Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

I've noticed many older CoE Netrep rulings on situations that were already decided by the ICE Netrep, but where the CoE Netrep ruled differently. The ICE rulings were never referenced nor overturned by the CoE Netrep. However, the contemporary CoE Charter required that changes to the ICE rules to be go through a vote and ratification process. No vote or ratification was conducted.
CoE Charter wrote:We, the members of the Middle Earth Card Game Player community, establish by this charter the Council of Elrond, an organisation whose purpose is to facilitate organized play and to ameliorate the playing environment...
The Council shall enact new rules of play, or modify existing rules of play, upon the assent to two thirds majority vote of a quorum...
Rules enacted or modified shall be ratified only by the affirmative vote of two thirds of the members of metw@silent-tower.org
Also, there is a misconception that ICE rulings that didn't make it into the CRF are somehow "wrong." Such a practice would clearly be confusing as it would require everyone reading the rulings to go and cross-check the CRF weeks/months later. Instead of just failing to place a ruling in the CRF, the ICE Netrep would explicitly backtrack wrong/outdated rulings with a new ruling. The ICE Netrep explicitly said that rulings that should be obvious from the rules were not included in the CRF. Numerous correct rulings from never made it into the CRF. Numerous correct rulings were removed from the CRF over time. Furthermore, the CRF includes numerous outdated rulings because it was not overhauled with each new version.

I've also noticed many incorrect CoE rulings based on what people thought the rules said vs what they actually say.

--------------------------------------------------

Incorrect CoE Rulings:
  1. CoE 39 and then CoE 98 incorrectly ruled that a Fallen-wizard player can use Thrall of the Voice to play Orcs or Trolls. Instead, Fallen-wzizard players are only allowed to play Orcs or Trolls using Bad Company and Strident Spawn, not Thrall of the Voice.
    • Question: Can Thrall of the Voice be played to play a Troll character when Bad Company is not in play?
    • Question: Hey, I was wondering if anyone could answer me this question... While a fallen wizard, do you need to have Bad Company in play to play with Half-Orc characters??
      • ICE Netrep: Either that or a Strident Spawn. That is required to bring them into play. Once they are in play the no longer care.
  2. CoE 51 incorrectly ruled that the Resource Player decides the order of applying the effects of The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights per Annotation 9 rules on Passive Conditions. The correct rule to use is Annotation 26, which may let the Hazard Player decide. The ICE Netreps consistently ruled that the Hazard Player can decide the order based on Annotation 26.
    • Question: When you have multiple hazard strike enhancers in play (permanently, with Will of Sauron) like The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights, which takes place first? This is important since the Plague doubles the attacks (which is even worse after you play Chill Douser).
      • ICE Netrep: If both are in play at the beginning of the movement/hazard phase, the hazard player decides what order they take effect in. For the rest of the phase, effects are applied in the order they resolved.
    • ICE Netrep: When the play would matter is with Rumor of the One, The Balance of Things and a character with only a 2 CP ring item. If they were both in play at the start of the movement/hazard phase the hazard player would decide the order they were applied in, otherwise they would be applied in the order they resolved. If Rumor of the One is applied first, the CPs would be 6, if Balance is applied first, the CPs would be 5.
    • Challenge Deck Rules p. 43 - "The key is to turn them into monsters with bonuses from The Moon Is Dead, Plague of Wights, and Chill Dousers. For example, you can reasonably create a Ghouls attack of 14 strikes at 10 prowess." This is not reasonably possible if Annotation 10 were used instead of Annotation 26.
  3. Numerous CoE Rulings incorrectly hold that hazards have no effect on Company v. Company Combat. The CoE Netrep appears to have been ignorant of the Errata to the rules on CvCC in the CRF.
    • CRF - Rules Errata: Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on company vs.company combat.
    • ICE Netrep: 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.
  4. CoE 105 incorrectly ruled that the hazard player may play resources when facing an attack from Traitor or Hounds of Sauron. The rules do not allow for resources to be played in these situations.
    • CRF - Traitor: Characters facing a Traitor when it is not their turn may not play resources, but may still tap for full prowess.
    • Question: If Traitor is activated due to a corruption check made during your OPPONENT's turn (Ren Unleashed) can the target of the traitor tap to face the strike and use combat resources (Lucky Strike, Risky Blow) in a strike sequence like CvCC?
    • Question: Regardless of whose turn it is can the attack due to Traitor be cancelled ?
      • ICE Netrep: Resources can only be played on your turn. Traitor does not currently give an exception to that rule.
      • ICE Netrep: Hounds of Sauron does not create a company vs. company combat. You may use Hounds of Sauron instead of company vs. company combat. Since it isn't CvC, it doesn't follow the rules of CvC.
  5. CoE 110 incorrectly ruled Wizard's River-horses, played in response, can discard a tapped Nazgul event. In addition, CoE 111 incorrectly ruled that Marvels Told/Voices of Malice can discard a tapped Witch-king of Angmar event. These rulings are incorrect because tapped Nazgul events are not in play.
    • Question: I know Marvel's Told cannot cancel the effect of a Nazgul after it has tapped and become a short-event. Can *Wizard's River Horses* played in response to the tapping of a Nazgul, cancel the effect of the Nazgul event?
    • ICE Netrep: I would say no. The event is not in play, or in anyone's hand. Where is being discarded from? My point is that resolving cards are never discarded elsewhere in the game, and nothing in the rules says their effect would be cancelled even if they were.
  6. CoE 105 incorrectly ruled Promptings of Wisdom only cancels one effect, not both types of hazard effects (ie those that return to origin and those that tap the site.) This is incorrect because Promptings of Wisdom includes a list of canceled hazard effects based on its of a colon [ : ].
    • Question: those cards like Promptings of Wisdom, Goldberry, Piercing all Shadows and Govern the storms... What does the OR mean? Does it mean if you tap them it cancels BOTH effects, or just the effect that you choose to cancel.
    • ICE Netrep: First, Goldberry doesn't have an OR in her text, so this doesn't apply to her card. The key here is that using Promptings of Wisdom, Piercing All Shadows and Govern the Storms "Cancel all hazard effects for the rest of the turn that:" everything after the 'that:' is canceled. There is no choice. There are two different types of things canceled. Note, if the OR would have been an AND the hazard would require both conditions to be canceled.
  7. CoE 12 incorrectly ruled that Bane of the Ithil-Stone will stop Pallando's ability to look at the top card of the opponent's discard pile. This is incorrect because Pallando's effect "opponent must discard his cards face up" is not an effect that causes a player to search or look at cards.
    • Question: Pallando: Do you get to look at the cards your opponent discards if Bane of the Ithil-stone is in play?
      • ICE Netrep: Pallando only makes the opponent discard face up, this doesn't get affected
        by the bane.
    • ICE Netrep: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.
    • ICE Netrep:Pallando forces you to discard face up. This is not looking through anything, it is discarding face up. Bane does not apply.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:08 am, edited 24 times in total.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: CoE rulings that fail to reference the ICE rulings

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE #39 wrote: From: Chad Martin <chad@t...>
Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 5:06 am
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #39
--------
Is that true? Can you play orcs and trolls with Thrall of the Voice even
if Bad Company isn't in play?
*** It's true. Brian ruled that, and I support the ruling.
However:
ICE Digest 55 wrote:Craig Ichabod O'Brien Mar 12, 1998 12:00 AM

>Can Thrall of the Voice be played to play a Troll character when Bad Company is
>not in play?

No.
Another:
ICE Digest 88 wrote:Question: Hey, I was wondering if anyone could answer me this question... While a fallen wizard, do you need to have Bad Company in play to play with Half-Orc characters??

Answer: Either that or a Strident Spawn. That is required to bring them into play. Once they are in play the no longer care.
----------

From other discussions, it seems that the CoE Netrep believed that Orcs and Trolls are not "normal" characters for Fallen Wizard players because they have "special" rules. However, as stated by other players, that interpretation is suspect because Thrall says "instead of a normal character" and because Thrall explicitly mentions agents which also have their own special playability restrictions. Another interpretation of Thrall is that Thrall's statement "instead of a normal character" just means that you can't play 2 characters on the same turn using Thrall. Thrall lets you can bring in a character using Thrall's instead of playing a character normally according to the rules on "bringing characters into play."

The reason that Thrall of the Voice cannot be used to play Orcs or Trolls is because an effect cannot overcome a restriction without specifically overcoming that restriction. Thrall of the Voice specifically mentions 6-mind characters and agents, so it specifically overcomes the FW restriction against 5+ mind characters and the restriction against agents being in the starting company. Thrall of the Voice does not specifically mention Orcs or Trolls and so it does not specifically overcome the restriction against playing Orcs or Trolls. This is different from A Chance Meeting and We Have Come to Kill. The rules allow play of a character during the organization phase. They don't restrict a player from playing characters outside of the organization phase.

Regardless, ICE clearly ruled that Thrall cannot be used to play Orcs and Trolls and this modification to the existing rules of play was never voted on by the CoE nor was it ratified by the players on the mailinglist.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 7:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that fail to reference the ICE rulings

Post by CDavis7M »

ICE ruled that Annotation 26 (not Annotation 10) covers situations where the order of applying effects matters, regardless of whether it happens at the start of the Movement/Hazard phase or not. Meaning, that the hazard player decides the order of applying such effects. The CoE ruled that Annotation 10 governs and that the resource player decides. The canonical example is how to determine the number of strikes an undead attack gets when both The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights are both in play.
CoE Netrep wrote:CoE weekly Rulings/Clarifications 11
11. How cards effect applies in the game? For example, I have {The Moon is Dead} and {Doors of Night} in the game and then next turn play {Plague of Wights} and play some hazard, for example {Stirring Bones} - the 9/- undead creature with 1 strike. So, it'll be 11/- with 6 strikes or 11/- with 5 strikes?
***The answer to your question is that, in general, the hazard player may choose the order of application of effects. If the order in which multiple hazard effects are applied affects the final result, the hazard player chooses the order.

Rulings Digest #49

I have both The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights in play plus Doors of Night. I play a Chill Douser. Do I get to add one strike first then double or double first then add one? Following the above, if the Chill Douser is not cancelled, subsequent
undead gets how many extra strikes? *** You wouldn't think that this would be too tough to answer, but the NetRep team has had a bit of a time digging through the rules to find the correct rulings and whatnot. We'll get you an official answer as soon as we have one.

Rulings Digest #50
I have both The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights in play plus Doors of Night. I play a Chill Douser. Do I get to add one strike first then double or double first then add one?
*** It's the hazard player's choice.

Rulings Digest #51
*** The debate about how creature enhancing effects are combined is now at an end. This should answer all the "How many strikes does an undead get with all those events in play..." questions.
- The player who's turn it currently is (the resource player) gets to choose what order passive effects from hazards are applied. - The resource player may choose differently each time the situation applies.
For example, in the case of an undead attack where The Moon is Dead, Plague of Wights and Doors of Night are all in play, the resource player may choose to apply the doubling effect from Plague of Wights first before any strike adding effect is applied. Note this follow Annotation 10 which reads:
If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
However:
ICE Netrep wrote:
Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
ICE Netrep wrote:Question: When you have multiple hazard strike enhancers in play (permanently, with Will of Sauron) like The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights, which takes place first? This is important since the Plague doubles the attacks (which is even worse after you play Chill Douser).

Answer: If both are in play at the begining of the movement/hazard phase, the hazard player decides what order they take effect in. For the rest of the phase, effects are applied in the order they resolved.

------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien Remove spamblock to reply by email
Assistant Editor, Iron Crown Enterprises Me:CCG Official Netrep
http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod/ Alternate Official Me:CCG Website
------- "We shall pick up an existence by its frogs" -Fort -------
ICE Digest 528 wrote: Question: If all three of these cards are in play: The Moon Is Dead, Doors Of Night, and Plague Of Wights; then Stirring Bones is played, in what order do the three cards take effect for the purpose of calculating strikes?

Player Comment: The other guy was partially right. At least, back in the day, if they were both in play at the beginning of the *phase* the hazard player chose the order. In any other case they were applied in the order they were resolved.

ICE Netrep Answer: Sounds good to me! The CRF under Turn Sequence - Movement/Hazard Phase - General - Annotation 26 says if at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase there are multiple effects in play such that there net effect depend on the order that they are applied, the player who is not currently taking his turn (hazard player) decides the order in which they are applied. Once that is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
ICE Digest 27 wrote: Question: When Dragon factions are out, and a player moves through their affected regions, in what order are events resolved? Does the dragon attack first, before anything else in the M/H phase, or do the hazard creatures played by the non-moving player come first, or does the hazard player have the option of choosing the order of play, as in "effects already in play at the start of the M/H phase?"

Answer: The attack from a Dragon faction counts as an effect already in play at the start of the M/H phase. Therefore, it is the first declared action in the first chain of effects after the new site has been revealed and cards have been drawn. If there are multiple such effects, the hazard player decides the order in which they resolve.
ICE Digest 53 wrote: Question: Suppose a character bears a 3-corruption point Palantir and no other items. If both The Roving Eye and The Balance of Things are in play (each of which would cause the corruption points of the Palantir to double), how many corruption points does the character have? 6? 9? 12? (Does it matter which hazard was played first?)

The Roving Eye would not cause the corruption to double. I am assuming you mean Bane of the Ithil-stone, which would double the CPs. In that case
it doesn't matter which was played first, he has 12 corruption points. Ouch. When the play would matter is with Rumor of the One, The Balance of Things and a character with only a 2 CP ring item. If they were both in play at the start of the movement/hazard phase the hazard player would decide the order they were applied in, otherwise they would be applied in the order they resolved. If Rumor of the One is applied first, the CPs would be 6, if Balance is applied first, the CPs would be 5.
ICE Digest 40 wrote:Question: Master of Shapes says that Radagast's prowess is only modified by -1 when not tapping to face a strike. How does this interact with Black Enemy's Wrath and other hazards that have their own penalty for not tapping?

Answer: The second one to resolve, unless they were both in play at the start of the movement/hazard phase, in which case the hazard
player determines the order in which to apply them
, the last on being applied taking effect.
----------

Regardless of whether Annotation 10 is the better fit rule (letting the resource player decide), at some point ICE decided that Annotation 26 (letting the hazard player decide the order) was the better way to play MECCG. ICE's rulings were constant and consistent, it wasn't a mistake.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:21 am
However, as stated by other players, that interpretation is suspect because Thrall says "instead of a normal character" and because Thrall explicitly mentions agents which also have their own special playability restrictions.
I want just to say:
Without "(including agents)" one could not reveal/play using Thrall's ability during draft.
Whether the Thrall replaces entirely a description of character that can played by FW by its own description, or only extends the description by including character with mind up to 6.
Player cannot normally reveal/play agent character during draft, even if he is otherwise allowed to play agent characters.
As he cannot normally reveal/play character if that would exceed a pool of 20 unmodified mind, or if it would violate a company composition rules.
The restrictions come from other sources.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by CDavis7M »

Right. There is a rule restricting Agents and Thrall specifically references that rule. There is a rule restricting Orcs and Trolls and Thrall does not reference it.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 1:46 pm
There is a rule restricting Orcs and Trolls and Thrall does not reference it.
If some card (to not to say the Thrall of the Voice) does not extend a range of allowed characters but instead describes a character that it allows to play instead a normal character AND the description does not exclude any race, mentioning Trolls or Orcs would be only a confusing redundancy.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by CDavis7M »

... it would not be a confusing redundency in the case where it is a stage card playable only by Fallen Wizard players where there is also a restriction on playing Orcs and Trolls by a FW player. Mentioning Orcs and Trolls would be a necessity.

Orcs and Trolls may not be played by a Fallen Wizard player without a card effect specifically allowing them to be played because there is a rule with this requirement. A card that "does not extend a range of allowed characters" does not allow a FW player to play Orcs or Trolls by itself, another effect is needed (eg Bad Company or Strident spawn). The FW rules prevent any effects from playing an Orc or Troll unless those effects specifically reference and satisfy the rule.

Just as a Ringwraith Follower may not be played without a specific card effect allowing them to be played because there is a rule with this requirement. A card that "does not extend a range of allowed characters" does not allow a Ringwraith player to play a Ringwraith follower by itself, another effect is needed (ie We Have Come to Kill cannot be used to play a Ringwraith follower).

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by Theo »

I think this thread idea is great. Moderators: would it be possible to make a sub-forum for this, so that each case can be discussed in its own thread? I know there will be many more.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by Theo »

Opinions aside, the truth is that CoE explicitly contradicted ICE and didn't acknowledge it. It doesn't matter if there might have been (or can now be created) a legitimate basis or not; protocol was not followed and this should be documented so that it can be formally corrected. A legitimate basis might influence whether the correction should be of acknowledging overruling or rescinding contradiction, but not that one of these is needed---at least, that's what I think this thread (subforum??) should be about.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE 41 wrote:so what about reducing the prowess of the whole attack (for example black arrow). it would be logical (at least in my logic), that such an effect must also take place before strikes are assigned. but i couldn´t find anything in the crf.
*** An effect that states that it reduces the prowess of an attack must be played before the strikes are assigned.
The CoE Netrep provides no basis in the rules and there is none.

Update: Theo noticed that this was indirectly "overturned" in a much later CoE Digest while discussing the strike sequence during CvCC. Looking more into it there are several contradictory CoE rulings on this topic.

Old Text:

Code: Select all

The rules say:

[quote="MELE p. 33"]THE STRIKE SEQUENCE
4) The defending player may play resource cards that affect the strike (up to one card that requires skill).[/quote]

Modifying the prowess of the entire attack modifies the prowess of the individual strike. Therefore, an effect that reduces the prowess of an attack (e.g., Black Arrow's effect) can be play at Step (4) of the Strike Sequence. There is no requirement to [i]directly[/i] affect the strike. ICE has ruled that even something as indirect as using Marvels Told to discard a hazard giving a prowess bonus satisfies the conditions of Step (4) of the Strike Sequence:

[quote="ICE Digest 90"]Question: I travel to Moria with my only company. My opponent has Scimitars of Steel (Perm Event) and Awaken Minions (Long Event) in play. At the end of the Movement/Hazard Phase, I draw up to hand size and get Marvel's Told. (There is an untapped Sage in the company.) Is there any way I can get rid of either card with Marvel's Told so that I don't face 8 strikes @ 8 prowess?

Answer: [b]Yes. During the strike sequence you could play Marvels Told to discard Scimitars of Steel. You couldn't discard Awaken Minions, since that would change the number of strikes after strikes are assigned[/b].[/quote]
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 7:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE 110 wrote:(7) Two questions regarding fallen wizard decks have arisen:
(a) When is a fallen wizard player's character considered hero, minion, or other?
(b) When is a fallen wizard player's company considered hero, minion, covert, overt, or other?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characters can be:
(a) for a hero player
(i) hero
(b) for a minion player
(i) minion
(c) for a fw player
(i) hero (non-orcs non-trolls)
(ii) minion (orcs including half-orcs, trolls)

Companies can be:
(a) for a hero player
(i) hero
(b) for a minion player
(i) covert minion
(ii) overt minion
(c) for a fw player
(i) covert hero (companies with nothing making them overt)
(ii) overt
(1) non-minion (due to overt-making non-orc non-troll ally, Freeze the Flesh, or Cast from the Order)
(2) minion (due to presence of an orc, a troll, or a half-orc with other characters than only half-orcs and
men)
CoE Digest 110 states that a Fallen Wizard player's company may be "(2) minion (due to presence of an orc, a troll, or a half-orc with other characters than only half-orcs and men)"

However:
CRF Introduction wrote: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.
MEWH p. 5 wrote:Overt companies are not minion companies for purposes of the detainment attack guidelines in the MELE rules (p. 31). Overt companies are minion companies for hazards that can only attack/effect minion companies (e.g., Sons of Kings).
Under the MEWH rules, a Fallen Wizard's overt companies are not minion companies in general and they are not minion companies for purposes of resources affecting minion companies (e.g., Power Against the Shadow, Spies Feared, etc.).
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 7:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE Digest 50 wrote:Fallen-wizards use minion rules for agents. If Baduila (8 mind) is in my discard pile, I assume I can't use Mouth of Sauron on it, but can I use Weigh all Things to a Nicety even though I can never bring him in play as a character?
*** That's correct.
However:
CRF Introduction wrote: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.
MELE p. 85 wrote:Agents operate as outlined in the ME: Dark Minions rules with the following exceptions:
• Minion agents included in a Ringwraith's deck count as characters for the purposes of meeting deck requirements.[/u]
MEDM p. 1 wrote:An agent is a hazard
ICE wrote:Question: Agents can be retrieved by Mouth of Sauron since they are hazards, but not by Uvatha the Horseman since they are not creatures. Then why does the rules insert say to treat them as hazard creatures for all purposes but [...]?

Answer: Because it doesn't. The rules insert says "An agent can be thought of as a hazard that acts as a creature with the following special effects:" So much like twilight which can be played as a resource but isn't, just because a card acts like a creature doesn't make it one. To reiterate: Agents are *not* creatures, even though they often act like them.

------ "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" ------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
Founder "Team Ichabod" Undefeated on the Pro-Tour
-----Self Proclaimed Most Mediocre Player in the World-----
While MELE states that agents may be played as characters and that they count as characters for the purposes of meeting deck requirements, the MELE rules did not change the fact that non-played agent cards are hazards (in the deck, discard pile, sideboard, etc.). According to the existing ICE rules, Mouth of Sauron can retrieve agents because they are hazards. Weigh all Things to a Nicety cannot be used to retrieve Baduila because Baduila is a hazard card, not a character card.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:24 pm
Orcs and Trolls may not be played by a Fallen Wizard player without a card effect specifically allowing them to be played because there is a rule with this requirement.
Orcs and Trolls may not be played by a Fallen Wizard player without appropriate card or ability. Appropriate card or ability does not need specifically mention Orcs and Trolls.
If the appropriate card or ability replaces entirely a description of character that is allowed to play, it does not need to specifically mention any race.
If in future/hypothetical addition a new restriction will appear, then such appropriate card or ability will be able to beat the new restriction.
Similarly, if FW player would have other ability allowing him to play 7 mind character, then it cannot be combined with card or ability that replaces entirely a description of character that is allowed to play.

Moot point, as I see it, is whether Thrall merely extends limitations or whether it replaces entirely a description of character that is allowed to play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:20 am
Orcs and Trolls may not be played by a Fallen Wizard player without appropriate card or ability. Appropriate card or ability does not need specifically mention Orcs and Trolls.
If the appropriate card or ability replaces entirely a description of character that is allowed to play, it does not need to specifically mention any race.
That theory is inconsistent with the ICE rulings. According to the ICE rulings, an "appropriate card" DOES need to specifically mention Orcs or Trolls. The only "appropriate cards" are Bad Company and Strident Spawn. Furthermore, this ruling is consistent with other situations where there is a conflict between (A) an effect that says to play something and (B) restrictions on playing that thing in the rules or cards. Is there is a restriction on playing a card, that restriction must be maintained unless the card specifically bypasses that restriction. This is why A Chance Meeting must say "even a Hobbit," specifically referencing the playability restriction on Hobbit cards. This is why Thrall says "up to a 6 mind", specifically referencing the MEWH restriction on playing playing characters. This is why The Forge-master says "the recipient need not tap," specifically referencing the requirement that characters tap to play items.

Moot point anyway since ICE ruled that Thrall cannot be used to play Orcs and Trolls.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Post by Konrad Klar »

White Hand, Special Orc & Troll Rules wrote:You may not play Orc and Troll characters until you have played the appropriate
card (e.g., Bad Company).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”