Search found 1404 matches
- Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:43 am
- Forum: CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals
- Topic: Potential Carambor Fix
- Replies: 86
- Views: 56181
Re: Potential Carambor Fix
With the feasible parsing in my previous post [the [company's new site]]... My discussion of parsing is probably not helpful for everyone. Maybe an example would help: You are at work and your boss makes an announcement: "I know things are tough, so I'll promise the team this: when the team's ...
- Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:21 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: The Balrog's Company
- Replies: 12
- Views: 5147
Re: The Balrog's Company
Is it "of minion characters, only orcs and trolls can be used", or "of characters, only orc minions and troll minions can be used"? *sigh* English. I guess the distinction only matters if his red color makes him not a minion character.
- Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:01 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Allies using Resources
- Replies: 39
- Views: 14153
Re: Allies using Resources
But in general allies can't tap to give +1 to a corruption check. Corruption checks are not a purpose of combat (even when they are triggered from hazard creature's combat effects, e.g. corpse-candle... the plus side is that the ally is also not forced to make a corruption check).
- Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:43 am
- Forum: CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals
- Topic: Potential Carambor Fix
- Replies: 86
- Views: 56181
Re: Potential Carambor Fix
Good point about the differences between the player's vs company's movement/hazard phase. My previous post wasn't appropriately in that mindset, and definitely had problems. I give up on Carambor's current wording for now. ;) But I'd still like to propose the errata be "his first movement-hazar...
- Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:20 am
- Forum: CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals
- Topic: Potential Carambor Fix
- Replies: 86
- Views: 56181
Re: Potential Carambor Fix
Carambor's ability should be interpreted as only being usable at the end of a company's "normal" movement hazard phase---the only movement hazard phase for that company in the rulebooks. It refers to a singular "phase" rather than "phases", and in the rules as written u...
- Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:32 am
- Forum: Council Business
- Topic: New Charter Revision - 2018
- Replies: 25
- Views: 22054
- Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:23 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site
- Replies: 18
- Views: 9352
Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site
I'm with Kjeld on having a distributable copy of the rulebooks. There should be user-interface ways to communicate their potential outdatedness or the like. -------- He is quoting from Page 14 of the official ICE rules booklet which was released with The Balrog expansion. It is in the "MECCG Ru...
- Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:35 pm
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site
- Replies: 18
- Views: 9352
Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site
What document were you referencing? The only place I could find it was on something titled " Middle Earth CCG Rules Long ." As a 14 page summary , I wouldn't normally view that doc as setting precedent since I imagine that it wasn't meant to handle something as subtle as this, though I hav...
- Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:23 am
- Forum: Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)
- Topic: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site
- Replies: 18
- Views: 9352
Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site
Use the following (non-bulleted) rules from MELE. MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE <snip> · Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same site face down is their new site card. This section is bulleted in the CoE MELE pdf, which I would take to mean that it wouldn...