URD Errors - Post Here

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

URD Errors - Post Here

Post by the JabberwocK »

If you notice any obvious errors with the URD, please make a post outlining the details in this thread.

The latest version of the URD can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1500&start=45#p20927

Thanks!

Mercenario
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:07 pm
Location: RIR

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by Mercenario »

This isn´t an obvious error but it can be a bit confusing:

Dragons: The following rules apply to Dragons:
...
• If you defeat the attack from a Dragon manifestation,
you get kill marshalling points from the manifestation
as if you had defeated a creature [CRF].

page 12


Roused: A type of Dragon Manifestation. If an attack
from this manifestation is defeated, the Dragon’s Lair
loses its normal automatic-attack. If an attack from this
manifestation is defeated, no player receives its Marshalling
Points [ME:LE, 42].

page 17

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

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by Jose-san »

Mercenario wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:52 pm
This isn´t an obvious error but it can be a bit confusing:

Dragons: The following rules apply to Dragons:
...
• If you defeat the attack from a Dragon manifestation,
you get kill marshalling points from the manifestation
as if you had defeated a creature [CRF].

page 12


Roused: A type of Dragon Manifestation. If an attack
from this manifestation is defeated, the Dragon’s Lair
loses its normal automatic-attack. If an attack from this
manifestation is defeated, no player receives its Marshalling
Points [ME:LE, 42].

page 17
There is an error there:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1500&p=26797#p26797

User avatar
kober
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:31 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by kober »

URD page 54 wrote:Unrevealed on-guard cards are placed in your hand at the end of the Site Phase.
It should be: "at the beginning of the End-of-Turn Phase."

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by rezwits »

URD 4.2, page 38 wrote:
  • If the above apply, follow this procedure:
    • a. Reveal the faction from your hand.
    • b. Tap a character to make an influence check.
    • INSERT SOMETHNG HERE MAYBE?, to the effect of: Play resources to modify the influence attempt?
    • c. Make a roll. Add the character’s unused
      Direct Influence.
    • d. Add any modifications listed on the faction card.
    • e. Apply any other modifiers from cards.
    • f. If the result is higher than the number listed
      on the faction, you successfully play the faction. Tap the site.
[-me_wh-] PM-ME-IF
IMAGE LINK ZOOMING
(install this Chrome Extension Hover Zoom)
(install this FireFox Extension Hover Zoom)
(install this Safari Extension HoverSee)$$
URL ex = "https://cardnum.net/img/cards/METW/metw_gandalf.jpg"
nb to play at cardnum.net you have to disable!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by Theo »

See Hazards and CvCC. Regardless of the CoE ruling, the URD needs fixing in that ICE digests 563 and 579 supercede METB.
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by Konrad Klar »

URD wrote:● You may reveal any Unique cards in your hand that match unique cards your opponent
has in play. Such cards reduce your opponent's Marshalling Point total by one. You may
also reveal a manifestation of the Unique entity for the same effect.
Lidless Eye wrote:THE AUDIENCE AND THE COUNCIL
All characters and Wizards make corruption checks as outlined in the MELE and METW rules. The winner is the player
with the most marshalling points - i.e., the player who has done the most to help his side win.
At the Audience/Council, you may reveal any unique marshalling point cards in your hand that match unique cards that
your opponent has in play. You may also reveal any marshalling point cards in your hand that are manifestations of
cards that your opponent has in play. Each such revealed card reduces your opponent's marshalling point total by one.
1. Revealing a manifestation of the Unique entity applies only to the METW vs MELE games.
2. The revealed manifestation must be a marshalling point card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by Theo »

And it must be a card that the player is actually getting positive points for (but maybe that was CoE specific... I'll check another time).
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: 997
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by Theo »

the JabberwocK wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:01 am
The latest version of the URD can be found here: http://forum.councilofelrond.org/viewto ... =45#p20927
Link requires permissions.

---

Last version I downloaded was 4.2. In that version there was still a comment "oh, yes you can".

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2583

CoE #117 should removal all remaining ambiguity.
CoE #117 wrote:You may not attempt to influence away any of the following from your opponent: his avatar, an ally controlled by his avatar, an item controlled by his avatar, or a follower of his avatar.
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: 1484
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by CDavis7M »

The "updated" rule is in the challenge deck rules summary. This was a change to the rules. The ICE Netrep acknowledged that it was a change.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by Theo »

CoE does not recognize Balrog nor Challenge Deck Summaries as "authorative".
CoE #51 wrote:*** On a more recent subject: The challenge deck rules booklet is not authorative (just a summary), challenge deck cards are authorative. This is similar to the ruling recently made about the Balrog rules booklet.
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: 1484
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:18 am
CoE does not recognize Balrog nor Challenge Deck Summaries as "authorative".
The Summary in Challenge Decks and Balrog decks are official ICE publications written by the ICE netrep. By definition, they are "authoritative."

Of course, the Rules Summary was not intended to be complete. But it is accurate. And ICE ruled multiple times that the Rules Summary rule on influencing away was correct.

----------

For a while I had assumed that the CoE Netrep Chad Martin was actually just ignorant of the ICE rulings. But after seeing more and more of his interactions with the ICE Netreps, I'm starting to think differently.

----------

Given that the URD lists so many CoE Digests, and that the CoE Digests include so many errors, this could be a very long thread if I had the time.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by Theo »

I think you are under-appreciating Bandobras' signature.

These are the CoE forums. We can tell the CoE their rules are misled or what we think they should be, but that doesn't change what they've decided their rules are, which they should at least be consistent with when making a URD (or explicit with any reverting).

If you want to start an ICE-only URD effort, we can debate more about how to interpret them then. At one point I had a plan for a "multiverse" rules compilation that would allow players to switch between which rules sources THEY wanted to honor, but it has been defunded due to temporal cuts.
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: 1484
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by CDavis7M »

This is not CoE rules vs ICE rules. This is a situation where the CoE ruling were made unaware of the ICE rulings.

There is a huge difference between CoE Errata 1 that lays out the ICE rulings and explicitly decides to overturn them and many of the other CoE rulings that don't know the ICE rulings, and sometimes don't even comprehend the rules themselves.

The same authority claiming dismissing the CD/Balrog Summary then forgets about Annotation 26.

I think everyone would agree that CoE #1 is a valid alternative to the ICE rules. And I think that everyone would agree that forgetting Annotation 26 and playing by the CoE Netreps faulty ruling is not a valid alternative. If the CoE Netrep wanted to change Annotation 26 they would have specifically mentioned it.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: URD Errors - Post Here

Post by CDavis7M »

1.
URD - Forward wrote:“You probably aren’t playing Fallen Wizards correctly.”
What a weird thing to say when the author wasn't playing Fallen Wizard trophies correct either.

2.
URD - Glossary - Ahunts wrote:Deal with card appropriately even if the card is discarded during the actual attack (i.e. put it in your marshalling point pile if you would gain MPs for defeating the attack, etc.) [CoE 29].
This situation cannot happen. After strikes have been assigned, the Ahunt Long-event cannot be discarded because discarding the Ahunt would cancel the attack (see discussion in Error 6 and ICE ruling below) and an attack cannot be cancelled after its strikes have been assigned.
--Annotation 13: An attack may not be canceled once its strikes have been assigned.
--MELE p. 41 - Its card [the long-event] and effects remain in play... until otherwise discarded.
ICE Digest 94 wrote:Question: If an Ahunt Dragon is played during the m/h phase and its attack is triggered by the company's movement, will removing the Ahunt Long-event with Marvels Told stop the attack?
Answer: Yes. When a long or permanent event is discarded by another card, it immediately ceases to have an effect on play.
3.
URD - Glossary - Allies - Editor's Note wrote:The following list of permanent events are those that target an entity with a skill/race without specifying that it be a character:
• To Fealty Sworn
This statement is misleading because the Editor is discussing cards played on an Ally and To Fealty Sworn cannot be played on an ally because there are no ally is a Hobbit. Mistress Lobelia is an "Ally," not a "Hobbit."

4.
URD - Glossary - At Home - Editor's Note wrote:Editor’s Note: This is incorrect. Adding an automatic-attack is not affecting the attack any more than removing an automatic-attack affects an automatic-attack. An At Home dragon is not a creature, nor does it affect the automatic-attack. If the At Home dragon has an effect which applies during the Site Phase, it may be revealed, but the company will have already faced all automatic-attacks that were at the site at the beginning of the Site Phase.
This "Editor's Note" appears to believe that a hazard card can only be revealed when "the company decides to face the site's automatic-attack" if that hazard modifies the already existing automatic attacks on the site. That is incorrect. The Editor appears to be conflating the resource playing rules in the Site Phase ("removing an automatic attack") with the hazard playing On-Guard rules. Adding an additional automatic attack DOES "modify the automatic attack" per the On Guard rules. For instance, Incite Minions creates an attack and can be revealed on guard when a company enters the site. At Home dragons can also be revealed on guard when a company enters the site. There are numerous instances of the ICE Netrep deciding issues about revealing Incite Denizens on guard but nothing specifically stating that they can be revealed on guard. No one else would try to assert that creating an automatic attack does not modify the automatic attack.
ICE NetRep 8/24/96 wrote:Question: Other than putting a single card on guard there is no way to influence what happens during an opponents site phase? i.e. I can't play Awaken Minion and the like when they decide to explore the site? This means it's impossible to get a site with both Incite Minions and Arouse Minions on it unless one of the cards was played (face up) during the movement/hazard phase?

Answer: You are correct in that only one hazard can be played on guard and no other hazards can be played during the site phase. There is one way to get both an Incite and an Arouse on-guard on a site. If your opponent has two companies moving to the same site you can play an on-guard card for each company.
The relevant on-guard rule is:
The card will remain on that site until one of the following occurs:
• The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack. If the on guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the company's site or a hazard that can modify the automatic-attack, it may be revealed before the automatic-attack is resolved. If it is a hazard creature, it will attack after the automatic-attack is resolved...

The ICE Site Phase rule is (see also CoE erratum 1 replacing this):
A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack. Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”