Theo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:53 am
Your language suggests that you did not actually read or comprehend my post.
I did both read and comprehend your post. If I did not reply in kind to every point it was merely for time purposes of being as efficient with available time as possible. My apologies if this was received poorly by you.
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:53 am
* None of your "hazard creatures" examples attack EVERY company moving in those fairly common regions, attack through stealth/sneakin, can attack multiple times per turn, can be fizzled by attacker if opponent removes other attack boosting cards from the game making the attack too weak for the company, have even one let alone multiple alternative ways to play the card (
maybe the tapping of Wild Fell Beast[/i]), etc.
I suppose our disagreement here stems from differing opinions on what should determine how many Kill MPs are awarded for defeating any given attack. I believe the determinant should be how hard the attack is to actually defeat (once strikes are assigned). You seem to be of the opinion that the versatility and overall effectiveness of the hazard which creates the attack should factor into the number of Kill MPs awarded once said attack is defeated. With your interpretation, I think Cave-drake certainly deserves to award 2 Kill MPs. Very versatile and effective. I of course disagree with your assumptions though, respectfully.
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:53 am
* I don't need to "make a proposal to balance it a bit." Current rules text leaves zero doubt of correct interpretation in my mind, regardless of inability of some players historically in appreciating them.
My point is that if you feel SotM is over-powered enough to warrant granting 4 Kill MPs for defeating 3 strikes at 10 with no body, then I feel the best course is to address the card being over-powered, not to award 4 Kill points for defeating such a weak attack.
As to your point about the rules text... what is more important to you: To have fun playing this game with others? Or to rigidly follow a set of rules as written, even if it means sacrificing fun and enjoyment for others? We aren't in a court of law. ICE was known to have poorly and sloppily written rules at times, even despite their intentions to say something else or their failure to predict how a rule as written might be exactly applied. I do not believe that prior judges nor those who have frequented the tournament scene for 20 years are dim-witted or simply couldn't read the rules as written correctly. I think they
chose to interpret the rules in the way that made reasonable good sense, and if something didn't pass the sniff test, it was overlooked. Furthermore, SotM was surely being used in tournaments back in the day when ICE was still overseeing things and I imagine if SotM was supposed to be interpreted the way you are proposing, we would have heard something about it via ruling or digest.
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:53 am
* It is absolutely NOT susceptible to Marvel's Told other than by hazard limit reduction or a careless player. The one card that returns itself to hand, remember?
1) Hazard limit reduction.
2) Insufficient hazard limit to begin with (there have certainly been times I wanted to bring SotM back to my hand and could not due to no H/L remaining).
3) Removal outside of the M/H phase (this card is easy to remove during any other phase and the hazard player can do nothing about it; not sure about other players, but I don't typically hold this card in my hand waiting for a company to move through the affected regions, I play it as soon as possible to free up hand space).
Theo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:53 am
* If you
want to be a Lemming, at least have the insight to admit that by accurately stating this is an Errata to the Rules. There is no such thing as a "clarification" for how some people choose to play.
A lemming?
I do my own thinking and have no problem being a lone wolf if that is where it leads me. I also believe in balance, ensuring that others are having fun as well as myself, and looking at the "big picture" when necessary. My opinion is that 4 Kill MPs for defeating 3 strikes at 10 prowess with no body is not reasonable, nor fun, nor balanced.... regardless of how dynamic the hazard is that creates such an attack.
I don't think there is any hard set rule as to what can or cannot constitute a "clarification." We have issued prior clarifications when a card has had contested interpretations of how it should be played. Nonetheless, I respect your opinion, and perhaps a more global erratum is better anyhow, as Konrad and rezwits previously suggested in the sister topic. I amend my proposal to:
Rules Erratum
Change This:
Balrog, Clarifications, Defeating a Permanent-event wrote:Certain hazard permanent-events indicate that they give “kill” marshalling points (e.g., Dragon “At Hunt” and “At Home” cards, the “Spawn” hazards from ME: The Balrog, etc.). Each of these cards has an attack associated with it. If such an attack is defeated, treat the associated card as a defeated creature.
To This:
Balrog, Clarifications, Defeating a Permanent-event wrote:Certain hazard permanent-events indicate that they give “kill” marshalling points (e.g., Dragon “At Hunt” and “At Home” cards, the “Spawn” hazards from ME: The Balrog, etc.). Each of these cards has an attack associated with it. If such an attack is defeated, treat the associated card as a defeated creature. A card that is both a creature and an event that creates an attack is not eliminated if an attack created by it as an event is defeated, unless the text of such card states otherwise."
Reference Topic:
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... f=16&t=354
EDIT: I like the erratum proposed by CDavis7M above, thanks. However, I think a global erratum is perhaps better so that there is a trickle effect to Dream Cards as previously discussed in the linked topic above.