CoE Erratum Proposal 1

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.

Will you accept Council of Elrond Official Erratum Proposal #1?

Poll ended at Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:46 pm

yea
30
97%
nay
1
3%
 
Total votes: 31

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: CoE Erratum Proposal 1

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 8:59 am If that what Minions Stir does not count as directly affecting an attack then directly the card may not be revealed as on-guard when Orc AA is faced.
The on-guard rules do require the revealed card to "directly affect" the Automatic-attack, only to "modify the automatic-attack." Perhaps you are confused by the second case for revealing on-guard cards when the company plays a card because In that case, in the METW/MELE rulesbooks, the revealed on-guard card must "directly affect the company or a character in the company." Even then, the on-guard rule was later loosened to just "affects."
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: CoE Erratum Proposal 1

Post by Konrad Klar »

What does this mean in practice?
Can Doors of Night be revealed on-guard if Night is in play?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: CoE Erratum Proposal 1

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 7:16 pm What does this mean in practice?
Can Doors of Night be revealed on-guard if Night is in play?
No. Doors of Night is not a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack. Doors of Night is a hazard which is a condition for one of Night's effects.
Night is a hazard which modifies all attacks, including automatic-attacks, if Doors of Night is in play.

-----

Just coming back here looking at things the CoE did. And this errata was brought up recently elsewhere and I had a thought so might as well write it while I'm back here.

This "errata" is not actually "errata" because it doesn't bother to specify what it is errata to. The presumption might be that it is errata to the CRF ruling presented. But the CRF ruling is just an explanation of the rules and not the actual rule itself. That's a haphazard way to go about trying to implement a fix. The actual rule is not addressed. That is, a player following the actual rules would still not be able to perform the gameplay examples given in the first post.

And overtime I realized -- people complain about the same cards being used over and over and the lack of variety. This shows up in the same creatures being pumped up only to be cancelled. And the same resources being used to either tap characters or untap characters. But creatures are cancelled because they are so pumped up, and ceatures are pumped up because you really need to wound or eliminate characters to have an effect because there is a reliance on untapped or tap-avoidance. And players do this because they think they can just delay all of their resource play until the site phase to avoid counter-play by the hazard player. But the Designers spent so much effort on rulings to ensure that the hazard player gets their chance for counter-play. If the resource player thinks they can just play Marvels Told in the site phase, use cram, play a new character, and so on in the site phase, then they are just going to do that. The game devolves into this.

The Designers implemented this CRF ruling and other to ensure that the hazard player has their due opportunity for counter-play.

So, not only is this errata not actually "errata," not only does the wording fail to express the distinction, not only does it not work under the actual rules, but it devolves the game and makes it worse. At least, the Designers of this game thought so.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: CoE Erratum Proposal 1

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 12:52 am This "errata" is not actually "errata" because it doesn't bother to specify what it is errata to.
"Passive Conditions" and related stuff were nothing new at the time of releasing MELE. But at the time of releasing MELE the term "Passive Conditions" has been used for the first time.
Before the term has been expressed, there was nothing but a space for homegrown rulings aimed to deal with situations like when effects of Dragon Ahunt, Snowstorm, Foul Fumes, Long Winter happens at the same time (in middle of resolving of the same chain of effects, or at start of some phase/turn).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: CoE Erratum Proposal 1

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 1:24 pm Before the term has been expressed, there was nothing but a space for homegrown rulings aimed to deal with situations like when effects of Dragon Ahunt, Snowstorm, Foul Fumes, Long Winter happens at the same time (in middle of resolving of the same chain of effects, or at start of some phase/turn).
I thought that before too. And while it's true that it was not given the name "passive condition," the concept of passive conditions and the timing was present in the original game. Though I admit I was a bit surprised when I noticed. Let me know if you find it.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”