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: 2197
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 7:49 pm
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).
I know the rule. However, Thrall of the Voice is not an "appropriate card" that allows a Fallen Wizard player to play Orcs or Trolls:
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.
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.
The MEWH rules on playing Orcs and Trolls are not allowances, they are restrictions. Bad Company and Strident Spawn are "appropriate cards" because they specifically reference and overcome the restriction on playing Orcs. Thrall of the Voice does not reference the restriction on playing Orcs and Trolls, so it does not overcome it.

This is not a situation where the rules on "bringing characters into play" during the organization phase allows a player to play characters according to one set of conditions and then A Chance Meeting, We have Come to Kill, and Thrall of the Voice allow a player to play characters according to another set of conditions.

This is a situation where the rules restrict the player from playing Orcs and Trolls and those restrictions apply to any situation, whether the character is played according to the rules on "bringing characters into play" or any other card effect.

If Thrall of the Voice would bypass the MEWH restriction that "You may not play Orc and Troll characters until you have played the appropriate card" such that a FW player could play Orcs and Trolls, then A Chance Meeting would bypass the restriction that "Fallen-wizards may not play characters with more than five mind" such that a FW player could play Elrond.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2197
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 67 wrote:From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:10 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #67

Does One Foe to Breed a War really have no effect in CvCC?
*** CRF, Turn Sequence Rulings, Site Phase, Company vs. Company Combat:
Hazards have no effect on company vs. company combat.
CoE 105 wrote:From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:41 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #105


The Q on CvCC can be found at the following thread:
http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=1040
"Do hazards like Despair of the Heart and Something has Slipped trigger
when characters are wounded in CvCC?"
*** No. Hazards have no effect on CvCC.
The CoE Netrep's ruling is ignorant of the ICE errata that changed the rules on CvCC. It's unclear which version of the CRF the CoE Netrep was referred to but I believe it was the version hosted by the Dutch Council. The newer CvCC rule is in the Dutch Council's CRF under "Complete Errata Listing."
CRF - Rules Errata wrote:Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on company vs.company combat.
CRF 15 wrote:Turn Sequence Ruling-Site Phase-Company Vs. Company Combat
ERRATA: Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on company vs. company combat. (This replaces the CRF entry, "Hazards have no effect on company vs. company combat.)
ICE Digest 563 - March 22, 1999 wrote: Question: Van, I just wanted to make sure you haven't forgotten my question about what happens to hazards during CVCC. (Rulebook says hazards have no effect on CVCC combat.) 3 digests ago you said you would answer it in the next digest. I still haven't heard an answer.

Answer: No, delayed but not forgotten. Ichabod and I have been discussing changing the rule to make it more clear. I had one wording, he another. Ultimately, I spent an evening going through every hazard in the game to see how they impacted each wording of the new rule. To make a long story short [too late] here is the new ruling for Company vs. Company combat:

Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on CVCC.

This is an errata and will be posted as a Rulings Monday on 3/22/99. The new rule will take effect 4/5/99.

Commentary:
This means that if a hazard effect directly affects an attack, it has no effect on Company vs. Company combat. So, if the hazard says, "All orc attacks have +1 prowess." it would have no effect. On the other hand, if the hazard says, "All orcs have +1 prowess," it will have normal effect.

Remember to that no hazards can be played during the site phase and no company vs. company combat will trigger an on-guard card. So the only hazards that would have any effect are hazard effects already in play.

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.
----------

The CoE ruling on CvCC is incorrect. One Foe to Breed a War, Despair of the Heart, and Something Has Slipped do not affect "attacks" and so they CAN affect CvCC per the ICE Errata.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 7:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2197
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 17 wrote:CoE weekly Rulings/Clarifications 17

17. If you kill an ally in CvCC, do you get kill MPs? rules say you recieve that chartacter's kill marshalling points if you kill a character, and also that allies are characters for the purposes of combat.
*** Yes, you get "kill MPs" if you kill an ally in CVCC.
CoE 104 wrote:From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 6:21 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #104

In Digest #17, Brian ruled:
"If you can initiate CVCC, you can obtain kill points from it."
*** More specifically, if you or your opponent can initiate company vs. company combat, you can obtain kill points from it.
UPDATE: added further rules on what combat encompasses, and discussion of "purposes of combat".

(MELE p. 83) "If a defending character is eliminated, the attacking player receives "kill" marshalling points as indicated on the character's card. If an attacking character is eliminated, the defending player receives "kill" marshalling points as indicated on the character's card."[/quote]
(MELE p. 42/43) "An ally does not (emphasis original) count as a character for any purposes other than combat and the use of certain skills... Allies that are eliminated are placed in the out-of-play pile."
(MELE p. 87) "Ally: An ally is considered a character only for the purposes of combat (facing strikes, tapping to support, etc.)"
(MELE p.88) "Combat: The resolution of an attack. This involves strikes being assigned and strike sequences being performed. Combat specifically encompasses the time from the resolution of an attack action until the final strike sequence is completed."

Given the context, "combat purposes" is clearly (B) a limitation on scope, because tapping to support is not a reason for performing combat, it is just within the scope of combat.

It's true that the rule on receiving kill MP in CVCC is in the CVCC section (that is the most relevant place to put the rule). But the "purpose" of this receiving MPs is for the VICTORY CONDITIONS section -- MPs are counted at the Free Council, not during combat. "Receiving kill marshalling points as indicated on the character's card" serves no purpose during combat (as defined above). Receiving MPs towards the victory conditions is a "purpose other than combat."
Last edited by CDavis7M on Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:31 am, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1143
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 »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:08 am
3.
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.
This was over ruled by the CoE already (in the context of CvCC, but phrased generally):
CoE #115 wrote:(c) The defender in CVCC is restricted in his play and use of resources, since he cannot normally play any resource cards or initiate any resource effects during his opponent's turn. Before strikes are assigned, he may (i) cancel the attack and (ii) play cards or initiate effects that affect the attack. Once strikes are assigned, he may (iii) play cards or initiate effects as outlined in the strike sequence rules. He may do nothing else.
...
Regarding (iii): this means that the defender may, among other things, play And Forth He Hastened, use Cram, play Wizard's Flame, or use Black Arrow. Each of these affects the prowess of a strike, and so is allowed during the strike sequence. However, the use of Cram at this point in CVCC will not allow the defender to subsequently play Concealment or a similar card. Strikes have already been assigned, so the attack may not be canceled.
Note that this is a clarification of ICE 580 & 581, and a clarification or over-ruling of COE 2, 18, 57, 60, and 61
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: 2197
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

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

Post by CDavis7M »

Thanks for finding that. I did look at "CvCC" CoE rulings but didn't pick up on that. I had selected the previous ruling because it was highlighted in the URD, and so many people are following it for that reason.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1143
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 »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:39 am
5.
...
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.
Fact check: MELE specified that minion cards are character cards, so agent cards that are minion cards are character cards. Without the rule refinements of MELE, there would be no basis for agent cards counting as character cards.

Further corroboration:
MELE wrote:To play a character card, you must have enough general influence or direct influence available to control the character into play. In addition, you must meet both of the following requirements:
• If the character is not an agent, you may only play him at his home site at any Darkhaven site. If the character is an agent, you may only play him at his home site.
---

We also have:
MELE wrote:Hazard cards are the same for both MELE and METW and may be freely used by both Ringwraiths and Wizards.
But then also (more relevant than your ICE quote that was sent to just the METW mailing list):
ICE Rules Digest 563 wrote: >an extremely easy question....what do agents count as in a hero deck? hazards or are they just minion cards? ...

In hero decks, agents are hazards.
---

The only solution that I see is that agent cards for a minion (and thus FW) player qualify as both a hazard card AND a character card. But this is consistent with the CoE ruling on Weigh All Things to a Nicety.
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: 2197
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:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:00 am
Fact check: MELE specified that minion cards are character cards, so agent cards that are minion cards are character cards. Without the rule refinements of MELE, there would be no basis for agent cards counting as character cards.
MELE only specified that minion cards are character cards. MELE did NOT specify that minion agents are character cards. Instead, MELE specified that for purposes other than deck construction, minion agents in Ringwraith decks work the same as minion agents in a Wizard deck. It's clear that minion agents in a Wizard deck are hazard cards. MELE did not change this.
CRF 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.
Image

Just because minion agents count as characters in a Ringwraith deck for purposes of deck construction does not mean that minion agents count as characters in a Ringwraith deck for other purposes.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1143
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 »

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. The closest thing I can find (itself a quote) is:
ICE Rules Digest 51 wrote:>> This has all been clarified: An ally can perform actions that a
>> character can in combat (such as facing strikes and tapping to
>> give +1 prowess), and counts as a character for effects which
>> directly affect combat.
Regardless, though Swarm of Bats being discarded is clearly not a purpose of combat. The ruling is NOT implying that an ally being eliminated doesn't count as a character being wounded for purposes of combat.

Regarding ICE 111: wounded allies do not count as wounded characters... except for purposes of combat (which Swarm of Bats discarding is not). Similarly discarding an item (such as the Were-worm ability) also doesn't qualify as a purpose of combat.

But the MELE quote you gave regarding receiving points for elimination is a purpose of combat; it appears in the company vs. company COMBAT section. If that subsection (Body Checks) didn't apply to allies, allies couldn't be eliminated in CvCC at all.

---

Anyway, for completeness, I think the last standing ruling is:
CoE #117 wrote:6. CoE Rulings Digest #17 incorrectly states that "If you can initiate COMPANY VS. COMPANY, you can obtain kill points from it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the defender and the attacker can always receive kill points from defeating characters or allies in CVCC.

[edit: Fellowship -> Swarm of Bats]
Last edited by Theo on Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
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: 1143
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 »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:12 am
MELE only specified that minion cards are character cards. MELE did NOT specify that minion agents are character cards.
This is straightforward deduction (unless you want to claim that minion agent cards are not minion cards... which MEDM says that they are).
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3596
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:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:45 pm
This is not a situation where the rules on "bringing characters into play" during the organization phase allows a player to play characters according to one set of conditions and then A Chance Meeting, We have Come to Kill, and Thrall of the Voice allow a player to play characters according to another set of conditions.
You do not (want to) see "Instead of a normal character". So you are seeing similarities between Thrall of the Voice AND A Chance Meeting or We have Come to Kill.

I want to stress: Thrall of the Voice is not a card specifically allowing for Orc, Troll characters.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2197
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:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:33 am
You do not (want to) see "Instead of a normal character". So you are seeing similarities between Thrall of the Voice AND A Chance Meeting or We have Come to Kill.
"Instead of a normal character" simply means that the effect of Thrall can only be used in lieu of playing a character according to the normal rules for "bringing characters into play." It doesn't mean that it bypasses all restrictions.

Regardless, ICE ruled that Orcs and Trolls cannot be played with Thrall of the Voice.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2197
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:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:58 am

ICE 80 is clearly WRONG about "the exact rule"---if that was the limit of allies counting, allies couldn't be wounded or eliminated. The closest thing I can find (itself a quote) is:

Regardless, though Fellowship being discarded is clearly not a purpose of combat. The ruling is NOT implying that an ally being eliminated doesn't count as a character being wounded for purposes of combat.
Unfortunately you have to go back and read the ICE ruling again. You are acting as if the ICE ruling is about Fellowship and it's not.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3596
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:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:49 pm
It doesn't mean that it bypasses all restrictions.
Yes. It does not bypass Mask Torn, company's composition rules, etc.
However, under no conditions FW player can play six mind characters.
Thrall beats the restriction.
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:49 pm
Regardless, ICE ruled that Orcs and Trolls cannot be played with Thrall of the Voice.
Regardless...
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2197
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

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

Post by CDavis7M »

Unfortunately your interpretation of Thrall of the Voice differs from the ICE Netrep's interpretation. And your interpretation of the rules differs from the ICE Netrep's in many other situations (Deep Mines, Adunaphel hazard, River on guard, Alone and Unadvised, etc.)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1143
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 »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:00 pm
Unfortunately you have to go back and read the ICE ruling again. You are acting as if the ICE ruling is about Fellowship and it's not.
Typo fixed. Same point.
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!

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”