Council of Elrond

Adûnaphel wrote:Unique. Nazgûl (7th). May be played as a hazard creature (with one strike) or as a permanent event. As a creature, may also be played keyed to Brown Lands, Dagorlad, Gorgoroth, and Western Mirkwood; and may also be played at sites in these regions. If played as a permanent-event, it will remain in play until tapped during the opponent's movement/hazard phase (tapping counts against the hazard limit). When tapped, Adûnaphel becomes a short-event and causes any one character to tap.

"causes any one character to tap" overcomes the restriction:

CRF, Turn Sequence, Movement/Hazard Phase, Playing Hazards wrote:Hazards may only be played on a company whose movement/hazard phase is being
resolved, or on the site they are moving to. Long-events and permanent- events may
effect more than one company even though they are only played "on" one company.

Regardless of above it was ruled that target of Adûnaphel as short-event must be in company taking its M/H phase and it is common practice to respect this restriction.

Therefore I propose the following erratum:

Adûnaphel wrote:Unique. Nazgûl (7th). May be played as a hazard creature (with one strike) or as a permanent event. As a creature, may also be played keyed to Brown Lands, Dagorlad, Gorgoroth, and Western Mirkwood; and may also be played at sites in these regions. If played as a permanent-event, it will remain in play until tapped during the opponent's movement/hazard phase (tapping counts against the hazard limit). When tapped, Adûnaphel becomes a short-event and causes one character to tap.

Absolutely agree.

As a general rule, I don't feel there is a need to issue an erratum (in agreement) of every issue that the NetRep has already ruled on, and therefore I am typically against this practice (and no, I don't want to re-open the conversation of judicial vs legislative branches).

However, due to the extreme popularity of Adunaphel and how often this question arises, I think this would be a worthwhile exception to the above.

update: see below

Why do so many of these proposals and CoE rulings (10 and 48) fail to cite to previous ICE rulings? Sometimes the proposals are consistent and sometimes they are not.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=534

ICE Digest 55 wrote:From: turin <tu...@primenet.com>
>In a recent tournament, I had moved one company, was oving another and the player tapped Adunaphel, tapping a character in the first company. Once again, so much for a hazard limit.

He can't do that. You may only target characters in the currently moving company with hazards.

Because it is not always important, what some wise people said in past about that or another topic.
What some people said recently about current topic in current thread is important.

ICE Digest 55 is against current text of Adûnaphel. For the reason explained in first post.
If the proposal will pass then ICE Digest 55 will become correct.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:47 am ICE Digest 55 is against current text of Adûnaphel.

Except it's not

Maybe it is not visible in first post, but
premise is that a word "any" has meaning.
And the meaning is that it extends a range of objects possible to be specified/affected otherwise.
See texts of Tom Bombadil or Adûnaphel the Ringwraith for comparision.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:10 am Maybe it is not visible in first post, but
premise is that a word "any" has meaning.
And the meaning is that it extends a range of objects possible to be specified/affected otherwise.
See texts of Tom Bombadil or Adûnaphel the Ringwraith for comparision.

It was visible. And it's even more visible here: http://www.meccg.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 4&start=30

However, ICE has already ruled on this. ICE has already ruled on many topics that you've presented. The term "any" does not overcome the targeting restrictions of the M/P phase. CoE ruled the same.

Why waste time voting on this just to indirectly validate your premise that no one else agreed with?

And why didn't you post all relevant information? Very sketchy. Some agenda you're pressing now that the others are gone.

I sure hope Zara sticks around a long time because I don't want to ever see Adunaphel tap a character in Company A during Company B's m/h phase.

If only.


And your pointing to Tom Bombadil and RE Adunaphel just confirms my thoughts... There is a difference between understanding a word and understanding the game.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:40 am However, ICE has already ruled on this. ICE has already ruled on many topics that you've presented.

There is an errata level and there is a ruling level.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:40 am And why didn't you post all relevant information? Very sketchy. Some agenda you're pressing now that the others are gone.

Whatever someone says about some card it does not change a text of the card.
Someone's interpretations do not oblige the authors of errata proposals.
It is irrelevant whether the someone is the person from ICE or not.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:26 am Whatever someone says about some card it does not change a text of the card.
Someone's interpretations do not oblige the authors of errata proposals.
It is irrelevant whether the someone is the person from ICE or not.

But most of your proposals are a waste of time because they are nonissues. And many of your proposals misconstrue the CRF. And some of your proposals create bogus rulings to correct the CRF, creating issues where there were none.


Anyone thinking that the term "any" overrides the CRF targeting restrictions is completely misunderstanding the rules on the hazard limit that the CRF statement is describing. The hazard limit lets you play hazards on a company. It is the company's hazard limit. You cannot tap just "any" character because there is no hazard limit available to use for characters in a company that is not currently taking their M/H phase.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:52 pm The hazard limit lets you play hazards on a company. It is the company's hazard limit. You cannot tap just "any" character because there is no hazard limit available to use for characters in a company that is not currently taking their M/H phase.

Thank you for describing your thinking process.
Seem like there is no chance for Early Harvest or Muster Disperses, because their targets are not in the company taking its m/h phase.
My respect for idea that characters in given company use HL.

Perfect Konrad response. Thank you.

Supposed issues with Muster Disperses is relevant to the improper play of other cards.



There is a difference between using one company's hazard limit to play hazards that don't target any entity of any company and using that company's hazard limit to target an entity in a different company.

Adûnaphel the Ringwraith wrote:Unique. Manifestation of Adûnaphel. Can use spirit-magic. +2 in Heralded Lord mode. -2 prowess in Fell Rider mode. As your Ringwraith, if at a , she may tap to cancel one hazard creature attack not played at a site against any one of your companies. Home Site: Ulurtsu Nurn

Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects, i.e., a
creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of
effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception. In order to cancel an attack or
to directly affect an attack, the character doing so must be in the company facing the
attack. Note that the region/site type a hazard creature was keyed to can be affected
otherwise. Cards only modify attacks if they say they specifically mention attacks.

Underlines mine.

I acknowledge the existence of rule that does not allow for a character not in company facing an attack for canceling the attack.
But I also acknowledge a possibility that some text may create an exception from the rule.

Adunaphel the Ringwraith has nothing to do with hazard Adunaphel or the fact that there is no hazard limit available to play hazards on an entity of company that is not taking its M/H phase.

But 10+ years of baggage is a heavy burden to bear.