Draft of Digest #124

[miguel]

Instead of spamming everyone with private messages, I've decided to start putting the CoE sneak peek of the upcoming digests in this board section. I hope to publish this digest the week following Lure. If you have any comments, hit reply.

1)
Can Eagle-mounts be played on a company with Orcs/Trolls and Lindion the Oronin?
---------------------------------------------------
Yes.


2)
May a wizard influence an opponent’s resource the turn he comes back after a Sacrifice of Form?
---------------------------------------------------
No, playing your avatar is revealing him.


3)
Can you play And Forth He Hastened on Saruman to take a spell in the end of turn phase?
---------------------------------------------------
No, Saruman gets to use his ability only at the beginning of the end-of-turn phase. Once you play AFHH during the end-of-turn phase, it is no longer the beginning.


4)
If Echoes of the Song forces you to discard a stage card, can you discard any hazard or site card giving stage points?
---------------------------------------------------
No. While other cards may affect your stage point total, only stage resources are actual stage cards.


5)
How does Left Behind interact with attacks that have one strike for each character?
---------------------------------------------------
If strikes are allocated to at least five characters, Left Behind becomes playable.


6)
When influencing an opponent's resource or character, Webs of Fear and Treachery reduces the opponent's roll to zero. Same applies for the -5 across alignment influencing penalty.


7)
Even though the corruption checks from Greed are not triggered by a passive condition, they are treated that way for the purposes of timing.

[Khamul the Easterling]

Very good!

How has 7) made it's way into the digest? I think one or two examples could be quite helpful, here.

[miguel]

Well, regarding Greed, there are actually no rules for how it's supposed to work. It does not set up an action (cc) waiting to trigger from a passive condition (item gets played) simply because Greed is a short event and therefore does not remain in play (the section in CRF of how passive conditions work does not apply to Greed). Basically people have been intuitively playing it the way we are ruling now. Just making it official, no big deal.

[Mordan]

Saruman and FW Saruman really suck....

I know these are the rules but having him to reach End of Turn phase untapped to be of any use is making his special ability much less usefull. Most of the time you draw Forth He Hastened when resetting hand during EOT.

I would vote for an errata on Saruman to remove "beginning" and same thing for Wizard's Staff. Tap Wizard Staff instead of Wizard. ICE did the same thing for Book of Mazarbul.

Why is nobody playing Saruman in tournaments?

[Ringbearer]

Why is nobody playing Saruman in tournaments?

Cause he isnt a warrior, and that imho makes him suckass.

[Mordan]

Why is nobody playing Saruman in tournaments?

Cause he isnt a warrior, and that imho makes him suckass.

Would this errata help him?

Saruman map tap to prevent non-environment effects that force his company to return to its site of origin until the end of the turn.

This is ground on the fact saruman would have been able to talk his way with Baduila and Beornings. His voice is so powerful as is clearly shown in the Book with a whole chapter name the Voice of Saruman.

Also I would balance other wizards by making Gandalf a ranger and giving a 7 prowess to Alatar AND once per turn Alatar may tap to face a strike faced by another company. Discard followers and allies. No need to be at a haven.

Right now, the only truly viable wizards are Pallando and Radagast.

I'm against nerfing because it destroys decks. I'm all for buffing.

[Bandobras Took]

It may be advisable to start another topic for such discussion; this should be strictly for comments about the NetRep's digest.

[marcos]

Why is nobody playing Saruman in tournaments?

Cause he isnt a warrior, and that imho makes him suckass.

Would this errata help him?

Saruman map tap to prevent non-environment effects that force his company to return to its site of origin until the end of the turn.

This is ground on the fact saruman would have been able to talk his way with Baduila and Beornings. His voice is so powerful as is clearly shown in the Book with a whole chapter name the Voice of Saruman.

Also I would balance other wizards by making Gandalf a ranger and giving a 7 prowess to Alatar AND once per turn Alatar may tap to face a strike faced by another company. Discard followers and allies. No need to be at a haven.

Right now, the only truly viable wizards are Pallando and Radagast.

I'm against nerfing because it destroys decks. I'm all for buffing.

that is why they made FWs

[CDavis7M]

7)
Even though the corruption checks from Greed are not triggered by a passive condition, they are treated that way for the purposes of timing.

There is no need to pretend that the rules don't describe the timing of Greed's corruption checks. The corruption checks from Greed ARE triggered by a passive condition (the passive condition being "an item is played at the site").

It's true that the introduction to passive conditions states "a passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card already in play." But this does not exclude "a passive condition causes an action to happen as stated on a card effect already in play." The introduction on passive conditions is describing the "condition" that triggers the effect, it's not specifically describing which types of effects can be triggered by the condition.

Furthermore, the rest of the introduction indicates that Greed would operate using passive conditions: "Typical passive conditions involve forcing corruption checks (Greed does this) and forcing the effects of environmental long-events. These are called passive conditions because the actions they satisfy come into play only indirectly as the result of a decision made by a player."

Furthermore, Annotation 9 states "If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition." Greed is a card that specifies that an action (a corruption check) is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition (an item is played at the site). The timing in Annotation 9 applies to Greed.

The other hangup appears to be "A card causing an action as a result of a passive condition must be in play when the action resolves, or else the action is canceled." However, this is just a ruling by term which is overridden by cards that contradict the ruling. Clearly a short even does not need to be "in play." The ruling is for long/permanent events, and that is the example given by ICE when this was announced. This ruling is not even new, it is based on the original rule that the effect of long/permanent events last until the card is discarded.

You can also tell that Greed uses passive conditions because ICE used the word "trigger" to refer to triggering passive/active conditions, and the CRF on Greed uses "trigger." ICE has also stated that non-long/permanent events can trigger actions using passive conditions -- ie Greed. There are other cards that are not in play that trigger actions, like Chill Douser, First of the Order, etc.

Greed
Is triggered by a special ring item being played, but not by items being transferred.