Comments on [NetRep] CoE Rulings Digest #125

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Does anyone read or follow these rulings?

--------------------
miguel wrote: 1)
Heart Grown Cold's effect is simply applied w/out a chain of effects, there is no time to respond.
There's no basis for this in the rules. Heart Grown Cold's effect ("Fallen-wizard players must use minion site cards for hero Haven," and Free/Border holds depending on SP) is obviously applied when Heart Grown Cold is resolved in the chain of effects in which it was declared. When the play Heart Grown Cold is first declared, there is time to respond in response to HGC's declaration.

The problem with this ruling is that it completely hides the context and then gives an incorrect ruling for the general case. The ruling appears to be directed towards the question of how to handle a Fallen-wizard "rebuilding" Ruins&Lairs into border/shadow holds when HCG is in play, because the new site type require an exchange of sites. (viewtopic.php?f=12&t=406&p=2846&hilit=h ... cold#p2846)

Presumably the Netrep intended to say that the MEWH rule of "immediately exchange any affected site cards
already in play with the corresponding site cards of the proper type
" is applied without a chain of effect. But even this is incorrect because "any activity in the game" (except meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck) is an "action" and all actions in the game are declared and resolved in a chain of effects. "Exchanging sites" per MEWH is "activity in the game" and so it is resolved in a chain of effects. Still, just because something is resolved in a chain of effects does not necessarily mean that there is an opportunity to respond. The MEWH rule still says "immediately." Meaning that there is no time for any actions between (A) the effect of HGC coming into play and (B) the exchange of the site--the site-type changing action necessarily involves declaring the site exchange action.

So then: there is no time for Mischief in a Mean Way to work with Rebuild the Town when Heart Grown Cold is in Play because the declaration of Rebuild the Town necessarily involves immediately exchanging the sites per MEWH and then immediately discarding Rebuild the Town after the sites are exchanged per Annotation 9a and the MEWH restrictions on targeting cross-alignment sites.

--------------------
miguel wrote: 2)
I play The Great Hunt and choose opponent’s discard pile. If I don’t defeat a revealed creature, does it get discarded, then revealed again by The Great Hunt?
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, you resolve the combat normally and then continue with The Great Hunt.
No. The player does not discard the creature to the top of the discard pile and then reveal it again (and get attacked again).

The Great Hunt states: "Your opponent reveals cards one at a time from his play deck or his discard pile (your choice). Any hazard creature revealed immediately attacks Alatar's company."

Back to the question, the player is asking how to handle non-defeated creatures that have been revealed from their opponent's discard pile by The Great Hunt, which then immediately attack. Normally a creature that is played will create an attack, and the creature card will be discarded if the created attack is not defeated.

However, the creatures revealed by The Great Hunt are not "played." The attacks are created by a revealed creature in the discard pile. The creature is in the discard pile and it stays there. If the creature's attack is not defeated, it is not possible to "discard" the creature (move the creature from play to the discard pile) because the creature is not in play and it is already in the discard pile.

Furthermore, Annotation 24 would prevent resolution of The Great Hunt from being interrupted. It's not clear (especially given the complete lack of a rule to discard non-defeated non-detainment creatures) that Annotation 9a would apply instead. Regardless, the creature is not played.

So no, combat is not resolved normally because the creature is not played normally. If you do not defeat a creature revealed by you simply leave it with the other revealed cards and proceed to reveal other cards as needed. So no, the creature will not be revealed again.

--------------------
miguel wrote: 3)
Can you put minion minor items under Armory?
---------------------------------------------------
As a Fallen-wizard, no. As a Hero player you can, and they count towards gaining the Armory marshalling point.
This is wrong. Minion items cannot be used to satisfy the conditions for hero Armory and so they do not count for giving the marshalling point. The rule is "minion items may not be used as conditions for hero resources." The entire point of this rule is so that items of the opposite alignment are ONLY usable for uniqueness-blocking and half MP.

Armory literally says "If you have at least three minor items under Armory, gain 1 Marshaling point." The word "if" means that a condition will follow. This is a condition. Minion items cannot be used to satisfy the condition of "having at least three minor items under Armory."

In the Netrep discussions there was a question of whether this ruling only applied to the conditions for playing a card. Well, the ruling is not limited in that way. It applies to all conditions. For example, Black Rain has an effect that "you may play an item from your hand." This is an effect of Black Rain, it is not a condition for playing Black Rain. This effect to play an item from your hand necessarily has the condition that you have an item in your hand. A hero item cannot satisfy this condition:
From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 54
Date: 1998/03/09

>OK, I'm now confused. Minions can play Hero Items for 1/2 MP and they
>can't use the abilities of the item, how does that differ from playing
>a hero ring w/ Black Rain.


Minions can't play hero rings from minion resources. Its always been
that way. That's why it is so hard for a minion to play the hero
One Ring. Hero items cannot fulfill conditions for minion resources,
at least for minions.
--------------------
miguel wrote: 4)
Is an imprisoned Ringwraith impossible to rescue if once freed he would be violating company composition rules?
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, the freeing effect would be cancelled and the Ringwraith would remain imprisoned. On a related note, a released Ringwraith follower must be controlled by your Ringwraith by the end of your next organization phase or that Ringwraith follower is discarded.
This is wrong. The Ringwraith prisoner can be released but you cannot cause a company composition violation -- the other Non-RW company would be discarded.

The MELE rules for "Limitations on Company Composition" state:
"Note: If two companies end up at a non-Darkhaven site and combining those companies would violate the limitations on company composition, one of the companies that just moved must return to its site of origin. Similarly, an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled (e.g., We Have Come to Kill)."

There is also the CRF ruling on a similar point:
"If you play a Ringwraith at a non-Darkhaven site where there is one of your non-Ringwraith companies, one of the companies must move that turn. If both companies are still there at the end of the movement/hazard phase, discard the non-Ringwraith company."

So a RW and a non-RW company may end up at the same site if they didn't move to the same site, but they still cannot violate the company composition rules.

The MEDM Rules on prisoners state: "Following the rescue-attack, an untapped character in the rescuing company can tap, and all characters taken prisoner under the hazard host immediately join the company under general influence (which must be legally reconciled during the player's next organization phase) -- the rescue attempt is successful."

The rescue attempt is still successful if a character taps, it's just that the RW company cannot join the non-RW company. The non-RW characters are discarded. In fact, this has already been ruled on by ICE:
From: Gnome <7633...@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 504
Date: 1998/09/15
Subject: [VAN]Prisoners

Can a Ringwraith rescue a prisoner at a non-Darkhaven site? The rules say that Ringwraiths and non-Ringwraiths cannot be at the same non-Darkhaven site, but a successful rescue causes the prisoner to immediately join the company that rescued him. (I think Ichabod answered this once, but I can't find the right digest.)
The Ringwraith can rescue the prisoner. The former prisoner is then discarded to satisfy the requirements of a Ringwraith company.

--------------------
miguel wrote: 5)
If a company must return to its site of origin and that site card is no longer in play, it (or the resource card that acted as the site) must be returned back into play in the same orientation that it left. It does not matter where that site card is, it is returned even from out of play.

If a company simply loses its site card, all the characters are discarded. For example, this happens to a company using Wondrous Maps played with a Crown of Flowers if someone Twilights that Crown of Flowers.

Characters getting released from cards like Sack Over the Head need to be able to either join a company already at the site, or their player must be able to provide a site card for them from his location deck. Otherwise the released characters are discarded.
Wondrous Maps cannot be "played with" Crown of Flowers. First of all, that doesn't make sense. Second, Wondrous Maps targets the company, so it cannot be played with (ie Target) Crown of Flowers as well. Crown of Flowers only works with non-targeting events.

--------------------
miguel wrote: 6)
Effects that reassign strikes affect only the order or assigning strikes, not the eligibility to face a strike. For example, Alatar may teleport to a company facing Neeker-breekers, but he cannot face a strike from them.
Alatar MAY (and MUST) face a strike from Neeker-breekers, it's just that the strike "Errata: Does not effect Wizards."

This matters because if the prowess of the Neeker-breekers is boosted using Froth, Clouds, Wake of War, Stench, Dwar, etc., then it IS possible to play Wound of Long Burden on Alatar facing the Neeker-breekers.

--------------------
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.
--------------------
miguel wrote: Mikko Vihtemäki
Council of Elrond NetRep*
meccgnetrep (at) gmail (dot) com

*Prepared in collaboration with Mark Alfano and David Barton (NetRep Team), and Konrad Klar, Marcos Cáceres, Karsten Gerland, Jamie Pollock and Manuel Cabezali Romero (NetRep Advisors).
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”