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

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:04 am
ICE Netrep: Just as there is no umbrella m/h phase, there is no umbrella site phase.
Annotation 26 says about player's M/H phase.

Someone may try to reconcile the statements, if he has ambition of being consistent with everything released by ICE.
For me the statements contradict each with other.
It can be reconciled. A player controls companies. Each of a player's company's M/H phases are a player's M/H phase.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Order of effects in play set at beginning of player's/company's M/H phase lasts until end of turn.
Then, the same order of effects in play is set at beginning of next player's/company's M/H phase in the same turn.

Yes. It may be reconciled in such way.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Since this is still entirely contained in one thread, could we try adding an additional organization? It would be helpful for me if maybe CDavis7M continued to update the original post and have one section of "peer-corroborated" (or some other such name) issues that at least one other of the other participants here agrees are "incorrect and non-ratified", and with another section for things that haven't yet had at least one major participant agree with. Links to the first posts on those topics would be helpful.

After a quick scan, ones I would want to immediately add to a "peer-corroborated" list:
viewtopic.php?p=35168#p35168 (minion FW companies)
viewtopic.php?p=35726#p35726 (Tookish Blood and Cracks of Doom)
viewtopic.php?p=36044#p36044 (Balance Between Powers in response)
viewtopic.php?p=36047#p36047 (In the Heart of His Realm and Marvels Told)

Thanks again for getting this ball rolling CDavis7M. Hopefully something will come out of this!

Perhaps when this has settled down more we can start fishing out "Questionable ICE NetRep Responses" too, but I imagine those will be even more hard to unravel intent.
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/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

There is no way for anything to come out of this. But there is also no need for anything to come out of this.

The CRF is another issue. It also contains wrong rulings. Either outdated or just misapplying the rule. But there is more to it than that since sometimes changes were made, so then the ruling is not wrong.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

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.
This is wrong. 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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CoE 11 wrote:8. Let's suppose my moving company has a hazard limit of one (all hazards but one have been played) and my opponent plays a dragon. I respond _to the play of the dragon_ with Dragon's Hunger. He discards a hazard creature and the hazard limit is reduced by one (to zero). Since the haz limit is now zero, is the dragon creature discarded for no effect? Or must the playing of the dragon creature card resolve (and thus be unaffected by a reduced hazard limit) before I can play Dragon's Hunger?

*** CRF (Playing hazards): You check the hazard liimit at declaration and resolution. At declaration there must be less hazards already declared than the hazard limit. At resolution there must be no more hazards declared than the hazard limit.
The Rain-drake has not yet resolved. The Dragon's Hunger is resolved first. When we get back to the rest of the Rain-drake, there's no more hazard limit left and is thus cancelled. [Thanks to Charles Bouldin for help in answering questions 9-14]
Dragon's Hunger targets an attack. The attack doesn't exist until the hazard creature card resolves. Once a card resolves, it is not subject to later hazard limit reductions. Neither the card nor attack is canceled.

---
CoE 12 wrote:3. If Prowess of Age is played on my Roused dragon as the last card in a company's hazard limit, and Dragon's Hunger is played to cancel the attack, can the attack be cancelled through hazard limit reduction, or has Prowess of Age already fully resolved by the time there is an attack to respond to?

*** The latter.
Prowess of Age requires either an attack or a card canceling an attack. In either case, the attack must exist for Prowess of Age to be declared, let alone resolve.

The attack from a Roused dragon can never be fizzled through hazard limit reduction, as there is no hazard card played against the company (or effect declared that counts against the hazard limit).

Just an all-around awkward question.
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/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Just to add: Prowess of Age may be fizzled due to hazard limit reduction, and then its anti-canceling result would not apply.
Maybe that was the concept buried in question.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Indeed... except that wouldn't be possible to fizzle it if the effect it wanted to cancel was from the same card play as the effect lowering the hazard limit. :?
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/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:41 pm Indeed... except that wouldn't be possible to fizzle it if the effect it wanted to cancel was from the same card play as the effect lowering the hazard limit. :?
Scorba Roused is in play.
Company of player that controls Scorba Roused is moving through Angmar.

Attack from Scorba Roused is declared.
The attack resolves.

First automatically declared action is "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused,
Prowess of Age is declared in response targeting the action above,
Dragon's Hunger is declared in response on attack from Scorba Roused.

Dragon's Hunger resolves. Opponent discards a creature from his hand. HL is lowered to 0,
Prowess of Age cannot resolve due to lack of HL,
"cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused resolves.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:53 am
Theo wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:41 pm Indeed... except that wouldn't be possible to fizzle it if the effect it wanted to cancel was from the same card play as the effect lowering the hazard limit. :?
Scorba Roused is in play.
Company of player that controls Scorba Roused is moving through Angmar.

Attack from Scorba Roused is declared.
The attack resolves.

First automatically declared action is "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused,
Prowess of Age is declared in response targeting the action above,
Dragon's Hunger is declared in response on attack from Scorba Roused.

Dragon's Hunger resolves. Opponent discards a creature from his hand. HL is lowered to 0,
Prowess of Age cannot resolve due to lack of HL,
"cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused resolves.
I agree with this understanding of timing above (but it's not the full story...), but this isn't the same situation Theo mentioned, is it? Also, my impression is that the original question seems to be assuming that Prowess of Age makes the attack uncancellable instead of what PoA really does: cancel one specific attack-cancelling action. So what is the full story: even if Prowess of Age cancelled the automatically declared "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused, then the cancellation is triggered again since the attack is still present (only environments are restricted to triggering once). Prowess of Age played for its cancellation effect against a Dragon Roused doesn't actually have any effect on the overall game.

The CoE states that if Prowess of Age is played, and Dragon's Hunger is played in response, then Prowess of Age resolves first (???). Clearly this is wrong. But this game situation would also never happen. What would happen is that the Dragon attack is faced and then the Hazard player waits. Then if the resource player plays Dragon's Hunger the hazard player could play Prowess of Age to cancel it. But if the hazard player had a hazard creature in hand, that would still reduce the hazard limit needed by Prowess of Age.

And also, what ever happened to this understanding of timing below:
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:30 am 1.
CDavis7M wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 7:50 pm When an attack is created at Resolution, it is immediately considered as being faced and the chain continues to resolve. Strikes do not have to be assigned and strikes resolved immediately at resolution of the attack. There is time for several chains of effects before assigning strikes.
I think differently.
If company starts moving through regions affected by both Scorba Ahunt and Bairanax Ahunt then two attacks are declared. First declared attack does not resolve until second declared attack is finished. Facing an attack does not detach from chain of effects. There are no multiple parallel chain of effects.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:39 pm . So what is the full story: even if Prowess of Age cancelled the automatically declared "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused, then the cancellation is triggered again since the attack is still present (only environments are restricted to triggering once). Prowess of Age played for its cancellation effect against a Dragon Roused doesn't actually have any effect on the overall game.
No.
Like the attacks from Dragon Roused, Dragon Ahunt, "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused is triggered once per occurrence of condition.
A company moving through listed regions is not attacked repeatedly (to the bitter end). "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused is declared once per occurrence of attack from manifestation of Scorba.
Consistently, I would say.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:11 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:39 pm . So what is the full story: even if Prowess of Age cancelled the automatically declared "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused, then the cancellation is triggered again since the attack is still present (only environments are restricted to triggering once). Prowess of Age played for its cancellation effect against a Dragon Roused doesn't actually have any effect on the overall game.
No.
Like the attacks from Dragon Roused, Dragon Ahunt, "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused is triggered once per occurrence of condition.
A company moving through listed regions is not attacked repeatedly (to the bitter end). "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused is declared once per occurrence of attack from manifestation of Scorba.
Consistently, I would say.
These two scenarios are actually different but unfortunately you have to read the card text to see why.

Scorba Roused/Ahunt have triggered effects to create an attack so that the company "faces one Dragon attack." When the triggered effect of the Roused/Ahunt resolves, the company is now facing the one attack. If that one attack is canceled, the company has already "faced one Dragon attack." The Roused/Ahunt doesn't continuously trigger new attacks because the company has already faced the "one Dragon attack." If it didn't say "one," the attacks would continue to the bitter end.

Scorba Roused says "ALL attacks by manifestations of Scorba against your companies are canceled." It does not say "All ONE attack by manifestations of Scorba against your companies are canceled." If it said 1 attack, it would happen once. But it doesn't. It says "all." So every time there is an attack, the attack is canceled. Prowess of Age cancels 1 cancellation effect, not all cancellation effects. All > 1. Prowess of Age cannot be used to have a Roused Dragon attack the controlling player's company. If instead Prowess of Age made a Dragon attack uncancellable, then it could be used to have the Roused Dragon attack the controlling player's company.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:25 pm Scorba Roused says "ALL attacks by manifestations of Scorba against your companies are canceled." It does not say "All ONE attack by manifestations of Scorba against your companies are canceled." If it said 1 attack, it would happen once. But it doesn't. It says "all." So every time there is an attack, the attack is canceled.
Right.
Particular attack from manifestation of Scorba does not become a new attack from manifestation of Scorba just from the reason that it has been unsuccessfully canceled.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:11 pm Like the attacks from Dragon Roused, Dragon Ahunt, "cancel the attack" from Scorba Roused is triggered once per occurrence of condition.
Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:40 pm Particular attack from manifestation of Scorba does not become a new attack from manifestation of Scorba just from the reason that it has been unsuccessfully canceled.
... You said the Roused Dragon's own cancellation of the attack was the same the Roused Dragon's creation of its own attack. I said its actually different because the creation specifically happens "one" time while the self-cancellation happens every time ("all").

The particular attack of the Dragon Roused doesn't need to become a new attack in order to have a second cancellation effect triggered.

I'll spell the timing out for you.

Cancellation of a Roused Dragon's Attack by opponent's Company (works):
  1. company moves in the corresponding regions -- this triggers the creation of the attack ("faces one attack: Dragon")
  2. Creation of the "one attack: Dragon" is declared and resolved -- at resolution, the company is "facing one attack: Dragon"
  3. The player cancels the attack using Concealment, Escape, etc. The company has faced the "one attack: Dragon."
  4. The Roused Dragon's effect is not triggered again because the company has already faced one attack, and the Roused Dragon only requires the company to face one attack.
Attempting to use Prowess of Age to negate the Roused Dragon's self-cancellation against the controller's Company (doesn't work):
  1. company moves in the corresponding regions -- this triggers the creation of the attack ("faces one attack: Dragon")
  2. Creation of the "one attack: Dragon" is declared and resolved -- at resolution, the company is "facing one attack: Dragon" and this triggers the self-cancellation effect: "All attacks by manifestations of "this Dragon" against your companies are canceled."
  3. The (1st) cancellation of the attack is declared in the following chain of effects
  4. The hazard player plays Prowess of Age in response to the declaration of the self-cancellation.
  5. Prowess of Age resolves, cancelling the (1st) cancellation. The (1st) cancellation of the Roused attack does not resolve. At this point the triggered effect has not happened. There is still an existing attack by the Dragon, this is the passive condition. The attack has not been cancelled, but the triggered effect is "All attacks by manifestations of this Dragon against your companies are canceled." This triggered cancellation effect has never been applied. The passive condition still exists, and so it triggers the effect again. It doesn't have to be a "new attack" to trigger again. Triggered effects can happen every time the passive condition exists. Only Environment effects are restricted to triggering once against the same target.
  6. The (2nd) cancellation of the attack is declared in the following chain of effects.
  7. The (2nd) cancellation of the attack resolves. The Roused attack is cancelled.
So, a company does not face the same Ahunt multiple times because it says "one attack."
However, a company facing their own Roused Dragon would have the same "one attack" be cancelled multiple times because "all attack" are cancelled and if the cancellation has been negated by Prowess of Age, then this effect has not been applied to the attack.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:57 pm ... You said the Roused Dragon's own cancellation of the attack was the same the Roused Dragon's creation of its own attack. I said its actually different because the creation specifically happens "one" time while the self-cancellation happens every time ("all").
If a cancel action is not successful, the attack is still the same attack. There is no reason to treat the attack as a new one attack.
"All attacks are canceled" does not mean "attacks are canceled repeatedly'.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”