Search found 705 matches

by miguel
Sun May 31, 2020 9:28 am
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: River erratum (proposal)
Replies: 5
Views: 530

Re: River erratum (proposal)

After giving this some serious though, in my opinion River is slightly overpowered. But because it is also very easy to play, you run into decks with three of them more often than you perhaps should based on the card's power level alone. I'm up for encouraging variety in deck building and even givin...
by miguel
Sat May 30, 2020 10:44 am
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Beorning skin-changers erratum (proposal)
Replies: 6
Views: 472

Re: Beorning skin-changers erratum (proposal)

Looking at those decks, River seems to be present in nearly all of them (vs. minion as well). It would not be used in a corruption overload hazard strategy though. The lack of Beorning Skin-changers at least to me just means these players did not expect decks heavily affected by it in the meta. If s...
by miguel
Wed May 27, 2020 9:42 am
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Beorning skin-changers erratum (proposal)
Replies: 6
Views: 472

Re: Beorning skin-changers erratum (proposal)

I think what makes River and Beorning Skin-changers problematic, is that they are so widely used. That's because even when an opponent has prepared for them, they can still be effective in conjunction with creature attacks / tappers. Out of the two cards I think Beorning Skin-changers is worse, beca...
by miguel
Tue May 26, 2020 11:41 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 54
Views: 3581

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

I disagree. It is not like "Whole Village Roused thing" that it is sufficient to know some information written on a card. A company that failed the movement roll is considered returned to its site of origin. So its new site was in play at some moment. You're right, my bad. The site cards are in pla...
by miguel
Tue May 26, 2020 8:57 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 54
Views: 3581

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Because the movement roll is caused by the rules and not by something in play, the site card does not need to be in play yet. What number the movement roll is against is known, because the declared site is known.
by miguel
Tue May 26, 2020 8:30 am
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
Replies: 162
Views: 4947

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

I was nice enough to bother answering you, only to have my short post quoted FIVE times? LOL The CRF overrides any contradicting rulings made prior to that CRF's release. It does not make other old rulings invalid, they were just deemed too trivial to include in. Now if ICE failed to update the CRF ...
by miguel
Mon May 25, 2020 8:50 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
Replies: 162
Views: 4947

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

The CRF and nearly all its revisions are back from when ICE was still around. The purpose was that players would not need to keep tabs on the growing number of ICE digests, but instead check the latest revision of the CRF + the digests published after it when getting ready for a tournament. ICE upda...
by miguel
Mon May 25, 2020 12:24 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Potential Carambor Fix
Replies: 86
Views: 25223

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

the JabberwocK wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 9:43 pm
miguel -

Let's keep the fight clean. Yes, you are joking, but such statements aren't considered classy or appreciated by many. Saying "I might as well.." isn't much different than just asking the question. Thank you.
Don't worry, I'm done.
by miguel
Mon May 25, 2020 12:20 pm
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
Replies: 162
Views: 4947

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

Old CRF entries aren't updated to account for newer rulings. Liar, liar, pants on fire! :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm not lying. The CoE Netreps were just ignorant of the ICE's changes. There are plenty of outdated rulings in the CRF :lol: :lol: :lol: Dragons: If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defea...
by miguel
Mon May 25, 2020 12:04 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 54
Views: 3581

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Annotation 25b: Players drawing cards when a new site is revealed is synonymous with the resolution of the new site being revealed. It happens immediately, not in the following chain of effects. At this stage it is not known whether a company attempting to move between Under-deeps sites will be mov...
by miguel
Sun May 24, 2020 10:54 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 54
Views: 3581

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

I think we can achieve all practical aspects using a (single) chain of effects, and still remain true to the quotes from the CRF. Using your example of under-deeps movement: (i) new under-deeps site (and drawing of cards) is declared (ii) the roll for under-deeps movement is declared When resolving ...
by miguel
Sun May 24, 2020 9:06 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 54
Views: 3581

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

According to the CRF revealing a new site, drawing cards, removing the site of origin and reconciling hand sizes are all part of the company's movement/hazard phase . Annotation 25: A company is considered to be at the site given by its site card at all times except from the moment their new site ca...
by miguel
Sun May 24, 2020 8:56 am
Forum: Rules & Errata
Topic: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules
Replies: 162
Views: 4947

Re: Non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings

CDavis7M wrote: Old CRF entries aren't updated to account for newer rulings.
Liar, liar, pants on fire! :lol: :lol: :lol:
CDavis7M wrote: I think Allies should count, but I didn't make this game.
:roll: :wink:
by miguel
Sun May 24, 2020 8:08 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 54
Views: 3581

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Sure, I’m just referring to it for possible mechanics, not the specific content. I think the two questions are: (i) is the end of the movement/hazard phase synonymous with an end of the movement/hazard phase chain of effects or can it occur without its own chain of effects (ii) does the end of the m...
by miguel
Sat May 23, 2020 4:49 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin
Replies: 54
Views: 3581

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

The CoE #63 ruling is unfortunately based (at least in part) on an erroneous quote from the ICE Digest 582. Van was misquoted saying that there is no opportunity to play cards at the end of the movement/hazard phase , when in fact he said it only about Iron Road (assumed to mean Forced March ). Up u...

Go to advanced search