Spider of the Morlat

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I suppose if people think 4 MP is too much, there could be an explicit errata to make it so that the card is still defeated but only 0-3 MP are given instead. This would presumably be an easier errata to pass than the current proposal where the card isn't even defeated.

For completeness of discussion, SotM does not have its super-cheesy built-in safety net against Sacrifice of Form. Other than careless/aggressive play, this is almost the only danger to SotM, and even this can be anticipated and avoided. Even 3x combination of True Fana / Many Turns and Doublings alternative effect with a Hazard Limit of 2 can be anticipated and avoided by bouncing before the attack declaration resolves. Etc, etc.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

MEBA Permanent-events.PNG
MEBA Permanent-events.PNG (66.93 KiB) Viewed 4223 times
Image

Hoarmurath is a hazard permanent-event that indicates that it gives "kill" marshalling points. It has an attack associated with it (gives +1 strike to any one attack). If the associated attack receiving +1 strike is defeated, then you treat Hoarmurath as a defeated creature and get 5MP. Dwar of Waw and Alatar the Hunter are also permanent-events that indicate that they give kill MP and that have "associated" attacks. They also give up their MP if the associated attack is defeated.

Or maybe this clarification strictly applies to cards that are classified as a "Permanent-event" (Ahunts too) and not to cards that are classified as "Creature or Permanent-event" like Hoarmurath and Spider of the Morlat because the MP on those cards is for when they are played as a creature.
User avatar
Sam.Gamdschie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Hi,

whatever this has to do with SotM: If you tap HoD, it becomes a short-event (which then gives a bonus to an attack). At this time HoD is no more a permanent-event, so this Balrog Clarification has no meaning here.
Co-founder of the Hamburg Scenarios and Former Slave of Lure's Price Ceremonies
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Sam.Gamdschie wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 3:13 pm Hi,

whatever this has to do with SotM: If you tap HoD, it becomes a short-event (which then gives a bonus to an attack). At this time HoD is no more a permanent-event, so this Balrog Clarification has no meaning here.
That's wrong. Hoarmurath becomes a short-event before the strikes of the "associated attack" are even assigned. Then Hoarmurath as a short-event is discarded long before any strikes are resolved. Hoarmurath is a permanent-event when it is in the discard pile. Hoarmurath is in the discard pile and it is a permanent-event when the attack would be defeated. The Balrog Clarification applies.

----------

Not sure if you understood the point of my original post though. I don't think that the rule is intended to apply to events that merely have "associated" attacks, without creating them. And I don't think that the rule is intended to apply to cards that are also creatures (i.e., Spider of the Morlat).
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:47 pm Or maybe this clarification strictly applies to cards that are classified as a "Permanent-event" (Ahunts too) and not to cards that are classified as "Creature or Permanent-event" like Hoarmurath and Spider of the Morlat because the MP on those cards is for when they are played as a creature.
In fact, we know that ICE did not intend for the Balrog Clarification to change how Spider of the Morlat was played because ICE had previously stated that they would give prior notice when the rules were being changed (for tournament purposes). And there was no such notice given regarding Spider of the Morlat.
User avatar
Sam.Gamdschie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Hi,

but when a card is in the discard pile (maybe below other cards played for the attak which HoD supports), can you be forced to put it into the marshalling point pile of your opponent?? I'd rather think NOT.

Anyway, we are discussing a clarification not an erratum.
The clarification is directly associated with permanent-events with examples which are solely permanent-events (and long-events).
For all those "creature or permanent-events" cards, like SotM or HoD, this clarification should not apply at all:
This cards are creatures, too. Creature cards do not need this clarification as for creature cards the game mechanics regarding defeating attacks and awarding marshalling points are clear.

So the only thing which could be done is to change "permanent-events" to "solely permanent-events or long-events". To make clear that this clarification is meant for hazard cards which are not creature cards but give marshalling points. (Which is awarded once the associated attacks are defeated.)
Co-founder of the Hamburg Scenarios and Former Slave of Lure's Price Ceremonies
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Sam.Gamdschie wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:20 am but when a card is in the discard pile (maybe below other cards played for the attak which HoD supports), can you be forced to put it into the marshalling point pile of your opponent?? I'd rather think NOT.
The player certainly could be forced to move a card from their discard pile to their opponent's MP pile if some rule (i.e., this MEBA rule) stated that they should do so. The players should follow the rule.

Furthermore, there is no other rule that prevents a card from being put into the MP pile from the discard pile. And even if there was some other rule, this specific rule would override it. Also, Shelob works this way and Returned Beyond All Hope has a similar but opposite effect. There is no issue with moving a card to/from an opponent's MP pile and your own discard pile.
Sam.Gamdschie wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:20 am Anyway, we are discussing a clarification not an erratum.
I'm not sure why you made this statement. Many players seem to be mistaken on the difference between the two. This statement gives me that impression because clearly this clarification is not errata. But it IS a change to how the game is played.
Sam.Gamdschie wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:20 am The clarification is directly associated with permanent-events with examples which are solely permanent-events (and long-events).
For all those "creature or permanent-events" cards, like SotM or HoD, this clarification should not apply at all:
This cards are creatures, too. Creature cards do not need this clarification as for creature cards the game mechanics regarding defeating attacks and awarding marshalling points are clear.
These points are similar to those I made above. I partially agree (see below).
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Image
Image

Mordor in Arms is a permanent-event that indicates that it gives kill MP. It has attacks associated with it. If the attacks of Mordor in Arms are defeated, it is treated as a defeated creature and can be taken as a trophy per this clarification. This seems unintended.

----------

The clarification mentions Ahunt and At Home Dragons but the clarification does not change the previously existing rules with respect to these Dragons:
  • If you defeat the attack from a Dragon manifestation, you get kill marshalling points from the manifestation as if you had defeated a creature.
  • Defeated Dragon manifestations can be used as trophies, including Dragon factions.
In fact, none of the other clarifications in the specific rules for MEBA actually changes the existing rules. They are only clarifications of the Challenge Deck/MEBA Rules Summary, not clarifications of the complete rules.

CARDS WITH MULTIPLE ACTIONS (Clarification) -- This is just Annotation 24 as in the CRF.
PLACEMENT OF CARDS "OFF TO THE SIDE" (Clarification) -- This is the same as the MEDM rules.
DISCARDING CARDS (Clarification) -- This is the same as the rules in the CRF on "Discard"

----------

Since this MEBA Clarification did not change the rules, the only conclusion I can draw is that it meant to apply the existing rules on defeating Dragon long/permanent events to the "Spawn" hazards from MEBA.

----------

Image

As mentioned above, the Spider attack of 2 strikes with 10 prowess created by Spider of the Morlat does not reflect the 16/9 prowess/body printed on the card framing, the card text does not award marshalling points for defeating the Spider attack of 2 strikes with 10 prowess, the previously existing rules did not award marshalling points for defeating the Spider attack of 2 strikes with 10 prowess, and the 4 marshalling points could already be received by defeating Spider of the Morlat played as a creature.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:47 pm Hoarmurath is a hazard permanent-event that indicates that it gives "kill" marshalling points. It has an attack associated with it (gives +1 strike to any one attack).
I instead read the requirement that each qualifying card has an attack associated with it as a universal statement, a property of the card. A card that can only affect an attack would not qualify it for this rule because one cannot say the card "has an attack" (always) associated with it. Hoarmurath's effect on another attack would not establish that targeted attack as being "such an attack".

-----
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:09 pm In fact, we know that ICE did not intend for the Balrog Clarification to change how Spider of the Morlat was played because ICE had previously stated that they would give prior notice when the rules were being changed (for tournament purposes). And there was no such notice given regarding Spider of the Morlat.
ICE published a rule booklet. Why does that not count as notice for you? What about the other Clarifications that established new rules in almost every rules publication they released? For example:
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:09 pm DISCARDING CARDS (Clarification) -- This is the same as the rules in the CRF on "Discard"
I'm not finding the same rule in the CRF. Were you thinking of the CRF Discard rule that is only about when cards are discarded, and only the permanent events played on them are discarded? The Balrog Clarification rules were a change and established new rules, just as many other Clarification blocks in previous rulebooks established new rules.

-----

In that same Discard section:
CRF wrote:Cards in the discard pile do not remember how they were played.

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:44 am Hoarmurath is in the discard pile and it is a permanent-event when the attack would be defeated. The Balrog Clarification applies.
This sequence of two sentences does not include one of the requirements for the Balrog Clarification to apply: that the card has an attack associated with it. Even for those that differ in opinion about whether the Balrog Clarification was speaking to a property of the card, Hoarmurath in the discard would not remember that it had targeted an attack. Meanwhile the attack only knows that there was some Hoarmurath effect that targeted it, but not which card.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If a rule says something different than expected and desired, then why not to change the rule? Especially if it has visible flaws (Defeating a Permanent-event chapter mentions Dragon "Ahunt").
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am I instead read the requirement that each qualifying card has an attack associated with it as a universal statement, a property of the card.
Sure. But the language of the clarification is not so limited.

----------
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am ICE published a rule booklet. Why does that not count as notice for you? What about the other Clarifications that established new rules in almost every rules publication they released?
This is a rules summary, not a rulesbook. The Balrog Rules Summary merely incorporated previously existing rulings. Nothing in the entire Rules Summary is new.

----------
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:09 pm DISCARDING CARDS (Clarification) -- This is the same as the rules in the CRF on "Discard"
I'm not finding the same rule in the CRF. Were you thinking of the CRF Discard rule that is only about when cards are discarded, and only the permanent events played on them are discarded?
You're not finding it because your not reading the rules that the CRF is clarifying. You're lacking the context.

----------
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am The Balrog Clarification rules were a change and established new rules, just as many other Clarification blocks in previous rulebooks established new rules.
Wrong. This clarification did not change anything. I'm also surprised that you would fail to provide any support for your assertion given your constant demands for evidence. Maybe provide an example situation where this Clarification would have changed the preexisting rules and rulings.

----------
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am In that same Discard section:
CRF wrote:Cards in the discard pile do not remember how they were played.

Hoarmurath in the discard would not remember that it had targeted an attack.
You're confused about what this CRF statement means. It simply means that the game does not require the player to remember whether Hoarmuarth was played as a Creature or as a Permanent-event. This CRF statement has nothing to do with remembering what Hoarmurath targeted. The game expects the players to remember what happened that turn. The players are expected to know that Hoarmurath targeted an attack and this information is necessary because Hoarmurath is unique. Your statement is wrong at least for this reason.
>I noticed that The Nazgul are Abroad allows players to return
>Nazgul permanent events from their discard pile to their hand.
>This seems to imply that cards that can be two different things
>(i.e. Nazgul - creature/permanent events) seem to remember what
>they are while they are in the discard pile. I have two questions
>about this:

The Nazgul do not remember how they were used when they are in your discard
pile. The record keeping aspect of this would be a nightmare.

>1)If you use Nazgul are Abroad to return a Nazgul permanent event
>to your hand, do you have to play as a permanent event again, or
>can it be a creature?

You may play it either way

>2)If you use Mouth of Sauron as a short event, can the Uvatha the
>Horseman permanent event ability be used to bring it back into your
>hand (tap Uvatha to bring a hazard creature from your discard pile
>into your hand)?

Yes, because the Mouth doesn't remember what it was used for either.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:56 pm
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am I instead read the requirement that each qualifying card has an attack associated with it as a universal statement, a property of the card.
Sure. But the language of the clarification is not so limited.
??? The literal language of the clarification is exactly: "Each of these cards has an attack associated with it." Since you didn't explain your last post, I will hypothesize that it is again representing your belief that a card temporarily having an attack associated with it during play would qualify it as one of the cards affected by this rule. That has a similarity to believing that you qualify for disability from being blind because you once closed your eyes.

----------
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:56 pm
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am ICE published a rule booklet. Why does that not count as notice for you? What about the other Clarifications that established new rules in almost every rules publication they released?
This is a rules summary, not a rulesbook. The Balrog Rules Summary merely incorporated previously existing rulings. Nothing in the entire Rules Summary is new.
The "rules summary" contains a section for new rules. If you haven't read them yet, I recommend checking them out; they are in the nice pdf you compiled, "Specific Rules for Middle-Earth: The Balrog".

----------
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:56 pm
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:09 pm DISCARDING CARDS (Clarification) -- This is the same as the rules in the CRF on "Discard"
I'm not finding the same rule in the CRF. Were you thinking of the CRF Discard rule that is only about when cards are discarded, and only the permanent events played on them are discarded?
You're not finding it because your not reading the rules that the CRF is clarifying. You're lacking the context.
Not to rock your boat too much, but if you are capable of questioning your own omniscience, this claim of yours may be as good a place to start as any.

----------
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:56 pm
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am The Balrog Clarification rules were a change and established new rules, just as many other Clarification blocks in previous rulebooks established new rules.
Wrong. This clarification did not change anything. I'm also surprised that you would fail to provide any support for your assertion given your constant demands for evidence. Maybe provide an example situation where this Clarification would have changed the preexisting rules and rulings.
??? See previous quote.

----------
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:56 pm
Theo wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:55 am In that same Discard section:
CRF wrote:Cards in the discard pile do not remember how they were played.

Hoarmurath in the discard would not remember that it had targeted an attack.
You're confused about what this CRF statement means. It simply means that the game does not require the player to remember whether Hoarmuarth was played as a Creature or as a Permanent-event. This CRF statement has nothing to do with remembering what Hoarmurath targeted. The game expects the players to remember what happened that turn. The players are expected to know that Hoarmurath targeted an attack and this information is necessary because Hoarmurath is unique. Your statement is wrong at least for this reason.
Your quotes and your underlined claim in fact mesh perfectly with my statements. The players must remember effects on play. The card itself, once discarded, is dissociated from those effects. Despite your claims of "context", the CRF is a more-general statement than just being just about Nazgul and The Mouth of Sauron. It would be a ridiculous burden if the ICE Netrep had to elicit a question about every card affected by a ruling to make the ruling apply to each card it should.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Again, you just attack what I said without addressing my position or supporting your own position.

A favored tactic of he-that-will-not-be-named.

----------

A summary of my position: the Balrog Specific Rules and the Rules Summary did not change any preexisting gameplay situation. Every change compared to MELE was previously ruled on before MEBA. The Balrog Specific Rules on permanent events is overly broad. It should not be relied on out of context. This rule on defeating a permanent event is a Balrog Specific Rule. Such rules are specific to The Balrog cards, not other cards from other sets. Spider of the Morlat is not in The Balrog set. It's not even a permanent event, it's a creature or permanent event that gives MPs when played as a creature. It does not give MPs from it's permanent event state.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:18 pm Again, you just attack what I said without addressing my position or supporting your own position.
Sorry you feel that way.

-----
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:18 pm A summary of my position: the Balrog Specific Rules and the Rules Summary did not change any preexisting gameplay situation. Every change compared to MELE was previously ruled on before MEBA. The Balrog Specific Rules on permanent events is overly broad. It should not be relied on out of context. This rule on defeating a permanent event is a Balrog Specific Rule. Such rules are specific to The Balrog cards, not other cards from other sets. Spider of the Morlat is not in The Balrog set. It's not even a permanent event, it's a creature or permanent event that gives MPs when played as a creature. It does not give MPs from it's permanent event state.
A summary of how your positions are undermined:
  • The Balrog Specific Rules clarified preexisting gameplay situations as noted by "(Clarification)". There is no way to argue for or against a rule change in situations that were not explicitly specified previously. There was no previous rule that permanent events with attacks do NOT give their MP value listed on the card.
  • Your opinion on the Balrog Specific Rules on permanent events being overly broad does not change that those are the printed rules, in all their broadness. One can make up one's own rules, but one shouldn't claim they are ICE's rules when presented with the text otherwise.
  • "This rule on defeating a permanent event is a Balrog Specific Rule. Such rules are specific to The Balrog cards, not other cards from other sets." This is undermined by this specific rule specifically mentioning cards from other sets.
  • "It's [Spider of the Morlat] not even a permanent event, it's a creature or permanent event" Many other rulings (e.g., Uvatha the Horseman returning The Mouth of Sauron) establish a precedent that a mechanic that necessitates one type of card does apply to cards that can be played as either that type or other types.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

There was no rule allowing a player to receive marshalling points from defeating an attack of a permanent-event. Instead, there were rules specific to unique Dragons and card text for non-Dragon permanent-events. Without a rule or card text allowing it, the player can not receive those MPs. A player may not take any action that is not allowed by the rules. That is how this game works and it is how all games work.

This clarification comes from SPECIFIC RULES FOR MIDDLE-EARTH: THE BALROG. The rule only applies when playing with ME:BA. While the clarification indicates that it is consistent with existing rules, there is nothing to suggest that this MEBA specific clarification is also specific to Middle-earth: Dark Minions cards such that it would change how a MEDM card is handled.

If this ruling were supposed to be applied outside of ME:BA then the Designers could have just issued a general clarification as they had done dozens of times before.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 11:20 pm This clarification comes from SPECIFIC RULES FOR MIDDLE-EARTH: THE BALROG. The rule only applies when playing with ME:BA. While the clarification indicates that it is consistent with existing rules, there is nothing to suggest that this MEBA specific clarification is also specific to Middle-earth: Dark Minions cards such that it would change how a MEDM card is handled.
Nor does it specify that it applies to specific METW cards. And yet...
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:21 pm It's actually not that simple because then this clarification would not apply to Creature or Permanent-event Shelob when she "attacks from a permanent-event state." But the clarification should apply.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”