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

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote: 7)
Radagast is able to play Radagast's Black Bird even if he is tapped or wounded.
No Radagast cannot. The rule is "A faction card, ally card, or item card must be played during your site phase and requires an untapped character and an untapped site." Radagast's Black Bird states: "Radagast may PLAY this ally at any site (tapped or untapped) and need not tap himself or the site to do so." It specifically uses the word "play" instead of "take control" and so the requirements for "playing" an ally (above) still apply.

Not requiring Radagast to tap is NOT the same as not requiring him to be untapped. Just because Radagast does not have to tap does not mean that he can play an ally if he is tapped. If the Black Bird were to work as asserted in the ruling, its clear how the card would have been written: "Radagast (tapped or untapped) may PLAY this ally at any site (tapped or untapped) and need not tap himself or the site to do so."

This concept works the same for playing cards that requiring tapping the site. Playing Black Horse does not tap the site, but the site must still be untapped (it cannot be tapped) in order to play Black Horse.

VAN made the same mistake and then corrected:
From: "Van Norton" <vno...@mindspring.com>
Subject: [MECCG] Ruling Digest 586
Date: 1999/07/30
>>4.) May I play Black Horse at an already tapped site ?
>
>Yes. Since tapping the site is not a cost, the site may already be
>tapped.

Actually no. I forgot that 'does not tap the site' is not equal to
'playable at a tapped site.' Black Horse requires an untapped site
but does not tap the site.

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE 110 wrote:(10) The question has arisen as to exactly when one must discard Eagle-Mounts to counteract the site
phase restriction on Fifteen Birds in Five Fir Trees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since it is possible not to discard Eagle-Mounts at all, such a discard is not an active condition of the play
of Fifteen Birds in Five Fir Trees (FBiFFT).
Therefore, by parity with reasoning with the argument for
tapping a ranger to cross a River, the player has until the very beginning of the site phase to discard Eagle-
Mounts.
This ruling is misleading and based on a misunderstanding of the rules. The CoE misunderstands how Active Conditions work. Even if you did not understanding how costs work in MECCG (hint: discarding Eagle-mounts is a cost, so it is an active condition), the fact that a card is being discarded should indicate that Annotation 6 on Active Conditions applies to Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees.
Fifteen Birds in Five Firtrees wrote:The company can do nothing during its site phase unless it contains a Wizard or you discard Eagle-mounts from your hand.
The card says "or" in bold. There are clearly 2 different says to avoid the "do nothing during its site phase" requirements. It's entirely possible that 2 different effects can have 2 different active conditions. Therefore, the CoE in incorrect in stating "Since it is possible not to discard Eagle-Mounts at all, such a discard is not an active condition of the play of Fifteen Birds in Five Fir Trees (FBiFFT)."

This ruling is also confused about which are the conditions of the action of PLAYING 15 birds, and which are the conditions for the effects of 15 Birds. It should be absolutely clear which conditions are required by "the play" of 15 Birds (and which are not) because those conditions are in bold italics at the beginning of the card (Playable on...").

The conditions of other effects in the card text are separate and distinct conditions. That is why it is possible to not discard Eagle Mounts at all.

The effect "The company can do nothing during its site phase" is an on-going effect that can be canceled either by (A) presence of a Wizard in the company or (B) discarding of Eagle-mounts. Discarding eagle-mounts IS an active condition of (B) the alternative cancellation action.

----------

The reason that the player has until the beginning of the site phase to cancel the effect of River and 15 Birds is merely because there are no restrictions in the rules against the player doing so.

The restrictions on taking actions after the M/H phase are:
  • Annotation 25a: No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase.
  • Site Phase: A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack.
  • Challenge Decks: Each of your companies has a site phase... In order to do anything during the site phase...
Cancelling the effect of River/15 Birds is not a "resource effect" or a "resource." And satisfying active conditions (tapping a Ranger for River or discarding Eagle Mounts) for such cancellation is defined by the rules to not be an action at all, and it's also happening before (not "during") the company's site phase. This is why you can discard Eagle-mounts after the M/H phase and before deciding whether to enter the site.

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

How River works:
  • River affects any company that was "moving to this site this turn" regardless of the site they "moved to" or where they ended up. The "do nothing" effect is not limited to a particular site (see card text).
  • River can be cancelled during the M/H phase or at the start of the site phase by a Ranger in any affected company (see most recent card text below).
  • River may only be played on a moving company's new site (CRF - playing hazards).
  • River may not be cancelled by Tom Bombadil, Leaflock, or Great Ship (CRF - Company)
--------------------

I know River can be annoying, but I've noticed that many of the CoE rulings on River are wrong. I think it's because the CoE Netreps liked to rule based on how they wanted the game to be played, or for their own competitive advantages, instead of ruling based on the actual rule and card text (other examples: Thrall of the Voice, Crown of Flowers, Radagast's Black Bird, etc.). These rulings alleviate the effects of River on "competitive" deck types (Balrog, testing at Mt Doom, Minion, FW) while maintaining its power against non-competitive deck types (most hero decks).

Incorrect CoE Rulings on River:
  • CoE 4: Because the River is played on a site, it won't affect your opponent's company if they end up stopping at a site other
    than the one you played the River on.
  • CoE 50 (re Gangways over Fire): River is played on a site. If the company moves on to a different site for the site phase, your River is pretty much wasted.
  • CoE 52 (re Master of Esgaroth and Shadowfax): "Question: They did, in fact, move to that first site during that turn, then they moved away from it" *** Brian ruled in Digest 4: Because the River is played on a site... This ruling is being upheld.
These are wrong. These rulings are not based on any older ICE rulings or the card text. The effect "the company must do nothing during its site phase" is limited to companies that were moving to the targeted site but the "do nothing" effect is not limited to site phases at the targeted site. That is, River does NOT state "the company must do nothing during its site phase at this site." If it isn't there it isn't there.

The CoE assumes that because River is "playable on a site" that its effect must be limited to site phases at that site. However, "playable on" in River merely means that it targets the site. This "playable on" condition does not limit the effects within the card text. Recognize that River doesn't target the company so that it can affect multiple companies moving to the targeted site, and so that it cannot be cancelled by you know who.

Neither play of River nor its effects target a company (it is a non-targeted effect). The effect "must do nothing during its site phase" in River applies to all companies that are "moving to this site this turn." River targets the site so that it can affect and be cancelled by multiple companies, not so that a company can avoid it by moving to a second site. Compare to Lost in Free-domains which is "played on" (targets) a company and only affects that one company, but both "do nothing" effects still apply even if the company moves again such that the conditions would not be met if played during the additional M/H phase.

Also note that the changes to make River more effective (requiring tapping a Ranger vs mere presence) came with the Unlimited errata. Before the Unlimited errata, Tom Bombadil, Leaflock, and Great Ship were ruled such that they could cancel effects targeting the site as well as the company. With Unlimited, River became much stronger and so the rules were changed such that Tom/Leaf/Ship could no longer cancel effects targeting the site (the site is no longer associated with the company), only effects that target the company.

The wording of River was an intentional design decision allowing it to affect multiple companies. That is all "playable on a site" means, nothing more.

--------------------

The CoE failed to consider the most recently English printing of River in violation of the Tournament Policy. It's clear from the most recent English printing that the company merely needs to be "moving to the site" during the M/H phase, they do not need to end up at that site during the Site Phase. Once a company becomes "A company moving to this site this turn" they "must do nothing during its site phase."
Council of Lorien Tournament Policy wrote:The mechanics of any given card will be determined from the most recent English printing
River wrote:Most recent English printing:
Playable on a site. A company moving to this site this turn must do nothing during its site phase. A ranger in such a company may tap to cancel this effect, even at the start of his company's site phase.

Outdated Lidless Eye printing:
Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase.

Outdated Unlimited printing:
Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase.

Original printing in the Limited set.
Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase.
--------------------
[NetRep] Rulings Digest #74
In Digest #71, it was ruled:
Now my question is: say I have 2 companies moving to the same site, and
a river gets played on the site against the first company. Can a
character in the second company tap to negate this river DURING his mh
phase? Or only after the companies join in the site phase?
*** Only after the companies join at the beginning of the site phase.

*** This is incorrect. A second character can tap to satisfy the River
played on a previous company, assuming that character is moving to the
site in question.
The second company currently moving is still moving. They are not (old UL/LE River) "a company that has moved to this site this turn" until they have already moved to the site. This ruling is only supported by the most recent English printing of River: "A ranger in such a company may tap to cancel this effect, even at the start of his company's site phase.[/size]

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE 125 wrote:Does the text of the Glove override normal playability requirements?
Basically can Radagast play an ally at any site, regardless of the sites
status (tapped or untapped) or does the site need to be untapped?
*** Since, based on the text of Glove of Radagast, the ally must be
played, other playability requirements still apply. Therefore, the site
must be untapped
. Often, if a card is allowed to be brought into play
without actually being "played", the term "placed" is used.
This is wrong. When playing an ally, the requirement that the site be untapped is separate from the requirement of the site where the ally is playable.

Glove of Radagast can be used to play an ally at a tapped site if the ally's card text indicates that it is playable at tapped sites.
10 · PLAYING AND DRAWING CARDS wrote:
METW wrote:Certain resource cards may only be played if specific required conditions exist.
Playing a faction card, ally card, information card, or item card (unless stated otherwise on the card) requires an untapped character and an untapped site. In addition, the company must face any automatic-attacks located at the same site before such a card can be played.

BRINGING AN ALLY INTO PLAY
You can automatically bring an ally into play by tapping one of your characters. The character must be at the site indicated on the ally’s card.
MELE wrote:Certain resource cards may only be played if specific required conditions exist. A faction card, ally card, or item card must be played during your site phase and requires an untapped character and an untapped site. In addition, the company must face any automatic-attacks located at the same site before such a card can be played.

Allies
A character may tap to play an ally card if he is at the site specified on the ally card and the character meets the requirements indicated on the ally card.
Let's list out all of the requirements for playing an Ally:
  1. An ally card must be played during your site phase
  2. An ally card requires an untapped character (unless stated otherwise on the card)
  3. An ally card requires an untapped site (unless stated otherwise on the card)
  4. The company must have faced any automatic-attacks located at the same site
  5. A character must tap to play an ally card
  6. The character must be at the site specified on the ally card
  7. The character must meet the requirements indicated on the ally card (e.g., on a RW or on a non-RW).
Requirement 3 (An ally card requires an untapped site (unless stated otherwise on the card)) is separate and distinct from Requirement 6 (The character must be at the site specified on the ally card). The phrase "tapped or untapped" on some allies specifically overrides Requirement 3. This is even indicated by the rules, which state:
Clarification: Playing a faction card, ally card, information card, or item card (unless stated otherwise on the card) requires an untapped character and an untapped site.

This should also be clear because "tapped or untapped" status is not an attribute of a Site. Site attributes include the site type, the region in which the site is found, the nearest haven, the site path to their nearest haven, the playable resources, and the automatic-attacks.

Furthermore, if "tapped or untapped" was describing the site for Requirement 6, then that would not be sufficient to override Requirement 3. The "tapped or untapped" statement must be overriding Requirement 3 in order for the Ally's card text for the words to make sense.

So when Glove of Radagast states "Any non-unique ally with 1 mind (a copy of which he does not already control) is considered playable with Radagast at his site" it is specifically modifying requirement 6 (the character must be at the site specified on the ally card or with Radagast at his site").
ICE Netrep wrote:From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: Re: [MECCG] Fallen-wiz Q
Date: 1998/09/04

Here's a question for whichever NetRep happens to see it:

Glove of Radagast:

Unique. Radagast specific. Place this card on Radagast if he is in play.
Any non-unique ally
with 1 mind (a copy of which he does not already control) is
considered playable with
Radagast at his site. This ally may be taken from your discard
pile or hand.

All such allies also happen to be playable at tapped or untapped sites.
Does this change that?

No, it just adds to the playable sites, it doesn't change the required
status of those sites.
No. Glove of Radagast does not change the fact that such allies are playable at tapped sites.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Shapeshifter »

Well, for the moment I don't want to join the discussion on whether certain CoE Rulings might be wrong in some aspects.

:!: To prevent further confusion, however, I think there is a need to point out that all CoE rulings (unless overturned by later CoE rulings) are considered official for CoE sanctioned tournaments (like World Championships). The tournament coordinator or judge has a last word in disputable cases, of course.

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

Shapeshifter wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:41 am
:!: To prevent further confusion, however, I think there is a need to point out that all CoE rulings (unless overturned by later CoE rulings) are considered official for CoE sanctioned tournaments (like World Championships). The tournament coordinator or judge has a last word in disputable cases, of course.
First of all, many anecdotes I've heard about Worlds indicates that players don't bother following all of the CoE rulings. Players just follow the rulings with abusive tactics but don't bother to follow all of the non-sense CoE rulings (most recent anecdote: no one at Worlds follows CoE#51 on Sauron discarding characters). Can't blame the players though when the CoE Rules Committee hasn't delivered on their 18 year old promise of a maintained rules document.

Second, no offense, but there is nothing in the CoE Charter to give this statement any authority. The CoE Charter says the opposite: a vote of the player membership is required to change ICE's rules. And since there was no vote, the CoE rulings that contradict ICE rulings are invalid per the CoE's Charter. Not to mention that such invalid CoE rulings are based on misunderstandings of (or failure to read) the rules, regardless of any ICE ruling.

And why would the CoE want to double-down on past mistakes? Even the CoE Netreps would change their incorrect rulings when called on it (Blow Turned is my favorite).

Of course any tournament coordinator can resolve a "dispute" where the rules are ambiguous, but I don't see how there is any possibility for someone, even the Tournament Coordinator, to dispute rulings from ICE's assistant MECCG Editor, especially when ICE's position is clear from the card text and rules. Many of these issues could have been ratified 12 months ago but the CoE decided against that. Or... whatever:

Image

To prevent further confusion, I think there is a need to point out the current CoE Mission Statement and Charter and the ones at the time these rulings were made:
CoE wrote:b) Rules Oversight Committee: The ROC is responsible for maintaining a current and regularly updated comprehensive rules document. This document will be made available on the website for download by the community. This document will compile all known rules, errata and clarifications for MECCG as issued by ICE representatives or the CoE itself.
Well... maybe Nero is working on it. That's why he's been so quiet.
Contemporaneous CoE Statement and Charter wrote:The Council of Elrond is proud to be a player-run organization. It was created primarily to continue and support MECCG since the closing down of the game's manufacturer, Iron Crown Enterprises (ICE) in 1999 and the dissolution of the previous world-governing council, the Council of Endor.
----------
The Council shall enact new rules of play, or modify existing rules of play, upon the assent to two thirds majority vote of a quorum. A quorum shall be deemed convened when no less than six out of nine council members vote within the announced time frame. Votes shall be cast either as YEA or as NAY, indicating respectively those in favour of the matter or those not in favour of the matter. Rules enacted or modified shall be ratified only by the affirmative vote of two thirds of the members of metw@silent-tower.org and such persons as shall communicate their vote by email to the Council Registrar or by web form on the egroups site. Ratified rules, be they enacted or modified, shall come into force 30 days following the last vote establishing ratification.
Any "new rules of play" or modification of "existing rules of play" set by ICE are only valid "upon the assent to two third majority of a quorum." I have checked the METW mailing list archives. There was no ratification process. Many of the CoE rulings are invalid -- they are not official by the CoE's own standards.

And here's the thing, the would-be CoE Netrep Chad Martin was in direct communication with the ICE Netreps Ichabod and Van Norton for at least 4 years back in 1996-2001, and Brian Min was on the list for a few years back then. All these people were talking on the same newsgroup and METW list. The CoE Netreps knew ICE's rulings and those same rulings have been online and available since they day they were made in 1995-1999. Many people disliked Ichabod's rulings because they were strict to the rules, which sometimes didn't make "sense," and ICE was not willing to issue much errata at all. So when Ichabod and Van stopped giving unofficial rulings (2001), maybe some players saw their opportunity to achieve all the things that they had so far striven to achieve in vain? I don't know if there was deceit or simple ignorance, but that doesn't matter.

The CoE Netreps either knew or should have known about the ICE rulings, they had a duty from the CoE Charter to maintain ICE's rulings, and they failed to do so. It looks bad.

The CoE netrep wants to build an abusive deck using Troll-chief at Ettenmoors? No big deal for them. The CoE Netrep thinks that Fallen Radagast can play his Blackbird if tapped despite 2 pages of discussion where everyone points out that is not how the rules work? No big deal
The CoE Netrep doesn't understand how Praise to Elbereth and In the Name of Mordor work? No need to acknowledge their failure to find consistency in the rules, just make a bunk ruling instead.

There are a lot of rules, and they are spread out, and you actually have to read and acknowledge every word. It's hard. I get it. But there's no excuse for not following ICE's rulings.

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE wrote:From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:50 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #63

Starting with an old question:
*** Since Gates of Morning and Doors of Night discard and cancel
environments upon resolution, one does not cancel the other in the same
chain of effects.
This rationale makes no sense. If Gates of Morning's/Door of Night's effect was to "discard and cancel environments upon resolution" (as stated above), then Gates of Morning it WOULD cancel a yet-to-be-resolved Doors of Night declared earlier in the same chain of effects. The ruling seems to fundamentally misunderstand the timing of the chain of effects. And it also misstates the effects of Gates and Doors.

"When doors of night is played, and [sic] all resource environment cards in play are immediately discarded, and all resource environment effects." Resource environment cards are discarded. Resource environment effects are canceled. "Effects" being the on-going effects of some previously played resource environment short-event.

The reason that Gates of Morning does not stop an earlier declared Doors of Night is because Gates of Morning only discards (from play) hazard environment cards already in play (Doors of Night is not in play), and only cancels on-going hazard environment effects (Doors of Night does not have on-going effects).
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE wrote: From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:35 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #62

Marvels Told
We have been playing that this card may force the discard of cards
targetting other companies eg Lure of Nature while Halbarad is sitting
in Rivendell by himself, and even when it is not his movement/hazard
phase. If this is correct what is to stop other hero resources from
having effects on other companies. For example why cant I give him a
Star Glass to cancel Undead attacks on other companies or have him play
Lordly Presence to effect another companies influence attempt. I am sure
this is not allowed, but cant see the logic of this if MT is allowed to
work as I have described above. If these moves aren't allowed then why
do other cards eg New/Old Friendship specify that the effect is only on
the same company? Or have we got the use of MT all worng?

*** CRF, Turn Sequence Rulings, Movement/Hazard Phase, Combat, Attack:
In order to cancel an attack or to directly affect an attack, the
character doing so must be in the company facing the attack. Note that
the region/site type a hazard creature was keyed to can be affected
otherwise.

The diplomat in question must be performing the influence attempt.
You're playing Marvels Told correctly.
I don't see how the Netrep can make conclusions on influence attempts from a ruling on attacks. By this reasoning, the sage playing Marvels Told would have to be in the same company to discard a card affecting the company. The CRF ruling that states that a character needs to be in the company to cancel an attack against the company is specific to attacks and does not extend beyond that. There are no requirements other than those in the rules. There is no requirement that the sage tapping as an active condition for Marvels Told's discarding effect be in any particular company.

As for Lordly Presence, there are relevant rulings on New and Old Friendship:
CRF, Card Errata and Rulings, New Friendship: The influence bonus from New Friendship applies only to the diplomat, but the corruption check bonus applies to any character in the diplomat's company.
CRF, Card Errata and Rulings, Old Friendship: The influence bonus from Old Friendship applies only to the diplomat, but the corruption check bonus applies to any character in the diplomat's company.

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE" wrote:From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:35 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #62

Can a hazard limit go below 0?

*** No.
This is wrong. The Hazard Limit is just a number. A hazard limit can be modified by the play of certain cards. Nothing prevents the hazard limit from being negative. And ICE has ruled that it can go negative such that the hazard limit would need be to increased further than if the hazard limit could not go below 0.
ICE wrote:From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 65
Date: 1998/04/02

>Last night I played this little game in which I played Riddling Talk! This
>was the situation: I had 2 characters in my company and I played RT on the
>first troll played at my company, it succeeded and my hazardlimit was
>reduced by 3. According to modern mathematics this yields a hazard limit of
>-2. He was obviously no longer able to play any hazards, but what happens if
>he decides to tap Power Build By Waiting? Can he play any hazards or not?

Actually modern mathematics usually holds that 2 - 3 = -1. Playing hazards
does not reduce the hazard limit, you just can't play more hazards
than the hazard limit. So, with two Power Built by Waitings you could
get the hazard limit back up to 1, but since one hazard has been
played you couldn't play any more. A third PBbW could get the limit
up to 2 and you could play another hazard.
A hazard limit of -1, if increased by 3, is 2.

The hazard limit can go below 0.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

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

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:57 pm
The reason that Gates of Morning does not stop an earlier declared Doors of Night is because Gates of Morning only discards (from play) hazard environment cards already in play (Doors of Night is not in play), and on-going hazard environment effects (Doors of Night does not have on-going effects).
The reason that Gates of Morning does not stop an earlier declared Doors of Night is because Gates of Morning only discards (from play) hazard environment cards already in play (Doors of Night is not in play), and cancels on-going hazard environment effects (Doors of Night does not have on-going effects).

If you wany to be strict. (I understand that your concern is using a word "cancel" instead "discard" in phrase "one does not cancel the other in the same chain of effects.").
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

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

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:49 pm
I don't see how the Netrep can make conclusions on influence attempts from a ruling on attacks.
From where the inference that "The diplomat in question must be performing the influence attempt." is concluded from previous paragraph?
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: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:44 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:57 pm
The reason that Gates of Morning does not stop an earlier declared Doors of Night is because Gates of Morning only discards (from play) hazard environment cards already in play (Doors of Night is not in play), and on-going hazard environment effects (Doors of Night does not have on-going effects).
The reason that Gates of Morning does not stop an earlier declared Doors of Night is because Gates of Morning only discards (from play) hazard environment cards already in play (Doors of Night is not in play), and cancels on-going hazard environment effects (Doors of Night does not have on-going effects).

If you wany to be strict. (I understand that your concern is using a word "cancel" instead "discard" in phrase "one does not cancel the other in the same chain of effects.").
Just an oversight in typing. Good catch. It was intended to follow what was stated above.

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:35 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #62

Decisions on whether one was able to have an active site phase when
returned to the site of origin by the effect of Long Winter for
instance. Likewise whether the Hog is able to do the same after a
failure to move with and Gangways of Fire.
*** A company returned to its site of origin can do nothing during its
site phase. A company failing its underdeep roll doesn't have a
movement/hazard phase
, so the rule doesn't apply.
This is incorrect. A company failing its underdeeps rolls still have a movement/hazard phase, they just don't move.

There is a followup by the CoE Netrep:
From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:50 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #63

Chad, did you mean to say that a company failing its underdeep roll
isn't considered to have "moved"? It was my understanding that you could
still play hazards on a company that failed its deeps roll.
*** The ruling I was referencing was CRF, Rulings by Term, Under-deeps:
When a company's site of origin is an Under-deeps site and the company
reveals a new site at the start of its movement/hazard phase, the
company is declaring it will make a roll to determine if the movement
was successful. No cards can be played between the site being revealed
and the roll except for Reach of Ulmo. Neither player draws cards for
this movement if the roll is not successful.
I did not intend to rule anything other than the above.
The Netrep is still confused. The ruling posted here addresses the question in the original post from Digest CoE 62 (whether a company failing their underdeeps can do something in the site phase). It fails to address the actual question in CoE 63 (whether a company failing their underdeeps has "moved" or not).

The MEDM Rules cover this:
When an adjacent site is revealed by one of your companies whose site-of origin is an Under-deeps site, you must make a roll (2D6). If the result is greater than or equal to the number in parentheses following the adjacent site as listed on its site of origin, the movement/hazard phase proceeds normally. Otherwise, the company returns to its site of origin and the movement/hazard phase proceeds as if the company had not moved.
The player asking the question is hopefully correct -- the Netrep meant to say that the company hasn't moved, not that they don't have a M/H phase.

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

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

Post by CDavis7M »

CoE wrote:From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:35 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #62

Is this possible under the same chain of effects with Minions Stir
already in play?
Hobgoblins for 4@12 - Marvels Told targeting Minions Stir - Tapping of
Power Built by Waiting - Second Minions Stir played to make 4@12.
*** CRF, Rulings by Term, Cannot be Duplicated:
Annotation 11 (modified from its original version): Some cards cannot be
duplicated in limited cases -- generally on a specific target. Multiple
copies of these cards or their effects may be in play normally, so long
as each applies to a different target. A card that cannot be duplicated
can be played when a copy is already in play only if the copy in play is
currently being targeted by an effect that will discard it.
Since the first Minions Stir is in play and targetted to be discarded,
another can be played in the same chain. The chain is legal. It would
resolve thusly:
Attack is assumed in play:
Marvels Told targetting Minions Stir
Tap Power Built by Waiting
Minions Stir
Resolves:
Minions Stir comes into play
Power Built by Waiting adds 1 to the hazard limit
Marvels Told discards the first Minions Stir
This is incorrect. And from the scenario given, the question and the ruling appear to misunderstand the timing rules.

There is no reason to declare a second copy of Minions Stir in the same chain of effects. The second copy of Minions Stir can be played in a later chain of effects (before assigning strikes) and still affect the attack. The hazard player should allow for Marvels Told to resolve in the 1st Chain. Then tap Power Built By Waiting and have its effect resolve in a 2nd Chain. And then play another Minions Stir in a 3rd Chain.

Given that the scenario includes tapping of Power Built By Waiting to increase the hazard limit, it's clear that there is no further hazard limit to play the second copy of Minions Stir. Therefore, the answer is NO, the chain is not legal because the copy of Minions Stir may not be declared before the hazard limit increase effect of Power Built by Waiting. There is a follow up question on PBBW in the same CoE Digest but it's unclear why the questions were not combined.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

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

Post by Konrad Klar »

I think that as long there is enough HL, the chain of effects is legal.
"There is no reason" does not mean "this is illegal".

There may be a reason. If something will make Marvels Told fizzled, there may be two Minions Stir in play!
And tapping Power Built by Waiting in response to Marvels Told may either provoke an opponent to play another Marvels Told/similar card/similar action, or may prevent the opponent from doing so (in next chain of effects), if he would respond with Dark Tryst and got another copy of Marvels Told.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”