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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

41.
URD - Turn Phases wrote:LONG-EVENT PHASE
• You may play resource Long-Events during this phase.
• The hazard player removes any hazard Long-Events he had in play during this phase.
The URD Leaves out the ordering of playing/removing cards in the Long-event phase.
MELE p. 92 wrote:Long-event Phase
First, remove all of your resource long-events in play.
Then, you may play new resource long-event cards.
Finally, remove all of your opponent's hazard long-events.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Apr 17, 2020 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

42.
URD - Playing Resource Short Events wrote:An Orc or Troll may not tap to initiate an effect from a hero resource.
I find no basis for this in the rules and the URD cites none. This seems like another instance where the URD Editor was playing Fallen-Wizards incorrectly. The actual rules are:
MEWH p. 5 wrote: PLAYING AND USING RESOURCES
Playing resources is handled normally with these exceptions:
...
Using Items
All non-Orc/Troll characters may freely use both her and minion items.
...
SPECIAL ORC & TROLL RULES
-You may not play a hero resource permanent-event on a company with an Orc or Troll in it.
-A hero resource may not target an Orc or Troll character (e.g., Orc and Troll characters may not use Block, Escape, etc.).
Nothing in these rules or the CRF that suggests that An Orc or Troll may not tap to initiate an effect from a hero resources. Of course, an Orc or Troll may not initiate an effect of a Hero Item nor a hero permanent event. So options are limited.

Given the restriction on targeting, tapping as an active condition for a non-item, non-permanent-event hero resources would be prohibited.

But at least tapping to initiate the effect of Great Ship would be permitted.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

43.
URD - playing resource short events wrote:Controversial Cards: A Chance Meeting

A Chance Meeting states: “A character (even a Hobbit) may be brought into play with direct influence at any Free-hold, Border-hold, or Ruins & Lairs.”
To many player’s minds, this card is only playable when you would otherwise be able to play a character. This is because a card’s effect must apply to an existing situation. If the ability to play a character does not exist, then a card that modifi es the method of playing characters does not apply and may not be played unless it is stated otherwise on the card. However, A Chance Meeting lacks any statement indicating the conditions under which it may be played, so it reverts to default
This is misleading and promotes misunderstanding of the rules. This basis for this misunderstanding is given in the URD: "a card’s effect must apply to an existing situation." It's OK. I made this mistake too before I read the rules a few times.

First of all, note that the URD Editor is conflating the rules on "Legal Play of Cards" to prevent a card from being discarded with no effect (a card is playable only if its effect applies to an existing situation) with the rules on bringing characters into play during the organization phase, which would never run afoul of the rules on Legal Play of Cards.

Under the actual rules, there is almost no interactions or requirements between the actions allowable under the rules and the actions allowable by card effects. The only rules that apply to card effects are the rules on actually playing cards (e.g., the conditions for bringing a card into play). The rules allowing you to play characters during the organization phase has no bearing on the playability conditions for other cards such as A Chance Meeting. This is because:
MELE p. 40 wrote:10 - PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS
Except for resource long-events, you may play resource cards anytime during your own tum unless specifically prohibited by the rules or the cards themselves.
...
Short-event -- A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded.
A Chance Meeting is not prohibited from being played outside of the organization phase. And when it is resolved, its effect of bringing a character into play happens. It's that simple. "A Chance Meeting lacks any statement indicating the conditions under which it may be played" because there are no conditions under whether it might not be played on the card itself. It can be played whenever it is your turn and whenever it would have an effect on the game per Legal Play of Cards.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Apr 17, 2020 9:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

44.
URD - Resource Short Events wrote:“If a short-event’s text doesn’t indicate a duration for its effect, the effect lasts until the end of the turn, so you presume correctly.” [CoE 31].
Editor’s Note: I’m not sure where that idea came from. It directly contradicts the ME:LE rules, which says that some cards indicate they last until the end of the turn.
This statement is misleading but I know where the idea came from. CoE 31 is discussing Deeper Shadow and ICE had already ruled on Deeper Shadow. However, ICE never made a generalized ruling on short events from what I know.

This statement has misled lots of people as shown in the discussion of CoE 118 below.
ICE Netrep wrote: Question 1: If a card changes a 'site type' or 'region type' in a 'site path', do these affects carry over to the site phase?
Answer 1: Generally yes.

Question 2: The card which generated this question is 'Deeper Shadow.' Do the effects generated by this card only last during the movement hazard phase?
Answer 2:They last until the end of the turn.
Example of how this statement is misleading:
CoE 118 wrote:Question: Joe Bisz asked: "When Master of Wood, Water, and Hill is played (see text below), I assume that the change in the region symbol it creates lasts until the end of the turn, such that if a company take multiple m/h phases through the same region, the region symbol is still changed? (Miguel thought so.) Is the region also considered changed for ALL of your companies, in case other companies decide to move through that changed region?"

Answer: Miguel was right. And to answer your follow-up question: yes.
Master of Wood, Water, and Hill does NOT change the region for all of your companies. These players have been looking at a map too long and they have forgotten the rules on region movement.
Full Player Turn Summary wrote: Organization Phase:
...
Standard Rules Only: Play a new site card and series if up to four specific regions that connect the current site with the new site.
...
Movement/Hazard phase:
...
Standard Rules Only: 5) ... Return any region cards to the location deck.
Therefore, any region affected by Master of Wood, Water, and Hill would be removed from play at step 5 of the movement/hazard phase and any effect of MoWWoH would be removed as well. Accordingly, if that same company or another company uses that same region card later on in this same turn, that particular region is no longer affected by MoWWoH.

Just because you use a map to play doesn't mean you can ignore the rules on region cards. The only rule overriding the rules on region cards is from the Tournament Rulings:
CRF wrote:Maps of the regions of MECCG may be used in place of region cards in Council of Lórien tournaments. If two or more companies move on the same turn, then each company does not have to determine the site path to its new site until the beginning of it's movement/hazard phase.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Apr 17, 2020 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

45.
URD - Playing Hazard Creatures wrote:Certain cards have effects based on what a hazard creature is keyed to. If the condition that the creature was keyed to changes (i.e. a creature is ke yed to a Border-Hold and the Border-Hold changes to a Ruins & Lairs) before the creature resolves, the creature fizzles. This keyability is checked before each attack of the creature.

Editor’s Note: There is actually room for doubt on how exactly to fizzle a hazard creature based on keying. According to the rules, a hazard creature may attack so long as at least one of the site types matches the company’s new or current site, etc. You also have to specify which condition and site type. What is not adequately covered is what happens when the site type changes but is still of the
same type as one of the site symbols on the creature’s card. The classic example is the Orc-Lieutenant (playable keyed to Ruins & Lairs and Shadow-holds) keyed to a Ruins & Lairs and Choking Shadows played in response to change the Ruins & Lairs to a Shadow-hold. Since the site type still matches a site type on the Creature, the card play was still valid according to the rules--and yet the specific keying is no longer valid. The current interpretation is that the attack will indeed fizzle-- but that may be no more than confusing the expression “keyed to” as it relates to playing a creature as opposed to how it relates to designating a specific region/site type. ME:BA states that when you key a creature to the site, you need only check to see if one of the site types along the side of the card matches the site’s current type. This more than implies that it doesn’t matter what the matching symbol was originally so long as there is still a matching symbol at the end.
CoE 49 explicitly states that you need not choose the specific symbol. This means that you would need to at least change all instances of a given keyability, but does doing so fizzle the hazard?
I have wondered about keying creatures as well but it's pretty clear when you read the rules. "Keying" is the process of selecting how the creature is played WHEN the creature is played. The verification of the keying happens at resolution. The entire point of "keying" is that you need to select between 2 viable options for playing the creature. If the non-keyed region/site type was still viable at resolution (as suggested by the URD Editor) then there would be no point in having rules specifically for "keying."
METW wrote:If a creature satisfies more than one of these conditions, you must choose (when you play the creature) one of these conditions that the attack is “keyed to.” The effects of certain cards are based upon the region or site type that a creature is keyed to.
Clarification: The player that plays a hazard creature must specifically state the type of region or site that a creature is keyed to – it can affect the use of other cards
By the way, the Editor's statement on MEBA keying is completely bogus: "ME:BA states that when you key a creature to the site, you need only check to see if one of the site types along the side of the card matches the site’s current type. This more than implies that it doesn’t matter what the matching symbol was originally so long as there is still a matching symbol at the end." MEBA does NOT imply that there only needs to be a matching symbol at resolution of the creature card.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Apr 17, 2020 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

46.
URD - Playing Hazard Events wrote:Controversial Cards: Adûnaphel
In contrast to cards like New Moon, which contains the phrasing “tap a character,” Adûnaphel contains the phrase “causes any one character to tap.” There is doubt in many minds whether this phrasing is meant to override the above restrictions. A literal reading of the card and comparison with other tapping cards/cards that use the phrasing “any one” support the idea that Adûnaphel is a special hazard that can indeed tap a character not currently taking their Movement/Hazard Phase.

The current official ruling is that Adûnaphel must target a character in the current company. If, as a tournament organizer, you decide to allow Adûnaphel to target any character as per the card text, bear in mind that you drastically increase the power of this hazard to the point that it will be even more overplayed than it already is.
As discussed above, the URD Editor is misleading because they are ignorant of the ICE rulings and they are conflating two different rules as if they apply to the same situation, violating ICE's Golden Rule "if it isn't there it isn't there."
ICE Digest 55; ICE FAQ: Adunaphel can only target characters in the company currently taking their movement/hazard phase.
Simply stating "any one character" does not override the rules on playing hazards.
MELE p. 93 wrote:Your opponent plays hazards on the company-each hazard is resolved as indicated in its text. Creatures are played and their combat resolved one at a time. A hazard may not be played if it targets a different company or a character, item, etc. in a different company.
Adunaphel may not target a different character in a different company.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Apr 17, 2020 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

47.
URD - Copmany vs Company Combat wrote:Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on company vs. company combat [CRF].
...
In company vs. company combat, if the hazard says it affects attacks (like Chill Them with Fear) then it has no effect on CvCC. If it doesn’t affect attacks, then it has its normal effect (like Gloom’s first ability) [Van 579].
Hazards have no effect during company vs. company combat [ME:BA].
Editor’s Note: This odd little rule means that Van’s ruling is incorrect. All hazards currently in play have absolutely no effect whatsoever while company vs. company combat is occurring. The Witch-King temporarily stops turning Shadow-Holds into Dark-Holds. In the Heart of His Realm stops removing the sage skill from companies in Dark Domains. It is possible that ICE did not intend this any more than they intended to say that you could not make influence attempts against followers and allies controlled by an avatar, but we must take this rule as written. See also the CRF ruling below, which is worded differently.
The Editor is incorrect and ICE Netrep Van Norton is correct. The URD Editor forgets his history. The ruling in the CRF on Hazards being able to affect CvCC is the newer ruling and overruled the previous statement saying that hazards had no effect at all.

New CvCC Rule and ruling:
ICE Digest 563 - March 22, 1999 wrote: Question: Van, I just wanted to make sure you haven't forgotten my question about what happens to hazards during CVCC. (Rulebook says hazards have no effect on CVCC combat.) 3 digests ago you said you would answer it in the next digest. I still haven't heard an answer.

Answer: No, delayed but not forgotten. Ichabod and I have been discussing changing the rule to make it more clear. I had one wording, he another. Ultimately, I spent an evening going through every hazard in the game to see how they impacted each wording of the new rule. To make a long story short [too late] here is the new ruling for Company vs. Company combat:

Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on CVCC.

This is an errata and will be posted as a Rulings Monday on 3/22/99. The new rule will take effect 4/5/99.

Commentary:
This means that if a hazard effect directly affects an attack, it has no effect on Company vs. Company combat. So, if the hazard says, "All orc attacks have +1 prowess." it would have no effect. On the other hand, if the hazard says, "All orcs have +1 prowess," it will have normal effect.

Remember to that no hazards can be played during the site phase and no company vs. company combat will trigger an on-guard card. So the only hazards that would have any effect are hazard effects already in play.

The hazard "Night" is an excellent example for the new rule. The card text reads:
"The prowess of each non-ranger Dunadan is modified by -1. Additionally if Doors of Night is in play, the prowesses of all attacks are are modified by +1 and the prowess of each Man and Dunadan is modified by -1. Cannot be duplicated."

During company vs. company combat, with Doors of Night in play, non-ranger Dunadan have a -1 prowess and additionally all Man and Dunadan characters have an additional -1 prowess. Since the plus to prowess directly effects attacks, it has no effect on CvC combat.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Apr 17, 2020 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

48.
URD - CvCC wrote:You receive kill Marshalling Points equal to the value of any of your opponent’s characters or allies that you eliminate during this combat [CoE 17].
CoE 117 wrote:6. CoE Rulings Digest #17 incorrectly states that "If you can initiate COMPANY VS. COMPANY, you can obtain kill points from it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the defender and the attacker can always receive kill points from defeating characters or allies in CVCC.
These are both incorrect. There is nothing in the rules or CRF to suggest that a player would receive kill MP for eliminating an Ally in CVCC. The actual rules are:
MELE p. 42 wrote: Allies
An ally does not count as a character for any purposes other than combat and the use of certain skills. Allies can not bear items.
MELE p. 83 wrote:If a defending character is eliminated, the attacking player receives "kill" marshalling points as indicated on the character's card.
If an attacking character is eliminated, the defending player receives "kill" marshalling points as indicated on the character's card.
An Ally card is not a character card. Just because an Ally is a character for purposes of combat but does not count as a character outside of combat (unless for the use of skill cards). The URD and CoE rulings violate the Golden Rule:
CRF wrote:he 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.
An ally is not a character for purposes of a player receiving kill MP for eliminating the Ally during CvCC.

This is confirmed in the discussion of ICE Digest 115
ICE Netrep - 8/3/98 wrote: An ally can take combat related actions like a character (getting assigned a strike, tapping for +1 prowess, cancelling a slayer, etc) and an ally counts as a character for cards that directly affect combat.
Receiving MP is not a combat related action nor does it directly affect combat.
Ford84
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:54 pm

This is great work from CDavis7M. The complexity of the rules for this game cannot be understated and it always helps to have someone who remembers everything they read.

I thank you and welcome your abilities to the challenge of codifying the rules. But can I ask is this list of errors exhaustive or did you just get bored?

And also is anyone making these changes to the URD or should I do it?
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Thanks. But read the rules and rulings and see how you feel.
Ford84 wrote: Sun May 10, 2020 9:23 pm But can I ask is this list of errors exhaustive or did you just get bored?
It's not exhaustive. I have more Errors that I haven't posted:
  • 49. Editor's Note about the Balrog rules changing the rules to let a RW move without a mode card. This is incorrect. ICE acknowledged that it was just left out. A few other rules were left out due to the rules being shortened.
  • 50. CoE11 stating that the sitepath doesn't change when a hazard causes a company to move to a different site (e.g., Winds of Wrath). This is incorrect. ICE ruled that the site path does change. This actually even in the CRF on Chance of Being Lost.
  • 51. For some reason the URD Editor thinks that onguard cards can't be revealed at tapped sites. This is incorrect. You could have revealed on-guard cards at a tapped site in all 3 different variations of the on-guard rules (TW Unlimited, MELE, and Balrog).
  • Then on to the card specific rulings:
  • 52. Malady without Healing - The Editor argues you can't play it on your opponents characters. This is incorrect. Malady has always been able to target an opponent's character. ICE has noted this several times. It should be obvious from the text of the card. The URD Editor doesn't consider the context of the CRF statement. They also doesn't recognize how the CRF rulings don't always apply to every situation.
  • 53. The Adunaphel Editor's note is incorrect. This is also discussed above.
  • 54. The Aiglos statement in the CRF is incorrect. ICE changed the rules for CvCC and this ruling is outdated. I explained this in another post on here.
There are many more problems in the Card Specific Rulings but I haven't gone through them all. From my experience, if something in the URD begins with "Editor's Note" or if it ends with only "CoE", there is a 75% chance it's incorrect. The URD Editor didn't remember about the ICE rulings (though seemingly knowing of them contemporaneously, unless there is another player by the same name). That's OK. Seems like only a few people bothered to check on them despite them being mentioned and linked on numerous MECCG webpages.
Ford84 wrote: Sun May 10, 2020 9:23 pm And also is anyone making these changes to the URD or should I do it?
TheJabberwock is working on updating the document (see last post in link below). I don't know his process or decision making. But if you go back to the original thread and read it from the beginning you'll see some drama about the URD viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1500&start=15 I think it makes sense to leave the URD to the CoE Council because of the drama.
Ford84
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:54 pm

I only ask because the URD is an excellent piece of work generally speaking and an excellent resource for the game.

I would like to thank the author and editor for all the work and effort they have put into it. Any errors are obviously unintentional and the work involved in producing it should be commended.

I want to print the pdf as an A4 hardback book (similar to the post earlier in the thread) to be used as a resource for the game and before I print it it would be nice to have some known errors amended.

I’ll undertake the changes you have mentioned (and take some entries with a pinch of salt) and print the book. There may be a few inaccuracies but on the whole a useful reference.

Obviously the best solution would be to allow CDavis7M the opportunity to edit the URD (assuming he wanted to and had the time). ;)
Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Or both of you over your help to gavin and finish this work of a lifetime ;)

I believe a "half" corrected versions does not help anyone - it also gives more legitimation to half - done piece of work - which looks done - which is scarry and it will spread more false play ...

so there are ways to get stuff done - DC proves this years over years - but leeching others works is easier and complaigning that nothing is ever done or finished as well - this is a huge thing the communtiy lacks and different dudes had their crack at it - just to be overwhelmed by it - but a team of 3-4 dudes might accomplish this

yours Vastor - CoE seat member
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

URD Glossary wrote: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].
The statements on not receiving MP for defeating dragon factions is an error. The rule cited only applies to RW vs RW games and it is taken out of context. The URD leaves out the rules for Wizard players:
MELE p. 84 wrote:If a hero company defeats an attack by a Ringwraith's Dragon faction, the hero player receives Its marshalling points as kill marshalling points.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

URD - Bane of the Ithil-Stone wrote:Stops hero Pallando’s ability [CoE 12].
This CoE ruling is wrong.
CoE 12 wrote:15. Does Bane of the Ithil Stone stop Pallando's ability to see the top card of a player's deck?
*** Pallando's ability is outside the normal sequence of play as outlined in the rules because the rules don't normally have opponents looking at the top card of your discard pile. Bane of the Ithil-Stone will stop Pallando's ability to look at the top card of the opponent's discard pile.
No. Pallando's opponent must still discard their cards face up if Bane of the Ithil-Stone is in play, and Pallando's player can still look at the face-up cards in the discard pile.
Pallando wrote:Opponent must discard his cards face up.
Bane of the Ithil-stone wrote:Automatically cancels any effects that causes a player to search through or look at any portion of a play deck or a discard pile outside of the normal sequence of play.
Pallando's ability says nothing about "search through" or "look at." Pallando's ability forces the opponent to "discard his cards face up." An effect that causes a player to discard cards face up is not an effect that causes a player to search/look at the discard pile. Sure, the player can look at the face-up card of their own accord, but Pallando's effect does not cause the looking.

ICE ruled that Pallando still makes an opponent discard face up is Bane is in Play (note that at one point Pallando's player could go through the face up cards but later it was decided that players needs to discard cards one at a time so that Pallando can see them)
ICE wrote:Q:Pallando: Do you get to look at the cards your opponent discards if Bane of the Ithil-stone is in play?
A: Pallando only makes the opponent discard face up, this doesn't get affected by the bane.

Q: If I have Pallando out, may I look through my opponent's entire discard pile, or am I only privy to the top card? If I can look through his entire discard pile, is that ability prevented by Bane of the Ithil Stone?
A: You may look at any face up cards in his discard pile. Consider this within the normal sequence of play. [NOTE: this refers to the old ruling that Pallando could dig through his opponent's discard. You can no longer do this but the opponent discards each card one at a time, face up]].

Q: Bane prevents Pallando's "viewable-discard-pile-power". It is NOT within the normal sequence of play. As an aside (and assuming Bane isn't in play)...Pallando's VDP power mentioned above allows Pallando's controller to view the entire discard pile at any time, not just the top card.
A: Bane would prevent Pallado's player from searching through the face-up discards, which he can do, but would not prevent him from forcing a player to discard face up.

Q: some thoughts on Bane. Why spell out outside the normal sequence of play? Then if the rules
change the card will have to be erratad again. Just leave it the way it is.
A: If this is about the Pallando ruling, there is no contradiction. Pallando forces you to discard face up. This is not looking through anything, it is discarding face up. Bane does not apply.

Ruling: I checked AGAIN with ICE, but this time, after much discussion, it was decided that Pallando should not be able to look through the face up cards in a discard pile. In related news, it has been clarified that each discarded card is a seperate action.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:21 am Opponent must discard his cards face up.
Errata like:

Opponent must show Pallando the cards that he is discarding.

would be the solution I would prefer.

Goal is just a showing the discarded card to the Pallando player. Goal is not showing the topmost card of discard pile (for all players, not only for Pallando player).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”