First CoE erratum; ideas

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

WHCtK and ACM do not directly affect strike assignment. Therefore they do not affect the attack. This might be more of a ruling than a rule type of thing.
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

right, i was missing "that" part :lol:
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Hmm, not too happy about Hold Rebuilt inclusion, I think that does not fall within the scope/intention of this erratum. In that sense Ben's formulation is better as it sticks with cards playable on an attack or company/entity facing an attack.
I believe the current CvCC rulings are a reflection of the old rules. I think the netrep should revise those rulings when this errata becomes official.
Mikko can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

I don't see what the problem with Hold Rebuilt and Repaired is. It's not like it's broken if you get to play it before facing the AA or anything. And again, this should be more a matter of ruling than trying to include something about it in the rules (after all, it is just one card).
CoE Rulings Digest #75 wrote:Can hold Rebuilt and Repaired be played before having faced the normal
automatic attack during the Site Phase?

***  Yes.
-----

Re: CvCC, I quickly checked the current rulings, they seem to be pretty much in line with what we are trying to do here. What I meant was that for consistency's sake you should be able to do just about the same when facing any attack. CvCC was just an afterthought, but the rulings seem to be ok, so this is not an issue.

-----

I would however, strongly advice to stay away from the kind of wording in Ben's formulation. We have ICE's MeCCG terms and rules language, we should follow those whenever possible. This is not MeCCG Rewrite.

Another thing is that Ben's list seems too strict, if we are indeed trying to unify what you can do vs. attacks. For example, you would not be able to Marvels Told a permanent boosting the automatic-attack, but with my version you could do that.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

As I am not a council member at the moment, I'll not enter into the larger debate, but I would like to explain the reasoning behind my wording. There are two main ideas:

1) I believe that this is what ICE was trying to say; I could be mistaken on that part, but it seems to me as though the intent was that automatic attacks had to be faced, not evaded, and that automatic attacks should be considered a valid threat. The intent of my wording was to reinforce what I have understood to be ICE's general idea, which was "We don't want people using bizarre combos that didn't occur to us to get around automatic attacks."

2) It has been noted that my wording is strict. This was also deliberate. I wanted a wording that would require absolutely no rulings whatsoever, thus making the NetRep's job easier. The purpose of issuing any erratum at all is to ameliorate the playing environment; I did not and do not feel that a wording which will require further rulings on specific cards to be added to the URD ameliorates the play environment; rather, it makes learning the game more sluggish and can lead (though not necessarily will) to a disgruntling inconsistency.

I realize that my wording would change the way some cards are played, including those which were technically legal under the ICE wording, but the whole point of an erratum such as this was, as I understood it, to ameliorate the playing environment by changing the game.

This was my reasoning.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

But with your wording players can evade automatic-attacks with cards like Ruse (2nd part) and Sojourn in Shadows... Maybe I'm missing something.

I think it's better to have an intuitive, unified approach to facing attacks. I don't see why automatic-attacks would/should be any more of a "valid threat" than any other attacks. My version is basically going back to the way things were prior to the discovery/enforcement of the very restrictive AA-rules, and IMO things worked just fine back then.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

it would be useful to have a conclusive list of cards that in either proposal would be in or out.

because to be honest, I do not feel either approach is more intuitive than the other. Yes Mikko's proposal resembles more the general facing of any attack, and Ben's proposal sticks closer to what I assume was the original ICE purpose with creating the aa-ruling, which by now has become engraved in our system so that it feels equally intuitive.

I do agree with Ben's point that any erratum serves to make rulings unnecessary.

Has Hold Rebuilt already been ruled upon? (sry I'm rusty with rulings, there you have it). Cause it is not played on the attack, so I don't see why it had need for a ruling, other than it is the same as Rebuild the Town, and I honestly don't see why it should not follow the Rebuild the Town ruling.

btw. Would it make any difference to state that you may only play cards on an attack or on the company (or entities therein) facing the aa (which affect the attack)? That way Hold Rebuilt is out of the question, but Marvels Told is not, as long as it's a sage in the company that taps...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Strike assignment cards are meant to be used when facing attacks; I see no problem with a card such as Ruse that is not present in a card such as Halfling Stealth or Concealment. All can, in the right conditions, get you safely past an attack -- but they were intended for such a purpose by ICE. This is as opposed to cards like Rebuild or Hold Rebuilt, which don't even require an attack to be played and so cannot possibly have as their primary purpose dealing with attacks.

Again, I'm not particularly looking to enter into a debate; I just wanted to be sure people understand what I had in mind when I formulated my wording -- if the Council decides to go with other wording, I'm fine with that.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

I still don't get why you'd need to have different rules when facing different attacks. What is the upside? Learning just one set of rules for facing any attack should be enough and that is what makes dealing with different attacks intuitive (regardless of how you've been playing before).

Hold Rebuilt and Repaired is currently not playable before facing the AA. It used to be playable because it was deemed to affect the AA (back when you could play stuff that affects the AA). Rebuild the Town was deemed to not affect the AA. The differences are subtle, but that was the conclusion the netrep (team) of the time came to. The rules are certainly not clear as to what "affects an attack" or what "otherwise playable during the strike sequence" mean. If one was to define exactly what those phrases mean, rulings on individual cards regarding the matter(s) would probably become unnecessary.

Re: playing cards on an attack or on the company (or entities therein) facing the aa (which affect the attack), I don't see that limitation as a solution. You wouldn't be able to use Cock Crows to remove a boost permanent event. We need to look at the big picture, not try to prevent Hold Rebuilt and Repaired becoming playable again (it's just one card and if it becomes a problem we certainly have ways of dealing with that).

As for a conclusive list of cards playable with the erratum proposals, I don't need one and won't be composing such a list. But if someone wants to do that, go right ahead.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

it's just one card
Well that is exactly the question, isn't it? My opinion does greatly depend on the number of clarifications/rulings we need to issue afterwards, which I hope would be zero!
And I do need such list cause I don't have a good overview, I'm not the rules loremaster in this team...
btw. your proposal Mikko also mentions "cards that affect attack" without making that clear.
I still don't get why you'd need to have different rules when facing different attacks.
I do believe in simplicity and parsimony, but if this game did not differentiate rules on basis of theme or mechanics, the rulebook would be 9 instead of 90 pages. In fact your proposal comes closer to me:the rewrite than Ben's :wink:

my limitation-proposal is a solution, though not one you would willingly accept. Similarly Marvels Told by Ioreth in Rivendell would not remove such permanent, a thing which many people in fact abhore atm (or perhaps it doesn't, Marcos, what say you?)
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: General wrote: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.
Underline is mine. As you can see, I'm really not "rewriting" anything. AFAIK my proposal is how the game was played back when ICE was around (granted, I only played in Finland, but I did play with top level guys who attended Worlds).

The necessity for new rulings should be pretty low because the old rulings would become valid again (and I honestly don't think there are that many to begin with regarding this). ICE never listed everything that "affecting an attack" includes, thus the rulings.

@Eric: Why don't you compose a list of cards that aren't clear to you, and I'll tell you which ones would be playable...

Re: Ioreth playing MT, then she shouldn't be able to play it to get rid of a corruption card on a character in another company either, because she's just mumbling by herself far, far away... MeCCG has plenty of logical inconsistencies like that. To people complaining I say this is a game, not an approximation of reality (in Middle-earth).
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Here's the 2nd draft of what I think the errata should look like:

When facing an automatic-attack, you may play resources that directly affect the attack or would otherwise be playable during the strike sequence. Same applies for facing attacks created by cards with multiple actions.

I added the word directly, because it appears on the original CRF entry quoted in my post above, and it does help prevent the use of cards like WHCtK/ACM. Note that it should still allow the removal of boost permanents, based on the quote below (underline is mine).
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: End-of-Game wrote:Only resources that directly affect corruption checks may be played during the Free Council. This includes cards that reduce a character's corruption point total or prevent a character from being discarded.
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

I agree with Mikko, his way of reasoning is nearer to the feel of a CCG, which is in my oppinion where we should be going. Otherwise we shuold be playing some RPG.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Fine, we'll find out later then, you are leader of this project and can take responsability, I have given you the considerations.

I'm assuming this erratum started for cards like Ruse, Sojourn, or Motionless Amongst the Slain, nor sure if the latter affects an attack or not. So we got that covered now.
But does this still include the clarification part "removing does not constitute affecting, cancelling does?" or is this also deleted, and is this the intention, as you say? Cause you cannot maintain that that would be the ICE idea then. So you cannot Marvel a Nature's Revenge during site phase before/when facing the aa?

Shouldn't it also include a line about "unless mentioned on the card it can't be played on an aa?", it might sound obvious, but you'll get that question.

It would be nice to have the official ICE rule and the erratum in 1 sentence, like the UEP's, or at least in similar fashion if possible, that is easier to present so that everybody understands the change (and the reasons behind it).

@Marcos, aisb this game has a 90 page rulesbook, obviously theme and mechanics matter. mechanics: Why not transfer items during the site phase, or whenever you want? theme: why not play Hobbits at a Haven? theme and mechanics: why not play Tormented-earth on automatic-attacks? So discussing such a thing about Marvels Told does not make it an rpg, as it concerns both theme and mechanics and both are valid concerns.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

But does this still include the clarification part "removing does not constitute affecting, cancelling does?" or is this also deleted, and is this the intention, as you say? Cause you cannot maintain that that would be the ICE idea then.

I think it still includes the clarification part
So you cannot Marvel a Nature's Revenge during site phase before/when facing the aa?
No, you cannot
Shouldn't it also include a line about "unless mentioned on the card it can't be played on an aa?", it might sound obvious, but you'll get that question.
I don't think that is really needed. Cards have precedence over rules, so if a card says literally that cannot be played on a AA, then there isn't any rule that will allow it to be played.
It would be nice to have the official ICE rule and the erratum in 1 sentence, like the UEP's, or at least in similar fashion if possible, that is easier to present so that everybody understands the change (and the reasons behind it).
agreed
@Marcos, aisb this game has a 90 page rulesbook, obviously theme and mechanics matter. mechanics: Why not transfer items during the site phase, or whenever you want? theme: why not play Hobbits at a Haven? theme and mechanics: why not play Tormented-earth on automatic-attacks? So discussing such a thing about Marvels Told does not make it an rpg, as it concerns both theme and mechanics and both are valid concerns.
I dont get what you are trying to tell, but as Mikko said, this is a game and as such it has rules. There are things that might not look logical but there is no need to change some stuff to make them fit in some theme, but rather to get a better playing experience.
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”