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

[CDavis7M]

Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #80
In the ME:CCG play and examples doc, I find the entry for Magical Harp confusing:
Magical Harp
• You may tap the harp during your organization phase to affect a
target character for the rest of the turn even if that character subsequently forms a company apart from
the harp’s bearer. [COE 510]
• Effects like Promptings of Wisdom and Magical Harp check whether a character is still in a company
continuously, not just when the effect is announced.
The two lines seem contradictory to me. If Magical harp continuously
checks if the target is the bearer's company, I would think that if that
target character leaves the bearer's company, the effect is lost?
*** The two entries have the same general idea. The first says that
the effect persists through voluntary company composition changes. The
second says that it still works through forced changes. The effect is
always on the bearer's current company, no matter what the company was
earlier in the turn.

Some background: This player is asking a question about Joe Bisz's "play and examples" document. The entry in that document was cited as being from "COE 510." That's a typo. There is no such thing as "COE 510." This entry is actually based on Van Norton's (ICE) digest 510 (MECCG 510, not COE 510). And Van was wrong. The CoE is also wrong.

Magical Harp's effect is: "Tap Magical Harp to cancel all actions for the rest of the turn that discard target character in bearer's company."

Tapping Magical Harp is an active condition to declare an on-going effect that lasts for the rest of the turn. The on-effect being "cancel all actions that discard target character in bearer's company." This on-going effect "cancels" an action and the condition for this effect to apply is that the action would "discard target character in bearer's company." Since it is an on-going effect, the conditions of the effect are checked when that effect would be applied. Therefore, the target character must still be in "bearer's company."

[CDavis7M]

But if resolving means an effect taking effect, then this would suggest
it's too late to Marvel's Told that card, especially if its a perm event
that potentially doesn't set up a passive condition like, I think,
Reluctant Final Parting.
*** The effect of Reluctant Final Parting is triggered by the passive
condition of the ally being at the proper site.

This is part of a string of questions involving passive conditions. This ruling suggests that it's NOT too late to play Marvels Told to prevent Reluctant Final Parting, which is the case for most card that trigger actions using passive conditions.

However, Annotation 9a changed the rules on passive conditions: "If a card is required to be discarded by some passive condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition resolves, not in the following chain of effects."

Annotation 9a applies to Reluctant Final Parting: "Discard any ally if its current site is an Under-deeps site or if its current site's nearest Haven is not the same as the nearest Haven for the site at which the ally can be played"

So Reluctant Final Parting is not "triggered by the passive condition of the ally being at the proper site" as asserted by the CoE. Reluctant Final Parting's discard effect is immediately implemented when the ally is at the proper site. Marvels Told cannot stop Reluctant Final Parting.

From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 26
Date: 1998/01/02

>> RFP *can't* not resolve you can target it with a Marvels told, but MT
>> won't get rid of it until RFP has done its damage. The only time RFP will
>> not work immediately is if the company is *moving* to a site that is out
>> of range (i.e not there yet) and RFP is played during the Movement/Hazard
>> phase for that company.
>
>So you are saying that the rule about LIFO has been reversed? I've been
>out of it for a while, but didn't know I'd missed that. We have always
>played (and this has never been ruled against in a tourney) that MT
>works back up the chain of effects, canceling the affected card before
>IT can resolve.

Totally wrong. You cannot target a card until it is in play (Annotation
1), so you cannot even declare Marvels Told until after Reluctant Final
Parting has been resovled.

[CDavis7M]

Also, in Digest #74 I made the following two rulings:
According to the CRF the companies join at the end of all
movement/hazard phases, so if the character with the AaU is the last M/H
phase then they will join and at the same time AaU will call for the
corruption checks.
*** This is incorrect. Any effects occuring at "the end of all
movement/hazard phases" happens after the end of the last
movement/hazard phase.
.. and ...
Or, would a better definition of this quote be "since you cannot take
actions between phases, treat 'the end of all movement/hazard phases' as
'the beginning of the site phase', except for passive conditions
triggered by the end of all movement/hazard phases"?
*** The "end of all movement/hazard phases" happens just before the
beginning of the first site phase and after the end of the last
movement/hazard phase. The "end of all movement/hazard phases" is still
part of the overall movement/hazard phase, not part of the overall site
phase.
Please note that the "end of all movement/hazard phases" is the last
part of the last movement/hazard phase. It does not, in fact, occur
_after_ the last movement/hazard phase, but as the last part of it.
Everything else about the above rulings is correct.

Not really sure what point the CoE Netrep was trying to make, but this is wrong.

The "end of all M/H phases" happens after resolution of the last M/H phase. It is not part of it. This is clear from the updated rules with the Challenge Decks and in The Balrog: "Once all of your companies have resolved their movement/hazard phases, any two of your companies at the same site combine."

[CDavis7M]

Re: The Arkenstone
My question is: does the +1 mind to all dwarves in play still take
effect if the item is borne by a ringwraith?
*** No.

The relevant rule on Ringwraiths Effects is: "A Ringwraith may carry items (including rings) but may not use them (i.e., an item has no effect on a Ringwraith's company or on his attributes and abilities)." The Ringwraith may not use the item -- it does not affect him or his company. So if a Ringwraith is bearing Arkenstone, then its effect of "Each Dwarf in play has +1 mind" can still give +1 mind to dwarves. This is not an effect relying on a company.

[CDavis7M]

If I have The Mouth in a campany, can the opponent put The Mouth of
Sauron on-guard? For example, could the opponent reveal The Mouth of
Sauron when The Mouth is attempting to influence a faction in the site
phase, thus returning The Mouth to my hand and discarding my faction
(the attempt failed/could not be completed)?
*** One can put any card on-guard, it's just a question of whether it
is legal to reveal that card or not. The Mouth of Sauron can be
revealed as a creature strike, but he cannot be revealed in response to
an influence attempt.

This is misleading.

The CoE ruling considers whether Mouth of Sauron can be revealed as a creature (The company decides to face the site 's automatic-attack) or in response to a faction (The company plays a card that potentially would tap an untapped site) and determines that Mouth of Sauron cannot be revealed. However, under these conditions alone, Mouth of Sauron could be revealed when a faction because it "affects the company or a character in the company that site phase." But these are not the only considerations.

There is also the list of restricted on-guard effects: "A card cannot be revealed that: Potentially removes a character from a company, besides combat or corruption checks." This is the reason why Mouth of Sauron cannot be revealed.

[CDavis7M]

Thus, your opponent could response with another ahunt.
*** CRF, Turn Sequence Rulings, Movement/Hazard Phase, Combat, Attack:
# Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain
of effects; i.e., a creature card may not be played in response to
another card in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard
creature is an exception.
# @ Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is
considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15.
Therefore, you cannot respond to a card with a dragon Ahunt, it must
start a chain of effects.

You can response to a card with a Dragon Ahunt. Such cards do not create an attack at resolution. They do not have the "potential to immediately create an attack." They create an attack non-immediately, as the first declared effect in the following chain of effects, per Annotation 9, thereby satisfying Annotation 15.

[CDavis7M]

Can a fallen-wizard player play Black Rain and then play a hero Ring?
*** Sure.
--------
Likewise, a minion player would also be able to play Black Rain and then
play a hero gold ring?
*** Sure.

Wim had ruled on Black Rain that "If a Fallen-wizard or minion player
plays Black Rain, that player is allowed to play a hero ring item, since
Black Rain does not target the ring being played." This made sense to
me, but then I realized that the CRF says a RingWraith player CAN'T use
Black Rain to play a hero ring. What would be the reasoning, and should
this be overturned?
*** This was not a CoE ruling, so I can't offer an explanation, nor
will it be overturned.

A Fallen-wizard may use this to play a hero ring item, but a Ringwraith player could not.

The CoE is wrong and the CRF is also wrong. The rulings appear to believe that ring Special Items can be played by a FW cross-alignment (generally true), when the actual rules limit this exception to ring special items played as a result of a "test of a gold ring" -- which Black Rain is not.

MEWH: Targeting Site and Resource Cards
A minion resource event card may not target/affect a hero site card or a hero resource card.
...
Playing Resources at a Site
Note: When the test of a gold ring indicates that a specific type of ring may played, you may play either a hero or a minion ring of the appropriate type."

Black Rain allows you to play an item from your hand with the sage. This definitely "affects" the item and so the MEWH restriction would apply. Minion resource event Black Rain cannot affect a hero Ring Special item resource card.

This is also spelled out again in the CRF:

MELE vs. METW
Hero items may not be used as conditions for minion resources, and minion items may not be used as conditions for hero resources. Note that a Fallen-wizard may play special ring items regardless of the alignment of the gold ring item tested.

A fallen-wizard cannot use Black Rain to play a hero item because Black Rain is not a "ring test" and so the special FW exception for ring tests does not apply.

ICE noted that Black Rain is not a "ring test" for Scroll of Isildur (it does not say "test") but then failed to correctly apply the "FW Targeting Site and Resource Cards" rule.

Black Rain is not a ring "test", it plays a ring by its own test effect: "If a character is so revealed, make a roll (or draw a #). If the sage is a Ringwraith, modify the roll by -2. According to the result, you may play an item from your hand with the sage (tapping the sage): The One Ring (10, 11, 12), a Dwarven Ring (8, 9, 10, 11, 12), or a Spirit Ring (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)."

Compare to Ringlore: "Play to test a Gold Ring"

This should be clear because Black Rain doesn't require a Gold Ring Item to be tested, it lets you play a Ring Special Item without a Gold Ring. Thematically, this is like the Necromancer stealing Thráin's ring.

From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: [MELE] quick question
Date: 1997/07/29

>Does Black Rain count as a ring test? If so does the Scroll of Isildur
>affect the result of the roll. Also does the site need to be untapped?

Black Rain is not a ring test, so cards modifying tests do not modify
the roll.

From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 51
Date: 1998/04/19

>I hate to ask a question that has probably been asked before and is in all
>likelihood stupidly simple to everyone but myself, but can you include
>hero items in a minion deck and vice versa? I saw in the rulebook for
>MELE that they can be used in a Wizard vs. Ringwraith game, but what about
>Ringwraith vs. Ringwraith or Wizard vs. Wizard?

Those rules are meant to apply when using METW cards with MELE, not just
in Wizard vs. Ringwraith games. So you can include hero items in a minion
deck and vice versa, regardless of who you are playing against.

>For example, I have a hero One Ring. Could I include it in a minion deck?

Yes, but you'll almost never be able to play it. Since hero resources can't
be condtions for minion resources, and vice versa, you can't play a hero
special ring from a test of a minion gold ring, and you can't use a minion
test event to test a hero gold ring. The only way for a minion to play a
hero One Ring is to influence it from a hero or Fallen-wizard that already
played it.

[CDavis7M]

Lastly, as a little treat, we have a set of conclusions based on a question about Stealth asked last June. The question was originally about the effects of Stealth if the scout leaves the company, which opened a can of worms that the NetRep team only recently cleaned up. Here are the results:

*** Whenever a short-lasting effect says it affects "his company," "the character's company," "the wizard's compay," etc., it sticks with that person. If he switches companies, gets killed or gets split off the others are no longer affected.

Some of the cards concerned: Bitter Cold, Darkness Wielded, Elf-path, Ford, Govern the Storms, Hidden Ways, Sneakin', Spying out the Land, Stealth, Wizard's Flame, the rest of turn effects of Piercing All Shadows and Promptings of Wisdom.

*** Whenever a short-lasting effect simply says it affects the company without mentioning a specific character, the effect spreads over all resulting companies in case of a split.

Some of the cards concerned: Secret Entrance, Two or Three Tribes Present, the orc rain effects on Buthrakaur the Green and Umagaur the Pale, the rest of turn effect of Something Has Slipped, facing a creature (for boosts such as Orc-lt.).

*** In this context a short lasting effect is an effect that is both short; not long or permanent, and lasting; not dealt with upon resolution and over. Many are caused by short events, such as Stealth, others by permanent events, such as Something Has Slipped.

A special case is the glory of killing an at home dragon (for King Under the Mountain). As ruled this does stick (indefinately - so not short at all) to all members of the original company regardless of where they are later, but does not spread across new company members.

This underlined ruling is incorrect. No can of worms needed. Just read the CRF.

When a company splits up, its player chooses which characters are the original company and which characters are a new company, unless otherwise directed by a card. All resource permanent-events played on the original company stay with the original company.

So no, it's NOT the case that "the effect spreads over all resulting companies in case of a split." Only 1 company gets the effect, of your choice. This is an extension of the MEDM rules on choosing which company gets the permanent-event. ICE has ruled on this multiple times.

From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: [METW] Misc. Questions
Date: 1997/09/11

When a company splits, you have to decide which part of the company is the original company. The decision is up to the person who is splitting the company. When two companies join you have to decide which of the two companies the new company is, although effects on either company now effect the whole company. When you play a character with a company, that company remains the same company.

So you have company A, with characters X, Y, and Z. Z splits into his own company. You get to decide whether X and Y are company A, or whether Z is company A. Let's say you make Z company A, and now X and Y are company B. Next turn, you play W with X and Y. This is still company B. Then company A moves to the same site, and has a River played on it. You decide to make the combined company of W, X, Y, and Z into company B, but they still have to deal with the River.

From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 3
Date: 1997/11/03

>> >4) Suppose "Dwar the Ringwraith" taps to give a company +1/+1 prowess/body
>Does it work the same way if a company splits?

When a company splits, one of the companies remains the same company, and all other companies from the split become new companies. Any effects played on the original company apply only to the company designated as being the same company. So I split co. A into co.s B, C, and D. I designate co. B as the same company, and it gets the bonuses, while C and D do not. If, later that turn, B is forced to join with C again to make co. E, any effects on B or C now apply to E.

[CDavis7M]

Just to clarify, this extends to all possible MP resources, right? So no Orcs of Mirkwood, Great Bats, Sable Shield, or Blasting Fire when my Fallen Wizard's company heads over to (Hero) Sarn Goriwing, and no Stabbed Him in His Sleep (or Smoke on the Wind, etc.) when we visit (Hero) Woodmen Town, right?
*** Yes.

No. The restriction only applies to "non-Fallen-wizard resources that would normally tap a site." Minion resource cards that do not normally tap a site and which do not target or affect the site can be played at Hero sites (e.g., Stabbed Him in His Sleep and Smoke on the Wind, etc.).

[CDavis7M]

The CRF states "A successful influence attempt on an opponent's resource does not tap the site."

Does this mean that revealing and playing an identical faction card taps the site?

*** No.

It true that the CRF on successful influence doesn't mean that, but it is still true that "revealing and playing an identical faction card taps the site," -- the CoE suggests otherwise.

When you reveal a card to use for influencing an opponent's resource and you are successful, this: "allows you to play that faction if the attempt is successful;" "allows you to immediately play the ally with the influencing character;" "you may play your card [the item] with the influencing character."

Since the faction, ally, or item is being "played," this generally requires an untapped site and the site will be tapped.

A faction card, ally card, or item card must be played during your site phase and requires an untapped character and an untapped site.
...
After a faction is successfully played at a site, the site card is tapped.
...
After an ally is played at a site, the site card is tapped.
...
After an item is played at a site, the site card is tapped.

Items, factions , and allies can only be played at an untapped site unless specifically allowed at a tapped sites on their card.
...
To play an item... This taps the site.
Playing an ally is similar to an item...This taps the site.
To play a faction... tap the site.

[CDavis7M]

In regards to untapping havens, Chad wrote that "You can play a
character at a haven, use a second haven card and leave the two
companies distinct. Neither needs to move as it's not a split." This
was not explicitly said, but I am assuming that you can only do this if
the character played at the haven is played in his own company? Thus, a
character played under Direct Influence or with a wizard under General
Influence cannot use a second haven card in this way, but would have to
actually "split" companies in order to use a second haven card?
*** Your assumption is correct.

The wizard/ringwraith at a haven is still considered to be "at the site" even if they are at a separate site card. The new character can be played with a new site card under GI with their own new site card (obviously not under DI).

MELE Section 5
Standard Rules: If your Ringwraith is in play, your Ringwraith (or a character with enough direct influence to control the character to be played) must be at the site at which the character is to be played.

Starter Rules: When you play a character, you may place him into a company already at his arrival site or he may become a new company (consisting of one character). In the second case, you must place the arrival site card next to the character played.

From: "Van Norton" <vno...@mindspring.com>
Subject: [MECCG] Ruling Digest 580
Date: 1999/06/05

>Subject: [Van] Another question or two...
>1. If my Wizard/RW is at a haven, can I bring a character into
>play, at the haven, but not into the wizard/RW's company? (i.e. to
>get an untapped haven with that character)? Or does the character
>have to come into play into the same company as the wizard/RW,
>move, and then come back to get the untapped haven? I forget.

p.58 MELE - "If your Ringwraith is in play, your ringwraith (or a
character with enough direct influence to control the character to
be played) must be at the site at which the character is to be
played." p.20 MELE - "When you play a character, you may place him
into a company already at his arrival site _or_ he may become a new
company (consisting of one character)."

[CDavis7M]

A minion player has "Rumor of the One" in play.
The only "ring" he had was a "Binding ring" (minor item). Normally 0 MP
and 2 CP. With RotO it would be 1 MP and 3 CP.
I remember that there was a ruling that you can't get an additional MP
for let's say an item etc. if it wasn't worth at least one MP.
*** Rumor of the One can make a 0 MP Ring worth 1 MP.

This is wrong and was corrected in CoE 110.

[CDavis7M]

I wonder if it's possible to play on-guard cards that modify the power of a character (for example 'glance of arien' with the balrog), to prevent them to attack in company vs company combat.
*** Hazards have no effect on Company vs. Company Comabat.

This is incorrect. The rule relied on is outdated and was changed to: "Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on company vs.company combat."

So Glance of Arien would affect CvCC. It can also be revealed on guard if "The company plays a card that potentially would tap
an untapped site." There is the possibility of CvCC without GoA being able to be revealed on guard.

Back to the question, GoA does not "prevent" attacking in CvCC.

[CDavis7M]

A question about hazard limit reduction and the card power built by
waiting. Say my opponent has a hazard limit of two, and I decide to
untap power built by waiting (which requires 2 against the hazard
limit). My opponent responds by playing a hazard limit-reducing card
like many turns and doublings or deeper shadow. What happens?
a) my power built stays tapped, and I now have 1 hl remaining;
b) my power built gets discarded, and I now have 1 hl remaining;
c) my power built untaps, and I now have 1 hl remaining?
*** A above is correct. The chain is as follows:
Untap Power Built by Waiting (hazard limit checks OK)
Many Turns and Doublings
-=Resolves=-
Many Turns and Doublings reduces the hazard limit by one
The hazard limit check fails, so Power Built by Waiting doesn't untap

First, there is no such thing as "hazard limit remaining." There is only declared hazards vs the hazard limit.

You check the hazard limit 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.

If you "use two against a company's hazard limit to untap this card" that means you are declaring 2 hazards against the company.
When Many Turns and Doublings reduces the hazard limit to 1, there are still 2 hazards declared even though these 2 declared hazards could not resolve in order to untap Power Built by Waiting.

The correct answer is:
d) The power built by waiting does not untap. 2 hazards have been declared and the hazard limit is 1. The hazard limit would need to be increased to 2 (e.g., using Daelomin at Home) in order to play 1 more hazard.

[CDavis7M]

Re: Knowledge of the Enemy
I do wonder about the other option: "Playable on an untapped character
if his company faced an agent attack and all of its strikes failed". Do
you have to do this immediately after the attack? It doesn't say so,
though some other cards do. If not, how long a "grace period" do you
get? Till the end of the turn?
*** It has previously been ruled that cards like King Under the
Mountain can be played on later turns, so the same is true of Knowledge
of the Enemy.

This is incorrect but it was overturned later.
There is no record keeping mechanism for determining whether "his company faced an agent attack and all of its strikes failed." The game generally does not require record-keeping beyond the current turn. There are a few exceptions.

For King Under the Mountain, there is at least a record of a "defeated an at home Dragon manifestation" because the Dragon will be in your MP or out of play pile.