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

[Konrad Klar]

The rules of the this game do not describe such a difference (between "effect" and "result") and its design does not require it.

An effect that changes a card's location or orientation in the play area (e.g., tap or discard) does change the game state. Such effects can be can be implemented immediately (e.g., New Moon) or using passive conditions (triggered effect of Long Winter). This is not an on-going effect nor does it need to be.

Good to know that YOU see a difference between on-going effects and effects that is not on-going.
I prefer to name the letter as "result", for emphasis. But nomenclature is a nuance.

Most important thing IMO is treating them consistently.
If tapped state of site is result/non-on-going effect of action caused by passive condition set by Long Winter and persists in play even if Long Winter leaves in play and/or condition ceases to exist,
then,
loss of sage skill that is result/non-on-going effect of action caused by passive condition set by In the Heart of His Realm should persist in play even if In the Heart of His Realm leaves play and/or condition ceases to exist.

Of course I consider the effect of In the Heart of His Realm as on-going effect.

[CDavis7M]

If tapped state of site is result/non-on-going effect of action caused by passive condition set by Long Winter and persists in play even if Long Winter leaves in play and/or condition ceases to exist,
then,
loss of sage skill that is result/non-on-going effect of action caused by passive condition set by In the Heart of His Realm should persist in play even if In the Heart of His Realm leaves play and/or condition ceases to exist.

Of course I consider the effect of In the Heart of His Realm as on-going effect.

In the Heart of His Realm is an on-going effect, just like any modification to an attribute of a card. ICE used the term on-going effect, so I use it. I don't use the term "result" because ICE didn't.

But just because an effect is on-going does not mean that it is immediately implemented at resolution. A Sage must be the entity losing their skill and In the Heart of His Realm's sage-removal effect does not target a particular Sage when ITHOHR resolves. Accordingly, the effect must trigger in order to be applied to some character. Whereas the Ritual-prevention effect does not need to be applied to any particular action, it just negates a set of actions preventing their declaration and resolution.

The difference between ITHOHR and Long Winter is that canceling/removing a modifier to an attribute (ITHORH) doesn't require taking an action in the game to revert the effect--it just disappears. Actions that modify the game state (Long Winter) are not reverted when canceled/discarded because doing so would require a completely new action beyond just canceling/discarding the card that triggered the action. The game makes no mention of taking new (reversion) actions when a long/permanent event is canceled/discarded.

This is because there is no record keeping in MECCG beyond the cards in play and the cards played that turn (maybe 2 exceptions). When ITHOHR leaves play, the Sage-removal effect does not persist because there is no record of the effect. When Long Winter leaves play, there is no record of which sites were tapped, and there is nothing in the rules or any card text would cause an untapping-action for a site tapped by Long Winter.

[Theo]

I would say that the attacker cannot play A Malady Without Healing on the defending character declared as the scout playing A Nice Place to Hide because of the CRF. It would affect the attack and possibly some strike, but not an individual (specific) strike.

By your reasoning on Malady, you have yourself "assumed" that resources can be played to cancel the attack (while just above you accused me of failing to prove that you could do this). Very productive.

You once again display a failure of deduction. I "accused" you of failing to provide an alternative to what I provided: the MELE Note applying to the entire section, not just---as you theorized---step (6) of the strike sequence.

Back to the main point, the CoE ruled that the defender in CvCC could play A Chance Meeting or We Have Come to Kill but this is incorrect because the defender may only cancel the attack or play resources that affect the strike in Step (6) of the CvCC Strike Sequence. A Chance Meeting and We Have Come to Kill do not affect the strike dice roll and so they cannot be played during the Strike Sequence.

Once again, the underlined portion is what you have failed to establish from the rules themselves.

If the MELE Note only applies to step (6), and you have no other rules bases for the defender being able to play a resource that must cancel the attack (which can't be done during a strike sequence), then the defender would not be able to play a resource to cancel the attack.

If we both believe that the defender is able to play a resource to cancel the attack (as, indeed, is in an example in the rulebook), we need to justify what rules overcome the prohibition against playing resources when it isn't your turn. The interpretation I provided of the Note does this. You've refuted that, but provided no alternative rules basis that would allow canceling while NOT allowing other resources outside of step (6).

[Theo]

In Digest #61, it was asked: How do Unabated and Tidings interact? I answered:
*** Given that Unabated in Malice is played and resolved on the automatic-attack in question when Tidings of Bold Spies resolves, then all effects of Unabated in Malice will be duplicated, per the text of Tidings of Bold Spies, including the cancellation clause of Unabated in Malice.
*** This ruling is correct. To further clarify, if Unabated in Malice is cancelled during the Tidings of Bold Spies attack, its full effects are still in play, and will be applied to the actual automatic attack during the site phase.

No it won't because Unabated in Malice states "the first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the effects of this card." It's not just that the effects on that particular attack are canceled, the effects of the entire card are canceled. There is no way for canceled effects to somehow apply to the automatic attack during the site phase--they are canceled.

This is a fine opinion. An alternative is that duplicated effects are effects from the card doing the duplication rather than the original, which may possibly explain the change in decision. Where is your "contradict ICE" evidence?

[CDavis7M]

If the MELE Note only applies to step (6), and you have no other rules bases for the defender being able to play a resource that must cancel the attack (which can't be done during a strike sequence), then the defender would not be able to play a resource to cancel the attack.

There is a section in the MELE rules titled "COMPANY VS. COMPANY COMBAT" beginning on page 80. This section includes several subsections including (A) "Canceling an Attack From a Company" on p. 81 and (B) "The Strike Sequence" on p. 83.

(A) "Canceling an Attack From a Company" on p. 81 allows the defending player to play resources to cancel the attack "a card can be used to cancel an attack... Example: A Nice Place to Hide." The rule allows the defender to play a "card" -- "resources" are a subset of "cards". The defender can play a resource card to cancel the attack.

(B) "The Strike Sequence" states "6) The defending player may play resource cards that affect the strike (up to one card that requires skill)." This is the only mention of the defending player playing resource cards in the entire section. At the end of this section there is a note "Even though it is not his turn, the defending player may play resource cards that affect the resolution of strikes." The note only applies to Step (6) because Step (6) is the only part of the entire section that discusses the defender playing resources.

[Theo]

Well, that is not how the CRF should be interpreted according to the author of the CRF. It cannot be interpreted on it's own, it should be interpreted as an explanation of the rules. Ichabod literally says that this CvCC ruling shouldn't be interpreted literally as you are asserting. If this CRF ruling on CvCC were intended to be a change to the rules, the Netrep would have said so when making the ruling. There are numerous cases where the rulings did change the rules, and such cases are always indicated as being changes.

Then you only need to demonstrate that you have every exchange from ICE. Let's see how you do that.

---

Player: Bizzare Restriction #2: Company vs. Company combat. Works similarly, except now the CRF, under Turn Sequence Rulings, Site Phase, Company vs. Company Combat, restricts not only resource play but any actions at all. So, if you are the defender you may not use your Cram to untap because it is an action that does not directly affect the STRIKE or the ATTACK - it affects the character.

Ichabod: The CRF is not clear on this issue, but the rule only disallows the attacker from playing resources that the whole attack. It does not restrict other resource play at all. CvCC is like a normal attack otherwise.

The CRF on CvCC only disallows certain resources for the attacker. The rule does not prevent the attacker from playing other resources as they normally could during their own turn. The actual rules allow the attacker to play resources on their own turn and they do not prevent the attack from playing resources during CvCC. So there is no possibility for the CRF to change this.

I assume by "actual" you meant "original rulebook". You would be wrong.

This attack is declared and enacted at the end of the site phase following all other actions your company takes during the site phase.

Without permission otherwise, this prevents any further actions taken by the company.

[Theo]

(A) "Canceling an Attack From a Company" on p. 81 allows the defending player to play resources to cancel the attack "a card can be used to cancel an attack... Example: A Nice Place to Hide."

You've changed the meaning of the sentence by quoting only one fragment of it.

[Konrad Klar]

This is because there is no record keeping in MECCG beyond the cards in play and the cards played that turn (maybe 2 exceptions). When ITHOHR leaves play, the Sage-removal effect does not persist because there is no record of the effect. When Long Winter leaves play, there is no record of which sites were tapped, and there is nothing in the rules or any card text would cause an untapping-action for a site tapped by Long Winter.

I think that I got the idea of recorded and not recorded (by state of cards) effects.

I think however that it does not change a timing. Witch-king of Angmar long-event's effect is not recorded by state of cards. Difference between a timing of a losing of sage skill and timing of inability of use of some cards is artificial; both are not recorded by state of cards other than ITHORH; why first should be applied as action caused by passive condition, latter immediately?

And what is a purpose of making such difference beside making a game more complicated?
Why Warrior only bonus from Sword of Gondolin should be treated differently than "the prowess of each Dúnadan is modified by +1." from Sun?

[CDavis7M]

why first should be applied as action caused by passive condition, latter immediately?

Because the Sage removal effect needs to be specifically applied to each Sage character as they meet the conditions and the Ritual-prevention affect does not need to specifically be applied, it just prevents the Ritual from being played.

And what is a purpose of making such difference beside making a game more complicated?
Why Warrior only bonus from Sword of Gondolin should be treated differently than "the prowess of each Dúnadan is modified by +1." from Sun?

Why bring up Sword of Gondolin when there would never be a timing issue? ICE did a great job of avoid timing issues in most of the game. Out of 1600+ cards only a few dozen have timing issues.

While ICE has never said why Passive Condition timing is needed, it makes sense to have this delayed timing from a game design perspective and it makes sense within the foundational chain of effects timing choice for the game. Effects with specific targets have timing priority over non-targeted effects. It's a simple. This is because the fundamental timing mechanism requires declaring and then resolving chain of effects uninterrupted. And since some cards do not have specific targets, their effects cannot be applied until the corresponding condition is in play, which only happens during resolution of a chain of effects. Since the chain of effects cannot be interrupted, these non-targeted effects have a delayed impact on the game.

[CDavis7M]

This attack is declared and enacted at the end of the site phase following all other actions your company takes during the site phase.

Without permission otherwise, this prevents any further actions taken by the company.

First of all, "Resource short-events and permanent-events can be played at any time during your turn-as limited by specific card text."

The fact that CvCC takes place following all other actions your company takes during the site phase does not prevents the player from taking actions during CvCC. They just can't take actions that are taken during the site phase, since its the end of the site phase.

Anyway, your point has nothing to do with the CoE Ruling. The defender can only take an action if it cancels the attack or is played during the strike sequence. The defender cannot play A Chance Meeting or We Have Come to Kill, as the CoE ruling incorrectly stated. Your comment is irrelevant since it concerns the attacker, not the defender.

[Konrad Klar]

I think that I know a purpose of passive condition stuff.
Just I do not see a reason for treating differently the bonus from Fellowship and bonus from Sun, or Clear Skies.
Aiglos gives different bonuses to prowess depending on presence of Doors of Night in play. Should the bonus be applied as action caused by passive condition (which is presence of DoN in play)?

What would be a sense of applying malus to prowess from Night as action caused by passive condition depending on presence of DoN in play?
As I know a net prowess of character is calculated in such way that modifier to prowess from weapon is added as first. What would be a sense of applying the malus from Night in chain of effects if ultimately the prowess must be recalculated in other order?

For me this is a crazy complication for sake of complication.

[CDavis7M]

I think that I know a purpose of passive condition stuff.
Just I do not see a reason for treating differently the bonus from Fellowship and bonus from Sun, or Clear Skies.
...
For me this is a crazy complication for sake of complication.

There is no timing issue with the prowess bonus from Fellowship or from Aiglos. Some might say that seeing a reason for bringing up cards that never have timing issues in a discussion about timing is a crazy complication.

Thankfully, ICE designed the game to have minimal timing issues.

[Theo]

5. CoE 115 incorrectly ruled that a player can only initiate CvCC once per turn. There is no basis for this restriction in the rules. The CoE Netrep appears to have the misconception that each company does not have their own site phase, just one phase for the player.

• ICE Netrep: Just as there is no umbrella m/h phase, there is no umbrella site phase.
• ICE Netrep: Company vs company combat can only be done once per company per turn.

Here are two bases for this restriction in the rules:

4 · THE PLAYER TURN
The player turn remains basically the same. However, during your site phase, one and only one of your companies may do one and only one of the following:
• Attempt to influence away one of your opponent’s characters, followers, allies, factions, or items (if it is at the same site).
• Make an attack against one of your opponent’s companies (if it is at the same site). See page 48 for more details.

If each company had it's own site phase, then there would be no purpose of saying "one and only one of your companies".

Site Phase
In the order you decide (i.e., you decide which goes first, second, etc.), each of your companies may:
* do nothing or
* follow this procedure:
...
4. Standard Rules Only: One of your characters or your Ringwraith may attempt to influence away one of your opponent's characters, followers, allies, factions, or items (if it is at the same site). See pages 64-66. OR
Against Wizard Player Only: One of your companies may make an attack against one of your opponent’s companies (if it is at the same site).

There is no way to have multiple companies resolving during the same "follow this procedure" for one company, so the underlined One is only meaningful when it refers to One across all companies.

Note that the Site Phase in these rules encapsulates all of a player's companies, and as near as I can tell the only ruling that contradicts this is ICE Rules Digest 88 (your first ICE Rules Digest reference), which is probably just wrong since, you know, there is no mention of it being an errata.

Similarly, your second ICE Rules Digest reference, 577, wouldn't it need to be marked as errata or show up in a Rulings Monday for it to be intending to mean what you say it does? If, instead, the answer is interpreted in the context of the question ("per" meant "by a"), then it is perfectly fine. "per" has multiple definitions in English, and not all have a "for each" meaning.

And if these two supposed changes you reference were official, wouldn't they need to later appear in the CRF?

[Konrad Klar]

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.

[CDavis7M]

CoE 115 incorrectly ruled[/url] that a player can only initiate CvCC once per turn.

Here are two bases for this restriction in the rules:

4 · THE PLAYER TURN
The player turn remains basically the same. However, during your site phase, one and only one of your companies may do one and only one of the following:

Site Phase
In the order you decide (i.e., you decide which goes first, second, etc.), each of your companies may:
...
Against Wizard Player Only: One of your companies may make an attack against one of your opponent’s companies (if it is at the same site).

I looked at it more and I think you're right. But I don't read this interpretation from the MELE Standard Rules nor the CvCC rules. The Full Turn Summary wording seems like a grammar issue rather, not an explicit restriction. But I read the other rulesbooks in light of the MELE WITH METW wording. I think the "Influencing Away" rules are more clear on this restriction, especially the CD Rules that describe "influencing away" and CvCC each "turn".

INFLUENCING AN OPPONENT'S RESOURCES
If you are at the same site as an opponent's resource or character, you may tap a character and attempt to influence his card. If successful, the resource or character is discarded. You may reveal an identical card and
play it.
You may make one influence attempt against your opponent per turn, you may not make one on the first tum, and your Wizard or Ringwraith may not make one on the tum he is revealed . You may not make an influence
attempt against your opponent:
• if you have declared company vs. company combat this turn;
• against his Ringwraith or Wizard ;
• against an item, ally, or follower controlled by his Ringwraith or Wizard.

And going back to METW, those rules do not including "influencing away" under the site phase step-by-step procedure. So the METW rules indicate once per turn, where as in MELE influencing away is Step 4, for each of your companies. The MELE rules are actually less clear on a few rules.

But Van ruled the other way. Though I haven't seen anything besides this ruling about initiating CvCC multiple times per turn. I'd guess that Van was mistaken. Van doesn't overrule Ichabod.