RUSE

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

As near as I can tell, your posts are contributing nothing new. If your premise is to ignore the CRF wording which unambiguously establishes that the play of a "skill only" card is an action that is carried out through a character of a particular skill (the criteria for a target) then your conclusions are fine. Otherwise they are bunk. You may believe that the CRF wording is wrong for whatever reason, but it is the current wording under which the players should be reasoning, not some opinion about what the intent of Ruse might have been or whether only a few of the general CRF rules should apply to it. Those are dangerous precedents.
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

The CRF statement is not incorrect. But it is not a rule. It creates no restrictions or limitations or requirements. It is a description of existing game mechanics. You can tell because it doesn't say "Erratum" and it is not in the CRF "Full Errata Listing." This statement is a description of certain cards and it is correct. It's referred to as a "clarification of the rules."

You're the one trying to turn it into a rule when it isn't. I already explained how it is an accurate description and why it can't be a rule.

You haven't explained why you think it is errata when it isn't labeled as such.

Pick out any card with "<Skill> only" and I'll explain how "(Foo) only" cards can only be played by characters with the (foo) skill" is a description of the card, without this statement implementing any new rules.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I have explained that I don't think it is errata, but a clarification of the intended rules; I have presented several examples in the original rulebooks that evidence that skill cards are played by a character (not just on a character), just as the CRF confirms that they need to be.

Your repeated premise is that skill cards do not need to be played by a character. This is contradicted on all fronts.
Last edited by Theo on Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 is no mechanical difference between played "by" or played "on" for short-events.

And which rule on skills would that be? As far as I can see, there is no explicit rule that requires skills. The only thing in the game that creates requirements for skills is card text. Not the rules.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:22 am there is no mechanical difference between played "by" or played "on" for short-events.
You have presented no basis for this other than your own opinion and cyclic logic. When the logic introduces a new concept (that of general rules only sometimes applying to cards) with no textual basis, I am skeptical.
Last edited by Theo on Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

what could the difference possibly be?
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I would say that, for example, playing an effect on an entity implies that there is some... effect on (alteration of) the properties of or rules governing that entity. Playing a card by an entity does not (by itself) alter anything about the playing entity.
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

What about Hide in Dark Places? It is playable on a scout but there is no effect on the scout.
Hide in Dark Places wrote:Scout only. Playable during the organization phase on scout whose company is not moving. All hazard creature attacks against the scout's company this turn are canceled
The same can be said for Hoard Well-searched, Focus Palantir, The Ash Mountain Deeps, The Misty Mountain Deeps, The Ash Mountain Deeps, The Mountains of Shadow Deeps, The Undeeps of Anduin, The White Mountain Cavern-ways.

All of these cards are played "on" characters yet have no change on the character themselves.


Any what about every weapon in the game? Items are "playable by" characters and they modify the prowess of the character.

Is this what we call Falsifiability? https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... =45#p32780
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

An alteration of the properties/rules governing a character's company is necessarily an alteration of the properties/rules that member characters are beholden to from being part of that company. Similarly some effects are explicitly inherited the other way.

I would think the intent with Hide in Dark Places is that if the scout on whom Hide in Dark Places changes companies, its new company is the company receiving the benefit (more for not abusing the OLD company receiving the benefit).
Last edited by Theo on Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

Even if true, what does that prove about Ruse?
Theo wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:21 am I have explained that I don't think it is errata, but a clarification of the intended rules;
Which intended rule?
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

That when it is played on a diplomat that the required scout in the company also is affected.

By your post I imagine you see something additional?
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

But when Ruse is played on a Diplomat, it already tells us the active conditions and none of the conditions require a scout.
Playable on an untapped diplomat in a covert company facing an attack.
If the scout was required, why isn't it listed here?

What intended rule would would create new requirements?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:51 am But when Ruse is played on a Diplomat, it already tells us the active conditions and none of the conditions require a scout.
Playable on an untapped diplomat in a covert company facing an attack.
If the scout was required, why isn't it listed here?

What intended rule would would create new requirements?
What you would say if Ruse would be Diplomat only. Scout only. Ranger only. ?
Just because rest of text does not refer to ranger, could you say that ranger is not required to play Ruse?

To reverse the question.
If it appears that any use of the card actually does not involve ranger, why to be against errata that would remove Ranger only.?

Returning to actual text of Ruse:
If it appears that only primary use involves diplomat and only alternative use involves scout, why not to correct the text to reflect this state?

Diplomat only. [Primary use].
Alternatively Scout only [Alternative use].
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:22 am What you would say if Ruse would be Diplomat only. Scout only. Ranger only. ?
Just because rest of text does not refer to ranger, could you say that ranger is not required to play Ruse?
You're looking at it backwards. It's a keyword. It's a description of the card. Because Ruse requires a Scout for the first option it gets the keyword "scout only". Because Ruse requires a Diplomat for the second option, it gets the keyword "Diplomat only."

Ruse would only have a "Ranger only" keyword by mistake.

The rules and CRF create only 1 requirement for skills and that's the restriction on skill cards in the strike sequence. Every other statement about skills in the rulesbook and CRF is a general description or it refers to requirements for skills created by card text.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:22 amTo reverse the question.
If it appears that any use of the card actually does not involve ranger, why to be against errata that would remove Ranger only.?
Well sure, that would make sense. But as keywords have no impact on the game alone, and no other cards refer to the "Ranger only" keyword, then we could also just leave well enough alone with no adverse impact.

But if Ruse said "Sage only" that would be a mistake and it would impact the game. Ruse has no effect requiring a Sage so it would be a mistake. And "Sage only" would allow it to be retrieved by Palantir of Annuminas. That impacts the game.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:22 am Returning to actual text of Ruse:
If it appears that only primary use involves diplomat and only alternative use involves scout, why not to correct the text to reflect this state?

Diplomat only. [Primary use].
Alternatively Scout only [Alternative use].
This is not a bad idea. But it also requires changing the description of what a keyword is, since they appear at the beginning of the card.
MELE wrote: KEYWORDS
Several types of cards are referred to by the keyword included in the first few words of a card's text. For example, the text of a "spirit-magic" card starts with Magic. Spirit-magic; the text of a "wolf' card starts with Wolves: the text of a "Palantfr" starts with Unique. Palantir.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

KEYWORDS
Several types of cards are referred to by the keyword included in the first few words of a card's text. For example, the text of a "spirit-magic" card starts with Magic. Spirit-magic; the text of a "wolf' card starts with Wolves: the text of a "Palantfr" starts with Unique. Palantir.
Icy Touch is an exception. And I would say that there is a good reason.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”