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 »

miguel wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 8:30 am
Discussions with you are a complete waste of time, so I am done.
Well, it would be hard for us to discuss ICE's ruling practice unless you knew the basic history of ICE rulings. Spend some time reading the ICE rulings and then we can actually discuss them. ICE's rulings have always been there. Failure of the CoE to read ICE's ruling has been the cause of much rules debate over the years that didn't need to happen. The CoE Netreps should have (and some did) know about the ICE rulings and they should have bothered to check them before making their own rulings. There is no justification for not checking the ICE rulings, especially considering that the CoE explicitly said that they would uphold ICE's rulings. ICE left the rules in good shape. The rules are more clear from the ICE rulings than they are from the CoE Rulings.

ICE's ruling practice and the CRF would be clear from having the knowledge to be able to answer these questions:
  1. What came before the CRF and what was the reasoning for switching to the CRF?
  2. What were the Digests and what were their original purpose?
  3. What term did ICE use to refer to the regular tournament rulings?
  4. What are all the places that ICE posted rulings (besides the Digest and the CRF)?
  5. How many times was the CRF overhauled (as opposed to just receiving a new version with updates) and when?
  6. Why was the last CRF never overhauled? (Hint: it's not because ICE went under).
  7. Bonus: Who were the ICE Netreps? When did they take over? Why did they take over? And what MECCG functions did they perform besides Netrepping?
--------
miguel wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 8:30 am
The CRF overrides any contradicting rulings made prior to that CRF's release.
This is wrong. Only NEW CRF entries override contradicting prior rulings. This is why the CRF was formatted in a particular way to show which parts were new. There is nothing to suggest that older CRF entries overrule later rulings based on newer CRF entries under a different heading. The rulings on wounding an ally have a later CRF entry under a different heading. The outdated ruling was never updated or removed. There are many discrepancies in the CRF because it was not overhauled. The ICE Netrep recognized this and explicitly didn't fix the issue.
miguel wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 8:30 am
Even in the Alone and Unadvised thread, once confronted about your bogus post from months ago, you go and edit it. Not to clarify the post, mind you, but to hide your tracks! Discussions with you are a complete waste of time, so I am done. Have a nice life.
I didn't hide my tracks -- I said I was going to go back and edit my previous post and I did. The later discussion of my mistake is still there. Why would I leave something up to cause confusion for someone else searching later? I said something wrong regarding the rules and I admitted my mistake and I corrected it.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 7:40 pm, edited 6 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 »

The CoE Netrep incorrectly ruled that the hazard player may play resources when facing an attack from Traitor or Hounds of Sauron. This is incorrect because a player may only play resources on their own turn. Twilight and resources playable against CvCC are the only exceptions per the rule. Other cards like Wizard's laughter and Necklace of Silver and Pearls explicitly create exceptions.
CoE Digest 119 wrote:5) The question has arisen whether a player may use resources during his opponent's turn when facing an
attack from Traitor or Hounds of Sauron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A player may use resources that affect attacks/strikes during his opponent's turn if he is facing an attack from Hounds of Sauron or Traitor. Note that this overturns CoE 15 but extends CoE 110.
There is a CRF entry on Traitor:
CRF - Cards - Traitor wrote:Characters facing a Traitor when it is not their turn may not play resources, but may still tap for full prowess.
And the CoE Ruling is not supported by the rules:
MELE p. 10 wrote:You may only play resource cards during your own turn.
MELE p. 11 wrote:Clarification: The card, Twilight, is an exception to this rule-it can be played at anytime, either as a resource or as a hazard (it does not count against the hazard limit). Certain other cards specifically state when they may be played as exceptions.
MELE p. 81 and 82 wrote:COMPANY VS. COMPANY COMBAT
Canceling an Attack From a Company
You can cancel an attack from a company just like you would cancel any other attack.
. . .
The Strike Sequence
. . .
6) The defending player may play resource cards that affect the strike (up to one card that requires skill).
Note: Even though it is not his turn, the defending player may play resource cards that affect the resolution of strikes.
And ICE ruled against the CoE's interpretation:
ICE Digest 115 wrote:>If Traitor is activated due to a corruption check made during your
>OPPONENT's turn (Ren Unleashed) can the target of the traitor tap to face
>the strike and use combat resources (Lucky Strike, Risky Blow) in a strike
>sequence like CvCC?

No.


>Regardless of whose turn it is can the attack due to Traitor be cancelled ?

Resources can only be played on your turn. Traitor does not currently
give an exception to that rule.
Furthermore, while Hounds of Sauron may create an attack against your opponent in lieu of CvCC, it is not CVCC and so your opponent may not play resources against the attack.
ICE Digest 565 wrote:Hounds of Sauron does not create a company vs. company combat. You
may use Hounds of Sauron instead of company vs. company combat.
Since it isn't CvC, it doesn't follow the rules of CvC.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 7:21 pm, edited 1 time 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 »

The CoE issued an incorrect and misleading ruling that Master of Wood, Water, and Hill's effect lasts until the end of the turn. This ruling doesn't is incorrect because it generally applies to both Region and Starter movement. However, if the effect of Master of Wood, Water, and Hill's targets a region-type of a region card then MoWWoH's effect will be removed from play when the region card is removed from play. The effect only lasts beyond the movement/hazard phase if it targets a site's site path. The CoE Ruling does not state this.
CoE 118 wrote:(9) Joe Bisz asked: "When Master of Wood, Water, and Hill is played (see text below), I assume that the change in the region symbol it creates lasts until the end of the turn, such that if a company take multiple m/h phases through the same region, the region symbol is still changed? (Miguel thought so.) Is the region also considered changed for ALL of your companies, in case other companies decide to move through that changed region?"
Miguel was right. And to answer your follow-up question: yes.
This is wrong. Master of Wood, Water, and Hill effect can target a region-type symbol of (A) a region card or (B) a region-type of a site's own site path. If the region-type of (A) a region card is changed then the effect goes away when the region card is removed from play at Step (4) of the Movement/Hazard phase.

Just because "an appropriate map of the regions of MECCG can be used to depict region movement (instead of using
actual region cards)" does not mean that the MAP is in play.

If MoWWoH is used to change (B) the site's own site path from the nearest haven, then this effect could last beyond the first company's M/H phase. However, 2 companies cannot normally both use the site's site path from the nearest haven for movement to that site (otherwise they should have been 1 joined company). In order for multiple companies to benefit from Master of Wood, Water, or Hill, one of the companies would need to have moved to the nearest Haven first and then used an effect allowing a 2nd movement/hazard phase like Bridge.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue May 26, 2020 8:21 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 115 incorrectly states "Each player may initiate at most 1 CVCC per turn." There is no such restriction in the rules. Of course the rationale for the CoE's ruling is not provided, but I believe that the CoE Netrep incorrect thinks that there is only 1 site phase for the player. Instead, each company has their own site phase and each company can declare CvCC in their own site phase.
CoE 115 wrote:(4) A number of questions have arisen regarding CVCC. Here are answers to (I hope) all of them.
(a) Each player may initiate at most 1 CVCC per turn.
There is no rule supporting this conclusion. Instead, the rule is:
MELE p. 80 wrote:COMPANY VS. COMPANY COMBAT
During your site phase, one of your companies may attack one of your opponent's companies if the following conditions are met:
• Both companies are at the same site.
• Your company has faced the automatic-attack (if any).
• You have not already made an influence attempt against your opponent this turn.
Just because one company has attacked their opponent's company does not mean that a second company may not attack another of the opponent's companies.
ICE Digest 88 wrote:Just as there is no umbrella m/h phase, there is no umbrella site phase.
ICE Digest 577 wrote:Company vs company combat can only be done once per company per turn.

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 May 26, 2020 4:56 pm
if the effect of Master of Wood, Water, and Hill's targets a region-type of a region card then MoWWoH's effect will be removed from play when the region card is removed from play.
ICE reference?

Your conclusion contradicts rational deduction from:
ICE Rules Digest 111 wrote: >Am I correct in believing that if a company is using starter movement and a region in its site path is targeted by type with WL [Withered Lands] and transformed, that this transformed region can have no effect on other companies moving later in the turn since technically the precise (named) region transformed was not determined?

Unless that region is the region of the site of origin or the new site.
This indicates that ICE believed that region symbols represent an underlying common region entity that could be consistently interpreted across companies even when companies remove their site of origin at the end of their movement/hazard phase. If the region entity left play when the site of origin was removed, the region reentering play would not be established as the same entity (just an entity with the same name). Even though Master of Wood, Water, and Hill does not state that it's effect lasts until end of turn, it must affect the region entity (as does Withered Lands), which must be considered to remain in play throughout the turn.

---

Honestly, my life isn't worth spending keeping up with the rate that you spout your conclusions as if they are ICE. Hopefully others can see the evidence that anything you present should be better scrutinized.
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:
Wed May 27, 2020 6:26 am
ICE reference?
It's the CoE ruling that lacks a reference to explain how an effect changing an attribute of a card can remain after the card leaves play.
Theo wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 6:26 am
Your conclusion contradicts rational deduction from: ICE Rules Digest 111
The CoE ruling is wrong because it doesn't account for region cards leaving play. It appears to have misconceptions from playing with a map instead of region cards. This is my issue. The ICE ruling your cited is about cards staying in play using starter movement and the region-types of the regions named on the site, which hasn't been removed from play. I've said starter movement has no issue. There is no contradiction with my post.
Theo wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 6:26 am
Hopefully others can see the evidence that anything you present should be better scrutinized.
If my conclusions are so bogus why are you asking me rules questions my PM? Come on.

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 113 incorrectly states that a character protected by Tookish Blood from being discarded is considered to pass his corruption check for the purposes of Cracks of Doom.
CoE 113 wrote:regarding Cracks of Doom and Tookish Blood still leaves room for doubt. Here is a clarification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to corruption checks, there are no ties. If the character is successfully protected by
Tookish Blood, then he is considered to pass his cc. See Annotation 23: "When a character fails a
corruption check, the standard effects of this ( i.e., the character being discarded or eliminated and his
items being discarded) are implemented immediately and are considered synonymous with the failed
check. A card causing the corruption check may modify the standard effects of a failed check ( e.g. The
Precious), but this timing would not be changed. Certain cards, e.g., Traitor, which do not cause a
corruption check, but specify an action that results from the passive condition of a failed check, take
effect as the first declared action in a chain of effects immediately following the chain of effects that
contains the corruption check" (My emphasis).
However, Cracks of Doom requires a successful corruption check. Just because a failed corruption check is not considered to be failed (because of Tookish Blood) does not mean that it is considered to be successful for purposes of Cracks of Doom.
Cracks of Doom wrote:Its bearer must make a corruption check modified by -4. If successful, The One Ring is destroyed and its bearer's player wins.
Cracks of Doom doesn't say "if not failed." The CoE is wrong is stating "there are no ties." A corruption check can (i) fail, (ii) fail but not be considered to fail, or (iii) be sucessful. It is possible not to succeed but also not to fail. This clear because it is the reason for the errata issued to Cracks of Doom:
CRF - Cracks of Doom wrote:Card Erratum: Remove "Otherwise, discard The One Ring."
Before this errata, a character that failed his check but could not be discarded because of Tookish Blood would still have The One Ring discarded.

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 Digests 111 and 110 provide incorrect rulings on the how to prevent the effects of Nazgul Permanent-events when they tap.

These mistakes appear to be based on failure to understand the difference between "discard" and "cancel" and failure to recognize the timing rules on Nazgul Permanent-events. Nazgul permanent events immediately become declared (not in-play) short-events when tapped instead of in-play permanent events. You cannot "discard" a declared event before it resolves because it is not yet in play. This is because "discarding" in this context is the action of moving a card from play to the discard pile. But you can "cancel" declared event that have not yet resolved. This is because cancellation negates the conditions required for the event to resolve, so the event is discarded without effect (it "fizzles").
CoE 111 wrote:(1) The question has arisen whether the previous understanding of the interaction of Marvels Told & Voices of Malice with The Witch-King of Angmar is correct. In light of digest 110's ruling on the interaction of nazgul events and certain event-cancelers, we are making the following ruling:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Witch-King is tapped in response to the play of Marvels Told or Voices of Malice, then it will resolve before MT/VoM and thus be unaffected by them. If, by contrast, MT/VoM is played in response to the tapping of the Witch-King, then MT/VoM will resolve first, and discard (and thereby cancel, since it has not resolved yet) the event.
CoE 110 wrote:(1) The interaction of Wizard's River-Horses, In the Name of Mordor, and Praise to Elbereth on the one hand and Nazgul events (permanent, long, and short) on the other hand has been brought into question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Wizard's River-Horses (WRH), In the Name of Mordor (ItNoM), and Praise to Elbereth (PtE): Since the tapping of a nazgul permanent event turns it into a short (or long) event, the short (or long) event is never considered "played". Therefore, if a nazgul event is in play (as a short event, long event, or permanent event) then it will be canceled by WRH, ItNoM, or PtE when they resolve. There are some subtleties in the exact mechanism of each card due to timing and a certain CRF entry:

WRH: Here we must distinguish between two different chains. If a nazgul event is tapped in response to the play of WRH, then it will resolve before WRH and thus be unaffected by WRH. If, by contrast, WRH is played in response to the tapping of the nazgul event, then WRH will resolve first, and discard (and thereby cancel, since it has not resolved yet) the event.

ItNoM: The timing issues for this card are identical to those of WRH.

PtE: According to the CRF ruling by card title on Praise to Elbereth, Nazgul events may not be tapped in response to the play of PtE. Therefore, there is only one chain possible for this card (PtE in response to the tapping of the nazgul), and so this card is 100% effective.
To recognize why the CoE Ruling is wrong, note the rulings on Nazgul timing in the CRF:
CRF wrote:Nazgul: If a Nazgûl is tapped to become a short-event as printed on its card, it turns into a short-event upon declaration. At this point, the Nazgûl is a short-event just as if had been played as such from your hand.
Witch-king of Angmar: Although he becomes a long-event when tapped, he is discarded when the effect resolves just like other Nazgûl. The long-event effect will remain until the appropriate time.
The CoE ruling is partially correct on a few things so let's go one at a time:
CoE 110 wrote:If a nazgul event is tapped in response to the play of Wizard's River-horses, then it will resolve before WRH and thus be unaffected by WRH.
Correct. This is due to the last-in first-out nature of the Chain of Effects based timing in this game.

----------
CoE 110 wrote: If, by contrast, WRH is played in response to the tapping of the nazgul event, then WRH will resolve first, and discard (and thereby cancel, since it has not resolved yet) the event.
Incorrect. Per the CRF (copied above), the tapped Nazgul turns into a short-event upon declaration just as if it had been played as such from your hand. A short event played from your hand cannot be targeted by the discard effect of Wizard's River-horses (or Marvels Told) because it is not yet "in play" per Annotation 1: "A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions declared in the same chain of effects."

There may be confusion because the timing of tapping Nazgul Permanent-events changed. Originally, the tapped Nazgul permanent event was not turned into a short-event at declaration and so it could have been discarded by Wizard's River-horses.

The correct rules are given by ICE:
ICE Ruling wrote:Question: I know Marvel's Told cannot cancel the effect of a Nazgul after it has tapped and become a short-event. Can *Wizard's River Horses* played in response to the tapping of a Nazgul, cancel the effect of the Nazgul event?
ICE Netrep: I would say no. The event is not in play, or in anyone's hand. Where is being discarded from? My point is that resolving cards are never discarded elsewhere in the game, and nothing in the rules says their effect would be cancelled even if they were.
----------
CoE 110 wrote:
ItNoM: The timing issues for this card are identical to those of WRH.
The timing issues are NOT identical because WRH only causes a "discard" action while In the Name of Mordor causes a "discard" action AND a "cancel" action. In the Name of Mordor prevents the tapped Nazgul Short-event from resolving.

The correct rules are given by ICE:
ICE wrote:Question: Is it correct that unlike MT/VoM, *In the Name of Mordor* can cancel a Nazgul event whether the Nazgul is a permanent-event or has been tapped and made a short-event?

ICE Netrep: Yes.
----------
CoE 110 wrote:PtE: According to the CRF ruling by card title on Praise to Elbereth, Nazgul events may not be tapped in response to the play of PtE. Therefore, there is only one chain possible for this card (PtE in response to the tapping of the nazgul), and so this card is 100% effective.
Correct, Praise to Elbereth stops a tapped Nazgul because it "cancels" the event, preventing it from resolving. Early on ICE decided that Nazgul were too strong and something needed to stop them so they ruled that "Nazgûl permanent-events that are targeted by Praise to Elbereth may not be tapped in response to its play."

----------
CoE 111 wrote:If, by contrast, MT/VoM is played in response to the tapping of the Witch-King, then MT/VoM will resolve first, and discard (and thereby cancel, since it has not resolved yet) the event.
Incorrect. The misconception may be based on the fact that Marvels Told does not target short-events (which the other Nazgul become) but it CAN target long-events, which the Witch-king becomes. However, that is not the only issue. There is still the issue that a tapped Nazgul is not in play, it is merely declared (see above). Marvels Told cannot target and discard a declared event. It can only discard an event in play.

Furthermore, note the CRF to the Witch-king of Angmar (also above) which states: "Although he becomes a long-event when tapped, he is discarded when the effect resolves just like other Nazgûl. The long-event effect will remain until the appropriate time." Therefore, Marvels Told cannot discard Witch-king of Angmar even after the on-tap long-event effect has resolved. This reasoning is the same as the reasoning given for Wizard's River-horses. This is noted in the ICE ruling:
ICE Ruling wrote:Question: I know Marvel's Told cannot cancel the effect of a Nazgul after it has tapped and become a short-event. Can *Wizard's River Horses* played in response to the tapping of a Nazgul, cancel the effect of the Nazgul event?
ICE Netrep: I would say no. The event is not in play, or in anyone's hand. Where is being discarded from? My point is that resolving cards are never discarded elsewhere in the game, and nothing in the rules says their effect would be cancelled even if they were.

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:
Wed May 27, 2020 2:27 pm
Theo wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 6:26 am
Hopefully others can see the evidence that anything you present should be better scrutinized.
If my conclusions are so bogus why are you asking me rules questions my PM? Come on.
[adding: For what it's worth, I believe I've had off-forum rules conversations with literally everyone I've played more than a couple games with. :oops: It's something I enjoy doing with thoughtful people.]

I know and value that you've read the ICE NetRep mailings more than I have, and I strive to be open to even your interpretations of them even when I find deduction fallacies. I've never said that all of your opinions are bogus, but enough are that they need to be highly scrutinized. I think all opinions should be scrutinized to some degree, but you deliver yours like you think yours don't, and it may be that not everyone would know to look further.
Last edited by Theo on Fri May 29, 2020 6:46 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
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 »

Cheers mate.

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 »

The CoE misunderstands Company v. Company Combat, the Strike Sequence, and the fundamental rule that you cannot play resources on your opponent's turn.
CoE 106 wrote:*** You can play cards like A Chance Meeting, We Have Come to Kill, and Helm of Her Secrecy as the defender in company vs. company combat because playing a character affects the attack
This incorrect ruling appears to be taking this CRF entry on CvCC out of context:
CRF wrote:The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.
This ruling is derived from the rule that "When one of your companies is attacked by another company during your opponent's site phase, you are considered to be the defending company. Your opponent's company ( the attacking company) is considered to be making a single attack with one strike corresponding to each of the characters in his company." (MELE p. 80). Accordingly, the Hazard Player is facing an attack but the Resource Player is not facing an attack. However, the defender may only play resources (A) that cancel the attack or (B) that are playable during Step (6) of the CvCC Strike Sequence.

----------

There are other ICE rulings and nothing suggests that you could play A Chance Meeting during the CvCC.
ICE wrote:Only the defender can play resources that affect the whole attack.
and
ICE wrote:Question: After reading the rules , it seems that the defending player can only play resources which either cancel the attack or or modify a STRIKE (p 83, right at the bottom). Does this mean that cards which affect an attack but do not cancel it cannot be played by the defender? (Motionless Among the Slain is a good example). I should hope not...

Answer: No. The restriction is that only the defender may play resources that affect the whole attack
----------

Cards that affect the attack as a whole also affect each strike of the attack. All the CRF statement does is reiterate that the Hazard Player (defender) can play such resources in the Strike Sequence and reiterate that the Resource Player (attacker) cannot play such resources because they are not actually "facing an attack." There is nothing in the CRF ruling that overrules the restrictions against playing resources when it is not your turn. The restrictions against playing resources when it is not your turn still apply. The defender in CvCC can only play resources (A) that cancel the attack or (B) that are playable during Step (6) of the CvCC Strike Sequence. Besides these explicit allowances, a player may only play resources on their own turn.

Image

So, the attacker could not play cards like The Dwarves Are Upon You (Playable on a company containing Dwarves facing an attack), Wizard's Flame (All attacks against Wizard's company suffer a -2 modification to prowess), Bitter Cold (All attacks against the character's company suffer a -1 modification to prowess and body this turn.), Some Secret Art of Flame (playable on a sorcery-using character facing an attack. +4 prowess for the character against the attack), etc.

Clearly A Chance Meeting and We Have Come to Kill do not affect a strike. And Helm of Her Secrecy cannot be played because it must be played before the strike sequence (playable on a company facing an attack (before strikes are assigned)). Furthermore, Helm of Her Secrecy does not affect the strike of the character that is facing their strike, so it cannot be played for that reason as well.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

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

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:02 pm
The defender in CvCC can only play resources (A) that cancel the attack or (B) that are playable during Step (6) of the CvCC Strike Sequence.
Explain the origin of this claim. I am concerned that you might be confusing the greater restrictions on automatic attacks.

I review actual allowances:
MELE Company vs. company combat wrote:This combat is handled like any other combat with the exceptions noted in this section.
MELE Company vs. company combat wrote:Note: even though it is not his turn, the defending player may play resources cards that affect the resolution of strikes.
CRF wrote:The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.
I see nothing that disagrees with CoEs ruling. Playing a character does not (typically) directly affect an attack or the resolution of its strikes, but it unequivocally can indirectly affect the resolution of an attack (e.g., strike is defeated when it wouldn't have been otherwise). Also, a character can be played with a company at a site facing a non-automatic/non-event-effect attack. Deduction from these two points suggests that the character can be played by the defender during CvCC.
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: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

I already explained all this above.
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:09 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:02 pm
The defender in CvCC can only play resources (A) that cancel the attack or (B) that are playable during Step (6) of the CvCC Strike Sequence.
Explain the origin of this claim. I am concerned that you might be confusing the greater restrictions on automatic attacks.
This is not a claim, it is literally one of the fundamental rules of the game: "You may only play resources during your turn."
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:09 pm
MELE Company vs. company combat wrote:This combat is handled like any other combat with the exceptions noted in this section.
Yes, combat is handled like any other combat. Prowess works the same, strikes work the same, characters tap and can be eliminated. You can play resources during the strike sequence the same. However, this statement does not completely override "You may only play resources during your turn."
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:09 pm
MELE Company vs. company combat wrote:Note: even though it is not his turn, the defending player may play resources cards that affect the resolution of strikes.
...This statement literally comes right after Step (6) of the strike sequence which states that the defender can play resources, which explicitly overrides the primary rule that "You may only play resources during your turn." This statement is referring to the allowance in Step (6) of the CvCC strike sequence, resources cannot be played by the defender at any other time during CvCC, except to cancel the attack.
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:09 pm
CRF wrote:The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.
The context of this ruling is in playing cards that affect the attack during Step (6) of the CvCC Strike Sequence. Meaning that the defender is not limited to playing cards that directly affect the strike, they can also play cards that affect the attack as a whole (while the attack cannot).
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:09 pm
I see nothing that disagrees with CoEs ruling. Playing a character does not (typically) directly affect an attack or the resolution of its strikes, but it unequivocally can indirectly affect the resolution of an attack (e.g., strike is defeated when it wouldn't have been otherwise).
I get that you don't see it because you have the same misunderstanding as the CoE. You're taking the ruling out of context.
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:09 pm
Also, a character can be played with a company at a site facing a non-automatic/non-event-effect attack. Deduction from these two points suggests that the character can be played by the defender during CvCC.
... this is because you can play resources when it is your own turn.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

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

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:18 pm
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:09 pm
MELE Company vs. company combat wrote:Note: even though it is not his turn, the defending player may play resources cards that affect the resolution of strikes.
...This statement literally comes right after Step (6) of the strike sequence which states that the defender can play resources, which explicitly overrides the primary rule that "You may only play resources during your turn." This statement is referring to the allowance in Step (6) of the CvCC strike sequence, resources cannot be played by the defender at any other time during CvCC, except to cancel the attack.
Pretend you are correct. What rule in MELE allows the defender to play a resource to cancel the attack? Note that attacks must be canceled before strikes are assigned, so waiting until Step 6 of a strike sequence isn't going to work.
Last edited by Theo on Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:42 pm, edited 1 time 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
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 »

Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:41 pm
Then what rule in MELE allows the defender to play a resource to cancel the attack? Note that attacks must be canceled before strikes are assigned, so waiting until Step 6 of a strike sequence isn't going to work.
Did you even read the rules? It literally has its own heading.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”