Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by the JabberwocK »

There has been considerable debate on this topic in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3238
and there is no easy solution to be found. Both sides of the argument have merit and any decisions made add complications.

Nonetheless, something needs to be done about this.

I propose the following clarifications and errata:

Clarification:
Cards "removed from play" are placed in an out of play pile and are still considered for purposes of uniqueness. Cards "removed from the game" can be placed anywhere outside of the playing environment and no longer have any affect or interaction with the game.

Clarification:
Cards in the discard pile are never considered for purposes of uniqueness.
This clarification clears up any possible confusion remaining from Van's ruling in ICE Digest 581 that because a card is unique, only one copy can be played during a game (which we already know is not true in all cases).


Erratum:
Change:
CRF, Tournaments, The Character Draft wrote:Characters left over from the character pool may be placed either in the play deck, or
out of play, but may not be placed in the sideboard.
To:
CRF, Tournaments, The Character Draft wrote:Characters left over from the character pool may be placed either in the play deck, or
removed from the game, but may not be placed in the sideboard.

Erratum:
Change:
Balrog, Getting Ready to Play, Miscellaneous wrote:If you are a Balrog player, your opponent may not play any of the following cards:
The Balrog (Ally), The Black Council, Durin’s Bane, Balrog of Moria, Reluctant
Final Parting.
However, if at any time your opponent has one of these cards in his hand, he may
remove it from play and bring one card from his sideboard into his play deck.
To:
Balrog, Getting Ready to Play, Miscellaneous wrote:If you are a Balrog player, your opponent may not play any of the following cards:
The Balrog (Ally), The Black Council, Durin’s Bane, Balrog of Moria, Reluctant
Final Parting.
However, if at any time your opponent has one of these cards in his hand, he may
remove it from the game and bring one card from his sideboard into his play deck.

Erratum:
Change:
Dragons, Manifestations of Dragons wrote:If at any time an
attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated or if the manifestation is
otherwise removed from the game:
• All existing manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from the game.
• No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played.
• The Dragon’s lair no longer has an automatic-attack.
To:
Dragons, Manifestations of Dragons wrote:If at any time an
attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated or if the manifestation is
otherwise removed from play:
• All existing manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from play.
• No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played.
• The Dragon’s lair no longer has an automatic-attack.

If the above proposal is passed it means:

- No additional erratum on Strider is necessary.

- News of Doom and Favor of the Valar are unique only for deck construction purposes and may be played by both players once during a game (effectively overturning Van's ruling in ICE Digest # 581). The alternative to this would be to issue an additional erratum on both News and Valar that they are "removed from play" instead of "removed from the game." This would stay true to Van's ruling but would add additional errata on 2 more cards, and it is unclear if this is better or worse for game play.

Finally, the other viable option would be what DamienX207 suggested in the above linked thread, which is to consider "out of play" and "out of the game" as the same thing. This alternative certainly deserves consideration also, but for the sake of having a proposal submitted, I chose what seemed the more direct path in my mind.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Konrad Klar »

I suggest including in the package a one more thing.
Dragons, Manifestations of Dragons wrote:If at any time an
attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated or if the manifestation is
otherwise removed from the game:
• All existing manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from the
game.
• No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played.
• The Dragon’s lair no longer has an automatic-attack.
changed to

If at any time an
attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated or if the manifestation is
otherwise removed from the play:
• All existing manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from the
play.
• No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played.
• The Dragon’s lair no longer has an automatic-attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Jose-san
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Jose-san »

I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to translate this xD

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Konrad Klar »

I suggest including the following (changed The Dragon's rule):

If at any time an
attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated or if the manifestation is
otherwise removed from the play:
• All existing manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from the
play.
• No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played.
• The Dragon’s lair no longer has an automatic-attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by the JabberwocK »

Thank you Konrad. I have added the Dragon rule to my proposal above in my original post.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1901
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by CDavis7M »

This errata was voted on and was accepted. But is it wrong and clearly contradicts the existing rules. The reason the vote was a failure is because no one bothered to read the rules. I can tell because no one in the linked discussions bothered to quote the rules, and the rules are actually very clear. The previous discussion misunderstands the rules on Uniqueness and the rules on the out-of-play pile. From this misunderstanding, the CoE's issued errata clearly contradict the rules. What a farce.

The questions being raised in the linked discussion are:
  • What does "removed from play" mean and where do cards removed from play go? Do they count for Uniqueness?
  • What does "removed from the game" mean and where do cards removed from the game go? Do they count for Uniqueness?
The answers from the actual rules are:
  • Cards that are "removed from play" are placed in the discard pile. They do NOT count for Uniqueness. The rules on Unique say nothing about discarded cards.
  • Cards that are "removed from the game" are placed in the out-of-play pile. Cards that are out-of-play cannot be brought back into the game, they have been removed from the game. The Unique restrictions have always specifically applied to unique characters or allies that are eliminated and to unique creatures that are defeated. However, rule changes in MELE state that cards (not limited to characters, allies, and creatures) in the out-of-play pile DO count as being "in play" for Uniqueness (even though they are not in play).
Yes, the rules changed in MELE: cards that are not in play may still count as being in play for purposes of Uniquess if those cards are in an out-of-play pile or marshalling point pile. This changes the rules because the METW rules on uniqueness are only generally concerned with cards that are in play, not cards that are out-of-play. Meaning that under the METW rules, both players could play Favor of the Valar while under the MELE rules, only the first player to play Favor of the Valar can play it. Still, METW had specific rules on not playing an eliminated character or ally, or a defeated unique creature. Therefore, the change in MELE is that "now" (back in 1997) non-character, non-ally, non-creature cards (ie, all cards) ALSO cannot be played when they are in the out-of-play pile (ie removed from the game).

Also note the clarification in the METW Unlimited rules that clarifies the Limited description of the out-of-play pile, which makes it seem more like a discard pile for "used" cards.
Actual Rules wrote: 2 · THE CARDS AND DECKS

UNIQUE & “MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED” CARDS
If a card states that it is “unique” or that it “may not be duplicated,” only one such card (or its effects) may be IN PLAY at a time. The first card played takes precedence (influence checks may change this). This restriction applies to all cards in play, i.e., both yours and your opponent’s.
(Comment: This main rule on Uniqueness ONLY apply to cards in play, not to cards that are out-of-play. But this rule was changed, see more below.)

METW Limited:
"Out-of-play Pile – Your cards that are removed from play after being used are placed in your out-of-play pile." (Comment: this description is confusing because it seems more like a discard pile. This was clarified in the Unlimited rules below)

METW Unlimited:
Clarification: If a character is eliminated due to combat or due to failing a corruption check by 2 or more, his card is placed in the out-of-play pile – that character may not be brought back into play by either player. If a creature is defeated, its card is placed in the defender’s marshalling point pile. If such a creature is unique, it may not be brought back into play by either player.
When a card is REMOVED FROM PLAY in all other cases, the card is DISCARDED unless the card specifically states otherwise.
(Comment: This rule specifically states that eliminated characters and defeated unique creatures cannot be replayed. This rule does not cover short-events.)

MELE:
Clarification: If a character is eliminated due to combat or due to failing a corruption check by 2 or more, his card is placed in the out-of-play pile – that character may not be brought back into play by either player.
When a card is removed from play in all other cases, the card is discarded unless the card specifically states otherwise.
Clarification: In general, cards in your out-of-play pile and your marshalling point pile are considered to be actively in play for the purposes of being unique (if the card states it is unique).
(Comment: MELE included a few changes: (A) cards in the out-of-play pile now are specifically considered to be in play for purposes of being unique. Also, the bit about creatures is removed since a creature may be defeated (e.g., by a RW, or someone doesn't want a trophy) and it will go to the player's out-of-play pile instead of the defender's marshalling point pile.
I don't know how much more clear the rules could be on "removed from play." When a card is "removed from play" without being eliminated or defeated, the card is DISCARDED unless the card specifically states otherwise.

Furthermore, this interpretation is consistent with other rulings. This is why Knowledge of the Enemy received the CRF clarification that it "Removes cards from the game, not just from play." This clarification is needed because KotE does not discard (remove from play) a card that is already being discarded, it moves that card to the out-of-play pile (remove from the game).

----------
the JabberwocK wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 am
Clarification:
Cards "removed from play" are placed in an out of play pile and are still considered for purposes of uniqueness. Cards "removed from the game" can be placed anywhere outside of the playing environment and no longer have any affect or interaction with the game.
This directly contradicts the rules and creates confusion in all the rules and cards listed.
Cards "removed from play" are placed in the discard pile unless otherwise indicated and they do not count for purposes of uniqueness.
Cards "removed from the game" are not " placed anywhere outside of the playing environment." Removing cards that were in play from the "playing environment" is not a concept of this game. Instead, such cards are placed in the out-of-play pile and they do count for purposes of uniqueness. Cards that are out-of-play cannot be put back into the game. Therefore, they have been "removed from the game."

----------
the JabberwocK wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 am
Clarification:
Cards in the discard pile are never considered for purposes of uniqueness.
This clarification clears up any possible confusion remaining from Van's ruling in ICE Digest 581 that because a card is unique, only one copy can be played during a game (which we already know is not true in all cases).
Van's ruling in ICE 581 is correct. It's true that Van wasn't Ichabod, but this isn't some one off "mistake." This ruling is directly supported by the MELE rules above.
ICE wrote:From: "Van Norton" <vno...@mindspring.com>
Subject: [MECCG] Ruling Digest 571
Date: 1999/04/16
>Subject: News Of Doom and other questions (Van/Ick)
>Just a few of questions.
>When cards are "removed from the game" such as with News Of Doom and
>Dark Tryst, I assume they are placed in the out of play pile. Is
>that correct?

Yes.
ICE wrote:From: "Van Norton" <vno...@mindspring.com>
Subject: [MECCG] Ruling Digest 581
Date: 1999/06/14
> 2- If my opponent played News of Doom, can I play my copy of
>the card later in the same game?
No. News of Doom in unique. Only one copy can be played during a
game.
These rulings are correct because News of Doom states "Remove News of Doom from the game" and that means that it goes to the out-of-play pile. Meaning that with the changes in MELE, it now counts as being in play for purposes of being Unique. Meaning that someone else cannot play News of Doom a second time because it is Unique and it is still considered "in play."

----------
the JabberwocK wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 am

Erratum:
Change:
CRF, Tournaments, The Character Draft wrote:Characters left over from the character pool may be placed either in the play deck, or out of play, but may not be placed in the sideboard.
To:
CRF, Tournaments, The Character Draft wrote:Characters left over from the character pool may be placed either in the play deck, or removed from the game, but may not be placed in the sideboard.
This CRF ruling is wrong but it is better to be removed completely rather than edited to be incorrect again as was done here. The Council of Lorien tournament policy already covers any question that could have been asked in order to need this answer.

CoL states: "If a unique character is duplicated by opponent's selection, both characters are set aside (this character may not appear in either player's starting company)... In his or her play deck, each player may now assign up to 10 characters, and this may include any unrevealed or duplicated (set aside) characters from his or her pool of starting characters."
The question that prompted the CRF ruling above was probably asking whether left over characters could be included in the sideboard. But the CoL policy is clear that "left over" characters from the draft may be included in the play deck, or they may not be. There is nothing about putting them in the sideboard. There is also nothing about putting such characters "out of play" (ie into the discard pile) as in the CRF Ruling. Under the CoL, left over characters are just not placed into the play deck. It doesn't say where they go. Presumably they stay in the "pool of potential starting characters," which is not used after game setup. Simple enough.

---------
the JabberwocK wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 am
Erratum:
Change:
Balrog, Getting Ready to Play, Miscellaneous wrote:If you are a Balrog player, your opponent may not play any of the following cards: The Balrog (Ally), The Black Council, Durin’s Bane, Balrog of Moria, Reluctant Final Parting.
However, if at any time your opponent has one of these cards in his hand, he may remove it from play and bring one card from his sideboard into his play deck.
To:
Balrog, Getting Ready to Play, Miscellaneous wrote:If you are a Balrog player, your opponent may not play any of the following cards: The Balrog (Ally), The Black Council, Durin’s Bane, Balrog of Moria, Reluctant Final Parting.
However, if at any time your opponent has one of these cards in his hand, he may remove it from the game and bring one card from his sideboard into his play deck.
This errata goes against the rules: "Clarification: If a character is eliminated due to combat or due to failing a corruption check by 2 or more, his card is placed in the out-of-play pile – that character may not be brought back into play by either player. When a card is removed from play in all other cases, the card is discarded unless the card specifically states otherwise.
Meaning that if you are playing against a Balrog player and you draw The Balrog ally, you can DISCARD it to sideboard another card. Removing a junk card to the out-of-play pile is an advantage in multi-deck games just as discarding a junk card from your hand is an advantage. I don't think the player should be rewarded because they included junk cards in their deck. You don't get rewarded for including Foul Fumes in your vs-minion deck, I don't see why you should be warded for included The Balrog in a vs-minion deck. The other possibility of removing The Balrog ally from the game is not unreasonable, but the rules are absolutely clear that The Balrog ally would be discarded.

----------
the JabberwocK wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 am
Erratum:
Change:
Dragons, Manifestations of Dragons wrote:If at any time an attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated or if the manifestation is otherwise removed from the game:
• All existing manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from the game.
• No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played.
• The Dragon’s lair no longer has an automatic-attack.
To:
Dragons, Manifestations of Dragons wrote:If at any time an attack from a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated or if the manifestation is otherwise removed from play:
• All existing manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from play.
• No further manifestations of the same Dragon may be played.
• The Dragon’s lair no longer has an automatic-attack.
This change is unnecessary. The other Dragon manifestations in play of a defeated dragon go to the out-of-play pile (removed from the game). This is fine since the dragon was defeated (they are all out-of-play now).

----------
the JabberwocK wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 am
If the above proposal is passed it means:
- No additional erratum on Strider is necessary.
Strider clearly overrides the rules on Manifestations just as The Mouth overrides the rules on Manifestations. There is no issue with Aragorn II being in play while a non-eliminated Strider is in the out-of-play pile.

----------
the JabberwocK wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 am
- News of Doom and Favor of the Valar are unique only for deck construction purposes and may be played by both players once during a game (effectively overturning Van's ruling in ICE Digest # 581). The alternative to this would be to issue an additional erratum on both News and Valar that they are "removed from play" instead of "removed from the game." This would stay true to Van's ruling but would add additional errata on 2 more cards, and it is unclear if this is better or worse for game play.
This goes against multiple ICE rulings and the rules of the game as changed in MELE. The rules are clear. Van was right.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Theo »

Once more into the breach, dear friends!
MELE wrote: When a card is removed from play in all other cases, the card is discarded unless the card specifically states otherwise.
Aware of Their Ways wrote:Opponent reveals four cards at random from his discard pile. You may choose a non-unique one and remove it from play. Opponent discards the other three.
Under your interpretation, the player would get to choose one of the three to discard, and then the others also get discarded. Curious word choice if that was the intent!

Some other fallout:
* Ireful Flames would similarly be worded unnecessarily verbosely!
* Phial of Galadriel: the Star-glass that turned out to be the Phial can have its shadow return to live another life!


What unifies all of these cards? They cause another card to be removed from play. The quoted MELE rule should be limited to e.g. corruption cards that each state how it (itself) can be removed from (active) play.

I agree that the current wording lacks specificity. This is grounds for further errata/clarification.

Or go the route of Knowledge of the Enemy and errata all the cards that remove another card from play.

-----

On the matter of:
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:11 pm
CoL states: "If a unique character is duplicated by opponent's selection, both characters are set aside (this character may not appear in either player's starting company)... In his or her play deck, each player may now assign up to 10 characters, and this may include any unrevealed or duplicated (set aside) characters from his or her pool of starting characters."
...
Under the CoL, left over characters are just not placed into the play deck. It doesn't say where they go. Presumably they stay in the "pool of potential starting characters," which is not used after game setup. Simple enough.
As you quoted, CoL does say: they are placed to the side.
MEDM wrote:Cards placed off to the side are in play for the purposes of uniqueness.
CoL was inadequate, at least to me.
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!

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Konrad Klar »

Is "set aside" the same as "placed off to the side"?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1901
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:07 pm
MELE wrote: When a card is removed from play in all other cases, the card is discarded unless the card specifically states otherwise.
Aware of Their Ways wrote:Opponent reveals four cards at random from his discard pile. You may choose a non-unique one and remove it from play. Opponent discards the other three.
Under your interpretation, the player would get to choose one of the three to discard, and then the others also get discarded. Curious word choice if that was the intent!
What interpretation? The rules say "removed from play" means "the card is discarded." This is why Knowledge of the Enemy was changed so that it "Removes cards from the game, not just from play." From this understanding, all of the other cards and rules are consistent and make sense. Compared to all of the CoE editing in an attempt to make consistency.
Theo wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:07 pm
Some other fallout:
* Ireful Flames would similarly be worded unnecessarily verbosely!
* Phial of Galadriel: the Star-glass that turned out to be the Phial can have its shadow return to live another life!
There's no fall out Many cards are discarded. Ireful is no different from Frenzy. Phial is no different from a Ring. If anything, it would be weird to have these items placed in the out-of-play pile, they are not strong enough to warrant that.

-----
Theo wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:07 pm
As you quoted, CoL does say: they are placed to the side.
MEDM wrote:Cards placed off to the side are in play for the purposes of uniqueness.
CoL was inadequate, at least to me.
Cards "set aside" are definitely not "off to the side."

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Theo »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:02 pm
Is "set aside" the same as "placed off to the side"?
Setting is a type of placement. The phrase "off to the side" (vs. just "to the side") in English suggests there is some extra space given to those things. But since "aside" in this case doesn't specify anything they are "beside", I would take away an understanding of space either way. So I'd say, rather, that "set aside" is one form of "placed off to the side", barring evidence otherwise.
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: 1081
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:38 pm
From this understanding, all of the other cards and rules are consistent and make sense.
You are missing that there are multiple senses of the term "play" used in the rules. The rules are ambiguous. That can mean that there are multiple valid (consistent) interpretations of them; that doesn't mean that all of those interpretations "make sense", nor that the least powerful of them is the intended interpretation by default.

Can you give an example showcasing the importance of the Aware of their Ways errata under your interpretation?
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: 1901
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:08 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:38 pm
From this understanding, all of the other cards and rules are consistent and make sense.
You are missing that there are multiple senses of the term "play" used in the rules. The rules are ambiguous. That can mean that there are multiple valid (consistent) interpretations of them; that doesn't mean that all of those interpretations "make sense", nor that the least powerful of them is the intended interpretation by default.
The rules are clear: "When a card is removed from play in all other cases, the card is discarded unless the card specifically states otherwise."
Theo wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:08 am
Can you give an example showcasing the importance of the Aware of their Ways errata under your interpretation?
The context is always important in this game. Aware of their Ways (and Knowledge of the Enemy) specifically state otherwise -- they "remove" an already-discarded card from the discard pile. The out-of-play pile is the only possible place for "removing" a discarded card.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:00 am
Aware of their Ways (and Knowledge of the Enemy) specifically state otherwise
Except these cards do not specifically state that the card isn't just discarded (again). We know it is possible to discard cards already in the discard because of the remaining text on Aware of Their Ways. If someone hallucinates their own text onto the cards, I'm not sure how to have any more meaningful discussion.

---
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:38 pm
This is why Knowledge of the Enemy was changed so that it "Removes cards from the game, not just from play."
As you stated before: Knowledge of the Enemy was clarified, not changed. As a clarification, it is incompatible with your interpretation of the "removed from play" passage in the rules.

---

It would still be helpful to clarify which of other compatible interpretations should be the standard. Maybe the intent of "play" referring only to active play (or "removed from the playing surface" as was used elsewhere in the rulebooks) is more reasonable than my previous suggestion, but I believe these would all have the same consequences.
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: 1901
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:40 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:00 am
Aware of their Ways (and Knowledge of the Enemy) specifically state otherwise
Except these cards do not specifically state that the card isn't just discarded (again). We know it is possible to discard cards already in the discard because of the remaining text on Aware of Their Ways. If someone hallucinates their own text onto the cards, I'm not sure how to have any more meaningful discussion.
Those other cards in AotW are "discarded" not "removed," so clearly there is a difference in this context. "Removed from play" has a different meaning in the context where a discarded card is being "removed from play." It is ambiguous, which is why Knowledge of the Enemy has a clarification. The same reasoning applies to AotW.
Theo wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:40 pm
As you stated before: Knowledge of the Enemy was clarified, not changed. As a clarification, it is incompatible with your interpretation of the "removed from play" passage in the rules.
You're misunderstanding what "errata" and "clarifications" are. Some clarifications change how the card/game is played, others do not. It's not only errata that changes how the card/game is played. Both errata and clarifications make changes, except only errata can change the existing rules/card text. ICE has explicitly stated that this is how it works in the CRF, the Companion, and the Player Guides.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Removed from the Game & Removed from Play

Post by Theo »

ICE Netrep 97/10/20 wrote:ICE has decided to change the release of certain rulings. Rulings which clear up ambiguous situations in the game, which includes most rulings made, will continue to apply as soon as they are made. However, other rulings, such as errata, and new changes to the rules, will be delayed for at least two weeks. When such rulings are made, their effective date for tournament use will be posted, and two weeks before that date a list of all new rulings to take effect on that date will be posted. This will happen every other Monday. This being the first Monday of the policy, here are the new rulings that will be effective in tournament play as of November 3rd, 1997:
1. Stay Her Appetite has erratum: Change "plus two" to "plus five."
2. If a card leaves active play, including being returned to a player's hand, it immediately ceases having an effect on play.
The first CRF Knowledge of the Enemy appeared in was CRF 8, released November 6th, 1997. If it changed the rules, why didn't it appear in this list of new rulings?
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!

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”