The item worth 2 MPs that a company must have in possession must be the same item, both at declaration and at resolution of Tower Raided, it may not be substituted at resolution by other 2 MPs item, and the same item is discarded as first action of Tower Raided.

[CDavis7M]

You are making up a discrepancy between "your company there: bears an item" and "discard the item." But there's no reason to suggest that "your company there: bears an item" is some separate active condition (causing resolution to fail per Annotation 7) rather than this statement simply being a reiteration and further condition on Annotation 6's requirement -- the item discarded to satisfy the active condition of "discard the item" must be borne by your company at the site.

Similarly, you find a discrepancy between "Tap the site" and "Playable ... on an untapped Shadow-hold." But Annotation 5 already requires an untapped site and there is no reason to suggest that the statement "an untapped Shadow-hold" is anything but a reiteration of the requirements of Annotation 5. Having an "untapped Shadow-hold" is not some "other active condition" beyond "tap the site" that would cause resolution of Tower Raided to fail per Annotation 7.

---------

Your interpretation of the rules means that attempting to satisfy a card's own active conditions causes other active conditions of the cards to fail. Under this, the cards don't work and the game just doesn't work.

My interpretation of the rules allows the cards to work as they are written and is consistent with the ICE's rulings. The game works.

Also, please stop making up terms like "fizzle." Just use the same words that are used in the rules when talking about the rules.