Council of Elrond

I propose the following erratum be issued for this card:

Replace "Bearer may make a corruption check modified by -2 to cancel a strike" with "Bearer may make a corruption check modified by -2 to cancel a strike against himself".

Discused here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2794

This NEEDS to be quickly changed to Hero & Minion, versions.

There is no reason, why the Minion version should be allowed to cancel ANY strike, but not the Hero version...

Thanks

@ rezwits,

A fair point. However, this...

rezwits wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:43 pm This NEEDS to be quickly changed to Hero & Minion, versions.

... isn't going to happen.

I guess the ballot is for the Hero version only because the submitter of this thread overlooked the fact that the Minion version has different wording of the sentence... Now, one might wonder which situation is worse: having two differently-working (whilst being the same item) The One Rings (vote: Yes), or keeping them the same, despite their imperfectness (vote: No).

As the Jabberwock said, there will be another opportunity to change The One Ring minion version next year. But if this one is voted down, to accept a proposal for MV will be less likely. The ROC will not bring the same items up for voting each year just to give it another try.

Besides, if this proposal would be accepted, that would be an indication that the community thinks One Ring MV might be treated similarly, which each playgroup can then adopt as their policy for the coming year (as they see fit).

It'd make sense not to bring this item up for voting the next year, if the ballot wasn't resolving one issue by creating another one. In this case, however, if the ballot is downvoted, you'd be unable to tell whether it is due to the populace's unwillingness to accept the change or, rather, to their dissatisfacton with imperfectness of what's being proposed.
Most likely the ballot will be upvoted, so this is not an issue ... just correct the MV the next year. If it's downvoted, however, I'd think bringing it up again (although corrected to cover the both versions of the card) is the right thing to do.

This proposal was voted on and made into CoE Erratum #17: viewtopic.php?f=103&t=3517

The change in the Erratum #17 was to add: "Bearer may make a corruption check modified by -2 to cancel a strike against himself."

In the corresponding discussion nobody mentioned Annotations 17 and 18, which already restrict The One Ring to only being able to cancel a strike against the bearer and no one else.

MELE p. 33 wrote:All of the factors affecting a strike must be decided during the strike sequence before making the roll (2D6).

CRF - The Strike Sequence wrote:Annotation 17: The only actions that may be declared during a strike sequence are those outlined in Annotation 18.

Annotation 18: When a defending player chooses to resolve a strike against a particular character, the only actions that may be taken by either player until the strike dice-roll is made are the following: playing hazard cards that affect the strike, the attacker may decide to use any or all of his remaining -1 modifications due to strikes in excess of the company's size, a target untapped character may take a -3 modification so that he will not automatically tap, and the defending character may play resource cards that affect the strike. An action that has the condition that a target character tap, but which otherwise has an effect not outlined here, may not be declared at this point. This is true even if the recipient of the strike would be the target character tapping and thus receive -1 to his prowess.

Annotation 18 is MORE restrictive than the Strike Sequence listed in the MELE rulesbook. For instance, Step (4) of the MELE Strike Sequence (p. 33) states:

4) The defending player may play resource cards that affect the strike (up to one card that requires skill).

Using The One Ring to cancel a strike targeting a non-bearer would have been permissible under this rule.

However, Annotation 17 states that Annotation 18 overrules the MELE rules. And Annotation 18 states

the defending character may play resource cards that affect the strike.

Declaring an effect of an item follows the same rules as playing resource cards. Therefore, a character resolving a strike may not use another character's item to affect the strike. Accordingly, CoE Erratum #17 is consistent with Annotations 17 and 18.