URD Errors - Post Here

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: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

METW wrote:1 • THE VICTORY CONDITIONS
The game ends when one of the following occurs during play:
1) If your Wizard is “eliminated” (i.e., through combat or corruption)—
your opponent wins.
But a Wizard may be also eliminated during attempt of playing The Ithil-stone.
Rules foresee some reasons for which a Wizard could be eliminated, but particular card provides another reason.

Rules say about moving The One Ring to Mount Doom, but Cracks of Doom or Gollums's Fate do not check whether The One Ring has been moved to Mount Doom; they only check for its presence in company at Mount Doom.

However for Ringwraith/Sauron players, there are no counterparts of Cracks of Doom or Gollums's Fate. The players must follow the rule, that says "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur..."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
meaglyn
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:34 pm

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:59 am If The One Ring is at the Barad-dur site card, then Sauron is "reunited" with The One Ring.
...
It's possible to move The One Ring to Barad-dur without reuniting it with Sauron
These two seem to contradict each other.

And no you don't get to tell me what my presumptions are...
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:59 am Reuniting with Sauron is the Victory Condition. Otherwise you can have The One Ring at Barad-dur without winning.
That's not how english works. If <something> then <something>. The "then" is implied. Also "Sauron is reunited" is a passive phrase. It does not say "if you reunite the ring with sauron you win".

The wizard side winning conditions are not relevant.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:12 pm
METW wrote:1 • THE VICTORY CONDITIONS
The game ends when one of the following occurs during play:
1) If your Wizard is “eliminated” (i.e., through combat or corruption)—
your opponent wins.
But a Wizard may be also eliminated during attempt of playing The Ithil-stone.
Rules foresee some reasons for which a Wizard could be eliminated, but particular card provides another reason.
That's true. But recognize that the phrase "i.e." does not necessarily describe an exclusive list. "E.g.," explicitly is a non-exhaustive list. But "i.e." is not necessarily exhaustive.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:12 pm The players must follow the rule, that says "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur..."
First, the rule actually states: "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur--Sauron is reunited with The One Ring you win." The argued position: "You do not win if you do not move The One Ring to Barad-dur" is not equivalent or inherent to this rule. The rules do not necessarily require The One Ring to be moved to Barad-dur for the player to win. All it states is that if The One Ring is moved there, then the player wins.

And what if the Ringwraith/Sauron player obtains The One Ring at Barad-dur without moving it there? Do you think that they fail to win?
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

meaglyn wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:34 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:59 am If The One Ring is at the Barad-dur site card, then Sauron is "reunited" with The One Ring.
...
It's possible to move The One Ring to Barad-dur without reuniting it with Sauron
These two seem to contradict each other.
They do not contradict because having "moved" to the site is not necessarily the same as being considered to be "at the site." The rules state that Sauron is at Barad-dur. A company with The One Ring may have "moved" to Barad-dur without ever being considered to be "at" Barad-dur.

----------
meaglyn wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:34 pm And no you don't get to tell me what my presumptions are...
... You told me what your presumptions are. And you had a second chance the state what they are here, correcting me, but you chose not to.

My original position is that "reunited with Sauron" is the Victory Condition. You argued that my position was wrong, and that "The "Sauron is reunited" part is more just flavor. There is no game mechanic involved." But clearly "reunited" is in the rules and it is a word having the plain meaning of being in the same place, which in MECCG is represented as being at the same site. Being "reunited" at a site requires being "at the site," which is clearly a game mechanic.

The strongest argument would be to argue that "reunited" is not a game term because it is not well defined. I assumed you were making the strongest argument. If you want to make a weaker argument you can go ahead.

----------
meaglyn wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:34 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:59 am Reuniting with Sauron is the Victory Condition. Otherwise you can have The One Ring at Barad-dur without winning.
That's not how english works. If <something> then <something>. The "then" is implied. Also "Sauron is reunited" is a passive phrase. It does not say "if you reunite the ring with sauron you win".
You should read the rule carefully. I am not disagreeing that the rule implies an "if / then." And I am not disagreeing with what "if/then" means.

My position is that the Victory Conditions rule DOES NOT state "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur [then] Sauron is reunited with The One Ring and you win." because as shown by the markings here, you would need to modify the sentence structure to achieve that understanding. If the rule were written this way, I would obviously agree that The One Ring has to be moved to Barad-dur in order to win.

But instead the rules state: "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur--Sauron is reunited with The One Ring and you win." Looking at the sentence structure, it's obvious that "and you win" is not directly tied to the "moving" of The One Ring alone. It is possible that "Sauron is reunited with The One Ring" is the only direct result of "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur," and that the direct result of "Sauron is reunited with The One Ring" is that "you win."

My Position is:
IF "you move The One Ring to Barad-dur" THEN "Sauron is reunited with The One Ring."
IF "Sauron is reunited with The One Ring" THEN "you win."

If you disagree then please try to explain how English does not support this interpretation. And then explain which rules of English support the understanding that:
"If A--B and C" necessarily requires statement A to occur for statement C to occur.

And then explain why a player would not win the game if your character was bearing The One Ring at Barad-dur without having moved to Barad-dur.


----------
MELE wrote: [Sauron] wanted to restore himself to full power before starting his final assault on the Free Peoples. This meant he needed to marshal overwhelming tactical and strategic resources; and, if possible, he needed to recover the lost reservoir of his vast might, The One Ring. Sauron wanted to remain in the safety of Barad-dur, in the center of his web of control. So his chief tools for gathering resources were his Ringwraiths, the nine Nazgul.
The Enemy still lacks one thing to give him strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance, break the last defenses, and cover all the lands in a second darkness. He lacks the One Ring
It is clear that Sauron merely needs to recover The One Ring, regardless of whether The One Ring is moved to Barad-dur or not.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

And again, this thread is about URD errors. The URD made a statement and cited CoE Rulings as supporting its statement. But the CoE Rulings do not support the URD's statement. The URD has misrepresented the CoE Rulings in order to create its own version of the rules. The URD does this numerous times as I've pointed out here.

If you think that the URD statement is not an error, then explain how it is supported from the cited CoE Rulings.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:38 pm And what if the Ringwraith/Sauron player obtains The One Ring at Barad-dur without moving it there? Do you think that they fail to win?
Yes. Even if it looks counter-intuitive.
Solution is a changing a rule, not not respecting it.
Modifiers to ring test from minion Barad-dur site card is enough incentive to actually transport The One Ring to Barad-dur, but.. if The One Ring would be achieved by influence attempt at Barad-dur?

Similar modifiers could be added to hero Mount Doom. Currently it is very tempting to test a gold ring at Mount Doom and effectively avoiding The Will of the Ring, The Precious, The Ring Will Have But One Master.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:45 am
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:38 pm And what if the Ringwraith/Sauron player obtains The One Ring at Barad-dur without moving it there? Do you think that they fail to win?
Yes. Even if it looks counter-intuitive.
Solution is a changing a rule, not not respecting it.
Try to explain how the language of the rule is equivalent to "You do not win if you do not move The One Ring to Barad-dur."

Moving The One Ring to Barad-dur is not the only way to win. The rules do not necessarily require The One Ring to be moved to Barad-dur for the player to win.
meaglyn
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:34 pm

My presumption was to take the rules as they are written first. If it's not there it's not there, right?

"If A then B and C"

is equivalent to

"if A then C and B"
"If A then B" and "If A then C"

It is not the same as "If A then if B then C". Once A is true both B and C are true with no further condition checking.

The rule reads "if you move the one ring to barad-dur -- ..." It does not and I don't think can be read as "If you reunite the ring with Sauron then you win." While it's true that B and C go together they are not dependent on each other. It would be the same game rule if it left off the Sauron is reunited part". Also, it could have been written "...barad-dur -- you win and Sauron is reunited with the one ring" and would mean exactly the same thing.

One could argue that moving an untested ring to barad-dur which later turned out to be the one counts, but I think that's a stretch, plus it's in italics which I think is used for specific card titles.

Possibly, due to the inherent danger of carrying the one ring around the "move" part was there to make it a little harder since you don't have to have other cards. I can't speak for the designers, but the wording is pretty clear to me.

Personally, I think there should be penalties to rings tested at both Barad-dur and Mount Doom, I never liked the move/test/dunk ploy either, but that's a different topic :)
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Let's step back and consider both interpretations:

The URD's interpretation results in both mechanical flaws (e.g., The One Ring being moved to Barad-dur without the player winning per MELE Part II Section 5) and simulation flaws (e.g., Sauron being reunited with The One Ring per Section IV Part 9 but the player not winning the game).

My interpretation has no mechanical or simulation flaws.

Why would the interpretation with mechanical and simulation flaws be the intended interpretation of the Designers?

----------
meaglyn wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:33 pm My presumption was to take the rules as they are written first. If it's not there it's not there, right?
"If A then B and C"
Yes, exactly. It isn't there: there is no understanding or definition of the long-dash in the English language that is consistent with your position. The long-dash does not mean "then" (e.g., the former results in the following). Instead, the long-dash (em dash) is used to join concepts that are separate and distinct, akin to a semi-colon. See:
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/se ... edition=16
https://www.dictionary.com/e/em-dash/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash

Therefore, "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur" is one concept and the long-dash '—' indicates that it is separate from the concept "Sauron is reunited with The One Ring and you win."

"Sauron is reunited with The One Ring and you win" is a separate concept. It is the Victory Condition. "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur" is just a means to achieve that.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:07 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:45 am
CDavis7M wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:38 pm And what if the Ringwraith/Sauron player obtains The One Ring at Barad-dur without moving it there? Do you think that they fail to win?
Yes. Even if it looks counter-intuitive.
Solution is a changing a rule, not not respecting it.
Try to explain how the language of the rule is equivalent to "You do not win if you do not move The One Ring to Barad-dur."

Moving The One Ring to Barad-dur is not the only way to win. The rules do not necessarily require The One Ring to be moved to Barad-dur for the player to win.
Right.
Player does not win by moving The One Ring to Barad-dur if he did not move The One Ring to Barad-dur but have it at Barad-dur.
He still may win by other means.

Sorry. I wrote my previous post in context of the one particular victory condition.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
meaglyn
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:34 pm

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:30 am Let's step back and consider both interpretations:

The URD's interpretation results in both mechanical flaws (e.g., The One Ring being moved to Barad-dur without the player winning per MELE Part II Section 5) and simulation flaws (e.g., Sauron being reunited with The One Ring per Section IV Part 9 but the player not winning the game).

My interpretation has no mechanical or simulation flaws.

Why would the interpretation with mechanical and simulation flaws be the intended interpretation of the Designers?

----------
meaglyn wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:33 pm My presumption was to take the rules as they are written first. If it's not there it's not there, right?
"If A then B and C"
Yes, exactly. It isn't there: there is no understanding or definition of the long-dash in the English language that is consistent with your position. The long-dash does not mean "then" (e.g., the former results in the following). Instead, the long-dash (em dash) is used to join concepts that are separate and distinct, akin to a semi-colon. See:
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/se ... edition=16
https://www.dictionary.com/e/em-dash/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash

Therefore, "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur" is one concept and the long-dash '—' indicates that it is separate from the concept "Sauron is reunited with The One Ring and you win."

"Sauron is reunited with The One Ring and you win" is a separate concept. It is the Victory Condition. "If you move The One Ring to Barad-dur" is just a means to achieve that.
Whatever. Maybe you'd like to use that interpretation of the "if ... --" on the first victory condition?

Your interpretation may have no mechanical flaws, but doesn't follow the rules as written.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

meaglyn wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:28 pm Whatever. Maybe you'd like to use that interpretation of the "if ... --" on the first victory condition?
I don't see a problem. The dash is in the first victory condition is used in the same way.
meaglyn wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:28 pm Your interpretation may have no mechanical flaws, but doesn't follow the rules as written.
The URD interpretation takes the victory condition out of context from the rest of the rules. The interpretation that you must move The One Ring to Barad-dur is inconsistent with the foundational description of the game in the MELE Rulesbook. And the URD's statement misrepresents the CoE Ruling alleged to support the statement.

My interpretation that the victory condition is "Sauron is reunited with The One Ring" is a valid interpretation of the statement alone. But it also has a stronger basis than the URD's interpretation considering the entire Lidless Eye Rulesbook (since it is not fundamentally inconsistent), and it especially has a stronger basis when considering the game's design (since it lacks the mechanical and simulation flaws of the URD's interpretation).

The rules are written in English, not in conditional logic. There is no basis in the rules for transforming "A—B and C" in English to "C if and only if A" conditional logic. Especially since such an understanding does not even follow the requirements of conditional logic.

----------

Regardless of whether or not my interpretation is correct, this thread is about URD Errors and the URD's statement is an "error" (i.e., wrong in conduct or judgment) because it misrepresents its basis in the CoE Rulings. In all this discussion about my interpretation, no one has bothered to explain how the URD statement below is not a misrepresentation of CoE 48.
URD - Victory Conditions wrote:As a Ringwraith player, if you move The One Ring to Barad-dûr, Sauron is reunited with The One Ring and you win.
» “Yes, you do really have to move there with The One Ring. You can’t just have The One Ring there” [CoE 48].
» You are not at the site until the beginning of the Site Phase, therefore, you do not win until then [CoE 48].
CoE Netrep wrote:From: Chad Martin <chad@t...>
Date: Wed Feb 12, 2003 2:51 am
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #48

Being a minion, you have to go to Barad Dur with the ring and you win ?
thats all ?
*** That's it.
"That's it" means that nothing more needs to be done (e.g., you do not need to play cards to win the game as does a Wizard player)

"That's it" does not mean "Yes, you do really have to move there with The One Ring. You can’t just have The One Ring there" as claimed by the URD.

This misunderstanding is a result of the same fundamental flaw in reading comprehension found in other misunderstandings throughout the URD, and similarly found in the CoE rulings. The flaw is assuming that because the rules say "something", that the rules somehow suggest that the absolute restriction that the "something" can only ever happen in that way. This flaw appears in the misunderstands on Passive Conditions, the misunderstanding of the on-guard rules, and the misunderstandings of the restrictions on playing resources in the Site Phase.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

URD wrote:PRISONERS
Certain hazards can cause a character to be taken prisoner. Such hazards affect an attack or a strike. These hazards are called hazard hosts, and will take a character prisoner at a site as specified on the card --such a site is called the rescue site.
A hazard host may only be played if a rescue site is available under the following restrictions:
. . .
Controversial Cards: To Get You Away
To Get You Away allows prisoner-taking regardless of the above restrictions. The problem comes in that the agent must also move to the same site, and thus two competing priorities are set up for the use of the site card. Given that ICE intended To Get You Away to work, it is reasonable to allow both To Get You Away and the agent in question to use the same site card as an implicit effect of the card.
There is no controversy or contradiction between the homesite-returning effect of To Get You Away and the prisoner-taking rules. The rules are clear:
MEDM wrote:TAKING PRISONERS
A character taken prisoner immediately leaves his original company and is placed under its hazard host "off to the site." Additionally, the player playing the hazard host must take a site card from his location deck and place it with the hazard host--this is called the rescue site.

AGENTS
A face-up agent's site card must always be face up.

Agent Actions
An agent may return to its home site (i.e., remove all of the site cards on the agent).

Moving an Agent
When once of your agents moves, tap it and place its new site card on top of the agent and any other site cards already on the agent (face-up if the agent is face-up, face-down is the agent is face-down). If the agent is face-up, return to your location deck all site cards other than the new current site card.

Revealing an Agent
You must reveal an agent when it attack, when it makes an influence attempt, or when certain cards are played.
Note: Certain hazard cards specify that an agent must tap for the card to take effect. A face-down agent that taps in this revealed must be revealed.

If one of your agents is revealed before it has moved, you must immediately choose which home site it is at--place the appropriate site card with the agent.
You place the rescue site (the agent's home site) on top of the agent and under To Get You Away (the hazard host). The prisoner is also placed under To Get You Away.

And regardless of any "controversies," it should be obvious that a single card resolving alone cannot negate itself.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

URD wrote:MOVEMENT
In order to move from a Darkhaven to a non-Darkhaven site, a Ringwraith must be in a mode (i.e. Black Rider, Fell Rider, or Heralded Lord) regardless
of the type of movement used [ME:LE, 25]. A Ringwraith may freely move to a Darkhaven regardless of mode. The rules contain no provision for a Ringwraith to move from a non-Darkhaven to non-Darkhaven site.
Editor’s Note: The ME:BA rules, which were more recent than the ME:LE rules and contain a list of special Ringwraith rules, make no mention of this restriction. Taken as they stand, the ME:BA rules allow a Ringwraith to move to non-Darkhaven sites without a mode card, subject to the restriction below.
Some excellent logic here. According to other portions of the URD, the ME:BA "Rules Summary" is merely a summary when the Editor wants to ignore the rules. But here, the Rules Summary becomes complete and exhaustive since the Editor wants to abuse omissions.

Nice try, but the ICE Netrep and author of the Rules Summary already acknowledged the omission of the Mode card rules from the Rules Summary written for the Challenge Decks and duplicated in The Balrog. It's unfortunate that the Rules Summary is not more complete, but it does include a few rule changes recognizable if you followed ICE's rulings.
Craig Ichabod O'Brien, Author of the Rules Summary wrote: From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: Re: [MELE] Challenge decks regarding Ringwraith movement
Date: 1998/05/05

> I'm not sure if I missed something somewhere, but reading through
> the rulebook included with the Challenge decks, I couldn't
> find anything that said Ringwraiths can't move to non-Darkhaven
> sites normally (ie without mode cards). The only thing I saw was
> the thing about not being able to use region movement.
>
> I take it this was a mistake, right?

Yes. My bad.

----------

Player: I recently purchased challenge decks, partly to seed to friends to raise interest in MECCG. I perused the rules, and it seems to me that some important rules were either missing, or buried in obscurity.
[snip]
>Is there at least an official errata-and-clarifications sheet for these rules?

Ichabod: There is no errata other than the general game errata and CRF which is available at: www.ironcrown.com

The challenge deck rules were revised to be tighter and shorter than the full rules, so unfortunately, some things were not included.

----------

The Challenge Decks were never meant to be dropped on the uninitiated. When I wrote them I was specifically told to write them for people who had used the Starter Set.

The Challenge Decks are not the introduction to MECCG, the Starter Set is. Challenge Decks are the second step, for people who know the rules, but do not want to or do not understand how to construct decks.

The Challenge Decks were not intended to be the rules, they were meant to be a summary of the rules. I was told when writing the summary that if it covered 95% of the situations that come up in a game, that was fine.
meaglyn
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 7:34 pm

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:13 pm
meaglyn wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:28 pm Whatever. Maybe you'd like to use that interpretation of the "if ... --" on the first victory condition?
I don't see a problem. The dash is in the first victory condition is used in the same way.
You interpretation of the second condition ignores the text on the left side of the dashes and treats the right side as both the condition and the result. If you that with the first one it's just "your opponent wins." which doesn't seem like much fun.

It's hard for me to see how you can ignore the conditional part of the victory condition.
meaglyn wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:28 pm Your interpretation may have no mechanical flaws, but doesn't follow the rules as written.
The URD interpretation takes the victory condition out of context from the rest of the rules. The interpretation that you must move The One Ring to Barad-dur is inconsistent with the foundational description of the game in the MELE Rulesbook. And the URD's statement misrepresents the CoE Ruling alleged to support the statement.

My interpretation that the victory condition is "Sauron is reunited with The One Ring" is a valid interpretation of the statement alone. But it also has a stronger basis than the URD's interpretation considering the entire Lidless Eye Rulesbook (since it is not fundamentally inconsistent), and it especially has a stronger basis when considering the game's design (since it lacks the mechanical and simulation flaws of the URD's interpretation).

The rules are written in English, not in conditional logic. There is no basis in the rules for transforming "A—B and C" in English to "C if and only if A" conditional logic. Especially since such an understanding does not even follow the requirements of conditional logic.
I disagree that your interpretation is valid as it ignores the victory condition part of the victory condition and just uses the results clause.

Also I did not say anything related to "C if and only if A".

These victory conditions are written as <condition> -- <result> in the rule book snippet you posted.

The first has the condition "if your ringwraith is eliminated" and the result is "your opponent wins". If your ringwraith is not eliminated then this victory condition does not apply and your opponent does not win because of it.

Do you not see how the second one follows the same simple pattern of <condition> -- <result>?

condition: "if you move the one ring to barad dur"
result: "sauron is reunited with the one ring and you win"

Your interpretation would require wording like:

"if you reunite sauron with the one ring -- you win."

But that's not what the rules say.

Anyway, I'm done with this one. We'll just have to agree to disagree :)
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”