Abductor

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:27 pm The CRF rulings are not taken literally, they have a context. The ruling on Abductor is not to be taken literally. This is a common problem that leads to many misunderstandings.
If Rulings do not follow the need to be taken literally, it undermines any communal understanding of what the ruling actually is. This is an actual problem for game play. Literal interpretation is only a problem for game play when things were written sloppily, but at least new rulings can provide a basis for correction. If rulings are to be interpreted whimsically, all hope for communal understanding is gone.
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:28 pm
Theo wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:28 pm As for the question now in your edited response, as I voiced above: we do not know whether CRF 13 was meant to paraphrase or correct what came before, all we have are the literal CRF words.
Except that we have all of the rulings as background and context.
Background and context does not answer whether CRF 13 was meant to paraphrase or correct what came before. I mean deductively. Obviously one's own fantasies can answer all they want.
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

Theo wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:32 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:27 pm The CRF rulings are not taken literally, they have a context. The ruling on Abductor is not to be taken literally. This is a common problem that leads to many misunderstandings.
If Rulings do not follow the need to be taken literally, it undermines any communal understanding of what the ruling actually is. This is an actual problem for game play. Literal interpretation is only a problem for game play when things were written sloppily, but at least new rulings can provide a basis for correction. If rulings are to be interpreted whimsically, all hope for communal understanding is gone.
There is a difference between reading the ruling and understanding it based on knowledge of the game and misinterpreting the ruling to mean something incongruous with the rules of the game.

"Does not affect Ringwraiths" clearly refers to Abductor's special action. This ruling is clearly not in response to the question "can Abductor ever have any affect on a Ringwraith at all in the game?" Such a question would be completely bogus -- just as is an interpretation of the ruling that has this same conclusion. There is no understanding of the game that would allow for Abductor to never have any affect on a Ringwraith at all.
ICE wrote:I hate to bring this up, but the cards were not written in Propositional Logic, they were written in English.
So unfortunately, your literal interpretation devoid of context is wrong.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

It is not about what ICE intended, it is about what we, the players, must work with from them. If you think every player playing by their own interpretation of the rules (two opponents playing by different rules*) is a Great State of the Game, then I don't know why you are in rules forum discussions. It seems to be because you think YOUR interpretation is the only correct one? Well, speaking only for myself, I don't care about what you believe; only the literal rules texts can offer a non-self-proclaimed-dictatorial communal basis of understanding at this point, now that ICE can't weigh in.

*: obviously two opponents agreeing to play by whatever rules they mutually want is their own prerogative.
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

I'm not just making this up. It's based on an understanding of the game. Annotation 19 specifically describes the differences between a special action of a strike and the body check. Abductor has a special action that doesn't affect Wizards. The CRF states "Abductor - Does not affect Ringwraiths." So considering what the actual card and rules say, the CRF clearly is describing the special action. It would mae no sense for the CRF on Abductor to say that Abductor can never in any way affect a Ringwraith at all.

There have been many instances where your own conclusions ended up being divergent from ICE's rulings once the ruling was found (Doors or Night vs WoS, Thrall, etc). Why hold onto your existing interpretation framework when it doesn't work. You can read the rulings, understand how the rulings were made and how they fit into the rules, and just copy ICE's ruling framework. Games work differently, just understand the game without forcing your own interpretations on it.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Theo wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:51 pm I don't care about what you believe
I should clarify that this is with respect to distilling a literal interpretation of the rules. I absolutely care what you believe with respect to understanding the scope of possible beliefs that can exist.
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

Theo wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:03 pm
Theo wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:51 pm I don't care about what you believe
I should clarify that this is with respect to distilling a literal interpretation of the rules. I absolutely care what you believe with respect to understanding the scope of possible beliefs that can exist.
What a weird thing to say. Please don't pretend any of this.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:00 pm You can read the rulings, understand how the rulings were made and how they fit into the rules, and just copy ICE's ruling framework.
This does not yield a communal understanding. What is "clear" to one can be opposite to another. Sure, it works fine if you play with the same people with static opinions, then you can just get to know what each others' understandings and disagreements are and how to socially overcome those disagreements. The rulebooks were written for that atmosphere. But this method does not work on a larger scale with, as you have eluded to, people that will fabricate, change, or ignore rules for their own personal gain, social graces be damned.
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:04 pm What a weird thing to say. Please don't pretend any of this.
My words were sloppy. I was improving them. You seemed to have been confused about this topic before.
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

Look, even this CRF statement alone cannot be read literally because otherwise the attacker could not play ANY cards outside of the strike sequence even though it is their turn. That's clearly not the case.
CRF wrote:The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.
You can't interpret the first sentence once way and the second sentence another way.

----------
Theo wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:11 pm This does not yield a communal understanding. What is "clear" to one can be opposite to another. Sure, it works fine if you play with the same people with static opinions, then you can just get to know what each others' understandings and disagreements are and how to socially overcome those disagreements. The rulebooks were written for that atmosphere. But this method does not work on a larger scale with, as you have eluded to, people that will fabricate, change, or ignore rules for their own personal gain, social graces be damned.
Recognize that the CRF rulings are secondary rules derived from the actual primary rules. They are not meant to be interpreted literally, without considering the primary rules and an understanding of the game.

Take a look at this player trying to take a literal interpretation of the CRF devoid of context. The player is trying to reveal an agent on-guard based on a literal interpretation of the CRF ruling "An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase." Unfortunately, that's not how the CRF rulings work, as explained by the ICE Netrep, who wrong the rulings.
ICE wrote:Q1: Is there any rule against playing an agent *on guard* at his home site?
A1: No, of course, you can't reveal him on-guard.

Q2: The on guard rules are basically too long to reprint here, but the main "playability" rule is: "An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed."
A2: Before you confuse anyone, that is actually the secondary rule of playability. The main rules of playability are:
1) You may reveal an on-guard card in response to an automatic-attack. It must be a creature keyable to the site, or affect the automatic-attack.
2) You may reveal an on-guard card in response to the play of a resource keyed to the site. It must directly affect the company or a character in the company.
Agents fit neither of these.

Q3: Remember that ANY card may be placed on guard, even if it is not legal to reveal; and there is no rule that says agents CANNOT be revealed from on guard.
A3: More to the point, there is no rule that says they can. Therefore they can't. Your specious and deleted arguments that an on-guard card ceases to be an on-guard card once revealed does not get around the restrictions on revealing on-guard cards. The on-guard card must still be legally revealed.
This player had a similar interpretation of the CRF as what is being presented here and the ICE Netrep told him that his framework for interpreting the CRF was wrong. If the guy that wrote the CRF rulings is saying not to interpret them literally and without context, then the players probably shouldn't.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:39 pm Look, even this CRF statement alone cannot be read literally because otherwise the attacker could not play ANY cards outside of the strike sequence even though it is their turn. That's clearly not the case.
CRF wrote:The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.
You can't interpret the first sentence once way and the second sentence another way.
That sentence does at least have the preceding sentence as context. English interpretation is not limited to independent sentences.

But yes, I would say that rules texts does mean that the attacker cannot play cards that don't affect strikes in CvCC, yes, even though it is their turn. If they wanted to play cards that didn't affect the attack, they should have done so before they declared the attack. This interpretation aligns with:
MELE wrote:This attack is declared and enacted at the end of the site phase following all other actions your company takes during the site phase.
The attacker may still take actions as specifically outlined in the CvCC and CRF rules, but not any action they wish.

----------
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:39 pm Recognize that the CRF rulings are secondary rules derived from the actual primary rules. They are not meant to be interpreted literally, without considering the primary rules and an understanding of the game.
The context you seem to be missing is that ICE cannot still moderate rules. If they were still running tournaments, we could (and would have to) listen to whatever rules they came up with, literally backed or not. The statements about not interpreting the rules literally were in a context of trusting their tournament organizers to use their judgement as the alternative to strict literal interpretation. We don't have that option anymore. The choice is between rule-by-the-loudest, a.k.a. self-proclaimed dictatorship, and literal rules interpretation. You might be loud enough to prefer the first, but the second is the only sensible option to me.
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

ICE had a consistent framework for making rulings. Anyone would understand ICE's ruling framework if they read the rulings. It's not a mystery like some people pretend.

Here's how it works:
  • The cards and rules do exactly as they say. Regardless of any simulation issue or what "makes sense." If it isn't there, it isn't there.
  • If a rule allows a player to take an action according to its own conditions, then the player can take that action.
  • If the rules do not specifically allow a player to take an action, then the player cannot take that actions, even if they are not restricted from taking that action.
  • If a card allows a player to take an action according to its own conditions, then the player can take that action.
  • If a rule specifically restricts a player from taking an action, then they cannot take it, even if a card allows it, unless the card specifically overrides the restriction.
  • CRF clarification rulings do not override the rules unless (get this) the actual ruling (which the CRF ruling is a copy of) said that it was a change to the rules. Otherwise, the CRF clarifications are merely explanations of how the rules would be applied in a given circumstance.

There is often confusion because there is no way to know from the CRF whether or not a particular clarification was a change to the rules or whether it was merely an explanation of the existing rules. You have to have read the original ruling or understand the game.

There is no mention of Ringwraiths in Abductor's card text and there are no relevant rules. The clarification of Abductor is essentially a non-errata errata to the card itself: "Men. One strike. Each non-Wizard defending character wounded by the Abductor is discarded (does not affect Ringwraiths)." It would have been actual errata except that ICE was on a mission to never release errata unless they absolutely had to. And given ICE's definition, a "clarification" could change how the game was played as long as it didn't add or remove text to a card or rule.

There are many other instances of this. See Doubled Vigilance. It does not affect the automatic attack and so it cannot be revealed on-guard. But because ICE wanted it to be able to be revealed on guard they added a clarification "Can be revealed on-guard." This is essentially an errata to the card text.

These actually-errata clarifications are all over the place and there is no way for the reader to differentiate between them without reading the ruling and understanding the game. See Dwar Unleashed, the restrictions to playing resources in the site phase, when you are at the site, the fact that RW can use underdeeps movement despite "they can only use starter movement," and FW companies can also user underdeeps movement despite "they can only use region movement." These are all changes to the rules and there is no way to identify them as such from the CRF by itself. Unfortunately, you just need to recognize when the rulings follow the rules and when they don't.
User avatar
sarma72
Council Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:55 pm

On double vigilance, the ruling digest 91 confirms the statement that during the site phase "you cannot play a resouce until facing the automatic-attack (unless it spcecifically affects this automatic-attack)." Does this change the rule in the METW booklet that, aside from long event of from specific restrictions on a card text, resources can be played at any time during your own turn?
“The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot forever fence it out.”
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

sarma72 wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 7:57 am On double vigilance, the ruling digest 91 confirms the statement that during the site phase "you cannot play a resouce until facing the automatic-attack (unless it spcecifically affects this automatic-attack)." Does this change the rule in the METW booklet that, aside from long event of from specific restrictions on a card text, resources can be played at any time during your own turn?
ICE was using the terms "any", "always" generously.
(humble version of "at any time" would be "not restricted to any phase")

Even Twilight cannot be played during reconciling of hand.

P.S.
During site phase a company is restricted in its activity, not player.
According to letter of rules; some rulings may state otherwise.
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

I can write more later when not on my phone but right there in Digest 91 it says you can use attack cancellers and strike sequence resources against the attack of Doubled Vigiliance. This is the same as the automatic attack and fit attacks resolving within card effects. It's all the same set of restrictions. The CRF ruling use not a rule. It's a clarification that was made in response to a question that did not involve Doubled Vigilance. Context matters.

And also, the restrictions are on the PLAYER not just the characters of the company according to Ichabod who wrote that ruling. You can't play Gates of Morning until the automatic attack is faced. This has been discussed before on this forum in more detail.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”