URD Errors - Post Here

[CDavis7M]

19.

Placing a card is not the same as playing it [CoE 52].

The summary of CoE Rulings by the URD Editor is overly generalized and is misleading with respect to placement of corruption cards, which is considered to be the same as "playing" a corruption card, such that a corruption card may not be placed on a character on which a corruption card was already played that same turn (See ICE FAW below).

The CoE Netrep only ruled that "placing" an ITEM is different from playing an item.

And a couple rulings that were brought up while the NetRep team was discussing Phial of Galadriel:
*** Unless specified otherwise on the card, in the rules or in the CRF, a special item follows the normal rules for playing items (i.e. playabe in the site phase only, tap character, tap site).

*** Both Gems of Arda and Mithril tap the site (haven) when their special 'play an item when storing' effect is used and thus need an untapped site to use this effect. This is just like the way Hour of Need taps the site when the faction is played. Note that cards with similar effects that say "place with" (Reforging, The Forge-master, etc.) instead of "play" do not tap the site or bearer, because placing an item with character is not the same as playing.

I agree that placing an item is different from playing an item. But this doesn't apply to corruption cards:

Q: If a character already has had a corruption card played on him during his turn, and he is wounded by a Nazgul bearing Morgul-knife or the Pale Sword, are they eligible to receive one of these corruption cards also? The rules state that a maximum of one corruption card may be played on a character per turn.

A: The character may not be assigned the Pale Sword or Morgul-knife as corruption cards in this situation. These two Nazgul enhancers should be amended to say that playing them as corruption cards is optional.

[kober]

Unrevealed on-guard cards are placed in your hand at the end of the Site Phase.

It should be: "at the beginning of the End-of-Turn Phase."

Do you have a more recent reference for this? MELE at least says "at the end of the site phase." Balrog Summary and CoE #17 agree.

It's based on [NetRep] Rulings Digest #27:

At the beginning of your end-of-turn phase:
1. Return any on-guard cards that are in play back to your hand,
2. Discard one card from your hand, if you wish,
3. Draw up or discard down to your hand size, usually 8.

[CDavis7M]

20.

If an ally giving a mode is removed from play during the movement/hazard phase, the Ringwraith immediately stops being in that mode, but continues to move to his new site.

To sum it up, there is confusion about an apparent conflict between (A) the CRF on "mode" allies being removed but still continuing to the new site and (B) the text of these mode allies (Black Horse and Creature of an Older World) which would return the RW to hand.

The CRF entry on Modes is not wrong if describing supposed timing issues for a company with RW followers all with Black Horse. However, it seems that the original question was describing a lone RW. Although another question in the same ICE Digest was discussing issues with RW Followers and how they continue to stay around until the following Org phase. Anyway, there is no way to know for sure what the context was. But it should be clear that this CRF entry is not meant to supersede the text of Black Horse or Creature of an Older World. In fact, the CRF specifically mentions that it does not supersede these cards in the Introduction.

From what I can tell, all of this discussion is putting aside the non-applicability of 9a to Black Horse and Creature of an Older World.

If an ally giving a mode is removed from play during the movement/hazard phase, the Ringwraith immediately stops being in that mode, but continues to move to his new site [CRF].

Controversial Cards: Black Horse/Creature Of An Older World

The following phrases are found on these cards:
• Black Horse: “Return its controller to your hand if Black Horse leaves active play.”
• Creature Of An Older World: “Return your Ringwraith to your hand if this ally leaves active play.”

Given that the above rule was issued after the release of this card, it could be taken as an errata of these statements on the card. However, it does not actually refer to itself as an errata on these cards.

Nevertheless, a rule published after these cards were printed clearly states that the Ringwraith continues to move to his new site when these allies are removed from play during the Movement/Hazard phase. This would seem to override the text on these ally cards about what happens when they are removed from play in this instance.

CoE 105 takes the position that this rule does not supersede the text of the ally cards in question.

Q on Ringwraiths, modes, mode allies, etc:
http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=1141
A similar point was raised by Arioch on the same issue here:
http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=1107
*** I will not replicate the questions here, but I'll give well
explained answers:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Modes:
"When one mode effect is applied to a Ringwraith, all other cards
applying a mode effect to that Ringwraith are discarded."
If a Ringwraith moves to Barad-Dur and plays a Creature of an Older
World, the mode card that allowed the Ringwraith to move to Barad-Dur is
discarded. This applies as long as the Ringwraith is not controlling
another ally. CRF, Card Errata and Rulings, Creature of an Older World:
"This card will not put a Ringwraith into Fell Rider mode if there are
any other allies in the company."
Also, if a Black Horse or Creature of an Older World leave play during
the movement/hazard phase, the text on these allies that returns the
controlling Ringwraith to your hand is not superceded by the following
ruling in CRF, Rulings by Term, Modes:
"If an ally giving a mode is removed from play during the
movement/hazard phase, the Ringwraith immediately stops being in that
mode, but continues to move to his new site."

Here are the ICE rulings:

Question From Jamie: What happens to Ringwraith followers if your Ringwraith gets discarded back to your hand following a role of 7 or 8 for a body check?
Answer: They would stay in play until your next organization phase. If by the end of that phase they were not recontrolled by your Ringwraith, they would be discarded.

Question From Seret: What happens to a ringwraith that has one of the allys that puts him into a mode (Black Horse or Creature of an Older World) and that ally is killed or discarded while at/ en route to a non-darkhaven site?

Answer: He immediately stops being in that mode (losing all bonuses), but continues to move to the site.

In Serets question there is no indication that the company includes multiple Black Horses (especially since it mentioned CoaOW as well).


By the way, this ruling in CoE 8 (below) is incorrrect in view of the ICE ruling from ICE 44 (above). I think the CoE Netrep might have realized this later.

1. If a Ringwraith company using Black Horses is in combat and the Black Horse of one Ringwraith is
killed, the Ringwraith in question is returned to hand? And when the Black Horse of the leader Ringwraith
is discarded, the whole company is discarded except the leader who is returned to hand?
*** Black Horse says, "Retun controller to your hand if Horse leaves play." When the Ringwraith that represents
you is returned to your hand in this fashion, his/her Ringwraith followers are discarded along with the cards they
control because "a Ringwraith follower must always be under the control of your Ringwraith...".

[CDavis7M]

21.

Agents are considered characters in a Ringwraith player’s deck, and hazards in a Balrog player’s deck.

This is misleading. Agents are considered hazards in a player's deck regardless of alignment.

Minion agents included in a Ringwraith's deck count as characters for the purposes of meeting deck requirements.

The main thing to remember, when making rulings based on the rules and the cards, is that if it isn't there, then it isn't there. If a card says a site counts as a Haven for purposes of healing, that does not mean the site counts as a Haven for any other purposes. If a card says it can be played as a resource, that does not mean it counts as a resource at any time except when it is being played. Remember: If it isn't there, it isn't there.

Meaning, agents only count as characters for purposes of deck construction but not for other purposes. Of course, a RW player can play an agent as a character. However, a RW player cannot used Weight All Things to a Nicety to recycle an Agent. The RW player would need to use An Unexpected Outpost.

Update:

Agents in a minion deck are only characters while they are in play as characters, while they are being played as characters, and while you are constructing your deck.

Update 2: interestingly, this was changed again later but the ruling is not documented in the rulings by term, though it was distributed with the CRF.

Announced Rulings [effective 12/8/97]
Agents count as both characters and hazards during the game in a Ringwraith
deck.

----------

22.

Editor’s Note: The White Hand rules insert specifically states that its rules for starting characters are exceptions to the rules used for Wizards. The White Hand rules failed to re-include the prohibition against starting an avatar. A player is within their rights to argue that starting a Fallen Wizard character is legal.

This is a bogus positions. An "exception" that starting characters may also include minion characters is not also an exception to the "no wizards" requirement. Just like it is not an exception to the 20 mind or less requirement.

A Fallen-wizard player prepares for play just as a Wizard does, with the following exceptions:
...
Starting Characters
Your starting characters (up to 5) may include hero characters and minion characters, but you may not start a character with a mind greater than 5.

3) Place one to five starting characters (no Wizards) face down in front of you. The combined mind attributes of these characters must be 20 or less.

There is nothing in MEWH to suggest that all of the other restrictions on starting companies are removed.

----------

23.

A company may not play any resource during the Site Phase until they have faced all automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack. Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does [CRF].

Editor’s Note: By this logic, adding an automatic-attack to a site also does not affect the automatic-attack

The Editor's Note is ignorant of ICE's reasoning and is conflating the rules on playing resources in the site phase with the rules on revealing hazards on-guard as mentioned above.

ICE's reasoning is that removing an automatic-attack using Rebuild the Town or Hidden Haven affects directly affects the site itself but does not directly affect the automatic attack (of course, the automatic attack is indirectly affected because it is removed).

Modifying what the card says is targeting the site, as in Rebuild the Town removing the automatic-attack. Affecting the attack as you are facing it is not targeting the site.

The on-guard rules allow for revealing a "hazard that can modify the automatic-attack." The on-guard rules don't require the hazard to "directly affect an automatic-attack."

[CDavis7M]

24.

END-OF-TURN PHASE
• Return on-guard cards to your hand.

This is incorrect and is probably from CoE Digest 27 as mentioned by Kober above.

>*** At the beginning of your end of turn phase:
>1. Return any on-guard cards that are in play back to your hand.
>2. If you had no on-guard cards in play, you may discard one card
>from your hand.
>3. Draw up or discard down to your hand size, usually 8.
Can't seem to find your step #2 in the rules or the CRF.
Are you sure about this Chad?
*** No. Here's the proper sequence to follow:
1. Return any on-guard cards that are in play back to your hand.
2. Discard one card from your hand, if you wish.
3. Draw up or discard down to your hand size, usually 8.

This is incorrect. The actual rule is:

PLACING A CARD ON-GUARD
During the movement/hazard phase of your opponent's turn, you may place one card on.guard for each of your opponent's companies.
...
The card will remain on that site until one of the following occurs:
• The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack...
• The company plays a card that potentially taps the site...
• Otherwise, return the card to your hand at the end of the site phase.

Each site phase, any unrevealed on-guard cards are returned to your hand. This matters for gameplay. For instance, if a character were placed on guard (not unlikely) and then returned to its players hand, then the character would be in that players hand during a subsequent site phase if Black Rain is played.

[CDavis7M]

25.

You may reveal any unique cards in your hand that match unique cards your opponent has in play.
Such cards reduce your opponent’s Marshalling Point total by one. You may also reveal an opposite alignment manifestation of the Unique entity for the same effect.

» You may only reveal such a card if the entity in question is giving positive MPs to your opponent [CoE 101].

There is no such requirement. The CoE 101 ruling is not based on the actual rule.

*** During the Free Council, your opponent can only reveal unique cards that are providing you positive MPs in order to lower your MP total by 1. In other words, they cannot reveal a unique hazard agent you have in play, nor can they reveal a copy of Elrond when you got your copy killed and are losing MPs for it, etc.

This is not correct reasoning. The actual rule is:

Finally, you may reveal any unique marshalling point cards in your hand that match unique cards your opponent has in play. Each such revealed card reduces your opponent's final M.P total by one.

Under the actual rule, a hazard agent cannot be revealed because an agent in your hand is not a marshalling point card (even for a Ringwraith) -- it is a hazard card that can be played as a character (by a RW) such that may gives MP.

Under the actual rule, if your opponent's Elrond is eliminated, you cannot reveal Elrond at the Council because your opponent does not have Elrond "in play."

Under the actual rule, if your opponent's Elrond were taken prisoner and thus yielding negative marshalling points, you actually could reveal Elrond at the Council to reduce your opponent's final MP further. This would not be possible under the faulty CoE ruling.

[CDavis7M]

26.

• You must have at least 12 hazard creatures in your play deck. The following count as half a creature for this purpose:
» Agents, if you are a Wizard or Balrog player.

This is incorrect. Agents do NOT count as 1/2 a creature in Balrog decks for purposes of tournament legal deck construction, even though a Balrog player may not play an agent as a character and agents do not count as characters for purposes of deck construction.

A Balrog player prepares for play just as a Ringwraith
player does, with the following exceptions:
...
Agents only count as hazards, not as characters.
...
Agents may not be played as characters.

There is nothing saying that a Balrog player may count agents as 1/2 a creature for deck construction. Therefore, a Balrog player follows the same rules as a Ringwraith player when determining the minimum of 12 creatures:

You must have at least 12 hazard creatures in your play deck.
Several types of cards only count as half a creature for this purpose:
- A creature that is also playable as an event (e.g., Nazgul, Mouth of Sauron, Shelob, etc.)
- A Dragon "Ahunt" or "At Home" manifestation
- An agent (Wizard player only)

Each deck must contain at least 12 creatures.
The following count as 1/2 a creature for deck construction: hazards that can be played as creatures or events, At Home Dragon manifestations, Ahunt Dragon manifestations, and agents. Note that agents count as characters in Ringwraith decks, not as 1/2 creatures.

The URD violates the "Golden Rule" again.

The main thing to remember, when making rulings based on the rules and the cards, is that if it isn't there, then it isn't there. If a card says a site counts as a Haven for purposes of healing, that does not mean the site counts as a Haven for any other purposes. If a card says it can be played as a resource, that does not mean it counts as a resource at any time except when it is being played. Remember: If it isn't there, it isn't there.

If the Balrog rules say that agents only count as hazards and not as characters for purposes of deck construction, that does not mean that agents count as 1/2 a creature for purposes of the 12 creature minimum.

----------

27.

Minion players
• Minion Players may only include minion characters as characters. Agents are considered characters in a Ringwraith player’s deck, and hazards in a Balrog player’s deck.

This statement would be misleading if taken out of context. And considering Error 26 I think this statement is misleading. As discussed in Error 21, Agents are considered HAZARDS in a Ringwraith deck. Agents are only considered characters for purposes of deck construction. It's true that the URD IS describing "building a deck" when this statement is made, but it's also true that the URD rules on agents are not correct.

[Theo]

Do you have a more recent reference for this? MELE at least says "at the end of the site phase." Balrog Summary and CoE #17 agree.

It's based on [NetRep] Rulings Digest #27:

Great, thanks.

Although I suppose that it could be interpreted as vacuous, since without mentioning the others they would still exist, and returning during End of Turn would be meaningless as they would have already been returned by the other rules.

---

[debating rules instead of helping point out inaccuracies in the URD]

Seems like you need your own Council. I'll leave the moderators to their duties.

[CDavis7M]

28.

WIN BY MEANS OF THE ONE RING
• As a hero player, if you move The One Ring to Mount Doom and play certain cards, the game ends and you win [ME:TW 19].
Controversial Cards: Gollum’s Fate/Cracks of Doom There are two cards which allow a Hero player to win in this way: Gollum’s Fate and Cracks of Doom. Both of these state playability conditions and that the player of the card wins the game. There is some debate as to whether these cards override the stated requirement in the rules that you must also move The One Ring to Mount Doom.

As the URD states, the effects of Gollum’s Fate/Cracks of Doom may cause a player to win the game and they do not have the requirement that The One Ring have been moved to Mount Doom. ICE has never held that The One Ring card needs to be played outside of Mount Doom and then moved to Mount Doom.

Furthermore, looking at METW it is clear that "destroying" The One Ring is how victory is achieved and that "moving" to Mount Doom is how you can do that:

The One Ring is destroyed and you win.

If anything the gold ring is moved to Mount Doom and that gold ring really was The One Ring:

A gold ring is a ring with unknown properties--it might be a lesser ring, a magic ring, a Dwarven ring, or even The One Ring. You will not know until you "test" it.

----------

29.

At the end of the game:
• Each character makes a corruption check.
• Characters may tap to aid corruption checks, if
they are in the same company [CRF].

The URD leaves out the rules explaining the order of making corruption checks. This is important because of Traitor. The rule is:

The player who took the last turn makes corruption checks for his characters first.

[CDavis7M]

30.

An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the player invoking the action.
[CRF].

Editor’s Note: And here the difficulties begin. The One Ring states, “Bearer may make a corruption check modified by -2 to cancel a strike.” Thus, the corruption check is an active condition for the action of cancelling the strike... Therefore this
corruption check is made instantly and there is no time to tap characters to support the corruption check, etc.

And here the misunderstandings begin. This is incorrect. Making a corruption check is NOT an active condition for declaring the strike cancellation effect of The One Ring. There are no rules or ICE rulings to suggest that the corruption check is resolved immediately (per active condition rules) without the possibility of modifying the corruption check roll.

The misunderstanding of the URD Editor and others seems to be based on the assumption that the words "to" and "and" make or break something as an active condition. That is, some people think that the word "to" causes the preceding action to be an active condition (as is argued here for The One Ring) and that the word "and" causes the surrounding actions to be active conditions (as in the Far-Sight example). Unfortunately, it is not that simple. You have to use your understanding of the game and your reading comprehension to determine whether something is an active condition or not. You can tell whether an action is an active condition because "Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the player invoking the action." Making a corruption check is a result of taking an action. This is how all corruption checks operate. If anything it should be clear that The One Rings effect is not an active condition BECAUSE it would lead to this absurdity.

Furthermore, recognize that the effect of The One Ring precedes the rules on Active Conditions. Prior to the rules on Active Conditions it was clear that corruption check modifying effects could be played in response to the corruption check of The One Ring. Also recognize rules on Active Conditions were made to further define the timing rules. There is no timing conflict between The One Ring's strike cancellation and its corruption check. If the corruption check removes the character from play, the strike is cancelled anyway. There is no reason for the rules on Active Conditions to apply to this situation--and they don't. The One Ring's cancellation effect operates the same as it always has.

----------

31.

If any other active condition for an action does not exist when the action is resolved, the action has no effect; if the action was playing a card from your hand, it is discarded [CRF].
• An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved. An action may not be declared if its target is not in play. However, dice-rolling actions may always be targeted by other actions declared later in the same chain of effects [CRF].

Editor’s Note: And here the second set of difficulties begins. Let us take a simple example: Far Sight.
Text card says “Sage only during the Site Phase at an untapped site where Information is playable. Tap the sage and the site to search through your play deck and choose an item that you must reveal to your opponent.”
There are two actions involved in declaring this card:
1. The Card Play action, which has as its active condition a Sage at an untapped site; and
2. The “search through your play deck” action, which has as its active condition that you tap the sage and the site.

Whether you believe that the card play action is declared before or after the “search through your play deck” action, at some point in the chain of effects, this card is going to be tapped when the card play action requires that it be untapped, and the card will fizzle itself. There is no way around this hole in the rules. As an entirely personal remark from the editor, this is the single strongest argument I can think of for the Council of Elrond to authorize a complete rewrite of the timing rules, the active condition rules, and the passive condition rules into something consistent, workable, and non-exploitable. Write your Chairman today!

The URD Editor misunderstands the rules on Active Conditions. First, the URD Editor again forgets that Far-sight was published BEFORE the rules on Active Conditions. Under the original timing rules there was no issue with Far-sight because the site would only be tapped at resolution. Second, it should be obvious that a card is fit for it's intended purpose and cannot "fizzle itself."

It's unbelievable that the URD Author Suggests a rewrite of the timing rules when it is clear that there is only a minor issue with Far-sight. Clearly tapping the site is an active condition of the "search" active. Therefore, the site would HAVE to have been untapped at declaration so that it could be tapped an active condition in order to play Far-sight. Accordingly, if the condition of an "untapped" site were removed under the new Active Condition timing rules then Far-sight would still achieve the same effect as requiring an "untapped" site under the original timing rules.

If anything about the rules or cards were to be changed it would be changing 1 word in Far-sight, not the entire timing rules that the URD Editor misunderstands.

Change: "Sage only during the site phase at an untapped site where "Information" is playable" to "Sage only during the site phase at a site where "Information" is playable"

There are a handful of other cards having a similar problem, including later cards created after the rules on Active Conditions (Reforging, All Thought Bent upon It, Dragon-lore, even Dark Numbers, Show Things Unbidden, No Waiting to Wonder, etc.). However, it should be clear that these cards are at least fit for their intended purpose.

[CDavis7M]

32.

ACTIONS AS A RESULT OF PASSIVE CONDITIONS
To repeat the definition from the glossary:
“Condition, Passive: A situation in the game that causes another action to take effect. The triggered action will be the first declared action in the chain of effects immediately following the chain of effects that contained the passive condition.”

Editor’s Note:
Depending on what your definition of an action is, certain cards become effectively useless (i.e. In The Heart Of His Realm, where current rulings enable you to respond to moving in a Dark-domain by playing a ritual to discard the card that is supposed to prevent you from playing rituals while moving in a Dark-domain). The single greatest thing you can do for players in a tournament is make it clear.

The description of passive conditions is incorrect and this is just the start of it. And it should be clear how the cards operate, again, at least operating to fulfill their intended purpose.

This statement on In The Heart Of His Realm is incorrect and should at least be obvious from the preceding statement (above). In the Heart of His Realm states:
"No character at a site in a Dark-domain or Gorgoroth, or moving with a or Gorgoroth in his site path, can use spells, light enchantments, or rituals." This effect is immediately created when In The Heart Of His Realm resolves (same as any other effect). However, this effect of ItHohR does not trigger any action using passive conditions. Instead, it negates the conditions required to resolve (or even declare) spells, light enchantments, or rituals. Unlike effects triggered using Passive Conditions, In the Heart of His Realm can even be played in response to a spell, light enchantment, or ritual to cancel it. In the Heart of His Realm works the same as Bane of the Ithil Stone. Bane of the Ithil Stone does not have to declare "automatically cancels any effects that causes a player to search through or look at any portion of a play deck" in the following chain of effects such that the effect never works. It would be silly to argue this but here we are.

----------

33.

A passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play [CRF].

Editor’s Note: Therefore, if a given card is not in play, even if it has a continuing effect, there is no Passive Con-
dition.

This statement is incorrect and is based on faulty logic. Just because a passive condition is typically stated on a card already in play does not mean that it HAS to be in play or that it can ONLY happen as stated on a card in play. Clearly many short-events trigger actions using passive conditions even after they are discarded, as long as they have an on-going effect. An on-going effect that is in play can trigger an action using passive conditions EVEN IF the card that created the effect is no longer in play.

The timing rules allow for effects to be resolved: (1) In a chain of effects, (2) immediately according to the rules on active conditions, or (3) when triggered according to the rules on passive conditions. So how else would the timing of a short-event's (or creature card's) on-going effects operate if not by passive conditions?

There are many examples of cards not in play triggering effects using passive conditions. Like the obvious example of every single short event played at the end of the organization phase that have effects triggered by the revealing of the site/site-path. Or Horses triggering a prowess modifying action according to the rules on passive conditions. Or untapping by Washed and Refreshed, etc etc on and on.

Furthermore, there are many cards triggered by passive conditions that trigger actions in the SAME chain of effects (not the following chain of effects). This is because their effects require targeting an action in the same chain in order to work.

An action may not be declared if its target is not in play. However, dice-rolling actions may always be targeted by other actions declared later in the same chain of effects.

Dice roll modifying actions triggered by other action are always declared in the same chain of effects, otherwise they would not work. For example, First of the Order modifies corruption checks despite the short event having been played.
Also, Terror Heralds Doom gives a bonus to influence attempts even though the card is no longer in play. You can tell that these cards operate by passive conditions despite being triggered in the same chain of effects simply because they are triggered by the declaration of the corresponding dice roll. This also means that they cannot be played in response to the corresponding roll because once their effect resolves there is no time to go back and declare the dice roll modifier in that same chain of effects.

[CDavis7M]

34.

Controversial Cards: Ûvatha the Ringwraith Uvatha the Ringwraith states, “He may join another Ringwraith’s company during your Organization Phase and requires no influence to control.” This ability means that once he comes into play, he is a Ringwraith Follower.

The question is whether his card overrides the site restriction. This is only of great concern if there is an actively moving Ringwraith. Since moving a Ringwraith efficiently is task unto itself, it does not seem too overpowered to allow Ûvatha to join a Ringwraith at any site, but it is something to consider.

The rules on playing Ringwraith Followers are:

Your Ringwraith is already in play.
-Your Ringwraith is at a Darkhaven or he is at the Ringwraith follower's home site.
-You have the card of the additional Ringwraith in your hand.
-Your opponent does not have the Ringwraith already in play and
-The Ringwraith has not been eliminated.
-You have the card or ability allowing a Ringwraith follower to be played (e.g., They Ride Together, The Witch-king's ability).

He may join another Ringwraith's company during your organization phase and requires no influence to control.

There is also an ICE Clarification on Uvatha the Ringwraith:

Ûvatha the Ringwraith (clarification) -- Ûvatha's special ability does not get around the one character per turn limitation.

The "one character per turn limitation" is only a limitation when bringing a character into play during the Organization Phase using the rules on "Bringing Characters Into Play." This clarification indicates that Ûvatha's special ability is only usable during the organization phase according to these rules, and that Ûvatha's special ability only satisfies the requirement that "You have the card or ability allowing a Ringwraith follower to be played (e.g., They Ride Together, The Witch-king's ability)."

Meaning that Ûvatha's special ability does not bypass the separate requirement that "Your Ringwraith is at a Darkhaven or he is at the Ringwraith follower's home site"

----------

35.

If two companies attempt to join at a non-Haven site and a company composition rule is violated, one of the companies must immediately return to their site of origin. Any effect which would cause such a violation is immediately canceled [ME:LE, 57].

Editor’s Note: i.e. Nature’s Revenge would not change the site type of a Wizardhaven if such would result in company composition rules being violated.

The Editor's Note is incorrect because Nature's Revenge does not cause a "company composition violation," it merely changes the site type. Nature's Revenge would have to be played during the M/H phase (it could not be revealed on guard because a wizardhaven has no automatic attack) and so the moving company that would cause a company composition violation if it joined another company already at the site on which Nature's Revenge was played would have to return to their site of origin. This is clear when looking at the actual rules:

LIMITATIONS ON COMPANY COMPOSITION
There are three other limitations on the types of characters that can be in a company.
• Unless at a Darkhaven, an Ore or a Troll cannot be in a company that contains an Elf, a Dwarf, or a Dunadan--and vice versa.
• Unless at a Darkhaven, your Ringwraith's company may only contain your Ringwraith and Ringwraith followers (see page 58).
• Unless at a Darkhaven, a company may only contain one leader. A leader is a character with the keyword "leader," in its text box.
These limitations also apply to moving companies.

Note: If two companies end up at a non-Darkhaven site and combining those companies would violate the limitations on company composition, one of the companies that just moved must return to its site of origin. Similarly. an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled (e.g., We Have Come to Kill)

Playing a character via We Have Come to Kill is a company composition change. Changing the site type is not a company composition change. The rules only chance effects that cause "such a violation" -- meaning, a company composition violation.

[CDavis7M]

36.

PLAYING CHARACTERS AS THE RESULT OF A SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPT AGAINST YOUR OPPONENT
During the site phase, you may attempt to influence away one of your opponent’s characters if the following apply:
1. You have not made an influence attempt against your opponent or attacked your opponent with a company this turn;
2. It is not your first turn;
3. It is not the turn your played your avatar; and
4. One of your characters is at the same site as one of your opponent’s characters.

Point 3 is incorrect. You MAY attempt to influence away one of your opponent's characters EVEN IF it is the turn that you played your avatar. The actual rules are:

A wizard may not make such an attempt on the turn he is revealed

your Ringwraith may not make such an attempt on the turn he is revealed.

----------

37.

Editor’s Note: Fallen Wizards are not only prevented from playing character with more than 5 mind, they are prevented from using them. In my mind, revealing such a character as part of influence attempt constitutes “use.”

This is incorrect. The URD Editor was ignorant of ICE's ruling on the MEWH statement regarding "use," which was to "ignore use."

Question: I wonder whether playing An Unexpected Party with a Fallen Wizard would present any interesting possibilities?

Player Comment: You actually can't play AUP as a Fallen Wizard. AUP requires a Dwarf with 6 or more mind and FWs can't use (I believe it says "play" at one spot in the rules and "use" in another) characters with more than 5 mind. If you take Gimli and put a Thrall of the Voice on him so that you can use him, he is no longer a 6 mind dwarf.

ICE Answer: Ignore the "use." Fallen-wizard may not play or start with characters with more than 6 mind. Thus, you can use Thall of the Voice to bring in Gimli, discard Thrall, and play AUP. (CRF, Rulings by Term, Fallenwizard).

----------

38.

You may not move a character out from under direct influence in order to cause such a shortage, but there is no rule that
you must move a character under direct influence rather than discard them, provided that you did not move them out from under direct influence during the organization phase in the first place [CoE 61].

This is incorrect and is a result of not recognizing that ICE changed the company composition change rules to avoid influence issues just like this. By rule in the CRF, company composition changes all happen at the same time.

Company composition changes that you choose to make, including bringing a character into play, must all be done at the same time during the organization phase. During this time no other actions may be taken.

So you may move a character out from under DI in order to cause a shortage. The ICE rule allows for item to be transferred to rectify the shortage of influence before the end of the organization phase. It also allows for Arwen with a Lesser Ring to move out from under Aragorn's DI control so that Arwen can control Aragorn with DI, even if there is not sufficient GI/DI for Arwen to move out under the old rules. If there is still a shortage by the end of the organization phase, the character that was played during the organization phase is returned to your hand. If no character was played then a character must be discarded. It is not possible to intentionally discard more than 1 character using company composition changes.

[CDavis7M]

39.

Ring Special Items (Magic Rings, Spirit Rings, Dwarven Rings, Lesser Rings, The One Ring) do not tap a site when played and do not require an untapped site or character. Instead, you must test a Gold Ring you have in play using a test card or ability.
Gold Ring Items list which Ring Special Items you may play based on the result of a roll and modifiers.
>>Despite this, playing a Ring Special item is still considered playing an item [CoE 61].

Saying "despite this" is misleading because it suggests an issue in the rules where there is none.

As noted in CoE61, the CRF states:

Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play.

Bringing a ring special item into play from your hand IS playing an item. The difference is that:

Clarification: A special item with the keyword, Ring, at the beginning of its text does not tap the character or the site when played.

[CDavis7M]

40.

You may not play a Hero Resource Event on a company with an Orc or Troll in it.

This is misleading because it only applies to permanent events. This statement is not misleading when considering the context. However, taking rules out of context to misinterpret them seems to be rampant.

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