Since Wim has petulantly declined to move the NetRep discussion board here from meccg.net, I pilfered the most important stuff and am posting it now. Sorry if formatting is lost.
(1) MARK
Jaded pointed out an incorrect ruling in digest 77.
According to the digest, the -5 MPs for a dead avatar only apply at council. But:
CoL Tournament Policy wrote:
End-of-Game MP Modifications-Players and the coordinator should make certain that, for standard rules games, all of the marshalling point modifications printed on page 39 of the Middle-earth: The Lidless Eye Companion are properly accounted for. The MELE Companion contains the most current version of the End-of-Game rules for all players. Interpret Audience with Sauron as End-of-Game for the general case. These modifications are to be interpreted in the order they are printed. Subtractions for eliminated characters are applied before these modifications, although subtractions for eliminated Wizards or Ringwraiths are applied after these modifications.
CoE Tournament Rulings wrote:
# Eliminating a Wizard or Ringwraith does not end the game. An eliminated Wizard or Ringwraith is placed in the out-of-play pile, and gives -5 MP to the final total. That player may not reveal another Wizard or Ringwraith. This includes Wizards who fail corruption checks.
# The -5 MPs apply immediately, and affect your MPs for calling the end of the game.
Jaded is right.
I think the reason the wrong ruling was made in digest 77 is that the -5 from a dead avatar is applied after all other modifications (else you might get more than 1/2 your MPs from two sources!). Chad mistakenly took this to mean that the -5 does not count at any other point in the game.
(2) MARK
To Fizzle or not to Fizzle, that is the Question
First, before we begin, let's get the technical terminology defined.
Hazard Limit - The hazard limit is a value that attaches to a company. A company's hazard limit is set when they begin their movement/hazard phase, and it is equal to two or the number of characters in the company, whichever is greater. Hobbits and Orc-scouts count for half of a character (round up) when it comes to determining hazard limit. Allies do not count towards the hazard limit.
Declare - A hazard is declared against a company when the hazard player either plays a hazard card or otherwise uses a card in play during his opponent's movement/hazard phase (such as tapping a nazgul permanent event, discarding daelomin@home, or moving an agent). Until it resolves, a hazard has no effects beyond counting as a declared hazard in the current chain. The number of hazards that can be declared against a company (assuming all of them count for 1 against the hazard limit, unlike Power Built by Waiting and Veils Flung Away, e.g.) is equal to the hazard limit. No more may be declared than that, as the hazard limit is checked at declaration, and if there is not enough remaining (each declared-but-unresolved hazard takes up a spot for this calculation, as well as each declared-and-resolved hazard and each declared-and-resolved hazard limit-reduction), the hazard may not be played. Hazards are not the only things that resolve; resources and resource effects also resolve, but we are most interested in hazards for the purposes of this discussion.
Resolve - A hazard resolves when it is reached in an unwinding chain of effects. At this point, its text becomes active and does whatever it does. There is the further wrinkle that many hazards (permanent and long events, though not all of them) take yet more time to have a noticeable effect because they are triggered by passive conditions, but more of that in another document. Hazard limit is also checked upon resolution (a calculation separate from but similar to the one made at the declaration of a hazard; this one checks to see how much hazard limit remains against a company, which is a function of the number of hazards and hazard limit reducers that have been played and resolved hitherto), which means that sometimes a hazard will not have enough limit left to resolve, and thus "fizzle". Again, hazards are not the only things to resolve, but they're the important thing for us now.
Chain of effects - A chain of effects is a specifically MECCG concept. The idea is basically this: both players have the right to play as many cards (and use as many effects) they like in a row. These cards/effects pile up on top of each other -- all declared but unresolved for the moment -- until finally both players decide they've had enough suspense, and they allow the chain to resolve. It then does so, each card resolving and taking effect in the reverse order of its play in the chain. So, if I play hazard1 against my opponent, and he responds with resource1, then I respond with hazard2, then he responds with resource2 and resource3 (supposing I have no response to resource2), the chain would unfold thus:
resource3 resolves and has whatever effects it has;
resource2 resolves and has whatever effects it has;
hazard2 resolves and has whatever effects it has;
resource1 resolves and has whatever effects it has;
hazard1 resolves and has whatever effects it has.
However, in some cases, hazards "fizzle" because there is no hazard limit left for them in which to resolve.
Fizzle - "Fizzling" is a term of art in MECCG for the case when a hazard that was legal at declaration becomes illegal when it tries to resolve. Fizzling can take many forms, only one of which is the result of hazard limit reduction. Another way to effectively fizzle a hazard is to remove its active conditions from play between its declaration and resolution (e.g., my opponent taps Adunaphel to force me to tap Thrain II; I respond by tapping him to play Marvels Told on some long event. The Marvels resolves first, effectively fizzling Adunaphel, since she can't tap an already-tapped character. Or, my opponent plays Withered Lands against me to change my site path; I repond with a Twilight to nuke Doors of Night, and then when Withered Lands tries to resolve as the chain unwinds, it realizes that DoN is no longer in play and disappears in a poof of logic). We are here interested in fizzling as a function of hazard limit reduction. This occurs, as already stated, when a hazard tries to resolve, checks the remaining hazard limit, and realizes there is none left.
OK, so much for all that mumbo-jumbo. The point is, there are rules governing when a hazard is fizzled due to hazard limit reduction and when it isn't.
The most important thing to notice is this: the hazard limit checks for declaration and resolution are separate, even though they are similar. According to the CRF: "You check the hazard limit at declaration and resolution. At declaration there must be less hazards already declared than the hazard limit. At resolution there must be no more hazards declared than the hazard limit." Let's look at a couple examples to make this a bit clearer:
Example 1: Declaration Matters
My opponent is moving Strider and Beorn through a couple of s, so I decide to play a Cave-Drake on them. It resolves without further complications, and they kill it. I then play a Lure of Expedience on Strider, to which my opponent responds with Many Turns and Doublings (for its second, hazard limit-reducing effect). I realize that this will cause my corruption card to fizzle when it tries to resolve (the unused portion of the hazard limit is 1; it will be eliminated when MTaD resolves, and so the Lure will have no remaining hazard limit left when it tries to resolve). I decide that that's no good, so I try to sneak in An Unexpected Outpost in response before the MTaD resolves. Bzzzz. No dice. My Outpost cannot even be declared, because when I try to declare it, it checks the remaining hazard limit. One hazard has already resolved (the Cave-Drake), so there is one hazard limit remaining. I used that one for the purposes of declaration when I played the Lure of Expedience, and so my Outpost has no remaining hazard limit left in which to be declared. The Lure fizzles out, and Beorn gets Wormsbane that site phase, much to my dismay.
Example 2: Resolution Matters
I'm playing a roving Akhorahil deck, in which the mad sage goes about in Fell Rider mode maladizing the kidneys and whatever other internal organs they may have out of my opponent's characters. Unfortunately for me, my opponent has a counter: the almighty RIVER. Akhorahil has a hazard limit of 2 when he sets out on his mission of gleeful homocide, and the first thing my opponent plays is -- what else -- a River. Ah, but I have a couple tricks up my sleeve as well. I respond with a Deeper Shadow to reduce my hazard limit by one; my opponent elects not to respond to that, so I play a second Deeper Shadow in response to my first to reduce the hazard limit by yet another one. If no more cards are played at this point, my Deeper Shadows will resolve first, reducing the hazard limit to 0, and then when the River tries to resolve, it will have no hazard limit left and fizzle. However, my opponent is wilier than I suspected: he has yet another River, which he plays in response to my second Deeper Shadow (he can do this because neither of my Deeper Shadows have resolved yet). If I have no more trickses, then things will fall out like this:
River2 checks to see whether there is at least as much remaining hl (2) as declared hazards (2). Check. Resolves. I'm stuck.
Deeper Shadow2 resolves, reducing hl to 1.
Deeper Shadow1 resolves, reducing hl to 0.
River1 checks to see whether there is at least as much remaining hl (0) as declared hazards (1). Bzzz. Fizzles. I'm stuck anyway.
If I had a third Deeper Shadow, however, things would be different. I could play it in response to the second River, and things would fall out much differently:
Deeper Shadow3 resolves, reducing hl to 1.
River 2 checks to see whether there is at least as much remaining hl (1) as declared hazards (2). Bzzz. Fizzles.
Deeper Shadow2 resolves, reducing hl to 0.
Deeper Shadow3 resolves for no effect.
River1 checks to see whether there is at least as much remaining hl (0) as declared hazards (1). Bzzz. Fizzles.
Note that this is different from how hl-reduction has been interpreted by many (including myself) in the past. The key difference is the CRF entry mentioned at the beginning of this article:
The CRF wrote:
You check the hazard limit at declaration and resolution. At declaration there must be less hazards already declared than the hazard limit. At resolution there must be no more hazards declared than the hazard limit.
In particular, the difference lies in the interpretation of the last sentence, which (perhaps unexpectedly) says that at resolution you do not check how many hazards have resolved, but rather how many are declared. What we are now interpreting this sentence to mean is, essentially, this: "At resolution of a standard hazard there must be no more standard hazards declared-but-unresolved than the remaining hazard limit."
We say standard hazard just to account for cards like Power Built by Waiting (which requires 2 hl), Veils Flung Away (which requires 0), and Twilight (which also requires 0). We say declared-but-unresolved just to clear up what declared means. That is, a hazard that was declared and then resolved against a company this mh phase is no longer considered declared. Only hazards that are still waiting to resolve in the current chain are considered declared. The final difference from the old way of interpreting lies in the wording "hazard limit". We read that term in the CRF entry to mean "remaining hazard limit", which is used up as hazards are played, rather than strict "hazard limit", which remains the same unless hl-manipulating cards are played (e.g. Deeper Shadow, Lost in , etc.). The rules for the game are somewhat loose in their application of these two differing terms, and so it is important that we be careful to determine which one is meant in each instance. But that, sad to say, is a job for another article.
(3) MARK
Bert wrote:
It came up during Dutch Nationals, where one player played Thorough Search at a Lossadan Cairn with Hidden Haven. I was wondering if this is legal. According to the Ruling about Long Dark Reach (COE 11, part 7) it shows that an Agent can affect the attack even when the word “normally” is used. In my opinion Hidden Haven should effect too when playing Thorough Search.
The ruling he's citing is this:
CoE Digest 11 wrote:
7. Someone's moving to Lond Galen. Long Dark Reach is played, and the only creature revealed is a Nazgul. There's an agent at Lond Galen. Can that agent tap to make Nazgul playable so that Nazgul doesn't get LDR's -4 prowess penalty? My ruling was no, as that would be introducing a new effect (agent tapping) in the middle of a card's resolution. He'd have to have gambled with the agent before LDR resolved (or was played) to avoid the penalty. Right?
*** Right.
The question is: what is it for a creature to be "normally playable vs. a company"? After all, the card text could simply read "playable vs. a company" and made perfect sense.
I think Bert is trying to use CoE 11 as a way to nerf Hidden Haven, but it seems to me that he's actually offered a reductio ad absurdum of his own argument: Long Dark Reach will still give a -4 to creatures playable but not normally playable (through some agent effect, Withered Lands, Buthrakaur the Green, etc.).
Make sense?
MIKKO
I looked through all cards with the word 'normally' in them. I also thought about what 'normally' means for FW when talking about MPs. As many stage cards such as Great Patron say 'normally', it seems clear that for FW it means what is printed on the cards, even such cards would be worth only 1 MP due to the rules.
The wording on A More Evil Hour poses a slight problem to this.
Quote:
A More Evil Hour
Balrgo specific. Tap this card when an opponent plays a card normally giving him three or more marshalling points...
Does this mean it would not tap for FW playing Wormsbane since it would normally give him only 1 MP due to the rules? Or would the word 'normally' override the FW rules here as well? I'm inclined to the latter, as per the Great Patron example.
Another card I want to bring up is Free to Choose.
Quote:
Free to Choose
Playable on an item that normally gives 3 corruption points or more...
The problem is with Durin's Axe when a dwarf wields it. I'd say you can play FtC on the Axe, since the condition of dwarf-bearer is written on the Axe card.
Other cards with the word 'normally' seem pretty straightforward to deal with, in the manner presented by Mark.
WIM
miguel wrote:
Does this mean it would not tap for FW playing Wormsbane since it would normally give him only 1 MP due to the rules?
Yes. I believe the key word is him. The question asked isn't how many MPs Wormsbane would normally give (4MP), but how many it would normally give him, the specific opponent (1MP). Note also that you're specifically forbidden to take other cards into account, but that whether or not to take rules into account is left an exercise for the player.
miguel wrote:
The problem is with Durin's Axe when a dwarf wields it. I'd say you can play FtC on the Axe, since the condition of dwarf-bearer is written on the Axe card.
No, you'd be considering the effect of another card: the dwarf bearer.
CRF, by term, Normal wrote:
Normal means as written on the card, not considering other card's effects. Note that this definition only applies to effects refering to card texts.
It so happens that I ran into an example yesterday of how this would otherwise spin into clompexity: I faced an Uruk-lieutenant during those same nationals, boosted because he wasn't the first Orc. I made him my ally with Ready to His Will and then made him fight the next creature I faced. (That was ironically enough an Orc-Lieutenant boosted by this Uruk-lieutenant.) The +3 prowess boost is written on his card, as is the +1 cp on Durin's Axe. So if normally where to take such into account he'd be five prowess (instead of two). That would re-trigger each time the company faces the first or of the turn, as he is a) played on a company, b) said company has then faced an orc attack that turn. Auch
Quote:
Uruk-lieutenant 9/-
Orc. One strike. If played on a company that has already faced an Orc attack this turn, Uruk-lieutenant receives +3 prowess. Orc-lieutenant receives an additional +3 prowess if played on a company that has already faced Uruk-lieutenant this turn.
Quote:
Ready to His Will
Playable on an Orc, Troll, Giant, Slayer, or Man hazard creature with one strike for each of its attacks. All attacks of the creature are canceled. The creature becomes an ally under the control of any character in the company that now taps. It has a mind of 1, 1 ally marshalling point, prowess equal to its normal prowess minus 7, and a body equal to 8. Place this card with the creature.
MIKKO
I don't really understand how Uruk-lieutenant could get those +3 boosts as an ally anyway. He can get them only when he is played on a company, but that's doesn't happen to him. I don't think the fact he was played earlier can award these boosts.
I found a previous ruling about Durin's Axe:
Quote:
CoE Rulings Digest #95
*** CRF, Rulings by Term, Normal:
Normal means as written on the card, not considering other card's effects. Note that this definition only applies to effects refering to card texts.
Given that the definition of normal refers to "other cards" and not effects on the card giving the MPs in question, cards with an MP value in parenthesis are normally worth the number of MPs that the card gives at any given time. In other words, Durin's Axe is normally worth 2 MPs unless held by a Dwarf. Then it is normally worth 4 MPs. Similarly, The Red Book of Westmarch is normally worth 0 MPs until stored at a Haven, at which time it is normally worth 1 MP.
The MP/CP values for Durin's Axe work in the exact same way, so based on this Free to Choose is playable on the Axe when held by a dwarf.
As for A More Evil Hour, I think Wim is right. It would not tap for a minion player playing Wormsbane either, since it's worth only 2 MP for him. Against a Fw-player AMEH would only tap for the big stage cards, as all of his non-stage MP cards are normally worth just 1 MP.
WIM
miguel wrote:
I don't really understand how Uruk-lieutenant could get those +3 boosts as an ally anyway. He can get them only when he is played on a company, but that's doesn't happen to him. I don't think the fact he was played earlier can award these boosts.
It says if played on, not when played on. Chad has established a clear definition of playing and that doesn't involve any time-out clause. It remains played on the controlling character's company for (potentially) the rest of the game.
This CRF ruling (on lures, etc.) is based on that same definition:
CRF, by term, target wrote:
A card that is played on a card continuously targets the card it is on.
If the lure at some point stopped being played on the character (though still being on it), this ruling wouldn't make sense.
Quote:
I found a previous ruling about Durin's Axe:
Hmm.. yes.. well.. I think that's wrong. No dwarf, no extra MPs / CPs. That's the effect of another card to me. Don't involve any other card seems the most straightforward and can-o'-worms free interpretation to me.
That does raise the question whether to overturn the fairly minor ruling, or to set the boundary slightly different, for rules' stability's sake. How many cases are involved? I suppose it at least goes for Orc-lieutenant combined with Ready to His Will too, as well as for either Lt. combined with Memories of Old Torture.
As for the orginal question: that seems quite clearly wrong to me. The normally aspect was overlooked in it. If normally means the card has to fend for itself (which I think it does), even tapping an agent in advance wouldn't have helped. This means that normally playable is actually more restrictive than just playable, as it rules out the card being playable through additonal means, such as that agent tapping (in advance), a Morgul Night in play, etc.
Unintended? Almost certainly! In fact, taking that normal for a spin reveals some more of these unintended and (in the last case) quite unwanted side effects:
True Fána: Otherwise the attack procedes normally. That's as written on the card that caused the attack? If so it seems that an (otherwise) unsuccessfull True Fána still negates any boosters the attack might have had.
Awaken Defenders: Each detainment attack at [..] becomes a normal automatic-attack. So, unboosted, exactly as written on the site card (and thus probably still detainment in most cases)? No Strangers at this Time is also open for this abusive reading. FEAR! FIRE! FOES! and All the Bells Ringing are similar, but clarify on the card what normal means in this context (not detainment).
MIKKO
Gwaihir wrote:
miguel wrote:
I don't really understand how Uruk-lieutenant could get those +3 boosts as an ally anyway. He can get them only when he is played on a company, but that's doesn't happen to him. I don't think the fact he was played earlier can award these boosts.
It says if played on, not when played on. Chad has established a clear definition of playing and that doesn't involve any time-out clause. It remains played on the controlling character's company for (potentially) the rest of the game.
I'm not sure what definition of playing established by Chad you are referring to, but the case of ally Uruk/Orc-lieutenant has already been dealt with here and I see nothing wrong with that thread.
Gwaihir wrote:
As for the orginal question: that seems quite clearly wrong to me. The normally aspect was overlooked in it. If normally means the card has to fend for itself (which I think it does), even tapping an agent in advance wouldn't have helped. This means that normally playable is actually more restrictive than just playable, as it rules out the card being playable through additonal means, such as that agent tapping (in advance), a Morgul Night in play, etc.
Unintended? Almost certainly! In fact, taking that normal for a spin reveals some more of these unintended and (in the last case) quite unwanted side effects:
True Fána: Otherwise the attack procedes normally. That's as written on the card that caused the attack? If so it seems that an (otherwise) unsuccessfull True Fána still negates any boosters the attack might have had.
Awaken Defenders: Each detainment attack at [..] becomes a normal automatic-attack. So, unboosted, exactly as written on the site card (and thus probably still detainment in most cases)? No Strangers at this Time is also open for this abusive reading. FEAR! FIRE! FOES! and All the Bells Ringing are similar, but clarify on the card what normal means in this context (not detainment).
I think cards like True Fana and Awaken Defenders do have clear context as well, it's just not as explicitly written. It would take a very abusive reading to say that you can't boost attacks affected by those cards.
As for Long Dark Reach:
Quote:
Long Dark Reach
...Reveal the top seven cards of your play deck. One revealed Nazgul, Dragon, or a non-unique creature (your choice) immediately attacks the company (regardless of its playability requirements). The creature must be playable in a region besides Coastal Sea. If the creature could not normally be played on the company, modify its prowess by -4...
The context here is not as clear, but one could certainly argue that 'normally' here means merely 'without LDR'.
MARK
Some comments:
(1) Wim, I don't think your reasoning about Uruk-Lieuy works. The reason is that, once the Lieuy is taken as an ally, he is no longer played on the company. Why? Well, as you point out, a card like Lure of Expedience continuously targets the character it is played on. But U-L will not be targetting anything at this point. He will be the target of Ready to His Will, but will not be targeting anything. After all, allies don't target the companies they are played on. Let's ignore the U-L in this discussion; he's irrelevant.
(2)
Wim wrote:
Hmm.. yes.. well.. I think that's wrong. No dwarf, no extra MPs / CPs. That's the effect of another card to me. Don't involve any other card seems the most straightforward and can-o'-worms free interpretation to me.
That does raise the question whether to overturn the fairly minor ruling, or to set the boundary slightly different, for rules' stability's sake.
It's not all that minor of a change, so let's not be too quick to judge.
(3)
Mikko wrote:
I think cards like True Fana and Awaken Defenders do have clear context as well, it's just not as explicitly written. It would take a very abusive reading to say that you can't boost attacks affected by those cards.
I think this analysis is perfect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does this leave us? Well, we're basically back to square one.
Here's the definition from the CRF once again:
Quote:
Normal means as written on the card, not considering other card's effects. Note that this definition only applies to effects refering to card texts.
This is rather infelicitously written, with at least four grammatical errors. Let's re-formulate it properly:
Quote:
"Normal" means "as written on the card, not considering other cards' effects". Note that this definition only applies to effects referring to card texts.
I think we need to distinguish between (1) the effects of other cards on a different card and (2) a card's taking other cards into account.
A clear case of (1) is this: Legacy of Smiths effects other cards, in particular, items. They do not take Legacy into account in any way. A clear case of (2), by contrast, is Sapling of the White Tree. It is worth only 1 MP if stored at a haven, but 2 MP if stored at Minas Tirith. That is to say, where it is stored (the site card of the company storing it) is taken into account in the text of Sapling itself.
This is a different, more liberal, interpretation than Wim wants to give:
Wim's Interp wrote:
Doesn't involve any other card seems the most straightforward and can-o'-worms free interpretation to me.
Indeed, his is probably a bit more straightforward (though I'm not sure what he'd say about, for instance, the hero palantiri -- to be stored is to be stored at a haven, right? Is the haven card affecting anything in this situation?). But I think my interpretation is also easy enough to read. If other cards are mentioned (as passive conditions?) in the text of a card (as a dwarf bearer is in Durin's Axe), then the effects mentioned in the text are normal. This is because the other cards are not contributing effects (outlawed by CRF) but conditions (on which the CRF is tacit).
Make sense?
MIKKO
Zarathustra wrote:
I think we need to distinguish between (1) the effects of other cards on a different card and (2) a card's taking other cards into account.
Sounds good to me. Here's an example of how Long Dark Reach would work according to this (if we decide 'normally' on LDR does not mean merely 'without LDR'):
Company is moving to Dale (through Northern Rhovanion).
(1) Opponent taps an agent in Dale to make Nazgul playable at the site. LDR finds Uvatha, but he would get the -4 modification.
(2) Doors is in play. LDR finds Smaug. Smaug needs Doors in play to attack through LDR in any case, since the creature needs to be keyable to a non-coastal sea. But due to Doors, Smaug is now normally playable in Northern Rhovanion as well, and does not get -4 to prowess.
MARK
One question though: since tapping an agent with the proper home site is in the rules, not in a card's text, isn't it actually going to be part of the "normal"?
MIKKO
Zarathustra wrote:
One question though: since tapping an agent with the proper home site is in the rules, not in a card's text, isn't it actually going to be part of the "normal"?
Interesting... But I think it would still be an effect of the agent card:
Quote:
CRF: Rulings by Term: Agents:
@ Agents, when played as hazards (i.e. not as characters), are hazards and effects caused by them are hazard effects. [CoE] %
MARK
OK, that's fine. In any case, what thoughts do people have about my distinction?
CHAD
I'm fine with your interpretation (i.e. making the extra MPs on Durin's Axe normal).
MARK
Suggested Ruling wrote:
The ruling by term in the CRF on 'Normal' is infelicitously written. It says:
CRF wrote:
Normal means as written on the card, not considering other card's effects. Note that this definition only applies to effects refering to card texts.
We interpret it thus:
Interpretation of CRF on 'Normal' wrote:
"Normal" means "as written on the card, not considering other cards' effects". Note that this definition only applies to effects referring to card texts.
In applying this principle, we to distinguish between (1) the effects of other cards on a given card and (2) a given card's taking other cards into account. The CRF entry on 'Normal' rules out (1) in cases of normality, but not (2).
A clear case of (1) is this: Legacy of Smiths affects other cards, in particular, items. They do not take Legacy into account in any way. A clear case of (2), by contrast, is Sapling of the White Tree. It is worth only 1 MP if stored at a haven, but 2 MP if stored at Minas Tirith. That is to say, where it is stored (the site card of the company storing it) is taken into account in the text of Sapling itself.
To answer Bert's question ("What does it mean for a creature to be normally playable against a company?"), a creature is normally playable if and only if at least one of the playability conditions of the creature in the creature's own text is met. This includes its region-type keyability, its region-name keyability, and any special criteria in the creature's text. It does not include, for instance, tapping an agent at the company's current or new site to make a creature playable.
Note that this is an overruling of CoE Digest 11, item 7.
MIKKO & NIGEL
Aye.
(4) MARK
Heedless Revelry wrote:
Playable on a non-Ringwraith company that is not moving...
I looked and looked in the CRF and LE rules, but could not find a definition of a ringwraith company. the only relevant quotes are:
1 wrote:
The following cards will have no effect on a Ringwraith player. This is because the mechanism of the cards do not work with the mechanics of Ringwraith companies, or their effects is too powerful against a Ringwraith company.
2 wrote:
If region movement is being used, Ringwraith players may use METW region cards (or an appropriate, mutually acceptable map).
Your Ringwraith company may not use region movement.
3 wrote:
In Ringwraith vs. Wizard games, most combats with companies fighting creature attacks, automatic-attacks, and special attacks are handled normally. However, when combat occurs between a Ringwraith company and a Wizard company, certain special guidelines must be followed.
3 is clearly irrelevant, as it is intended to mean "any company of a rw player." 2 is also irrelevant, since a mixed company of rw(s) and non-rw(s) cannot move. 1 is not particularly helpful.
Where does that leave us? Well, here's three kinds of companies:
(a) pure ringwraith,
(b) mixed rw & non-rw, and
(c) pure non-rw.
Obviously Heedless Revelry can be played on (c) and cannot be played on (a). But what about (b)? The relevant situations are two:
(i) Normal rw and some squatters at a darkhaven;
(ii) The Balrog squatting with some guys (e.g., at the Under-Leas).
From a gameplay point of view, (i) is trivial: there's not much to be done at havens, and so having your characters tapped is no big deal. But (ii) is quite important. If you are playing a squatting under-leas deck, for instance, outlawing Heedless Revelry (the first use, not the on guard use) is quite a boon! Before we say that "well, there's a rw, so it's a rw-company" I think we should think carefully.
Does anyone have any considerations to bring to bear here? Personally, I tend towards saying that HR can be played on companies of type (b), but I'm willing to listen to any arguments.
MIKKO
Quote:
Heedless Revelry
Playable on a non-Ringwraith company that is not moving. Make a roll for each untapped non-Wizard character...
I'm afraid just having a Rw in the company makes it a Rw-company. The card text of Heedless supports this, as it says not to roll for Wizards, but fails to mention what to do with Ringwraiths. However, for its on-guard use Heedless does specify not to tap Wizards/Ringwraiths.
Against Under-leas squatter you can still play Heedless on-guard, which isn't bad at all since they don't tend to play events for MPs.
CHAD
I'd tend to agree with Mikko.
MARK
Ok....
MARK
OK, then.
Proposed Ruling wrote:
Mixed companies, i.e., those including at least one ringwraith character and at least one non-ringwraith character are considered ringwraith companies. Therefore, they cannot be targeted by the first use of Heedless Revelry.
BRIAN
I always thought a RW company, was a company only with RW's. Of course you couldn't play Heedless on a company consisting only of RW's as they have no mind attribute to roll against if not moving.
MIKKO
Aye.
(5) WIM
What is a 'target'? Might we be able to come to a clear(er) definition of the term? A subject that has been at rest for a while and need not be completed in any particular hurry. IMHO we should take our time, because the definition of 'target' has a wide bearing.
The point was raised some time ago because of the following A Malady Witouth Healing weirdness (which we have not yet commented on in public - no one really asked anyway): Can an opponents shadow magic user be used as the caster? (thus saving yourself from that nasty corruption check)
Travis wrote:
As it has been mentioned the CRF says you cannot target your opponent's characters or resources with your own resources but you can use them as active conditions. So this ruling boils down to: Is the shadow-magic-user(SMU) at the site a target of Malady or just an active condition to play it? I would say that it is indeed a target and therefore this play would be illegal.
From the CRF:
• A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Entities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type. Note that "the foo" counts as specifying one "foo."• An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the player invoking the action.
Therefore the SMU is undeniably an active condition, as without him/her you cannot play the card. I think that (s)he is also a target for the following reasons:
1) The card text refers to the SMU by number and type. ("Unless the shadow-magic-user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by -5.")
2) The wording of the first sentence matches that of Gollum's Fate, and ICE ruled that GF targets both Gollum and the One Ring, so it should be the same here (the SMU and the victim)
3) There are no other situations that I can think of that you can play a resource "for" your opponent.
Card Texts:
A Malady Without Healing
Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable during the site phase on a non-Ringwraith,
non-Wizard character at the same site as a shadow-magic-using character. Target character must make a corruption check modified by -1 followed by a body check (modified by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic-user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by -5.
Gollum's Fate
Unique. Only playable if The One Ring and Gollum are both at Mount Doom during the site phase. The One Ring is destroyed and its bearer's player wins.
Chad replied:
<snip>
So you feel that every magic card, since it causes a CC on the caster, targets the caster in addition to whatever targets the card specifies?
To which Travis said:
Yes. This is the only card that it is an issue though, as this is the only one that also targets an opponents character. [Ed: thus bringing the idea up to make the opponent caster too.] The main thing to keep in mind about targeting is "A target is an entity that an action is played out through." In other words "A target is something that an action affects." Malady has several actions, the CC at -1, the body check, and the CC at -5 in that order. The first two target the character that the card is played on and the last targets the SMU.
At which point Nigel interjected:
So what about other spells - can they be played on opposing characters
(or agents)??
This is a can o'worms ... :/
I brought in another example:
The first thing that springs to mind is Pilfer Anything Unwatched: does it target the hobbit or not? I have heard conflicting rulings on that for years. You see, if it does not target the hobbit it can be played on a hobbit NOT in the currently moving company.
Personally I don't think it was meant to do such 'cross company' tricks, so I consider it a plea for a wide interpretation of 'target'. There might however be other cards that would counter this argument by becoming senseless (or unplayable) under such a wide interpretation. Any examples and opinions? (I'll think / dig first now and give more input after that.)
Travis replied:
I would think that it would indeed target the hobbit, as it does specify the character by both name and number ("a character in play of your choice with a home site the same as the agent's current site"). Also the card has an action (the roll and discard) that must be played out through omething, and it is clear that it is not the agent, as once he is tapped and the card starts to resolve he is no longer involved.
And I deduct now:
So, so far we know:
- that there are definately (many?) targets in this game beyond the ones ICE specifically labeled 'target' on the card.
- that one card can have multiple targets (Gollum's fate example)
- that, by it's nature, a target is also an active condition (i.e. the groups are by no means mutually exclusive).
- a definition of 'target' dug up by Travis. Let's see if we can get the ropes of what it means
- some pleas for a pretty wide interpretation of the term
- no clear idea of how that affects the interpretation of all 16xx cards out there.
This also brings me to the bottom of my NetRep mail-folder. I think all open subjects are now on this forum.
So, we have a definition (I just made it bold in the first post) and we want to know if it's workable. Can't currently think of an approach other than trying on (many of) those 16xx cards and see if the results are satisfactory.
So, here we go..
A Malady Without Healing
Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable during the site phase on a non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character [1] at the same site as a shadow-magic-using character [2]. Target character must make a corruption check modified by -1 followed by a body check (modified by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic-user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by -5.
[1] by #: yes - singular, by type: yes, character. Also referenced in text as target. Card is a resource, so target should normally be your own character, fortunately due to reference to 'hero' it can also be your opponents character.
[2] by #: yes - singular, by type: yes, SMU character. Therefore a target -> must be ones own SMU.
Conclusion: definition works fine.
Pilfer Anything Unwatched
Playable on an untapped agent [1]. Tap the agent. Make a roll (draw a #) for a character [2] in play of your choice with a home site the same as the agent's current site. To the roll add 5 if the agent's current site is also the agent's home site. If the result is greater than the character's mind plus 5, the character is returned to his player's hand (one item may be transferred to another character in the same company).
Again [1] and [2] both pass the test. Since hazards may only be played on a company whose movement/hazard phase is being resolved, or on the site they are moving to, this makes the Pilfering of a hobbit in a different company illegal, as IMHO we'd like it to be. Again the definition works fine.
This all seems WAY to easy... aren't there some situations that get hopelessly goofed up when applying this definition? I'll start looking at Wizards and report anything noteworthy here. If anyone has time, please help by starting on a different set and noting that here when you start to avoid double work.
A Friend or Three
For every character [1] in the influencing character's company, A Friend or Three gives a +1 modification to an influence check [2] or to a corruption check [3] made by a character [4] in the same company.
[1] not a target (fails #). [2]/[3] clearly 'the' target. -- all fine.
[4] in doubt here; # and type present says 'target' but is the action played out through this character? Is that a seperate part that needs to be tested for too? If so, what exactly does played out through mean? This is very relevant when an Orc or Troll in a bad beards employ wants to use this card.
Barrow-blade
Tap the bearer [1] of a Dagger of Westernesse [2] during the site phase at a Ruins & Lairs [3] and play this with the Dagger. Dagger receives +1 prowess (+3 versus Undead and Nazgûl). Cannot be duplicated on a given Dagger.
I picked Barrow-blade cause it has similar issues IMHO. [1] Is clearly a target. No problem. Is [2]? I'm not sure, I don't think the card is 'played out through' the Dagger, I think the Dagger is merely an active condition. Same question for the site [3] and again very relevant for fallen Wizards. IMHO not a target.
Intermediate conclusion (assumption): the entity that an action is played out through bit is integral part of the definition and figuring out what played out through exactly means is the hard bit
TRAVIS
My gut feeling is that "played out through" means it is something that is changed or has the possibility of changing due to the play of the card. So to use your examples:
A Malady Without Healing
Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable during the site phase on a non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character [1] at the same site as a shadow-magic-using character [2]. Target character must make a corruption check modified by -1 followed by a body check (modified by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic-user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by -5.
[1] by #: yes - singular, by type: yes, character. Also referenced in text as target. Character can be changed due to the card (kill/corrupt). Card is a resource, so target should normally be your own character, fortunately due to reference to 'hero' it can also be your opponents character.
[2] by #: yes - singular, by type: yes, SMU character. SMU can be changed due to the card (corrupt). Therefore a target -> must be ones own SMU.
Conclusion: definition still works fine.
Pilfer Anything Unwatched
Playable on an untapped agent [1]. Tap the agent. Make a roll (draw a #) for a character [2] in play of your choice with a home site the same as the agent's current site. To the roll add 5 if the agent's current site is also the agent's home site. If the result is greater than the character's mind plus 5, the character is returned to his player's hand (one item may be transferred to another character in the same company).
Again [1] and [2] both pass the test. - The agent taps and the character can be returned to the hand. Since hazards may only be played on a company whose movement/hazard phase is being resolved, or on the site they are moving to, this makes the Pilfering of a hobbit in a different company illegal, as IMHO we'd like it to be. Again the definition works fine, even with the new criteria.
A Friend or Three
For every character [1] in the influencing character's company, A Friend or Three gives a +1 modification to an influence check [2] or to a corruption check [3] made by a character [4] in the same company.
[1] not a target (fails #). [2]/[3] clearly 'the' target (it changes the result). -- all fine.
[4] # and type present says 'target' but the character doesn't change. So it is not a target and can be played by an Orc or Troll in a bad beards employ.
Barrow-blade
Tap the bearer [1] of a Dagger of Westernesse [2] during the site phase at a Ruins & Lairs [3] and play this with the Dagger. Dagger receives +1 prowess (+3 versus Undead and Nazgûl). Cannot be duplicated on a given Dagger.
I picked Barrow-blade cause it has similar issues IMHO. [1] Is clearly a target. It also taps (thus the change) No problem. [2] the Dagger is merely an active condition as it doesn't change. The site [3] does change, but only because the rules require it to tap. IMHO not a target, as the card doesn't do the change in and of itself.
Secondary Intermediate conclusion (assumption): the entity that an action is played out through is any entity that is changed/or may be changed by the text on the card.
CHAD
And now Mark has asked a question directly relating to this on the list:
Quote:
Is the player of Marvels Told or Voices of Malice a target of that card?
Should we go ahead and say yes? It seems to make sense. Mark evidently hasn't come up with anything conclusive, otherwise he wouldn't be asking this, I suppose.
MARK
No, nothing conclusive yet, sorry... but it certainly seems to target the character playing MT or VoM (most people would look at you funny if you tried to play MT on Doeth, for example).
As I said in the examples doc post, I'm working on something about targets right now, but am unfortunately quite busy with school for at least another week. I'll try to get it done as soon as possible, but basically the idea is that there are cards that seem to specify number and type for some foo but dont actually target that foo (A Chance meeting seems to be one: does it actually target the site and the character? If so, what about arouse denizens: does it target the site and the auto-attack? But then why doesnt Awake denizens (long event) target sites? It's not supposed to, according to the info on long events... I'm afraid we're in danger of making all active conditions into targets.)
As a side note, I'm not sure how conlusive this is, but I was browsing through the wizard's companion book that I got in Holland this weekend and found the following:
Quote:
Targets: An action that is played out through one or more specific entities as stated on a card or in the rules is considered to "target" the entities. A targeted entity is said to be a "target" of the action. Possible targets include characters, sites, companies, regions, items, factions, ccs, and combad dicerolls. A card that acts on a class of entities, however, does not target them.
Should this list be taken as exclusive? Meaning, are no other things valid targets? If so, how do you deal with, for example, Many Turns and Doublings, which seems to target the hazard limit?...
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
Should this list be taken as exclusive? Meaning, are no other things valid targets?
I think the include in possible targets include makes it clear that the list quoted isn't meant to be exhaustive.
TRAVIS
Marvels Told wrote:
Ritual. Tap a sage1 to force the discard of a hazard non-environment permanent-event or long-event.2 Sage makes a corruption check modified by -2.3
Okay lets look at the possible targets on the card:
1) Satisfies the # and name clause, and it is affected by the card a target of the card.
2) Satisfies the # and name clause, and it is affected by the card a target of the card.
3) Satisfies the # and name clause, but is not affected by the card not a target.
Conclusion the sage is a target of Marvels Told.
On another note I beleive that any card that has "foo only" should target the "foo".
Example:
Lordly Presence
Diplomat only. +5 to an influence check against a faction. If the influence check is successful, draw a card.
The only thing that this card seems to target by the current definition would be the influence check... but it should also target the diplomat as well.
The diplomat is named but is it numbered?
It can only be used by one diplomat at a time, so it would seem that it should be assumed that the phrase "foo only" should specify as saying "one foo" just as "the foo" is read as "one foo".
WIM
Not so sure.. the sage / diplomat are the character that play the card in these examples, but does that make them a target?
That tap a sage and diplomat only are the active conditions though. And it looks to me that the sage is the target of the corruption check.
As for the FW rules themselves:
FW rules themselves wrote:
A hero resource may not target an Orc or Troll character (e.g. Orc and Troll characters may not use Block, Escape, etc.).
A hero resource that requires a character with a specific skill may not use an Orc or Troll character to fulfill that requirement (e.g. Concealment, Many Turns and Doublings, etc.).
They rule out Doeth playing Marvels Told without any need of him being target. In fact, given the similarity in wording with Concealment (tap skill to..) they seem to make a pretty strong case for such cards NOT targetting the character that "plays" them.
MARK
This is just about the cards A Chance Meeting and We Have Come to Kill, but I think it will be instructive when dealing with others.
It was recently ruled that A Chance Meeting targets the character it allows to be played, thus making it impossible for a fw to play an orc/troll character with ACM. However, according to the CRF ruling by term on "target":
Quote:
Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions declared in the same chain of effects. An exception to this is a dice-rolling action; e.g., a corruption check.
The problem I see here is that, if we suppose the character played with ACM is targetted by ACM, then it becomes impossible to play a character with ACM! The character is not in play until ACM resolves, but character must be in play before ACM resolves if it's a target!
In fact, I don't see how we can even say that the character is an active condition of ACM. Again, according to the CRF:
Quote:
An active condition must be in play or established when the action requiring it is declared. Active conditions serve as the price of an action. They are restrictions on the player invoking the action.
And so again, the character would already have to be in play for me to play ACM -- but where does that leave us?
Is the character then a passive condition? We shouldn't even be tempted to say this, as I pointed out elsewhere. A passive condition is the thing that triggers an effect from a card already in play. ACM is never "triggered", so it has no passive conditions.
I think the only viable interpretation of ACM (and WHCTK) is that it sets up a "short-lasting effect" like stealth and sneakin'. I'm not sure exactly what other cards are like this, but I'm positive that the interpretation of ACM as targetting the character it brings into play is wrong.
CHAD
Zarathustra wrote:
It was recently ruled that A Chance Meeting targets the character it allows to be played, thus making it impossible for a fw to play an orc/troll character with ACM. However, according to the CRF ruling by term on "target":
Quote:
Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions declared in the same chain of effects. An exception to this is a dice-rolling action; e.g., a corruption check.
The problem I see here is that, if we suppose the character played with ACM is targetted by ACM, then it becomes impossible to play a character with ACM! The character is not in play until ACM resolves, but character must be in play before ACM resolves if it's a target!
I don't see the logic here. Annotation 1 says that when ACM is put on the table, no part of ACM can be targetted in the same chain of effects. What does this have to do with the character?
MARK
Perhaps my explanation of the target criteria were weak, but if you still (as I think you do) want to hold that all targets are active conditions, the argument from the criteria for active conditions (i.e. all active conditions must already be in play when I play a card) covers targets as well.
Make sense? (I apologize if this sounds too philosophical... I've been writing way too many essays on Wittgenstein recently....)
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
if you still (as I think you do) want to hold that all targets are active conditions, the argument from the criteria for active conditions (i.e. all active conditions must already be in play when I play a card) covers targets as well.
Why do you wish to hold this? I'd be interesting in the thoughts / arguments behind that.
IMHO this was an earlier assumption which you have just disproven by finding a target that is not an active condition.
MARK
Quote:
Why do you wish to hold this? I'd be interesting in the thoughts / arguments behind that.
IMHO this was an earlier assumption which you have just disproven by finding a target that is not an active condition.
Well, having looked through the discussion again, I see no reason we have to say all targets are also active conditions. However I'm still worried about ACM targetting the character it brings into play. Let me see if I can make this any clearer:
Quote:
Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions declared in the same chain of effects. An exception to this is a dice-rolling action; e.g., a corruption check.
OK. So the idea is, when I want to play a character with ACM, I have to play that character. Until he's actually a part of whatever company I'm trying to put him in, however, his play hasn't resolved, and thus he cannot be hit with, for example, a corruption card, or foolish words, or rebel talk, or what have you until his being played has resolved. But ACM wants to target him! ACM wants to target him while he's still in my hand it would seem! But surely he isn't targetable until he resolves. That means that ACM is completely unplayable if it targets the character it allows to be brought into play. And we can't have that....
Make any sense?
TRAVIS
Zarathustra wrote:
OK. So the idea is, when I want to play a character with ACM, I have to play that character. Until he's actually a part of whatever company I'm trying to put him in, however, his play hasn't resolved, and thus he cannot be hit with, for example, a corruption card, or foolish words, or rebel talk, or what have you until his being played has resolved. But ACM wants to target him! ACM wants to target him while he's still in my hand it would seem! But surely he isn't targetable until he resolves. That means that ACM is completely unplayable if it targets the character it allows to be brought into play. And we can't have that....
Okay it seems that we have two uses for the term target.
1) The one Annotation 1 refers to, which is used when you are using a card or effect to affect something allready in play.
2) Is one that is definded by the term Target, which is any "object" (character, item, card, site, Corruption Check, etc.) that exists in the game. This is used in cards like Lucky Search, which targets something not in play yet.
MARK
You may be right, but that's starting to sound really weird....
(6) WIM
If I'm not mistaken it's been sort of established quite some time ago that short-event effects last till the end of the turn, unless specified otherwise. But: is that documented anywhere? Can we just put it into the CRF under 'short-event'?
--Yep, I've taken to that dynamic CRF project again, as people are making me aware that however great our output, if they can't really find it it doesn't help too much.
CHAD
That was my impression. Is it in the ME:LE rulebook rather than the CRF? I don't have the time to dig right now.
NIGEL
In the LE rulebook under (strangely enough) Events
Short-event - A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card (e.g., some say: "until the end of the turn").
Also in the glossary:
Short-event: A resource or hazard that is discarded when it resolves (though it may have a lasting effect).
Which maybe not quite what we're looking for
WIM
Charles told me yesterday (on GCCG so no copy/pasting here) that he is done with his search and had found Nigel's first quote a couple times over (as expected) but nothing to indicate a default in case ICE forgot to specify a duration where one is needed anyway.
Unfortunately I had little time to chat at that moment, so I have yet to find out how thorough his search was. I'll get back to you guys on that before suggesting conclusions / course of action.
o I went on to do that today (actually, Mark Alfano checked CRF) and found that it is not in the CRF but that Chad has already written it down very nicely in a digest:
Chad, CoE digest 31 wrote:
*** If a short event's text doesn't indicate a duration for its effect, the effect lasts until the end of the turn.
So that settles this one, I think.
So I locked it as done.
Unlocked this one, as I was made aware this ruling of Chad's - after dropping the Deeper Shadow context - gets interpreted a bit too wide: it forgets to mention that this only goes for short events that need a duration but have none specified, thereby coming in conflict with the basic rule quoted. A short event that can be done and dealt with right away does not last like that; it is not in conflict with the base rule and thus giving it a duration after all would be an alteration of the rules.
(And a serious one too, as it would allow many cards to be played long before their effects.)
MARK
I agree with Wim here. Playing a concealment in the beginning of the mh phase to cancel the auto attack at a site during the site phase... it just seems wrong wrong wrong.
So the rule of thumb should be, I guess, something like this:
A short event lasts as long as it says so on the card. If it doesn't say, then it is an immediate effect and goes away as soon as the card is discarded. If that is absurd (e.g. Arouse Denizens), then it lasts till the end of the turn.
Sound good?
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
Sound good?
Yes, though you are basically rephrasing the rule from the rulesbook (as quoted above) and could just add that last sentense to that.
I also agree with what you said on GCCG: make that a "rule of thumb" only, i.e. do not publish it as an official ruling. Then, instead, go through the cards and list individual rulings on all cards with this problem. That servers both the purpose of giving something that's easy to remember (as one can't memorize 20+ seperates individual rulings very easily) and not introducing new rulings that might get interpreted wrongly themselves.
CHAD
That is what I meant with the original ruling, BTW. I never intended Concealment to last until the end of the turn.
WIM
tharasix wrote:
That is what I meant with the original ruling, BTW. I never intended Concealment to last until the end of the turn.
Oh, don't you worry. I think we all assumed as much. [In fact, I got rather annoyed with Brian Min that he was so insistent on taking your statement out of its context and even to override the rule in the rulesbook.]
MARK
Ignore previous table. Review the one now attached.
NIGEL
Had a quick look, problem with the 'unsure' cards (IMHO) is we still haven't quite sorted out what the heck a target is
These cards don't specifically say 'target foo' or similar - but for most I think they target a particular attack (for example) so only hang around for the resolution of that attack (ie. instantaneous) although some target something different so hang around until the end of the turn.
For example, Dragon’s Breath I think targets a particular attack only and goes when the attack is resolved, but Fever of Unrest hangs around for the rest of the turn like Dragon's Desolation - which does because of the CRF entry, which states
Quote:
Playing Dragon's Desolation to make a Dragon playable at a Ruins & Lairs does not necessarily require you to play a Dragon later in the turn.
But it's hard to justify as we don't have a definition of what a target is, and so implied targetting (which is what these cards do IMHO) is a grey area
MARK
Well, how about this:
By deciding these particular cases, we're helping ourselves define what a target is 'from the bottom up'. I'm quite suspicious of general principles and the 'top down' approach anyway....
Thanks for the homework on Dragon's Desolation.
BTW: Brian Min did the second half of the classification in the attached document. I say this (1) to acknowledge his hard work, (2) to keep myself from being taken to task for mistakes he made , (3) to bring up the question of whether it might be wise to give him non-voting status on the NetRep board. With Wim 'gone' and Travis at least very very busy, he might make a useful 'research monkey' .
NIGEL
Zarathustra wrote:
Well, how about this:
By deciding these particular cases, we're helping ourselves define what a target is 'from the bottom up'. I'm quite suspicious of general principles and the 'top down' approach anyway....
Thanks for the homework on Dragon's Desolation.
You're welcome, only know it because I had to rule on it in a UK tournament ... guy had a rather interesting deck which played dragons on-guard (sometimes), rumor of wealth etc.
Zarathustra wrote:
BTW: Brian Min did the second half of the classification in the attached document. I say this (1) to acknowledge his hard work, (2) to keep myself from being taken to task for mistakes he made , (3) to bring up the question of whether it might be wise to give him non-voting status on the NetRep board. With Wim 'gone' and Travis at least very very busy, he might make a useful 'research monkey' .
I don't have a problem with this, I'm happy for the netrep team to be transparent rather than black box for those players who care enough to want to know why the heck we decide what we decide, and another pair of eyes/hands to go a digging through all the crf/rulings files is more than welcome.
(7) MARK
CRF wrote:
The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.
This really really really blows. When was it added to the CRF?
on the other hand, what is this silly phrase "or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence" supposed to mean, exactly? The rules for the strike sequence have the same bloody clause about "would be otherwise playable" -- so the reader just gets sent in circles!
OK, did some more reading. This is perhaps the worst rule in the game.
You cannot play Sojourn in Shadows or Ruse when facing an auto-attack, which means that a lone ringwraith in heralded lord mode just became even weaker. It's now virtually impossible to play such a deck (akhorahil is useless as a dragon influencer now, and the witch king cannot sneak into Shelob's Lair to play the last child...). Ugh.
I
Pilfered Crap from meccg.net
-
zarathustra
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm
http://www.alfanos.org
-
zarathustra
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm
(continued from above)
If ever a rule needed overturning, it would be this one.
MIKKO
Zarathustra wrote:
If ever a rule needed overturning, it would be this one.
I agree, something needs to be done here. I suppose we could expand the types of cards that are playable instead of actually overturning the rule (though the end result might be pretty much the same)?
The same wording also appears in CRF:Timing:
Quote:
Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.
(amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation 18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).
Note that Annotation 24 is about cards with multiple actions, so it might not affect Tidings of Bold Spies (as Jaded pointed out here), but it would affect cards like Long Dark Reach, which just adds to the confusion...
If we come up with something good for the automatic-attack entry, I feel we should apply it to Annotation 24 as well.
(8) MARK
CoE is considering making the 9 German Promos legal at Worlds 2006. Given that, we want to make a definitive English translation for that event, since all official stuff is in English anyway. If people like how things go, the 9 may be made legal for Worlds 2007 etc., and national councils might allow them as well, but that's not a matter for CoE to decide. In any case, CoE would like the NetRep team to take a look at the English translations we've tweaked up and see if they have any ambiguities of wording that might be exploited by a literalist reader or some such villain . Basically, they want us to say whether these translations look good as texts of cards, whether the interactions of these cards with the rest of the meccg universe are reasonably clear, etc. We don't need to comment on whether we think they're over- or under-powered. That will be discussed by the CoE itself, and doesn't require our attention. So, if you guys wouldn't mind taking a quick look through these, I'd greatly appreciate it, as would the rest of CoE.
THE PACK AT THE DOOR
Long-event
Playable only if Doors of Night is in play. Any non-unique Animal, Spider and Wolf hazard creature may be played keyed to Border-lands , Border-holds , or Ruins & Lairs . The creature must be playable in a non-Coastal Sea region.
SWORDMASTER
1 MP
Permanent-event
Sage only. Playable on an untapped sage during the site phase at an untapped site where Information is playable. Tap the site and the sage. Gives the bearer warrior skill. If the bearer is already a warrior, he may use two weapons (both modifiers apply). If he uses two weapons, he cannot use a shield. May not be duplicated on a given character.
DWARVEN AXE
2 MP
Major Item
Weapon. Warrior only. +2 to prowess to a maximum of 7; +3 to prowess to a maximum of 8 if held by a dwarf.
+2(+3)/-
2 CP
BELEGENNON
2(4) MP
Greater Item
Unique. Hoard item. Armor. +1 to body to a maximum of 9. A stored Reforging may be placed with Belegennon to restore it. Once restored, Belegennon gives 4 marshalling points and 3 corruption points. Warrior only (restored): If bearer chooses not to tap against a strike, he receives no prowess penalty.
-/+1
2(3) CP
HORN OF DEFIANCE
1(3) MP
+2 DI
Greater Item
Unique. Hoard item. +2 direct influence. A stored Reforging may be placed with Horn of Defiance to restore it. Once restored, Horn of
Defiance gives 3 marshalling points and 2 corruption points. If restored and the bearer is the first to face a strike of an attack, the Horn of Defiance may be tapped and that character may choose to face all strikes of the attack. The character faces a separate strike sequence for each strike.
1(2) CP
RINGIL
2(4) MP
Greater Item
Unique. Hoard item. Weapon. +1 to body. Warrior only: +1 to prowess to a
maximum of 8. A stored Reforging may be placed with Ringil to restore it. Once restored, Ringil gives 4 marshalling points, 3 corruption points and +5 to prowess to a maximum of 11.
(+1)(+5)/+1
2(3) CP
BAUGUR
1 MP
4 Mind
1 DI
Warrior Orc
Unique. Half-orc. Agent. Leader. Discard Baug?r on a body check result of 8. +2 direct influence against Orcs and Orc factions. Agent only: May not move to Free-holds or Border-holds .
Home Site: Isengard
4/8
FRECA
2 MP
5 Mind
2 DI
Warrior/Diplomat Man
Unique. Agent. +1 direct influence against Riders of Rohan and Dunlendings factions.
Home Site: Edoras, Dunnish Clan-hold
4/8
WOLF
1 MP
4 Mind
2 DI
Warrior/Diplomat Man
Unique. Agent. +2 direct influence against the Dunlendings faction.
Home Site: Edoras, Dunnish Clan-hold
3/7
WIM
Hmm.. I'm the one speaker of German in here, but I must say I am otherwise occupied for the moment - lot of stuff regarding the forum going on - so though I'll try it will likely be in two weeks or so, not earlier.
Must say I find this a rather weird way of acting from the CoE: shove nine cards down peoples throats by making them Worlds legal. If they want to see them played, can't they put out some "official recommendation" to tournament organisers and councils to give these a try? That way it gets used from the bottom up, as it should, and would only ever make the high echelon of Worlds if the vast majority of players seems to like it. Their way Das Pack vor der Tür will quite likely cause a lot of unexpected issues on WC 06.
Related note: Chad, could you put the CoE voting results in that CoE election thread out on the board here? I guess they've been on the list, but Josh still didn't get our archives of that to work.
MARK
Wim, I think you'd be surprised how many people would like to give the German 9 a try. 8 of them are crap as far as I'm concerned, and Das Pack isn't amazing. I would hardly characterize this is 'shoving down throats'. If people don't like it, they'll object, and CoE won't do it ever again. If they do like it, we'll continue. Personally, I think that CoE taking on some work like this is a very good sign for the vitality of the world council.
WIM
To me Worlds is not a play ground. It is supposed to be the most official and most prestigious event in MeCCG and should be ran accordingly. You don't go "testing" such things there. It doesn't make sense, nor is there the slightest need to. Or is the CoE meaning to state their influence is so limited that they can't find any normal tournament organisers to try it? Sorry, but to me this looks like some kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Taking on work "like this" is good? Hmm.. Last time I read the CoE charter it said stuff about making sure there's a good webpresence, but nothing about making frivolous updates to the rules. Come to think of it: it did say something about changing rules stuffs, something about needing a 2/3 majority of a certain list to ratify..
Thanks for making me think some more on this. In this light, forget about what I posted up top about checking these cards. I'm not freeing up my precious time for ventures like this one.
MARK
OK, don't let it bother you then.
Along the same lines, if anyone else doesn't want to be bothered with this, it's no big deal. CoE basically just wanted to make sure that there weren't gaping ambiguities, but I think Chad and I can take care of that ourselves.
I think there's more support for this than you are admitting, by the way. You may have noticed that the people who mentioned making CoE support the 2-mind Balrog rule, support the UEPs, and/or bring in the German 9 for Worlds got more votes than those who didn't. The actual breakdown was:
Stefan Fankel 42
Wolfgang Penetsdorfer 36 <-- Balrog & German 9
Mark Alfano 34 <-- Balrog & UEPs
Timo Lutter 31
Joe Bisz 29
Sergio Canobbio 28 <-- Balrog Rule
Kris Van Beurden 28 <-- UEPs
Charles Jenkins 21
--The following did not make the Council--
Philip Carroll 17
Patrick Gagne 13
To me, that indicates that a good number of community members are interested in these modifications but haven't found any other way to express themselves. By taking the lead on the issue, CoE is saying 'this is an OK thing to do; try it if you like."
Furthermore, I would hardly characterize this change as 'frivolous'. It may be 'minor' (since really only one card is going to be particularly useful in competetive decks), but it isn't just a whim. Lots of people would like to give it a try, so we're having a go at it. Honestly, I can't help but giggle a little when an MECCG-related thing is called 'prestigious'; political positions, jobs, academic degrees -- these things are prestigious. Winning MECCG worlds is something more like 'cool'. I should know -- I did it . Also, it's not like anyone is going to show up and not know about it in advance. It'll be quite clear on the Worlds 2006 announcement and website, and English spoilers will be made available at the site as well. As for the 2/3 majority issue: this isn't a rules change. In fact, not a single rule or ruling will be at all affected by this. Rather, it is a recognition of a already-partly-legal set of cards which are readily available to the public. An increase in the universe of objects operated on by the rules is not a change in the rules themselves. This is clear in an analogous case: introducing negative numbers did not redefine the rules of arithmetic that dealt only with positives and 0; and introduction of fractions doesn't change the rules for integers, nor does the introduction of irrationals change the rules for rationals, etc. Sorry if this seems defensive, but I think you may be over-reacting a little.
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
I think there's more support for this than you are admitting, by the way.
I hope there's plenty of support for it. (Or rather; I can't say I care about whether these become legal or not; fine with me either way. Looking at the UEP vote thus far it hangs still in the balance.) The point is that this suggestion of making them Worlds legal "just like that" just isn't the way to go about that. Why suddenly Worlds legal? Why not start at the bottom, with local events? That crucial question I did not see addressed.
Quote:
CoE is saying 'this is an OK thing to do; try it if you like'.
Now that would be an excellent statement. If that's what you guys want to say, why don't you say just that? Seriously.
Quote:
You may have noticed that the people who mentioned making CoE support the 2-mind Balrog rule, support the UEPs, and/or bring in the German 9 for Worlds got more votes than those who didn't. The actual breakdown was:
I had not seen the vote tally at all (am not on the list anymore). Those numbers are a pleasant surprise, looks like 2-3 times the number of votes last year's CoE was instated with. I don't see them support your conclusion though; not very outspoken in the first place and attributable to many factors. Is that seriously your conclusion based on those numbers?
Quote:
Furthermore, I would hardly characterize this change as 'frivolous'.
I'll readily admit I'm still searching for the right English word here, but it isn't correcting something that is broken: it is ornamentation, not a fix.
Quote:
Also, it's not like anyone is going to show up and not know about it in advance. It'll be quite clear on the Worlds 2006 announcement and website, and English spoilers will be made available at the site as well.
Mind if I giggle a bit when reading such an adamant that will be on the website statement on behalf of the CoE?
That's not what worries me though. Thing is that knowing they're there is not the same as being prepared for them, by having faced that environment before.
Quote:
this isn't a rules change. In fact, not a single rule or ruling will be at all affected by this. [..]
O come on! That's complete bollocks and you know it. A change to the rules set is a change to the rules set, period.
Now, don't read to much into me not wanting to bother either. I replied too quickly, feeling addressed because I'm the only one in here who could reasonably compare them with the originals. I really shouldn't say yes to such q's so automatically, as I feel all these "smaller" MeCCG chores are again trying to live me (hope that idiom holds in English) and I really need to keep that at bay.
So, to address the issue: I hope you didn't get those translations straight from NetMeCCG / Jim's list without further checking, as I doubt those have ever seen much verification. Either way, I would suggest you make sure Wanja verifies them, being by far the best German rules mind we've got.
MARK
As you well know, CoE cannot make anything legal for national, regional, or local events. All we control is worlds. What else were we gonna change? Anyway, if people don't like it, they'll complain on the list when CoE makes the announcement (which, if it does happen, will probably happen in about a month), and we may overturn ourselves.
The vote tallies are felicitous, as you say. I think that when people recognize that CoE is actually trying to get off its ass, they'll respond even more next year. For example, we might get people running who want to stop such changes as the German 9 at worlds; this would give them a reason to run. Healthy debate; more involvement; etc. -- it could be quite good.
You're certainly right to say that this change isn't a 'fix'. I don't think anyone has tried making that argument. More like: it mixes things up in what many would describe as a somewhat stale metagame.
Btw, giggle all you like at CoE. We've been caught with our pants down often enough that we probably deserve it. On the other hand, if we can actually get our act together, maybe the giggling will stop .
As I said before, there's no need for you to look at these. CoE basically just wants a thumbs up from some rules wizards. If some of them are too busy, no problem. The translations are edits of the Jim Montanus ones. Wolfgang, Kris, Joe, and I have worked them into the condition they're currently in.
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
As you well know, CoE cannot make anything legal for national, regional, or local events. All we control is worlds. What else were we gonna change?
Is that a serious argument? You yourself said it was primarely about making a statement:
Quote:
By taking the lead on the issue, CoE is saying 'this is an OK thing to do; try it if you like."
The CoE cannot express this in any other way, you think? You are aware that they - to my knowledge - have never tried any such statement before? You are also aware of the quick success of your own two-mind rule, that didn't even have such a backing?
I believe that if the CoE made an official statement that:
- they consider this "an ok thing to do", even in nationals
- would like to see it tested and receive reports of such, in light of possibly making them worlds legal in future
- provide an official English "base" version of the cards text (include them)
- will have their NetRep and team respond to rules questions regarding these cards from now on,
that will have all the impact you're looking for - more in fact - and without the negative side effects.
As for the testing: those present in the CoE alone should have direct influence in more than enough events to make sure such testing would actually take place. Far more testing most likely as, as you said, in Worlds most won't be used anyway, while in a normal tournament people will probably give it a spin just because they can.
Note: You make it sound like this is option isn't seriously considered at all. If you're not about to suggest it, would it be ok for me to use your quotes as used in this post (only that), to make some other CoE members aware of this option?
CHAD
I personally think that Wim makes some excellent points. I have a feeling that this would be better done from the bottom up. It would make more sense from the players' standpoints, as well. I also don't think this will be a major deviation from what the people at the CoE are considering right now. It is very much something that the CoE should be doing, even if they don't officially sanction the cards. Publishing official English texts and saying the Netrep team will now field questions on these cards as part of the body of MECCG cards is quite a message in and of itself.
I feel it is wise to hold off on sanctioning them for Worlds play.
Wim, the main point of posting the texts here is for scrutiny from a rules perspective. Do you feel they're broken as translated? Do you see any holes in the text? We are less interested in having an accurate German to English translation than we are having English texts that are unambiguous and solid.
MARK
Well, if you both agree, then perhaps I will introduce an ammendment to that effect.
Basically, I just want CoE to get off its ass, and I think this or something like it is a good way to start. Also, by appeasing the German members of the council, I can put through some things that they might not like as much later.
WIM
tharasix wrote:
We are less interested in having an accurate German to English translation than we are having English texts that are unambiguous and solid.
While I agree with that priority setting, I do believe an accurate translation is a very close 2nd in importantce, for reasons of acceptance of that translation, especially in Germanic countries.
Missed my bus this morning -> looked at card one during the 25 minute wait.
THE PACK AT THE DOOR
Long-event
Playable only if Doors of Night is in play. Any non-unique Animal, Spider and Wolf hazard creature may be played keyed to Border-land [ ], Border-hold [ ], or Ruins & Lairs [ ]. The creature must be playable in a region that is not a Coastal Sea [ ].
Rules consistency:
- the last line was ambiguous: did or did it not include a non-coastal sea region referred to by name? I clarified according to the German original
Wording consistency:
- Border-land and Border-hold (singular) is the norm on English cards (that is different on the German card, I haven't verified if this is normal for German cards or not, as Chad implies above, such doesn't matter)
- square brackets ([]) around the , and were forgotten (are present on the German one and in general)
English language:
- I'm wondering if in English the name wouldn't be A Pack at the Door. Also, is it perhaps a reference to a book scene (the night a Beorn's House?), in which case the book text could (and should) help. I'll leave that for you native English speakers to ponder on.
NIGEL
I'm pretty much out of the scene regarding the tournament viability of these cards - but I could see Swordmaster in a Fallen Saruman deck and the agents could get used by minion or Fallen Wizard - so I don't think it's just Pack at the Door to be considered.
If I'm wrong and Pack is the only bit of cardboard worth playing why bother to include the 9 in the Worlds at all??
Are the COE going to allow proxy cards too? These German promos were never widely available outside of Germany, I know now lots of traders/collectors have them, but do 'players' have them too?
I can also see them adding to the questions asked of the netreps if they become 'official' (especially the reforging cards ...)
But in the end it's got naff all to do with me - if you rattle my cage and ask me, I'd say leave them for casual play, or if a particular Council (such as the Germans) want to include them. I'd rather they remained with the status 'unofficial' so the netreps can just say "we don't rule on these cards, they weren't scantioned by ICE, ICE never ruled on them, we don't either".
MARK
OK, after the texts of these cards are OK'd, I'll introduce an ammendment to the proposal: we won't try to sanction these for Worlds, but instead say that the NetRep will field rules questions on them, and that we encourage local and national tournament organizers to use them. However, they will be lower priority than other questions.
Is that a good compromise?
CHAD
I honestly don't think these cards are that complicated, so I don't see a need for a compromise. I'm not necessarily against it, though.
(9) WIM
I read in the new CoE newsletter that Joe's rulings file now basically replaces the digests and our work. That is, I do assume the CoE reads and approves such texts before they are published, right?
So, Joe is the new NetRep team now and we are done? Has the CoE confirmed this to you, Chad?
MARK
??
WIM
Which part don't you get?
Newsletter and file claim: As of Version 3.0, this document is Approved and Recommended through the judge certification program and the Council of Elrond. Then the file goes own further feigning an official status by claiming it overrides everthing but the CRF. I.e according to the document and the confirming newsletter, whatever Joe writes replaces the digests.
I thought we'd been over the unofficial status of the document time and again, as well as a certain unhappines with Joe's insistence on sneaking in controversial examples / rulings. So Mark, howcome these claims it's o so official now? Are either of them true? If so, how did that happen? If not, how were they overlooked in the newsletter? Will you handle this matter with Joe?
MARK
He said it was approved by the JCP. If that were true (which, unfortunately, it is not), then it would, by virtue of that fact, also be approved by CoE, since CoE sponsors the JCP.
As far as the JCP part is concerned, I've read through the file about 3 times now, and I told him which parts were problematic. I also told him to get in touch with Brian Min for a final review after fixing the problems I found. It seems he jumped the gun on this last stage of approval.
Why exactly he was unwilling to put it up on the JCP forum, I can't say. I don't see this as a power play on his part. Rather, I think he's just impatient to show people the fruits of nearly 2 yearsof labor.
By the way, where does it say it overrides the CRF? That obviously isn't the case, but I guess it doesn't read that way to me. His file (once actually approved by the JCP, which shouldn't take much more work) will have the same status as all the other tutorials coming out of the JCP. If you find the play and examples file threatening to the NetRep team, I guess you should also advocate for the removal of all the tutorials you and I (and Dave Barton) have written....
In other words: Yes, Joe acted prematurely and has implied some things that aren't true. But: No, I don't think this is a huge problem. Make sense?
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
In other words: Yes, Joe acted prematurely and has implied some things that aren't true. But: No, I don't think this is a huge problem. Make sense?
Yeah, I thought same. I just moved it back to JCP board for getting those last kinks out. But then I was first surprised I got no reply from him so far - I expected he'd be watching its receipt like a hawk. Next I saw note of it, claim included, in the CoE newsletter, meaning more folk probably taking it as official as well as looking for it though not actually published yet..
Therefore I got a bit itchy and at least wanted to make sure it was on someones radar. Seeing as how it affects NetRep team 'territory' and how we are the main judges in that program, I thought here would work quickest for that.
Left is basically just ironing out that opening text and could be done really quickly, as soon as Joe gets on that bandwagon. If you could help Joe realise that we need to avoid such claims and that he thus should stop making them, then I'll be happy to help write up an updated text for that opening page. (Basically: remove the claim, mention the digests.)
As for JCP approved: I find that term rather confusing. I thought the JCP approved people as judges and in doing so their projects as "sufficiently showing capability as a judge of level X". To me that doesn't mean the projects themselves carry some stamp. I don't think they should, as it implies an officialishness that can't be granted, as well as an extra level of complexity for the exam / examinator.
For a most illustrative example: a project this huge can easily do for level 1 even if it were half finished and with a considerable number of errors left (i.e. as this one was a year or two ago). A project in such a state would not be ready for publication at all..
(Overrides: NOT the CRF; the digests. The way it is written it suggests it is a replacement for the digests, a.k.a. our work .)
We've recently seen a lot of confusion about an error in Dave Barton's tutorial, one that doesn't make any bold claims about its status. I think that shows clearly that if any labeling is done, it should stress the unofficial status of these documents ("provided in hope it will be helpfull and correct, but not official"?), rather than use grand (and false) terms that add confusion.
If ever a rule needed overturning, it would be this one.
MIKKO
Zarathustra wrote:
If ever a rule needed overturning, it would be this one.
I agree, something needs to be done here. I suppose we could expand the types of cards that are playable instead of actually overturning the rule (though the end result might be pretty much the same)?
The same wording also appears in CRF:Timing:
Quote:
Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.
(amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation 18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).
Note that Annotation 24 is about cards with multiple actions, so it might not affect Tidings of Bold Spies (as Jaded pointed out here), but it would affect cards like Long Dark Reach, which just adds to the confusion...
If we come up with something good for the automatic-attack entry, I feel we should apply it to Annotation 24 as well.
(8) MARK
CoE is considering making the 9 German Promos legal at Worlds 2006. Given that, we want to make a definitive English translation for that event, since all official stuff is in English anyway. If people like how things go, the 9 may be made legal for Worlds 2007 etc., and national councils might allow them as well, but that's not a matter for CoE to decide. In any case, CoE would like the NetRep team to take a look at the English translations we've tweaked up and see if they have any ambiguities of wording that might be exploited by a literalist reader or some such villain . Basically, they want us to say whether these translations look good as texts of cards, whether the interactions of these cards with the rest of the meccg universe are reasonably clear, etc. We don't need to comment on whether we think they're over- or under-powered. That will be discussed by the CoE itself, and doesn't require our attention. So, if you guys wouldn't mind taking a quick look through these, I'd greatly appreciate it, as would the rest of CoE.
THE PACK AT THE DOOR
Long-event
Playable only if Doors of Night is in play. Any non-unique Animal, Spider and Wolf hazard creature may be played keyed to Border-lands , Border-holds , or Ruins & Lairs . The creature must be playable in a non-Coastal Sea region.
SWORDMASTER
1 MP
Permanent-event
Sage only. Playable on an untapped sage during the site phase at an untapped site where Information is playable. Tap the site and the sage. Gives the bearer warrior skill. If the bearer is already a warrior, he may use two weapons (both modifiers apply). If he uses two weapons, he cannot use a shield. May not be duplicated on a given character.
DWARVEN AXE
2 MP
Major Item
Weapon. Warrior only. +2 to prowess to a maximum of 7; +3 to prowess to a maximum of 8 if held by a dwarf.
+2(+3)/-
2 CP
BELEGENNON
2(4) MP
Greater Item
Unique. Hoard item. Armor. +1 to body to a maximum of 9. A stored Reforging may be placed with Belegennon to restore it. Once restored, Belegennon gives 4 marshalling points and 3 corruption points. Warrior only (restored): If bearer chooses not to tap against a strike, he receives no prowess penalty.
-/+1
2(3) CP
HORN OF DEFIANCE
1(3) MP
+2 DI
Greater Item
Unique. Hoard item. +2 direct influence. A stored Reforging may be placed with Horn of Defiance to restore it. Once restored, Horn of
Defiance gives 3 marshalling points and 2 corruption points. If restored and the bearer is the first to face a strike of an attack, the Horn of Defiance may be tapped and that character may choose to face all strikes of the attack. The character faces a separate strike sequence for each strike.
1(2) CP
RINGIL
2(4) MP
Greater Item
Unique. Hoard item. Weapon. +1 to body. Warrior only: +1 to prowess to a
maximum of 8. A stored Reforging may be placed with Ringil to restore it. Once restored, Ringil gives 4 marshalling points, 3 corruption points and +5 to prowess to a maximum of 11.
(+1)(+5)/+1
2(3) CP
BAUGUR
1 MP
4 Mind
1 DI
Warrior Orc
Unique. Half-orc. Agent. Leader. Discard Baug?r on a body check result of 8. +2 direct influence against Orcs and Orc factions. Agent only: May not move to Free-holds or Border-holds .
Home Site: Isengard
4/8
FRECA
2 MP
5 Mind
2 DI
Warrior/Diplomat Man
Unique. Agent. +1 direct influence against Riders of Rohan and Dunlendings factions.
Home Site: Edoras, Dunnish Clan-hold
4/8
WOLF
1 MP
4 Mind
2 DI
Warrior/Diplomat Man
Unique. Agent. +2 direct influence against the Dunlendings faction.
Home Site: Edoras, Dunnish Clan-hold
3/7
WIM
Hmm.. I'm the one speaker of German in here, but I must say I am otherwise occupied for the moment - lot of stuff regarding the forum going on - so though I'll try it will likely be in two weeks or so, not earlier.
Must say I find this a rather weird way of acting from the CoE: shove nine cards down peoples throats by making them Worlds legal. If they want to see them played, can't they put out some "official recommendation" to tournament organisers and councils to give these a try? That way it gets used from the bottom up, as it should, and would only ever make the high echelon of Worlds if the vast majority of players seems to like it. Their way Das Pack vor der Tür will quite likely cause a lot of unexpected issues on WC 06.
Related note: Chad, could you put the CoE voting results in that CoE election thread out on the board here? I guess they've been on the list, but Josh still didn't get our archives of that to work.
MARK
Wim, I think you'd be surprised how many people would like to give the German 9 a try. 8 of them are crap as far as I'm concerned, and Das Pack isn't amazing. I would hardly characterize this is 'shoving down throats'. If people don't like it, they'll object, and CoE won't do it ever again. If they do like it, we'll continue. Personally, I think that CoE taking on some work like this is a very good sign for the vitality of the world council.
WIM
To me Worlds is not a play ground. It is supposed to be the most official and most prestigious event in MeCCG and should be ran accordingly. You don't go "testing" such things there. It doesn't make sense, nor is there the slightest need to. Or is the CoE meaning to state their influence is so limited that they can't find any normal tournament organisers to try it? Sorry, but to me this looks like some kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Taking on work "like this" is good? Hmm.. Last time I read the CoE charter it said stuff about making sure there's a good webpresence, but nothing about making frivolous updates to the rules. Come to think of it: it did say something about changing rules stuffs, something about needing a 2/3 majority of a certain list to ratify..
Thanks for making me think some more on this. In this light, forget about what I posted up top about checking these cards. I'm not freeing up my precious time for ventures like this one.
MARK
OK, don't let it bother you then.
Along the same lines, if anyone else doesn't want to be bothered with this, it's no big deal. CoE basically just wanted to make sure that there weren't gaping ambiguities, but I think Chad and I can take care of that ourselves.
I think there's more support for this than you are admitting, by the way. You may have noticed that the people who mentioned making CoE support the 2-mind Balrog rule, support the UEPs, and/or bring in the German 9 for Worlds got more votes than those who didn't. The actual breakdown was:
Stefan Fankel 42
Wolfgang Penetsdorfer 36 <-- Balrog & German 9
Mark Alfano 34 <-- Balrog & UEPs
Timo Lutter 31
Joe Bisz 29
Sergio Canobbio 28 <-- Balrog Rule
Kris Van Beurden 28 <-- UEPs
Charles Jenkins 21
--The following did not make the Council--
Philip Carroll 17
Patrick Gagne 13
To me, that indicates that a good number of community members are interested in these modifications but haven't found any other way to express themselves. By taking the lead on the issue, CoE is saying 'this is an OK thing to do; try it if you like."
Furthermore, I would hardly characterize this change as 'frivolous'. It may be 'minor' (since really only one card is going to be particularly useful in competetive decks), but it isn't just a whim. Lots of people would like to give it a try, so we're having a go at it. Honestly, I can't help but giggle a little when an MECCG-related thing is called 'prestigious'; political positions, jobs, academic degrees -- these things are prestigious. Winning MECCG worlds is something more like 'cool'. I should know -- I did it . Also, it's not like anyone is going to show up and not know about it in advance. It'll be quite clear on the Worlds 2006 announcement and website, and English spoilers will be made available at the site as well. As for the 2/3 majority issue: this isn't a rules change. In fact, not a single rule or ruling will be at all affected by this. Rather, it is a recognition of a already-partly-legal set of cards which are readily available to the public. An increase in the universe of objects operated on by the rules is not a change in the rules themselves. This is clear in an analogous case: introducing negative numbers did not redefine the rules of arithmetic that dealt only with positives and 0; and introduction of fractions doesn't change the rules for integers, nor does the introduction of irrationals change the rules for rationals, etc. Sorry if this seems defensive, but I think you may be over-reacting a little.
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
I think there's more support for this than you are admitting, by the way.
I hope there's plenty of support for it. (Or rather; I can't say I care about whether these become legal or not; fine with me either way. Looking at the UEP vote thus far it hangs still in the balance.) The point is that this suggestion of making them Worlds legal "just like that" just isn't the way to go about that. Why suddenly Worlds legal? Why not start at the bottom, with local events? That crucial question I did not see addressed.
Quote:
CoE is saying 'this is an OK thing to do; try it if you like'.
Now that would be an excellent statement. If that's what you guys want to say, why don't you say just that? Seriously.
Quote:
You may have noticed that the people who mentioned making CoE support the 2-mind Balrog rule, support the UEPs, and/or bring in the German 9 for Worlds got more votes than those who didn't. The actual breakdown was:
I had not seen the vote tally at all (am not on the list anymore). Those numbers are a pleasant surprise, looks like 2-3 times the number of votes last year's CoE was instated with. I don't see them support your conclusion though; not very outspoken in the first place and attributable to many factors. Is that seriously your conclusion based on those numbers?
Quote:
Furthermore, I would hardly characterize this change as 'frivolous'.
I'll readily admit I'm still searching for the right English word here, but it isn't correcting something that is broken: it is ornamentation, not a fix.
Quote:
Also, it's not like anyone is going to show up and not know about it in advance. It'll be quite clear on the Worlds 2006 announcement and website, and English spoilers will be made available at the site as well.
Mind if I giggle a bit when reading such an adamant that will be on the website statement on behalf of the CoE?
That's not what worries me though. Thing is that knowing they're there is not the same as being prepared for them, by having faced that environment before.
Quote:
this isn't a rules change. In fact, not a single rule or ruling will be at all affected by this. [..]
O come on! That's complete bollocks and you know it. A change to the rules set is a change to the rules set, period.
Now, don't read to much into me not wanting to bother either. I replied too quickly, feeling addressed because I'm the only one in here who could reasonably compare them with the originals. I really shouldn't say yes to such q's so automatically, as I feel all these "smaller" MeCCG chores are again trying to live me (hope that idiom holds in English) and I really need to keep that at bay.
So, to address the issue: I hope you didn't get those translations straight from NetMeCCG / Jim's list without further checking, as I doubt those have ever seen much verification. Either way, I would suggest you make sure Wanja verifies them, being by far the best German rules mind we've got.
MARK
As you well know, CoE cannot make anything legal for national, regional, or local events. All we control is worlds. What else were we gonna change? Anyway, if people don't like it, they'll complain on the list when CoE makes the announcement (which, if it does happen, will probably happen in about a month), and we may overturn ourselves.
The vote tallies are felicitous, as you say. I think that when people recognize that CoE is actually trying to get off its ass, they'll respond even more next year. For example, we might get people running who want to stop such changes as the German 9 at worlds; this would give them a reason to run. Healthy debate; more involvement; etc. -- it could be quite good.
You're certainly right to say that this change isn't a 'fix'. I don't think anyone has tried making that argument. More like: it mixes things up in what many would describe as a somewhat stale metagame.
Btw, giggle all you like at CoE. We've been caught with our pants down often enough that we probably deserve it. On the other hand, if we can actually get our act together, maybe the giggling will stop .
As I said before, there's no need for you to look at these. CoE basically just wants a thumbs up from some rules wizards. If some of them are too busy, no problem. The translations are edits of the Jim Montanus ones. Wolfgang, Kris, Joe, and I have worked them into the condition they're currently in.
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
As you well know, CoE cannot make anything legal for national, regional, or local events. All we control is worlds. What else were we gonna change?
Is that a serious argument? You yourself said it was primarely about making a statement:
Quote:
By taking the lead on the issue, CoE is saying 'this is an OK thing to do; try it if you like."
The CoE cannot express this in any other way, you think? You are aware that they - to my knowledge - have never tried any such statement before? You are also aware of the quick success of your own two-mind rule, that didn't even have such a backing?
I believe that if the CoE made an official statement that:
- they consider this "an ok thing to do", even in nationals
- would like to see it tested and receive reports of such, in light of possibly making them worlds legal in future
- provide an official English "base" version of the cards text (include them)
- will have their NetRep and team respond to rules questions regarding these cards from now on,
that will have all the impact you're looking for - more in fact - and without the negative side effects.
As for the testing: those present in the CoE alone should have direct influence in more than enough events to make sure such testing would actually take place. Far more testing most likely as, as you said, in Worlds most won't be used anyway, while in a normal tournament people will probably give it a spin just because they can.
Note: You make it sound like this is option isn't seriously considered at all. If you're not about to suggest it, would it be ok for me to use your quotes as used in this post (only that), to make some other CoE members aware of this option?
CHAD
I personally think that Wim makes some excellent points. I have a feeling that this would be better done from the bottom up. It would make more sense from the players' standpoints, as well. I also don't think this will be a major deviation from what the people at the CoE are considering right now. It is very much something that the CoE should be doing, even if they don't officially sanction the cards. Publishing official English texts and saying the Netrep team will now field questions on these cards as part of the body of MECCG cards is quite a message in and of itself.
I feel it is wise to hold off on sanctioning them for Worlds play.
Wim, the main point of posting the texts here is for scrutiny from a rules perspective. Do you feel they're broken as translated? Do you see any holes in the text? We are less interested in having an accurate German to English translation than we are having English texts that are unambiguous and solid.
MARK
Well, if you both agree, then perhaps I will introduce an ammendment to that effect.
Basically, I just want CoE to get off its ass, and I think this or something like it is a good way to start. Also, by appeasing the German members of the council, I can put through some things that they might not like as much later.
WIM
tharasix wrote:
We are less interested in having an accurate German to English translation than we are having English texts that are unambiguous and solid.
While I agree with that priority setting, I do believe an accurate translation is a very close 2nd in importantce, for reasons of acceptance of that translation, especially in Germanic countries.
Missed my bus this morning -> looked at card one during the 25 minute wait.
THE PACK AT THE DOOR
Long-event
Playable only if Doors of Night is in play. Any non-unique Animal, Spider and Wolf hazard creature may be played keyed to Border-land [ ], Border-hold [ ], or Ruins & Lairs [ ]. The creature must be playable in a region that is not a Coastal Sea [ ].
Rules consistency:
- the last line was ambiguous: did or did it not include a non-coastal sea region referred to by name? I clarified according to the German original
Wording consistency:
- Border-land and Border-hold (singular) is the norm on English cards (that is different on the German card, I haven't verified if this is normal for German cards or not, as Chad implies above, such doesn't matter)
- square brackets ([]) around the , and were forgotten (are present on the German one and in general)
English language:
- I'm wondering if in English the name wouldn't be A Pack at the Door. Also, is it perhaps a reference to a book scene (the night a Beorn's House?), in which case the book text could (and should) help. I'll leave that for you native English speakers to ponder on.
NIGEL
I'm pretty much out of the scene regarding the tournament viability of these cards - but I could see Swordmaster in a Fallen Saruman deck and the agents could get used by minion or Fallen Wizard - so I don't think it's just Pack at the Door to be considered.
If I'm wrong and Pack is the only bit of cardboard worth playing why bother to include the 9 in the Worlds at all??
Are the COE going to allow proxy cards too? These German promos were never widely available outside of Germany, I know now lots of traders/collectors have them, but do 'players' have them too?
I can also see them adding to the questions asked of the netreps if they become 'official' (especially the reforging cards ...)
But in the end it's got naff all to do with me - if you rattle my cage and ask me, I'd say leave them for casual play, or if a particular Council (such as the Germans) want to include them. I'd rather they remained with the status 'unofficial' so the netreps can just say "we don't rule on these cards, they weren't scantioned by ICE, ICE never ruled on them, we don't either".
MARK
OK, after the texts of these cards are OK'd, I'll introduce an ammendment to the proposal: we won't try to sanction these for Worlds, but instead say that the NetRep will field rules questions on them, and that we encourage local and national tournament organizers to use them. However, they will be lower priority than other questions.
Is that a good compromise?
CHAD
I honestly don't think these cards are that complicated, so I don't see a need for a compromise. I'm not necessarily against it, though.
(9) WIM
I read in the new CoE newsletter that Joe's rulings file now basically replaces the digests and our work. That is, I do assume the CoE reads and approves such texts before they are published, right?
So, Joe is the new NetRep team now and we are done? Has the CoE confirmed this to you, Chad?
MARK
??
WIM
Which part don't you get?
Newsletter and file claim: As of Version 3.0, this document is Approved and Recommended through the judge certification program and the Council of Elrond. Then the file goes own further feigning an official status by claiming it overrides everthing but the CRF. I.e according to the document and the confirming newsletter, whatever Joe writes replaces the digests.
I thought we'd been over the unofficial status of the document time and again, as well as a certain unhappines with Joe's insistence on sneaking in controversial examples / rulings. So Mark, howcome these claims it's o so official now? Are either of them true? If so, how did that happen? If not, how were they overlooked in the newsletter? Will you handle this matter with Joe?
MARK
He said it was approved by the JCP. If that were true (which, unfortunately, it is not), then it would, by virtue of that fact, also be approved by CoE, since CoE sponsors the JCP.
As far as the JCP part is concerned, I've read through the file about 3 times now, and I told him which parts were problematic. I also told him to get in touch with Brian Min for a final review after fixing the problems I found. It seems he jumped the gun on this last stage of approval.
Why exactly he was unwilling to put it up on the JCP forum, I can't say. I don't see this as a power play on his part. Rather, I think he's just impatient to show people the fruits of nearly 2 yearsof labor.
By the way, where does it say it overrides the CRF? That obviously isn't the case, but I guess it doesn't read that way to me. His file (once actually approved by the JCP, which shouldn't take much more work) will have the same status as all the other tutorials coming out of the JCP. If you find the play and examples file threatening to the NetRep team, I guess you should also advocate for the removal of all the tutorials you and I (and Dave Barton) have written....
In other words: Yes, Joe acted prematurely and has implied some things that aren't true. But: No, I don't think this is a huge problem. Make sense?
WIM
Zarathustra wrote:
In other words: Yes, Joe acted prematurely and has implied some things that aren't true. But: No, I don't think this is a huge problem. Make sense?
Yeah, I thought same. I just moved it back to JCP board for getting those last kinks out. But then I was first surprised I got no reply from him so far - I expected he'd be watching its receipt like a hawk. Next I saw note of it, claim included, in the CoE newsletter, meaning more folk probably taking it as official as well as looking for it though not actually published yet..
Therefore I got a bit itchy and at least wanted to make sure it was on someones radar. Seeing as how it affects NetRep team 'territory' and how we are the main judges in that program, I thought here would work quickest for that.
Left is basically just ironing out that opening text and could be done really quickly, as soon as Joe gets on that bandwagon. If you could help Joe realise that we need to avoid such claims and that he thus should stop making them, then I'll be happy to help write up an updated text for that opening page. (Basically: remove the claim, mention the digests.)
As for JCP approved: I find that term rather confusing. I thought the JCP approved people as judges and in doing so their projects as "sufficiently showing capability as a judge of level X". To me that doesn't mean the projects themselves carry some stamp. I don't think they should, as it implies an officialishness that can't be granted, as well as an extra level of complexity for the exam / examinator.
For a most illustrative example: a project this huge can easily do for level 1 even if it were half finished and with a considerable number of errors left (i.e. as this one was a year or two ago). A project in such a state would not be ready for publication at all..
(Overrides: NOT the CRF; the digests. The way it is written it suggests it is a replacement for the digests, a.k.a. our work .)
We've recently seen a lot of confusion about an error in Dave Barton's tutorial, one that doesn't make any bold claims about its status. I think that shows clearly that if any labeling is done, it should stress the unofficial status of these documents ("provided in hope it will be helpfull and correct, but not official"?), rather than use grand (and false) terms that add confusion.
http://www.alfanos.org
-
zarathustra
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm
Closing this, since it's just book-keeping.
http://www.alfanos.org