We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Post by Konrad Klar »

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:05 pm
So you're saying the RW company that's not in a mode may, according to you, keep moving, but not start moving? (or as you say attempt to move?).
Yes.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:05 pm
CRF writes: Dwar Unleashed. Dwar must already be in a mode to use this card.

this is incorrect?
If it is not errata, then yes: it is not correct ruling.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:05 pm
nb. the ally removal example does not seem fully aplicable, because if the company would not be able to move, in the strict interpretation, where would they be, back at the site of origin as if they'd never moved? They started moving, hence they are moving. Anyway, a CRF entry is not an ICE original rule, so we cannot deduce from it any conflicting terminology.
What interpretation of "not being able to move" is "strict"?
May a RW company not it mode declare movement to a non-Darkhaven site (but at the start of its M/H phase it turns out that the company may not move here)?
Does a company using Eagle-Mounts return to a site of origin if in middle of its M/H phase its new site will become [-me_sh-] ?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Post by Bandobras Took »

You can always declare illegal movement. It's just that nothing happens and the company stays at the site.

Eagle-mounts has its own problems. :) (Notably, that changing site type would indeed make the movement illegal, bouncing the company, and that the opponent may only key hazards to the company's site, which it notably doesn't have while moving -- ICE forgot the word "new.")
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Post by Konrad Klar »

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:42 am
You can always declare illegal movement. It's just that nothing happens and the company stays at the site.
More the practice than a rule.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Post by Thorsten the Traveller »

Konrad wrote: The rule indicates that "may move to a non-Darkhaven site" in texts of mode cards, and " in order to move from a Darkhaven to a non-Darkhaven site, a Ringwraith must have a special resource card" refer to an attempt to move, not to a movement process.
why not to both? hence I said strict interpretation.
nb. I've been trying to imagine a situation in which a mode ally leaves play but its controlling RW does not, when does that happen, help me out?
Konrad wrote: Dwar's own company may move to Darkhaven using a region movement
you mean, using Dwar Unleashed, right? Even so, how does that imply they need not be in a mode?
seems to me the ruling was a matter of pure choice, not a case of applying logic to the rules.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Post by Konrad Klar »

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:12 am
why not to both? hence I said strict interpretation.
nb. I've been trying to imagine a situation in which a mode ally leaves play but its controlling RW does not, when does that happen, help me out?
Because declaring an attempt to move and actual movement process are separate things. If someone (ICE) is known to use a word "moving" for both things, then "strict interpretation" may mean figuring out whether it comes to "declaring an attempt to move" or to "actual movement process", or "strict interpretation" may ignore the ICE's uses and assume the it comes to actual movement process.

Due to loopholes in passive conditions rules, a leaving play by an ally giving mode never causes leaving a play by its controlling RW.
viewtopic.php?p=27101#p27101
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:12 am
you mean, using Dwar Unleashed, right? Even so, how does that imply they need not be in a mode?
Yes, I mean " using Dwar Unleashed".
How does that imply they need not be in a mode?
Because:
Lidless Eye, Starter Rules, Movement, Moving Your Ringwraith's Company wrote:The company containing your Ringwraith may freely move from Darkhaven to Darkhaven and from a non-Darkhaven site to a Darkhaven.
and
Lidless Eye, Standard Rules, Characters & Companies, Ringwraith Effects wrote: Ringwraith's company may not use region movement.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Post by Thorsten the Traveller »

Hmm, interesting points, pity I missed that discussion at the time, why did you not bring the suggested change to annotation #9 up for the ARV?

Yes DU allows Dwar's company to move using region movement to any Dark-haven (within reach), the ICE rule did not foresee that. Nevertheless, it was a matter of choice whether that must be in a mode, even if ruling so goes against the 'moving freely' rule. DU creates a special situation after all, and overturning 1 rule it might as well overturn another. I agree there was no need to rule so, but the point to bring this up was that the DU ruling reflects the original intent and idea of mode cards.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Post by Konrad Klar »

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:30 am
Hmm, interesting points, pity I missed that discussion at the time, why did you not bring the suggested change to annotation #9 up for the ARV?
For the same reasons for which I have not bring suggested change (i.e. revoking errata) to Traitor. Overlooking and lack of time.

Some CRF records are rulings that may be inferred from existing rules, some other are erratas, not always marked as card erratum.
As a ruling the Dwar Unleashed entry is invalid, as an errata it lacks a mark "card erratum".

If not the loophole in passive condition rules, there would not be a situation (known to me) where RW company loses mode in M/H phase and at the same time is not eliminated in result of effect that caused a losing mode.

Such situation could happen hypothetically and it is not bad that a relevant entry regulates such situation. The bad thing is that it is limited to case of losing an ally giving mode. If to take into account a hypothetical situations, it may be also discarding a Black Rider card played with minion version of Crown of Flowers.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: We Have Come to Kill & Ringwraith Followers

Post by Bandobras Took »

Timing rules in general only work if you don't look at them too closely. ;)

There are more issues therein than just the cards Konrad's mentioned.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”