Old ICE rulings vs. CRF and CoE NetRep rulings

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shapeshifter
Ex Council Member
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Basically I appreciate this thread.
I am not in line with this point of view, though:
CDavis7M wrote:I've noticed many older CoE Netrep rulings on situations that were already decided by the ICE Netrep, but where the CoE Netrep ruled differently. The ICE rulings were never referenced nor overturned by the CoE Netrep.
There is no doubt that CoE rulings of the past (not talking about ARV) should neither contradict the CRF nor may they overturn them. What makes you think, however, that the old ICE digests that didn‘t make it into the CRF may still be counted as official?

I would think of them as intermediate rulings until a new CRF was issued. Every ruling that didn‘t make into the CRF was obviously abandoned for one or another reason. Maybe ICE / ICE NetRep realized they ruled wrong or they had to discuss things further before making it official. Do we know? I would not assume that they simply forgot to include a ruling from the digests.

To sum up my point: I do not see any reason why CoE rulings may/should not contradict old ICE digests that were not included in the CRF.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Shapeshifter wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 4:33 pm What makes you think, however, that the old ICE digests that didn‘t make it into the CRF may still be counted as official?
Because the ICE Netrep has said so.

Many obviously correct rulings have been removed overtime. The CRF is large enough.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Mon May 25, 2020 3:19 pm, edited 39 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

By the way, the old Helm of Her Secrey ruling (mentioned in Ichabod's question to Reynolds above) is one of the few instances where the ICE rulings were incorrect but never corrected. The original ruling was made by Scott Frazer (Ichabod was around).

Originally it was ruled that playing multiple copies of Helm of Her Secrecy didn't work because Eowyn was not in your hand when the 2nd (and 3rd) copies resolved. Then someone realized you could just want until the 3rd copy resolves to play Eowyn and it was ruled that you could do so. However, this actually doesn't work and it is one of the few examples of an incorrect ICE ruling that was never corrected. No one considered that the attribute bonuses on Permanent Event are just there for emphasis only (METW p. 12) and they don't actually have any effect on their own. Instead, the effects of permanent-events are resolved immediately (METW p. 46). Therefore, if Eowyn is not in play when the 1st and 2nd copies resolve, then there is no target for the "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" effects. So she doesn't actually get these bonuses regardless of any reminders of the attribute bonuses on the Event. So multiple copies of Helm of Her Secrecy don't actually work.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:08 pm No one considered that the attribute bonuses on Permanent Event are just there for emphasis only (METW p. 12) and they don't actually have any effect on their own. Instead, the effects of permanent-events are resolved immediately (METW p. 46). Therefore, if Eowyn is not in play when the 1st and 2nd copies resolve, then there is no target for the "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" effects.
Presence of Bane of Ithil-stone is not requirement for The Ithil-Stone. The Ithil-stone may be played even if Bane of Ithil-stone is not in play.
Against the Shadow: The Ithil-stone
Resource: Special Item

Unique. Palantír. Playable at Barad-dûr. When a character taps to play Ithil-stone, make a roll (draw a #). If this result plus the number of scouts in his company is greater than 9, Ithil-stone is successfully played. Otherwise, the bearer is eliminated and Ithil-stone is placed in your out of play pile. Bearer makes a at the end of each of his untap phases. Bane of the Ithil-stone is discarded and cannot be played. If The Lidless Eye is in play, its player's hand size decreases by two.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 9:04 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:08 pm No one considered that the attribute bonuses on Permanent Event are just there for emphasis only (METW p. 12) and they don't actually have any effect on their own. Instead, the effects of permanent-events are resolved immediately (METW p. 46). Therefore, if Eowyn is not in play when the 1st and 2nd copies resolve, then there is no target for the "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" effects.
Presence of Bane of Ithil-stone is not requirement for The Ithil-Stone. The Ithil-stone may be played even if Bane of Ithil-stone is not in play.
Against the Shadow: The Ithil-stone
Resource: Special Item

Unique. Palantír. Playable at Barad-dûr. When a character taps to play Ithil-stone, make a roll (draw a #). If this result plus the number of scouts in his company is greater than 9, Ithil-stone is successfully played. Otherwise, the bearer is eliminated and Ithil-stone is placed in your out of play pile. Bearer makes a at the end of each of his untap phases. Bane of the Ithil-stone is discarded and cannot be played. If The Lidless Eye is in play, its player's hand size decreases by two.
What is the point of this post on Bane? It raises no issues or topics for discussion.

No one said anything to suggest that the presence of Bane of the Ithil-stone was a requirement for The Ithil-stone. No one suggested that The Ithil-stone could not be played even if Bane of the Ithil-stone was not in play. Discarding Bane and preventing Bane from being played are 2 separate effects that are both implemented immediately. If Bane is not in play the discarding effect clearly doesn't happen. However, the effect that prevents Bane from being played still happens.


By the way, you're welcome.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

The CoE has been making rulings for almost 20 years ignorant of the ICE rulings.
The URD has been around for 10 years and no one bothered to point out the mistakes.

The primary reasons why people misunderstand the rules are (A) they fail to recognize that the rules changed and (B) they take the CRF out of context and misapply the ruling. It's easy to do this because the changes are not documented as actual changes (ICE rulings include both explanations and actual changes) and the CRF is missing the context. I have been documenting these changes and the rulings.

Going though the CoE Rulings and the URD to find all of the errors is easy enough, but it's time consuming. I don't think either of these documents are the best way to present the rules to a beginning player. I have been working to update ICE's rules with ICE's changes and example rulings in a way that would be helpful to a beginner (and veterans). There are still new players joining the community all the time, and old players returning.
Current Council of Elrond Charter wrote: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.
Council of Elrond Charter from 10 years ago wrote:The Council shall maintain a web site, including on such web site information on how to organize a council, how to gain recognition from this Council, a compendium of the rules, et cetera.
No point in waiting for others to Save The Game.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If enough influence is available to control her, Éowyn may be played with (i.e., joins) the company. She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 9:07 pm What is the point of this post on Bane? It raises no issues or topics for discussion.
It is about your and mine thinking processes.
You do not see that playing of Éowyn is optional action, or you see it but still consider Éowyn as target of "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence".
For me "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" is like " Bane of the Ithil-stone is discarded". It only happens if Éowyn/Bane of the Ithil-stone is in play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 5:16 am You do not see that playing of Éowyn is optional action, or you see it but still consider Éowyn as target of "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence".
I'm a bit confused as to why you would say this because I specifically noted that playing Eowyn is an optional action and that she is the target of the attribute bonuses... Character attribute bonuses generally cannot affect an out of play character.

Words added:
cdavis7m wrote:Therefore, if Eowyn is not in play when the 1st and 2nd copies to resolve are resolved, then there is no target for the "She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" effects of the first 2 resolved copies. So she doesn't actually get these bonuses regardless of any reminders of the attribute bonuses on the Event.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

OK. I forgot that I mean by "target" something different than you mean.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 6:01 am OK. I forgot that I mean by "target" something different than you mean.
I like the definitions of "Target" in the ICE rulesbooks:
An action that is played out through one or more specific entities as stated on a card or in the rules is considered to "target" the entities. A targeted entity is said to be a "target" of the action.
Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the "target" of the action.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 6:12 am I like the definitions of "Target" in the ICE rulesbooks:
I agree with them.
But everyone may understand by "that is played out through" something different.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”