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.
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 »

But receiving MP for a card does not directly affect combat. So an eliminated Ally card cannot give MP as if it were an eliminated character card.

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 »

"Directly effect"? Receiving kill MP for eliminating a character is combat, a part thereof.
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 »

Theo wrote:
Mon May 04, 2020 6:00 am
"Directly effect"? Receiving kill MP for eliminating a character is combat, a part thereof.
No. Receiving kill MP for eliminating a character is less of a "combat purpose" than being wounded. And even wounded allies do not count as wounded characters. So eliminated allies do not award MP when eliminated in Company v. Company Combat. A logical deduction.
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:04 am
ICE Digest 80 wrote:Question: When in combat with a Were-Worm (where it says a character must be wounded to force a discard of an item). If an ally is wounded, must the party also discard an item? Judging by the latest rulings that allies are characters for the purposes of combat, we said yes. Were we correct?

Answer: I would say no. The exact rule is that allies may take actions that characters can in combat (like taking a strike and tapping to give +1 prowess), and count as characters for the play of cards that directly affect the attack.
ICE Digest 111 wrote:Question: *Fellowship* mentions that if a character or ally leaves the company Fellowship is discarded. *Swarm of Bats* mentions only characters, not allies leaving as a condition of its discard. Does an ally dying in combat cause a Swarm of Bats on its company to be discarded?

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 »

Rulings Digest #115 wrote:
1) Although it may seem otherwise according to a literal-minded reading of the MELE rules ("An attack by a hazard creature is defeated if it is not a detainment attack and all of its strikes directed against (i.e., assigned to) a company are defeated."), you cannot defeat an attack by making all of its strikes unassignable.
The ruling is not a contradiction but it would have been easier to Ctrl+f the CRF and post the ICE ruling.
CRF wrote:More Sense than You
If there is only one character in the company, the attack is discarded without effect, but not canceled. The attack is still considered faced.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

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

Post by miguel »

Theo wrote:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:58 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:04 am
7.

However, the rules don't indicate that Allies count as characters for purposes of awarding CvCC Kill MP.
I don't understand where you are coming from here.

ICE 80 is clearly WRONG about "the exact rule"---if that was the limit of allies counting, allies couldn't be wounded or eliminated.
Theo is of course right... Color me unsurprised. :roll:
CRF: Card Errata and Rulings: Were-worm wrote: Wounding an ally discards an item.

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 »

miguel wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 2:02 pm
Theo is of course right... Color me unsurprised. :roll:
CRF: Card Errata and Rulings: Were-worm wrote: Wounding an ally discards an item.
:roll:
ICE Digest 80 came a year after the CRF on "wounding an ally". Old CRF entries aren't updated to account for newer rulings. Another later CRF Entry stated:
@ Allies count as characters for the purposes of combat, including performing
actions in combat that characters do (getting assigned strikes, tapping for
+1 to prowess) and for the play of cards that directly affect the attack.
Being wounded/eliminated doesn't fit the newest rules on allies. ICE changed the rules and the CRF on Were Worm is outdated.

Of course CoE Netreps were ignorant of changes and buffuddled by apparent contradictions explainable by history.

I think Allies should count, but I didn't make this game.

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 »

Note that the updated CRF entry just quoted differs from the ICE Rules Digest 80, and is consistent with ICE Rules Digest 80 being refuted by ICE. "Including" does not mean "the exact rule is that".
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
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

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

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote: Old CRF entries aren't updated to account for newer rulings.
Liar, liar, pants on fire! :lol: :lol: :lol:
CDavis7M wrote: I think Allies should count, but I didn't make this game.
:roll: :wink:

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 »

miguel wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 8:56 am
CDavis7M wrote: Old CRF entries aren't updated to account for newer rulings.
Liar, liar, pants on fire! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm not lying. The CoE Netreps were just ignorant of the ICE's changes. There are plenty of outdated rulings in the CRF :lol: :lol: :lol:
CRF wrote:Dragons: If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the automatic- attack at the associated site is removed, and that site therefore loses its hoard status.

Aiglos: Would not get the bonus for Doors of Night when used in company vs. company combat.

Wizardhaven: Protected Wizardhavens do not allow you to move an extra region with region movement.

Something Has Slipped: Wounding an ally triggers this card.

Were-worm: Wounding an ally discards an item.

and more

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

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

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 4:46 pm
miguel wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 8:56 am
CDavis7M wrote: Old CRF entries aren't updated to account for newer rulings.
Liar, liar, pants on fire! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm not lying. The CoE Netreps were just ignorant of the ICE's changes. There are plenty of outdated rulings in the CRF :lol: :lol: :lol:
CRF wrote:Dragons: If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the automatic- attack at the associated site is removed, and that site therefore loses its hoard status.

Aiglos: Would not get the bonus for Doors of Night when used in company vs. company combat.

Wizardhaven: Protected Wizardhavens do not allow you to move an extra region with region movement.

Something Has Slipped: Wounding an ally triggers this card.

Were-worm: Wounding an ally discards an item.

and more
You completely fail to understand the purpose of the CRF and who was responsible for updating it. I'd say there is a very simple reason why that ruling from ICE Digest 80 never replaced the original entry on Were-worm (spoiler: the ruling was wrong). And that CRF entry on Something Has Slipped is just more proof that you are wrong about allies in combat.

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 »

miguel wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 12:20 pm
And that CRF entry on Something Has Slipped is just more proof that you are wrong about allies in combat.
If not additional proof that authors of CRF were sometimes mistaking ideas, e.g. cause with result.
It is hard for Were-worm to wound someone outside combat, but someone may become wounded outside combat.
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 »

miguel wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 12:20 pm
You completely fail to understand the purpose of the CRF and who was responsible for updating it. I'd say there is a very simple reason why that ruling from ICE Digest 80 never replaced the original entry on Were-worm (spoiler: the ruling was wrong). And that CRF entry on Something Has Slipped is just more proof that you are wrong about allies in combat.
Why don't you tell me the purpose of the CRF and who was responsible for updating it?

I've seen enough CoE Netrep discussion to recognize that the CoE Netreps had a naive understanding of the CRF.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

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

Post by miguel »

The CRF and nearly all its revisions are back from when ICE was still around. The purpose was that players would not need to keep tabs on the growing number of ICE digests, but instead check the latest revision of the CRF + the digests published after it when getting ready for a tournament. ICE updated the document, and if a ruling from an ICE digest was left out it was either deemed too trivial or wrong. Because the latest CRF and ICE digests published after it were considered official, there was no real need to revisit and overturn an old, wrong ruling after the latest CRF came out.

So, having a ruling in an ICE digest contradict a version of the CRF published after that digest, does not mean the CRF is wrong. As always with people, oversights are possible, but that should not be the default assumption.

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 »

miguel wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:50 pm
The CRF and nearly all its revisions are back from when ICE was still around.
Well what about ICE's rulings from before the CRF? Are all of those rulings invalid because they didn't make it into the CRF?
miguel wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:50 pm
The purpose was that players would not need to keep tabs on the growing number of ICE digests, but instead check the latest revision of the CRF + the digests published after it when getting ready for a tournament.
This is misleading. The Digests were not the only ICE rulings, only a fraction. Also, the CRF was NOT designed to be checked for the latest rulings for tournaments. Instead, ICE distributed separate rulings for tournaments. These tournament rulings did not necessarily come from the Digests nor were they necessarily included in the CRF, yet they are valid rulings.
miguel wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:50 pm
ICE updated the document, and if a ruling from an ICE digest was left out it was either deemed too trivial or wrong.
This is incorrect. Rulings that were wrong or were changed were not simply left of the the CRF. That would be silly and would create confusion. Instead, when the Designer's overruled or made a change to the rules, these changes were distributed in a new ruling specifically overruling the old rulings. There's never been an indication from ICE suggesting that "wrong" rulings were simply left out of the CRF without any other notice. The ICE Netrep even noted that correct rulings were removed from the CRF from time to time.

All rulings are correct unless they were specifically overruled. ICE Rulings that did not make it into the CRF are not wrong.Or can Adunaphel be used to tap a character that is not taking their M/H phase? Or can Tom Bombadil not cancel a declared but not resolved hazard? You are suggesting that this is the case.
miguel wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:50 pm
Because the latest CRF and ICE digests published after it were considered official, there was no real need to revisit and overturn an old, wrong ruling after the latest CRF came out.
Again, the Digests only a fraction of rulings but you are making it seem like the CRF and the Digests are the only ICE Rulings to consider. There's no need to pretend that the other ICE rulings are not just as valid.
miguel wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:50 pm
So, having a ruling in an ICE digest contradict a version of the CRF published after that digest, does not mean the CRF is wrong.
The current version of the CRF is just a collection of out-of-context rulings that hadn't been overhauled in years. Of course there are numerous outdated rulings in the CRF that were never changed or updated. In fact, the ICE Netrep explicitly did not remove outdated CRF rulings from the latest version of the CRF.

----------

Basic ICE Rulings Knowledge Quiz:
  1. What came before the CRF and what was the reasoning for switching to the CRF?
  2. What were the Digests and what were their original purpose?
  3. What term did ICE use to refer to the regular tournament rulings?
  4. What are all the places that ICE posted rulings (besides the Digest and the CRF)?
  5. How many times was the CRF overhauled (as opposed to just receiving a new version with updates) and when?
  6. Why was the last CRF never overhauled? (Hint: it's not because ICE went under).
  7. Bonus: Who were the ICE Netreps? When did they take over? Why did they take over? And what MECCG functions did they perform besides Netrepping?
Sounds like you know your ICE history so this quiz should be easy, especially since you were around back in the ICE age.

Or maybe we can just recognize that the CoE Netreps didn't know the ICE rulings, they didn't understand the CRF, and this resulted in several incorrect rulings. It's no big deal to correct an error.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

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

Post by miguel »

I was nice enough to bother answering you, only to have my short post quoted FIVE times? LOL

The CRF overrides any contradicting rulings made prior to that CRF's release. It does not make other old rulings invalid, they were just deemed too trivial to include in. Now if ICE failed to update the CRF properly, that is hardly the fault of CoE Netreps, which is your go-to for everything. I actually played back when ICE was still around, and the tournament directors would bring the latest CRF, the ICE digests published after it, along with the tournament policies with them. It really was necessary to have the CRF to check rulings quickly during a tournament, instead of a thick book composed of all the digests with scattered rulings. Remember: If you weren't there, you weren't there.

You really seem to be pathologically incapable of admitting being wrong, having demonstrated as much in numerous threads within the short period I've been back. Even in the Alone and Unadvised thread, once confronted about your bogus post from months ago, you go and edit it. Not to clarify the post, mind you, but to hide your tracks! Discussions with you are a complete waste of time, so I am done. Have a nice life.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”