Council of Elrond

LE Rulesbook wrote:· Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack.

Balrog Sites wrote:Carn Dum
AUTO_ATTACK: Orcs 4 strikes, 7 prowess; Nazgûl (cannot be canceled) 1 strike, 15 prowess

Dol Guldur
AUTO_ATTACK: Orcs 3 strikes, 7 prowess; Trolls 2 strikes, 8 prowess; Nazgûl (cannot be canceled) 1 strike, 15 prowess

Minas Morgul
AUTO_ATTACK: Undead 3 strikes, 8 prowess; Nazgûl (cannot be canceled) 1 strike, 15 prowess

Since this attacks doesnt state that they arent detainment, this automatick attacks are indeed detain... So the question, again, is: Did ICE made this on purpose or not? Do we need a ruling on this?

http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=2494

http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=2974

http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... .php?t=166

Any ruling would have to be in the nature of the highly anticipated One Ring victory ruling, wherein it is revealed that the rules do not actually say what they say.

since those topics you posted are very extensive and i didnt have time (nor will) to read through all of them hehe, i'll say you are not answering my question

is it needed or not? i think that the fact of such auto attacks being detainment is pretty cheezy... We have a new NetRep so maybe he can express his point of view...

zarathustra (back when he was the NetRep) affirmed that they are detainment in the first link, after some discussion.

However, it was not an official ruling per se, simply a rules discussion.

I'm not sure if there's room for a ruling unless there's an argument for them not be detainment other than "it should work that way," though.

[quote="Lidless Eye, Starter Rules, Combat, "Detainment" Attacks"]Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack.[/quote]

still applies to the balrog player's minion companies.
Nazgul AA from balrog sites can be however non-detainment in limited cases. If hero character will be imprisoned at such site and its controlling player will have no version of this site in his LD, then balrog version will be used and rescuing company will face non-detainment Nazgul AA.

Of course this answer takes into account only current state of rules, not "how they should be working".

As to whether or not ICE intended these attacks to be detainment or not is probably not answerable. Also, to some extent it is irrelevant. The rules are clear that these attacks are detainment. Also this rule is not broken, it doesn't really hurt the game. As such there is really no reason for a ruling on this.

From a logic point of view it does seem contradictory, but there is a possible logical explanation. The Nazgul might question everyone who comes to their fortress (the detainment auto-attack) but since they are somewhat on the same side they do not attack as matter of course. However, since the Balrog and his companies are, in the end, competitors, the ability to have Nazgul creatures attack as non-detainment can be justified. Think of the Nazgul and the Balrog as uneasy allies rather than out and out enemies. They may or may not fight but they will always be suspicious of each other.

Another possible idea is that Balrog companies can masquerade as a typical minion company. The nazgul-in-charge will be suspicious and question them but not attack. However if unmasked the nazgul would have no qualms in attacking them (the Nazgul creature attack).

very good explanation

btw, nice to see you around dave

Yesterday I was reading my latest MECCG-related purchase and found something interesting regarding the issue:

The Lidless Eye Companion, Part VI - Errata and clarifications (page 61) wrote:Detainment Attacks (clarification) - Automatic-attacks are not detainment attacks unless specifically stated on the site card

Which should definitely settle the whole debate. According with this clarification, those Nazgul automatic attacks are not detainment.

Still:

LE Rulesbook wrote:· Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack.

So you must explain why "always" has priority over "any".

meh

The point is not which adverb has the strongest meaning: "always", or "any".
Both sentences clearly are formulated in such a way to have full coverage: the one with regard to 100% of the nazgul attacks*, the other with regard to 100% of the automatic-attacks. If you simply pit the two sentences against each other, you should draw the conclusion that the issue cannot be solved, since the object of the debate are some attacks which are at the same time Nazgul attacks and automatic-attacks.

*actually, my point has always been that this formulation could've been meant to only affect Nazgul creatures, since it was written when Nazgul auto-attacks didn't exist, but this point is irrelevant now.

Clarifications have the rank of fully official rulings, since

The Lidless Eye Companion, Part VI - Errata and clarifications (page 61) wrote:If a card or rule lists a clarification, it means the text could be ambiguous. All of these are official and are included in the MECCG Collected Rulings File.

It seems pretty logical that clarifications are meant to integrate the rulesbooks, hence any ruling must harmonize the content of the rulesbooks and the CRF. Since MELE Companion was released after MELE, the clarifications included in the companion prevail over the MELE rulesbook.

To get an idea, the whole sentence would read sth like:
Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack. Being said that, Automatic-attacks are not detainment attacks unless specifically stated on the site card.

In other words, any sentence in the rulesbook holds, as far as it doesn't contradict clarifications.

Bruce wrote:*actually, my point has always been that this formulation could've been meant to only affect Nazgul creatures, since it was written when Nazgul auto-attacks didn't exist, but this point is irrelevant now.

Not exactly. Since MELE Edition a minion character could be imprisoned at Under-Deep site. If minion player does not have the rescue site in his LD (he could not have it before Against The Shadow) he must use opponent (hero) version, that may have Nazgul AA.
But maybe it is not particulary relevant to the topic too.

If:

Detainment Attacks (clarification) - Automatic-attacks are not detainment attacks unless specifically stated on the site card

is so unambiguous as you are stating and means what you are stating, I have question:
is attack from Ghouls detainment, or not?

# Card text will sometimes state that an attack is a detainment attack.
# Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack.
# Any attack keyed to Dark-domain, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold is a detainment attack.
# Any Orc, Troll, Undead, or Man attack keyed to Shadow-land is a detainment attack.

Ghouls text does not state its attack is detainment, but if Ghouls are keyed to Shadow-hold against minion comapny, third condition takes precedence. It is sufficient if at least one condition is true. Right?

Automatic-attack that does not state it is a detainment is normal, just like attack from Ghouls. Some other conditions may change it.
Usually if some state cannot be changed card text says "never" - site with No Strangers at this Time never untaps for its player. Text from "The Lidless Eye Companion, Part VI - Errata and clarifications (page 61)" does not contain such phrase.
Clarification is just clarification. If someone aks "is Emerald of Mariner really a source of corruption?", clarification says "Emerald of the Mariner is considered a source of 0 corruption points". And it does not mean it is immune to the effect of Itangast at Home. Is not ever considered a source of 0 corruption points.

P.S.
And how about effect of the Hold Rebuilt and Repaired? May it change status of AA from normal to detainment?
Yes? Because it explicitly refer to the AA?
"# Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack."
explicitly refer to the Nazgul attack.

EDIT:
Corrected typo (leats -> least).

As you correctly pointed out, the following are all sufficient conditions for an attack to be detainment:

# Card text will sometimes state that an attack is a detainment attack.
# Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack.
# Any attack keyed to Dark-domain, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold is a detainment attack.
# Any Orc, Troll, Undead, or Man attack keyed to Shadow-land is a detainment attack.

On the other hand, the following is a necessary condition for an attack to be detainment, which only regards automatic-attacks:

Automatic-attacks are not detainment attacks unless specifically stated on the site card.

Those nazgul automatic-attacks on balrog sites meet one of the sufficient conditions (namely the 2nd), but at the same time they violate the necessary condition for being detainment, therefore they are not detainment.

No matter that the clarification's text lacks the word "never" or "always": that's totally irrelevant. The sentence is semantically unambiguous, you can reformulate its wording the way you want:

Automatic-attacks are not detainment attacks unless specifically stated on the site card
Automatic-attacks are never detainment attacks unless specifically stated on the site card
Automatic-attacks will always attack normally unless the site card specifically states that the automatic attack is detainment

In any case the sentence's meaning leaves no scope for misinterpretation: the site card needs to explicitly state "detainment" for an automatic attack to be a detainment attack. The rest is pure logical inference. All those philological issues you raised and all those card texts you cited have no bearing at all on this issue.

Your whole point is treating The Lidless Eye Companion clarification as fifth condition of determining detainment status with priority over other four (because that four says which attacks are detainment, and fifth says that some are not. Right?).

My point is: Nazgul attacks are not detaiment. AA are not detainment (unless it is otherwise written).
Yes.
Both types of attacks are not detainment itself. Some attacks that are non-detainment itself can become detaiment if they are faced by minion and/or creatures are keyed to specific regions/sites.

Clarificaton that would say "Nazgul, Men, Undead, Trolls, Orcs attacks are non-detainment (unless it is specifically stated otherwise)" would be correct. Such clarification however would not supersede four conditions of determining detainment status. It would say about Nazgul, Men, Undead, Trolls, Orcs attacks itself (only).

Some things was not objects of clarifications just becase they was obvious for everyone. AA was not obvious ("are Orcs at Moria so hostile against my minion companies as they are against hero, or there is some rule that protect my companies?"). Clafification says: yes, if it is not written otherwise, read it as is, it may hurt you too. That's all.*

*) I joke. That is not all. There is always room for interpretation.

Bruce wrote:Yesterday I was reading my latest MECCG-related purchase and found something interesting regarding the issue:

The Lidless Eye Companion, Part VI - Errata and clarifications (page 61) wrote:Detainment Attacks (clarification) - Automatic-attacks are not detainment attacks unless specifically stated on the site card

Which should definitely settle the whole debate. According with this clarification, those Nazgul automatic attacks are not detainment.

Heh, that's at least as valid as the junk about Chance Meeting. Nice find.