(Easy way of) killing of Spider of the Môrlat (?)

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:29 pm There is other (than common sense) factor.
AFIK Spider of the Môrlat is the only card that is both a creature and an event that creates attacks.

So instead of making an errata specific to the Spider of the Môrlat, it (maybe) would be better to make a general regulation, like:
"A card that is both a creature and an event that creates attacks is not eliminated if an attacks created by it as event are defeated.
Unless a text of such card states otherwise."
I think this is a fine idea, however, because Spider of the Morlat is unique in this regard I think it's actually a little cleaner/simpler to just make a clarification for SotM itself. If there were multiple similar cards with this issue, I would prefer to make the general regulation you suggest.
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

I got a question for you tho:

Do you guys consider how your rulings affect Dreamcards?

The reason I am asking is because some "templates" used from the Standard Releases, are used in Dreamcards.

So, I think Konrad is DEAD on TARGET.

There are other cards that are like SotM (in DC).

Konrad's propsed clarification, could be use with Dreamcard(s), instead the DC community having to issue their own (for each similar card).

Lord of the Woods

Laters...
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

The Lord of the Woods... makes... baby elves?


I'm in favor of specific errata or a generalized rule clarification (re permanent events)
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Very virulent.

Or maybe the Spider of the Morlat's lesser attacks represent that it is less powerful when wandering around the countryside smelling flowers and eating hundreds of butterflies and not in its own lair, to which it retreats when threatened?
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

haha
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

rezwits wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:32 pm I got a question for you tho:

Do you guys consider how your rulings affect Dreamcards?

The reason I am asking is because some "templates" used from the Standard Releases, are used in Dreamcards.

So, I think Konrad is DEAD on TARGET.

There are other cards that are like SotM (in DC).

Konrad's propsed clarification, could be use with Dreamcard(s), instead the DC community having to issue their own (for each similar card).

Lord of the Woods

Laters...
No, I do not consider Dream Cards when making an erratum or clarification proposal, as I am not yet very familiar with them.

You do make a good point regarding DC and Lord of the Woods.

Perhaps a general rule clarification would be better, as Konrad has suggested.

I would like to hear from the Dream Card team in regards to Lord of the Woods.... did they intend to give 3 kill MPs away if the permanent event attack is defeated? I doubt it, but perhaps they can chime in.
Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

I thought I did more than once, this idea by Theo is ludicrous and on top Konrad feeding in the to some slight of issues, again use brains please or ask around how it was ruled a trillion times before please

yours Nico
User avatar
Shapeshifter
Ex Council Member
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

There are several things to consider that are in disfavour of an interpretation discussed here:

1. The part in the MEBA Rules Summary & Play Tips about defeating a permanent-event
a. is not a rule but a clarification,
b. is written beneath the headline "Specific Rules for Middle-earth: The Balrog",
c. gives Dragon “Ahunt” (a long-event!) as an example for such a permanent-event (how serious can this be taken?),
d. refers to “certain hazard permanent-events” (underline is mine) thus probably not to all permanent-events that indicate that the card may give (under certain circumstances) “kill” marshalling points.

2. There is no general rule that says that you receive “kill” MPs for defeating an attack associated with a hazard permanent-event. Dragons “At Home” and Spawn from the MEBA set are obviously the only exceptions so far but neither of them may be played as a creature and causes an attack in permanent-event state.

3. To challenge the way the card was played and interpreted - as I see it by a majority of players, probably by all high level players I know of and was even accepted in official ICE tournaments - over the last two decades it would need more facts imho.

4. The intentions of ICE with this card are clear if you consider the high MP for an rather easy attack while played as a permanent-event.

My opinion - which is based on almost 20 years playing experiance on a high tournament level - is that you receive “kill” MP only by defeating either a hazard creature or a hazard event card that is not also a creature and has an associated attack while played as an event and has a MP value in the upper left corner. If a card is playable either as a creature or as an event then it gives MP when played as a creature only, unless otherwise stated on the card.
Zakath
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:15 am
Location: United States

Shapeshifter wrote: Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:56 pm My opinion - which is based on almost 20 years playing experiance on a high tournament level - is that you receive “kill” MP only by defeating either a hazard creature or a hazard event card that is not also a creature and has an associated attack while played as an event and has a MP value in the upper left corner. If a card is playable either as a creature or as an event then it gives MP when played as a creature only, unless otherwise stated on the card.
This. I have no doubt whatsoever that if it came up back when I was playing high level tournaments semi-regularly the ruling would have been that you only got the MP if the card was played as a creature.

It almost feels impossible for it to be otherwise - if people thought you would give your opponent an easy shot at 4 kill MP, they wouldn't include it in spider/animal hazard decks, and yet it has always been a consistent presence in such lists.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”