Can(not) be duplicated exploit

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CRF, Rulings by Term, Stored Cards wrote:Stored cards are not considered to be in play, except for uniqueness.
The Windlord Found Me wrote:Playable at an untapped Isengard, Shadow-hold [S], or Dark-hold [D] during the site phase. Tap the site. The company faces an Orc attack (4 strikes with 9 prowess). Afterwards, a character may tap and place this card under him. That character may not untap until after this card is stored in a Haven [H] during the organization phase. When this card is stored, and if your Wizard is not already in play, you may search your play deck or discard pile for a Wizard and play him at that Haven [H] (does not count towards the one character per turn limit). Cannot be duplicated by a given player.
So what stops a player from playing next copy of The Windlord Found Me after storing of previous copy?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

It would seem that nothing does, but since you can only have one unstored copy at a time, getting two into play is perhaps sufficiently difficult to counterbalance it.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

CRF, Rulings by Term, Stored Cards wrote:
Stored cards are not considered to be in play, except for uniqueness.
And for the purpose of scoring MP's, I hope? :-)
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Stored Cards wrote:
Stored cards are not considered to be in play, except for uniqueness.
And for the purpose of scoring MP's, I hope? :-)
Lidless Eye, Starter Rules, Playing and Drawing Cards, Storing Cards wrote: Clarification: Unless stated otherwise on the card, the marshalling points for a card that can be stored apply regardless of whether or not the card is stored.
It is not necessary for a card to be in play, to give marshalling points. After all, eliminated hazards, placed in MP pile are not in play, and are not stored too, but still give MPs.

But it is good that someone did noticed it. That issue was briefly touched in thread Agents At The Audience With Sauron.

Seems like Lidless Eye, in its other part, takes into account only unique cards in play and unique marshalling point cards in hand.
Lidless Eye, Standard Rules, Marshalling The Victory Conditions, Point Modifications wrote:Finally, you may reveal any unique marshalling point cards in your hand that match unique cards your opponent has in play.
Other school:
CRF, Turn Sequence, End-of-Game wrote:Subtract any points that are subtracted from your total, including points from
unique resources your opponent has duplicated in his hand.
does not care whether a card that has duplicate in hand is present in play. Instead it narrows a range of cards in question to resources.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Friday, April 14, 2017, user Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:So the duplicability of a non-unique card is irrelevant once it is stored? Is that the final verdict? That might require some attention, perhaps even ruling.

imo, the uniqueness can be extended to duplicability, as they cover the same issue (unique is something that cannot be duplicated).
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Friday, April 14, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:imo, the uniqueness can be extended to duplicability, as they cover the same issue (unique is something that cannot be duplicated).
Imagine the Doors of Night removed from play by Aware of Their Ways. No problem with Doors of Night removed from play by discarding a stored Knowledge of the Enemy.
Knowledge of the Enemy wrote:Removes cards from the game, not just from play.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Friday, April 14, 2017, user Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:Not sure I follow your point, we're still talking about stored cards, right, and how their non-duplicability still applies?

the whole CRF entry seems weird, as you say, Knowledge of the Enemy still works.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Friday, April 14, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Stored Cards wrote:Stored cards are not considered to be in play, except for uniqueness.
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. Quickly now he drew off the cloth, wrapped the stone in it and kneeling down, laid it back in the wizard's hand.-LotRIII
Underlines mine.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Friday, April 14, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:To answer
So the duplicability of a non-unique card is irrelevant once it is stored? Is that the final verdict? That might require some attention, perhaps even ruling.
the MELE rules are pretty clear:
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.
In all cases, if a card "cannot be duplicated," a second copy of that card cannot be declared - unless the first copy of the card is targeted for removal earlier in the same chain of effects when the second copy is played.
"Cannot be duplicated.": Card text meaning only one copy of that card can be in play at all. No further copies of that card can be played unless the copy in play will be removed by an action declared in the same chain of effects.
If we were going by the second quote, there would be some wiggle room for may not be duplicated applying even if a card is not considered to be in play, but the other two quotes leave no doubt: the phrase is used to deal with cards that are in play, not cards that are not in play.

Incidentally, cards placed off to the side are stated to be in play for purposes of uniqueness, but are not stated to not be in play otherwise, so far as I can tell. Make of that what you will. :)
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Saturday, April 15, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:So the duplicability of a non-unique card is irrelevant once it is stored? Is that the final verdict? That might require some attention, perhaps even ruling.

imo, the uniqueness can be extended to duplicability, as they cover the same issue (unique is something that cannot be duplicated).
Perhaps I did not understand, what you are actually suggesting.
I you mean:
"Stored cards are not considered to be in play, except for uniqueness and duplicability",
then my comment about Doors of Night removed from play by Aware of Their Ways is irrelevant.
I thought that you mean extending "except for uniqueness and duplicability" for all cards not in play.

This would remove "The Windlord Found Me" 's exploit.
This would also have impact on on future/undiscovered yet cards that may be stored (I do not know whether anybody cares about future cards, and whether the impact would be positive, or not).

This exploit could also be removed by errata for this particular card. This is obvious that some effects of stored cards become active just when the cards are stored, not before. So since moment when the cards should not be considered as in play according to general rules.
Otherwise Into the Smoking Cone would not affect a rings at all, for instance. Now I realize that the instance has similar problem. Last sentence of its text: "Once inverted, no other copy of this card can be inverted" does not fall into "uniqueness", nor into "duplicability".
Texts of the card and similar cards are lacking a clear distinction between effects that are active when a card is stored and rest of effect. They are specifying which effects become active when a card is stored (proper way of overriding a general rules), but do not specify an effects that do not cease to be active when a card is stored. As though there was no place for effects that are active regardless of stored/not stored state of a card.

This is similar to lack of clear distinction between effect of using a Plantir and rest of effects of a Palantir. Formally, if such distinction does not exists, bearer of the Palantir of Osgliath that duplicates effect of Palanir of Orthanc should make two corruption checks (first as second part of effect of using of Palantir of Palanir of Orthanc, second as second part of effect of using of Palantir of Osgliath).
Bandobras Took wrote:Incidentally, cards placed off to the side are stated to be in play for purposes of uniqueness, but are not stated to not be in play otherwise, so far as I can tell. Make of that what you will.
Incidentally, or accidentally they are not stated to be in play only for purposes of uniqueness. And they are not stated as not in play too.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, user Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Stored Cards wrote:
Stored cards are not considered to be in play, except for uniqueness.
I might be missing something, but how can a card not in play have an effect on the game? How do Knowledge of the Enemy, Reforging and the like work, considering that CRF entry?

and/or what is the point of the CRF entry in the first place? Surely not to avoid hazard play?

in DC gaming we prefer to use in active play, vs. in play.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:It's a rare effect, but not unknown. The Witch-King of Angmar has a continuing effect despite leaving play. A Sapling of the White Tree remembers that it was stored at Minas Tirith for the purposes of White Tree.

I do not know that there is rule that a card must be in play to have an effect on the game. I believe a stored Ithil-Stone continues to prevent Bane.

What's really difficult is how Neither So Ancient Nor So Potent works, since it is played on a card that is not in play, thus violating the rules for active conditions. ;)
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Thursday, April 20, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:How do Knowledge of the Enemy, Reforging and the like work, considering that CRF entry?
By their particular text that explicitly says what can be done with the cards when they are stored (and not otherwise).
Bandobras Took wrote:What's really difficult is how Neither So Ancient Nor So Potent works, since it is played on a card that is not in play, thus violating the rules for active conditions. ;)
It "violates" a rules, like Withdrawn To Mordor in alternative effect, or Exhalation of Decay violate a rules by targeting something otherwise impossible to be targeted. Because their texts explicitly allow for that.
Bandobras Took wrote:I do not know that there is rule that a card must be in play to have an effect on the game. I believe a stored Ithil-Stone continues to prevent Bane.
I do not know whether there is a rule that a card must be in game to have an effect on game. But it is too little for me to assume the e.g. Scorba at Home not included in deck, or sideboard by any player increases CP of major items.
I do not believe that stored The Ithil-stone, or Arkenstone affect a play.

A fact that a card is not in play (and does not affect a play) does not prevent other cards from checking whether that particular card not in play has been stored and is present in MP pile, or is in discard pile, or in play deck.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”