Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3852
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:05 pm Look, if an automatic attack of a site has been reduced to a single attack, and that single attack is duplicated by Tidings or some hazard effect, then the single duplicate attack is neither "any non-Dragon Lair site with more than one automatic attack" or "any creature or other hazard with more than one attack" as required by Forewarned is Forewarned. Therefore, a duplicate of an attack that has been reduced by FiF does not get the effect of "cannot be canceled."
The site is reduced to having one AA, AA at the site is not reduced. The AA, not the site, is copied by Tidings of Bold Spies.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:05 pm The "cannot be canceled" effect on the automatic-attack at minion Old Forest does not apply to duplicates of that AA.
OK. Thanks.
Not that I agree, but I see that you are consistent here.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:51 pm The effect giving 5MP for defeating Balrog of Moria is also not a modification to the attack and so it does not apply when the Balrog's attack and modifications thereto are duplicated.
Text of Balrog of Moria says that an opponent receives 5MP if he will defeat "this 2nd automatic-attack". Even actual AA from Balrog of Moria may not necessarily be 2nd AA. It may be 1st or 3rd AA.
What should happen after facing an attack (as stated by the card that creates the attack, or by something else) is not feature of the attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:32 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:05 pm Look, if an automatic attack of a site has been reduced to a single attack, and that single attack is duplicated by Tidings or some hazard effect, then the single duplicate attack is neither "any non-Dragon Lair site with more than one automatic attack" or "any creature or other hazard with more than one attack" as required by Forewarned is Forewarned. Therefore, a duplicate of an attack that has been reduced by FiF does not get the effect of "cannot be canceled."
The site is reduced to having one AA, AA at the site is not reduced. The AA, not the site, is copied by Tidings of Bold Spies.
... because I left an "s" off of the word "attack" you are going to pretend that I am making up some nonsense argument? Why would I have argued "one attack is reduced to one attack"? Clearly I know what the card says and does. Recognize the context and fix the minor grammar error.
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:32 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:05 pm The "cannot be canceled" effect on the automatic-attack at minion Old Forest does not apply to duplicates of that AA.
OK. Thanks.
Not that I agree, but I see that you are consistent here.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:51 pm The effect giving 5MP for defeating Balrog of Moria is also not a modification to the attack and so it does not apply when the Balrog's attack and modifications thereto are duplicated.
Text of Balrog of Moria says that an opponent receives 5MP if he will defeat "this 2nd automatic-attack". Even actual AA from Balrog of Moria may not necessarily be 2nd AA. It may be 1st or 3rd AA.
What should happen after facing an attack (as stated by the card that creates the attack, or by something else) is not feature of the attack.
I don't see anything here that is relevant to the CoE Ruling on Unabated in Malice.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

Great Ship came up on Discord and I thought I should clarify how it works (and Tom Bombadil and Leaflock). Also, there is apparently a "classic" misconception about the timing of Great Ship and people think that Lost at Sea works against Great Ship (it doesn't). But before all that, here are more wrong CoE rulings:

miguel wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:28 pmCoE 121
6)
Great Ship says: "Tap a character in target company during the organization phase to play Great Ship on that company. If the company's current site path contains a coastal sea region and no consecutive non-coastal sea regions, until the end of the turn any character in the company may tap to cancel the effects of one hazard that targets the company."

If your company moves through the required regions to trigger GS, then it moves a second time, but during the second time it does not move through the required regions, is GS's effect still in play? I would assume yes, since GS says "until the end of the turn." But it seems that no one has ever asked about this before in the digests.

Lastly, this can't do anything about ahunt attacks, right?
---------------------------------------------------
I agree that once Great Ship's effect has fully resolved it will stay on for the rest of the turn. You are also correct in assuming Great Ship can't help you with Ahunts because they don't target the company.
First of all, Great Ship does not say that. Second of all, the ruling is misleading at best, but likely just wrong.

I'm glad to see a CoE netrep quoting a card, which is pretty rare, even if it was the original question-asker quoting. But at least cross-check the quote and give the most recent printing of the card since most people are playing by the tournament rules. Great Ship actually states: "Tap a character to play this card during your organization phase on his company. Any character in the company this turn may tap to cancel a hazard that targets the company. This may be: a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card. The company's site path must have a Coastal Sea and no consecutive non-Coastal Seas regions to do this."

The question is "then it moves a second time, but during the second time it does not move through the required regions, is GS's effect still in play?". The Netrep states "I agree that once Great Ship's effect has fully resolved it will stay on for the rest of the turn. " ... Yes, the effect lasts until the end of the turn but the important part is that the tap-to-cancel effect can NOT be used since the required regions are no longer being moved through. It doesn't matter how long the effect granting the site-path-conditional on-tap ability lasts if the condition for using the on-tap ability isn't met.

----------

Now that we know how Great Ship works, we can see that another CoE Ruling is wrong:
From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #57

Along the agents theme, can cards like Great Ship and Leaflock cancel
agent attacks and/or agent actions?
*** Yes.
This is wrong. The answer is No. An agent attack/action is not "a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card" so Great Ship cannot cancel it. Tom Bombadil and Leaflock's cancellation ability works the same as Great Ship. They can cancel and discard creatures and events -- so not agents actions or agent attacks.

This updated Great Ship card text reflects the more recent clarifications in an version 1 of the CRF:
CRF 1 wrote:Great Ship: Allows the cancelling of one creature or the cancelling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company

Tom Bombadil: Allows the cancelling of one creature or the cancelling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.

Leaflock: No player may assign Leaflock strikes from an automatic attack. May tap to give a character +1 against an automatic attack. Allows the cancelling of one creature or the cancelling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.
Previously, back in the METW and METD says it was ruled that Great Bombadillocks could cancel all sorts of stuff, including the on-going effect of a resolved and discarded River. It took a bit but the Designers got it sorted out and they clarified that Ship/Tom/Leaf only cancel and discard declared hazard events or creature cards that target a company/entity in the company.

----------

Another confusion is that people think Great Ship is declared at the beginning of the M/H phase similar to effects played during the organization phase and that depend on the site path. This is not the case. Great Ship is resolved immediately in the organization phase and it creates an on-going effect that allows a character to tap to create an cancellation effect. The on-going effect does not depend on the site path. As shown by the card text copied above, it is the on-tap-cancellation effect that depends on the site path. Great Ship's effect is already in play, it's not waiting to resolve.

It's wrong to state that Great Ship's effect is declared at the beginning of the M/H phase and that Lost at Sea (A classic example? Who plays this way?) can be played in response.

----------

MELE: "Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the "target" of the action. Some possible targets are: characters, corruption checks, strike dice rolls, items, sites, and companies. A card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets that entity. Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War)."

Another argument I saw was that Great Ship can cancel the on-going effects of Lost at Sea even. First off, the effect of Lost at Sea is not "a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card" so Great Ship cannot cancel it.

Second, the "do-nothing" effect itself of Lost at Sea does not "target" the company. The targeting (choosing / selecting) has already happened. It is the play of Lost at Sea (physically taking the card out of your hand and putting it on top of/with a company when playing the card) that performs the "targeting" of the company. This is because that is when the player chooses which company to play it on (it is "playable on a company"). The effect "the company..." does not by itself "target" since the target is already selected by the play of the card itself. There is no choosing of "the company" at this point in the card text.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”