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.
Post Reply
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 6:42 pm
Did you even read the rules? It literally has its own heading.
Please, share!
Last edited by Theo on Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:46 pm, 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 »

Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:43 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:42 pm
Did you even read the rules? It literally has its own heading.
Please, share!
P. 81.

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 »

Are you referring to the rules that allow you to cancel an attack from a company? Those rules say nothing about being able to use a resource to do so, explicitly getting around the restriction. The only allowance for playing cards when it isn't your turn are those I quoted above. If those don't incorporate playing resources to cancel an attack, then we can wonder why there was any mention in the rulebook for being able to cancel an attack.

Alternatively, those rules do encompass canceling an attack. But they are not worded to be limited to such. So any resource that can affect the attack can be played.
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 6:47 pm
Those rules say nothing about being able to use a resource to do so, explicitly getting around the restriction.
Why say something that is clearly wrong and indicates that you haven't read the rules?

Image

A card can be used to cancel an attack. Those cards are resources. The example given is a resource.

There is nothing in the rules that would allow a resource to be played if it merely affected the attack. It must affect the strike, which can also affect the attack.

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 7:06 pm
A card can be used to cancel an attack. Those cards are resources. The example given is a resource.
You have not provided a Rule that allows a card to be used to cancel an attack. I have. If you think the rule I provided does not cover that case, then you best have another rule basis in mind for your belief that attacks can be canceled. I agree with the belief, but you aren't giving your alternative basis, you are just repeatedly stating it as fact.

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:06 pm
There is nothing in the rules that would allow a resource to be played if it merely affected the attack. It must affect the strike, which can also affect the attack.
Except the CRF allows resources to be played that affect the attack, independent from those that affect a strike.

But honestly, I'm not sure what an effect on an attack could be other than something that affects at least one strike. Hypothetical "defender receives no MP from this attack"? Can anyone think of one that actually exists, though?
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 7:21 pm
Except the CRF allows resources to be played that affect the attack, independent from those that affect a strike.
The CRF doesn't override the rules unless the ruling says so. As mentioned in the Abductor discussion, this ruling on CvCC is a secondary rule derived from the primary rules. It is not a new rule or a change to the rules. You can't take the CRF literally without understanding the primary rules and fitting the CRF ruling into those rules.

As mentioned in the other discussion: Take a look at this player trying to take a literal interpretation of the CRF devoid of context. The player is trying to reveal an agent on-guard based on a literal interpretation of the CRF ruling "An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase." Unfortunately, that's not how the CRF rulings work, as explained by the ICE Netrep, who wrong the rulings.
ICE wrote:Q1: Is there any rule against playing an agent *on guard* at his home site?
A1: No, of course, you can't reveal him on-guard.

Q2: The on guard rules are basically too long to reprint here, but the main "playability" rule is: "An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed."
A2: Before you confuse anyone, that is actually the secondary rule of playability. The main rules of playability are:
1) You may reveal an on-guard card in response to an automatic-attack. It must be a creature keyable to the site, or affect the automatic-attack.
2) You may reveal an on-guard card in response to the play of a resource keyed to the site. It must directly affect the company or a character in the company.
Agents fit neither of these.

Q3: Remember that ANY card may be placed on guard, even if it is not legal to reveal; and there is no rule that says agents CANNOT be revealed from on guard.
A3: More to the point, there is no rule that says they can. Therefore they can't. Your specious and deleted arguments that an on-guard card ceases to be an on-guard card once revealed does not get around the restrictions on revealing on-guard cards. The on-guard card must still be legally revealed.
This player had a similar interpretation of the CRF as what is being presented here and the ICE Netrep told him that his framework for interpreting the CRF was wrong. If the guy that wrote the CRF rulings is saying not to interpret them literally and without context, then the palyers probably shouldn't.

----------
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:21 pm
But honestly, I'm not sure what an effect on an attack could be other than something that affects at least one strike. Hypothetical "defender receives no MP from this attack"? Can anyone think of one that actually exists, though?
You're missing the point. The attacker cannot take an action that affects the attack even though it would affect the strikes. The defender has no such restrictions. The defender can play Bitter Cold in the Strike Sequence (All attacks against the character's company suffer a -1 modification to prowess and body this turn). The attacker cannot play Bitter Cold to affect CvCC.

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 7:49 pm
Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:21 pm
Except the CRF allows resources to be played that affect the attack, independent from those that affect a strike.
The CRF doesn't override the rules unless the ruling says so. As mentioned in the Abductor discussion, this ruling on CvCC is a secondary rule derived from the primary rules. It is not a new rule or a change to the rules. You can't take the CRF literally without understanding the primary rules and fitting the CRF ruling into those rules.
Presume that blanket statement was true. What rules could this be clarifying, other than the note that you want to claim is restricted to only the strike sequence?
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 »

Your misunderstanding of CvCC and Abductor have the same root issue.

ICE had a consistent framework for making rulings. Anyone would understand ICE's ruling framework if they read the rulings. It's not a mystery like some people pretend.

Here's how it works:
  • The cards and rules do exactly as they say. Regardless of any simulation issue or what "makes sense." If it isn't there, it isn't there.
  • If a rule allows a player to take an action according to its own conditions, then the player can take that action.
  • If the rules do not specifically allow a player to take an action, then the player cannot take that actions, even if they are not restricted from taking that action.
  • If a card allows a player to take an action according to its own conditions, then the player can take that action.
  • If a rule specifically restricts a player from taking an action, then they cannot take it, even if a card allows it, unless the card specifically overrides the restriction.
  • CRF clarification rulings do not override the rules unless (get this) the actual ruling (which the CRF ruling is a copy of) said that it was a change to the rules. Otherwise, the CRF clarifications are merely explanations of how the rules would be applied in a given circumstance.

There is often confusion because there is no way to know from the CRF whether or not a particular clarification was a change to the rules or whether it was merely an explanation of the existing rules. You have to have read the original ruling or understand the game.

There is no mention of Ringwraiths in Abductor's card text and there are no relevant rules. The clarification of Abductor is essentially a non-errata errata to the card itself: "Men. One strike. Each non-Wizard defending character wounded by the Abductor is discarded (does not affect Ringwraiths)." It would have been actual errata except that ICE was on a mission to never release errata unless they absolutely had to. And given ICE's definition, a "clarification" could change how the game was played as long as it didn't add or remove text to a card or rule.

There are many other instances of this. See Doubled Vigilance. It does not affect the automatic attack and so it cannot be revealed on-guard. But because ICE wanted it to be able to be revealed on guard they added a clarification "Can be revealed on-guard." This is essentially an errata to the card text.

These actually-errata clarifications are all over the place and there is no way for the reader to differentiate between them without reading the ruling and understanding the game. See Dwar Unleashed, the restrictions to playing resources in the site phase, when you are at the site, the fact that RW can use underdeeps movement despite "they can only use starter movement," and FW companies can also user underdeeps movement despite "they can only use region movement." These are all changes to the rules and there is no way to identify them as such from the CRF by itself. Unfortunately, you just need to recognize when the rulings follow the rules and when they don't.

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 7:49 pm
You're missing the point. The attacker cannot take an action that affects the attack even though it would affect the strikes. The defender has no such restrictions. The defender can play Bitter Cold in the Strike Sequence (All attacks against the character's company suffer a -1 modification to prowess and body this turn). The attacker cannot play Bitter Cold to affect CvCC.
The attacker cannot play Bitter Cold because they cannot target any of the characters actually facing an attack with their resources.

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

Bottom line: The author of the CRF stated that the clarifications in the CRF are secondary rules and they don't override the actual rules.

The CRF clarification on CvCC actually CAN be interpreted consistent with the existing rules. (CvCC: 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 is because the defender may, by the rules take actions that affect the attack during Step (6) of the CVCC strike sequence and the attacker is not considered to be facing an attack.

You have provided no support for the interpretation that the CRF statement on CvCC actually overrides the primary rules. I have presented rulings explaining why your understanding of ICE's rulings is wrong. You haven't presented any evidence to support your understanding of ICE's rulings. At least hold yourself to your own standards.
ICE wrote:"Before you confuse anyone, that is actually the secondary rule of playability."

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 9:33 pm
Your misunderstanding of CvCC and Abductor have the same root issue.
<snip>
1) Abductor is a different thread.
2) "Here's how it works" is your (dictatorial) decision.
3) Your post deductively contradicts your claims, as I have helpfully tried to demonstrate.
4) "a non-errata errata" is a nicely concise demonstration of your self contradictions.
5) "you just need to recognize when the rulings follow the rules and when they don't" is not a solid basis for communal understanding. One player's opinion of when rulings followed the rules and when they didn't does not confirm nor counter any other player's opinions on the matter.
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: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:49 pm
The CRF clarification on CvCC actually CAN be interpreted consistent with the existing rules. (CvCC: 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 is because the defender may, by the rules take actions that affect the attack during Step (6) of the CVCC strike sequence and the attacker is not considered to be facing an attack.
Except you agreed that attacks can be canceled, which they couldn't by step 6 of the CvCC strike sequence, and yet you have provided no other rules bases for the defender playing resources outside of that step.
You have provided no support for the interpretation that the CRF statement on CvCC actually overrides the primary rules. At least hold yourself to your own standards.
You missed my point: the CRF needn't override any actual rules with an understanding that the quoted MELE Note applies as worded by the CRF.
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 9:40 pm
I would say that the attacker cannot play A Malady Without Healing on the defending character declared as the scout playing A Nice Place to Hide because of the CRF. It would affect the attack and possibly some strike, but not an individual (specific) strike.
By your reasoning on Malady, you have yourself "assumed" that resources can be played to cancel the attack (while just above you accused me of failing to prove that you could do this). Very productive.

----------

You while you can lead a horse to water, you can't make them drink.

If you think my understanding of ICE's ruling framework is incorrect, please try to find a ruling that violates it. I've reviewed a lot of ICE rulings and this is the consistency I have found. Still, I would be happy if you found something that would improve my understanding.

ICE's Ruling Framework:
  • The cards and rules do exactly as they say. Regardless of any simulation issue or what "makes sense." If it isn't there, it isn't there.
  • If a rule allows a player to take an action according to its own conditions, then the player can take that action.
  • If the rules do not specifically allow a player to take an action, then the player cannot take that action, even if they are not specifically restricted from taking that action.
  • If a card allows a player to take an action according to its own conditions, then the player can take that action.
  • If a rule specifically restricts a player from taking an action, then they cannot take it, even if a card allows it, unless the card specifically overrides the restriction.
  • CRF clarification rulings do not change or override the rules unless the Netrep said they do in the actual ruling (which the CRF ruling is a copy of). Otherwise, the CRF clarification rulings are merely explanations of how the existing rules would be applied in a given circumstance.
The CRF Statement "Company vs. Company Combat: The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes" is list under "Turn Sequence Rulings - Site Phase." The Introduction to the CRF explicitly states "The Turn Sequence and Rulings by Term sections are specifically considered clarifications to the rules." This is not a change to the rules - it is a clarification of the existing rules. The existing rules prevent the Hazard Player/Defender from playing Resources like A Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill when it is not their turn. The clarification on CvCC does not change this.

----------

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

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 »

CoE105 wrote:*** Promptings of Wisdom cancels one effect or the other listed for each time the ranger taps, not both.
This ruling is incorrect. There is a colon [ : ] meaning that there will be a list of things to follow. Since it is a list, every effect in the list of hazard effects is canceled, not just one.
Promptings of Wisdom wrote:Light Enchantment. Playable during the organization phase on a ranger. Target ranger mayto cancel all hazard effects for the rest of the turn that: force his company to return to its site of origin or that tap his company's current or new site. If so tapped, target ranger makes a corruption check. Cannot be duplicated in a given company.
The ICE Netrep says the same:
Van Norton wrote: >Subject: Roadblock resources [Van]
Q: those cards like Promptings of Wisdom, Goldberry, Piercing all Shadows and Govern the storms... What does the OR mean? Does it mean if you tap them it cancels BOTH effects, or just the effect that you choose to cancel.

A: First, Goldberry doesn't have an OR in her text, so this doesn't apply to her card. The key here is that using Promptings of Wisdom, Piercing All Shadows and Govern the Storms "Cancel all hazard effects for the rest of the turn that:" everything after the 'that:' is canceled. There is no choice. There are two different types of things canceled. Note, if the OR would have been an AND the hazard would require both conditions to be canceled.

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 105 wrote:*** One cannot use Prowess of Age to allows one's own Roused Dragon to attack one's own company, because the text on the Roused Dragon will continuously cancel each and every attack as they come up.
Uh... you cannot use Prowess of Age on an attack against your own company because it is a hazard. You cannot play a hazard on your own turn, only during your opponent's M/H phase. It's true that Prowess of Age targets a single cancellation effect but that is completely secondary.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”