If you notice any obvious errors with the URD, please make a post outlining the details in this thread.
The latest version of the URD can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1500&start=45#p20927
Thanks!
URD Errors - Post Here
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:07 pm
- Location: RIR
This isn´t an obvious error but it can be a bit confusing:
Dragons: The following rules apply to Dragons:
...
• If you defeat the attack from a Dragon manifestation,
you get kill marshalling points from the manifestation
as if you had defeated a creature [CRF].
page 12
Roused: A type of Dragon Manifestation. If an attack
from this manifestation is defeated, the Dragon’s Lair
loses its normal automatic-attack. If an attack from this
manifestation is defeated, no player receives its Marshalling
Points [ME:LE, 42].
page 17
Dragons: The following rules apply to Dragons:
...
• If you defeat the attack from a Dragon manifestation,
you get kill marshalling points from the manifestation
as if you had defeated a creature [CRF].
page 12
Roused: A type of Dragon Manifestation. If an attack
from this manifestation is defeated, the Dragon’s Lair
loses its normal automatic-attack. If an attack from this
manifestation is defeated, no player receives its Marshalling
Points [ME:LE, 42].
page 17
There is an error there:Mercenario wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:52 pm This isn´t an obvious error but it can be a bit confusing:
Dragons: The following rules apply to Dragons:
...
• If you defeat the attack from a Dragon manifestation,
you get kill marshalling points from the manifestation
as if you had defeated a creature [CRF].
page 12
Roused: A type of Dragon Manifestation. If an attack
from this manifestation is defeated, the Dragon’s Lair
loses its normal automatic-attack. If an attack from this
manifestation is defeated, no player receives its Marshalling
Points [ME:LE, 42].
page 17
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1500&p=26797#p26797
PM-ME-IFURD 4.2, page 38 wrote:
- If the above apply, follow this procedure:
- a. Reveal the faction from your hand.
- b. Tap a character to make an influence check.
- INSERT SOMETHNG HERE MAYBE?, to the effect of: Play resources to modify the influence attempt?
- c. Make a roll. Add the character’s unused
Direct Influence.
- d. Add any modifications listed on the faction card.
- e. Apply any other modifiers from cards.
- f. If the result is higher than the number listed
on the faction, you successfully play the faction. Tap the site.
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
See Hazards and CvCC. Regardless of the CoE ruling, the URD needs fixing in that ICE digests 563 and 579 supercede METB.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
URD wrote:● 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 a manifestation of the Unique entity for the same effect.
1. Revealing a manifestation of the Unique entity applies only to the METW vs MELE games.Lidless Eye wrote:THE AUDIENCE AND THE COUNCIL
All characters and Wizards make corruption checks as outlined in the MELE and METW rules. The winner is the player
with the most marshalling points - i.e., the player who has done the most to help his side win.
At the Audience/Council, you may reveal any unique marshalling point cards in your hand that match unique cards that
your opponent has in play. You may also reveal any marshalling point cards in your hand that are manifestations of
cards that your opponent has in play. Each such revealed card reduces your opponent's marshalling point total by one.
2. The revealed manifestation must be a marshalling point card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
And it must be a card that the player is actually getting positive points for (but maybe that was CoE specific... I'll check another time).
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Link requires permissions.the JabberwocK wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:01 am The latest version of the URD can be found here: http://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewto ... =45#p20927
---
Last version I downloaded was 4.2. In that version there was still a comment "oh, yes you can".
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2583
CoE #117 should removal all remaining ambiguity.
CoE #117 wrote:You may not attempt to influence away any of the following from your opponent: his avatar, an ally controlled by his avatar, an item controlled by his avatar, or a follower of his avatar.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
CoE does not recognize Balrog nor Challenge Deck Summaries as "authorative".
CoE #51 wrote:*** On a more recent subject: The challenge deck rules booklet is not authorative (just a summary), challenge deck cards are authorative. This is similar to the ruling recently made about the Balrog rules booklet.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
The Summary in Challenge Decks and Balrog decks are official ICE publications written by the ICE netrep. By definition, they are "authoritative."
Of course, the Rules Summary was not intended to be complete. But it is accurate. And ICE ruled multiple times that the Rules Summary rule on influencing away was correct.
----------
For a while I had assumed that the CoE Netrep Chad Martin was actually just ignorant of the ICE rulings. But after seeing more and more of his interactions with the ICE Netreps, I'm starting to think differently.
----------
Given that the URD lists so many CoE Digests, and that the CoE Digests include so many errors, this could be a very long thread if I had the time.
I think you are under-appreciating Bandobras' signature.
These are the CoE forums. We can tell the CoE their rules are misled or what we think they should be, but that doesn't change what they've decided their rules are, which they should at least be consistent with when making a URD (or explicit with any reverting).
If you want to start an ICE-only URD effort, we can debate more about how to interpret them then. At one point I had a plan for a "multiverse" rules compilation that would allow players to switch between which rules sources THEY wanted to honor, but it has been defunded due to temporal cuts.
These are the CoE forums. We can tell the CoE their rules are misled or what we think they should be, but that doesn't change what they've decided their rules are, which they should at least be consistent with when making a URD (or explicit with any reverting).
If you want to start an ICE-only URD effort, we can debate more about how to interpret them then. At one point I had a plan for a "multiverse" rules compilation that would allow players to switch between which rules sources THEY wanted to honor, but it has been defunded due to temporal cuts.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
This is not CoE rules vs ICE rules. This is a situation where the CoE ruling were made unaware of the ICE rulings.
There is a huge difference between CoE Errata 1 that lays out the ICE rulings and explicitly decides to overturn them and many of the other CoE rulings that don't know the ICE rulings, and sometimes don't even comprehend the rules themselves.
The same authority claiming dismissing the CD/Balrog Summary then forgets about Annotation 26.
I think everyone would agree that CoE #1 is a valid alternative to the ICE rules. And I think that everyone would agree that forgetting Annotation 26 and playing by the CoE Netreps faulty ruling is not a valid alternative. If the CoE Netrep wanted to change Annotation 26 they would have specifically mentioned it.
There is a huge difference between CoE Errata 1 that lays out the ICE rulings and explicitly decides to overturn them and many of the other CoE rulings that don't know the ICE rulings, and sometimes don't even comprehend the rules themselves.
The same authority claiming dismissing the CD/Balrog Summary then forgets about Annotation 26.
I think everyone would agree that CoE #1 is a valid alternative to the ICE rules. And I think that everyone would agree that forgetting Annotation 26 and playing by the CoE Netreps faulty ruling is not a valid alternative. If the CoE Netrep wanted to change Annotation 26 they would have specifically mentioned it.
1.
2.
--Annotation 13: An attack may not be canceled once its strikes have been assigned.
--MELE p. 41 - Its card [the long-event] and effects remain in play... until otherwise discarded.
4.
The card will remain on that site until one of the following occurs:
• The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. If the on guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack, it may be revealed before the automatic-attack is resolved. If it is a hazard creature, it will attack after the automatic-attack is resolved...
The ICE Site Phase rule is (see also CoE erratum 1 replacing this):
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.
What a weird thing to say when the author wasn't playing Fallen Wizard trophies correct either.URD - Forward wrote:“You probably aren’t playing Fallen Wizards correctly.”
2.
This situation cannot happen. After strikes have been assigned, the Ahunt Long-event cannot be discarded because discarding the Ahunt would cancel the attack (see discussion in Error 6 and ICE ruling below) and an attack cannot be cancelled after its strikes have been assigned.URD - Glossary - Ahunts wrote:Deal with card appropriately even if the card is discarded during the actual attack (i.e. put it in your marshalling point pile if you would gain MPs for defeating the attack, etc.) [CoE 29].
--Annotation 13: An attack may not be canceled once its strikes have been assigned.
--MELE p. 41 - Its card [the long-event] and effects remain in play... until otherwise discarded.
3.ICE Digest 94 wrote:Question: If an Ahunt Dragon is played during the m/h phase and its attack is triggered by the company's movement, will removing the Ahunt Long-event with Marvels Told stop the attack?
Answer: Yes. When a long or permanent event is discarded by another card, it immediately ceases to have an effect on play.
This statement is misleading because the Editor is discussing cards played on an Ally and To Fealty Sworn cannot be played on an ally because there are no ally is a Hobbit. Mistress Lobelia is an "Ally," not a "Hobbit."URD - Glossary - Allies - Editor's Note wrote:The following list of permanent events are those that target an entity with a skill/race without specifying that it be a character:
• To Fealty Sworn
4.
This "Editor's Note" appears to believe that a hazard card can only be revealed when "the company decides to face the site's automatic-attack" if that hazard modifies the already existing automatic attacks on the site. That is incorrect. The Editor appears to be conflating the resource playing rules in the Site Phase ("removing an automatic attack") with the hazard playing On-Guard rules. Adding an additional automatic attack DOES "modify the automatic attack" per the On Guard rules. For instance, Incite Minions creates an attack and can be revealed on guard when a company enters the site. At Home dragons can also be revealed on guard when a company enters the site. There are numerous instances of the ICE Netrep deciding issues about revealing Incite Denizens on guard but nothing specifically stating that they can be revealed on guard. No one else would try to assert that creating an automatic attack does not modify the automatic attack.URD - Glossary - At Home - Editor's Note wrote:Editor’s Note: This is incorrect. Adding an automatic-attack is not affecting the attack any more than removing an automatic-attack affects an automatic-attack. An At Home dragon is not a creature, nor does it affect the automatic-attack. If the At Home dragon has an effect which applies during the Site Phase, it may be revealed, but the company will have already faced all automatic-attacks that were at the site at the beginning of the Site Phase.
The relevant on-guard rule is:ICE NetRep 8/24/96 wrote:Question: Other than putting a single card on guard there is no way to influence what happens during an opponents site phase? i.e. I can't play Awaken Minion and the like when they decide to explore the site? This means it's impossible to get a site with both Incite Minions and Arouse Minions on it unless one of the cards was played (face up) during the movement/hazard phase?
Answer: You are correct in that only one hazard can be played on guard and no other hazards can be played during the site phase. There is one way to get both an Incite and an Arouse on-guard on a site. If your opponent has two companies moving to the same site you can play an on-guard card for each company.
The card will remain on that site until one of the following occurs:
• The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. If the on guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack, it may be revealed before the automatic-attack is resolved. If it is a hazard creature, it will attack after the automatic-attack is resolved...
The ICE Site Phase rule is (see also CoE erratum 1 replacing this):
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.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.