Council of Elrond

kober wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:32 pm

the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:07 am Question: once the URD becomes made official and is updated, will you be able to update this document to reflect the revisions?

It would be easier if the person responsible for the update worked with Annatar's doc.

Baby steps, here . . . so far, the person responsible for updating it at all hasn't bothered.

This document can be updated every time changes occur.

Remember that what matters is not the visual aspect, it is the content.

Hey @Brandobras,

I found a mistake in the Sideboard part of the URD:

...so long as you do not duplicate non-unique cards. The maximum number of cards in the sideboard depends on the length of the game (see below)...

I believe that should be:

...so long as you do not duplicate unique cards. The maximum number of cards in the sideboard depends on the length of the game (see below)...

I went there because I had a question too:

I am in firm belief, that when you sideboard, you have to show your opponent what you are putting in your deck or discard pile.

Isn't this proper etiquette?

I have run into players that want to put their hand over the picture and kinda just say "Hey, you can tell it's a hazard/resource"

That's lame in my eyes...

MELE Rulebook wrote:Clarification: Your opponent may verify how many cards move to and from your sideboard, but you do not have to reveal what those cards are.

Lame or not, that is a rule.

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:18 am

MELE Rulebook wrote:Clarification: Your opponent may verify how many cards move to and from your sideboard, but you do not have to reveal what those cards are.

Lame or not, that is a rule.

Ok wait, so it's just the ## of cards? Not even if they are Resource or Hazard?

when a sideboarding-effect specifies - for example - "hazard", then you need to show the opponent, that it is a hazard card. most players show the corner of the card, so that the color is visible.
If it is just sideboarding (like after exhausting the deck), all you need to tell is the number of sideboarded cards.

I actually think it would be lame to have to reveal the entire card, as that gives away too much information unnecessarily.

We play by revealing a colored portion of the card as thorondor mentions, it gives away the necessary information, but no more.

I'm in the process of revising the URD and will make the necessary correction to the non-unique mistake you mentioned above, thanks.

thorondor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:23 pm when a sideboarding-effect specifies - for example - "hazard", then you need to show the opponent, that it is a hazard card. most players show the corner of the card, so that the color is visible.
If it is just sideboarding (like after exhausting the deck), all you need to tell is the number of sideboarded cards.

Thumbs Up!

Another potential slip:

URD wrote: "You may reveal an agent at any time; this does not count against the hazard limit."

In the original MEWH rules, revealing was restricted to opponents' movement/hazard phases.

Also the URD does not specify what to do with the sites if an agent is revealed and has illegal movement. The original MEWH rules specify that the sites are returned to the site deck in that situation.

If these were changed since, notation for what ruling changed them is missing.

URD(CoE 56) wrote: • Prisoner-taking cards which state they are playable on a character facing an attack/strike are not able to be revealed on-guard because the target did not exist during the Movement/Hazard Phase [CoE 56].

1) I believe this is actually from CoE 57.

2) It was only referencing Flies and Spiders.

3) What?? Underlined part seems bogus. Maybe there were spider attacks during the movement/hazard phase such that Flies and Spiders did have a valid target during that phase.

Can that part be replaced by noting that a hazard event can only be revealed on guard if:

URD wrote:♦ It does not:
   о Potentially remove a character from a company, besides combat or corruption checks.

which is universally violated by prisoner-taking cards.

^^ Good Points.

I have a different question regarding the URD, and page 49, Corruption.

I want to address the second section:
...
When a corruption check is called for, follow this process:
1. You may play any cards which might modify the corruption check and are legally playable.
2. Make a roll.
3. Add any modifiers from cards/abilities. A character may tap to give a +1 modifier to a corruption check made by another character in his company.
blah blah blah...

Have I seriously been doing this all wrong? wtf?

Part 1. Ok SURE.
Part 2. Make a roll?!? Is this one of those do things in the opposite order timing? hehe
Part 3. THEN I can TAP a character?

IDK

My whole understanding of these "rules" pertaining to corruption were based on this:

Part 1. Blah Blah
Part 2 thru M, whatever
Part N. Make a roll.
Part O thru Z. Apply Results, etc...

I mean just for starters, you don't tap a character to support after you make a roll right? I mean, am I missing something here?

I don't mean to sound like a pompous idiot, but I am working on some things and I have been reading these rules for over 10 years now.

Besides the whole let's make MECCG like Magic the Gathering, most of the stuff is legit, but man...

Laters...

n.b. I am still adjusting to the fact, that there are just a WHOLE BUNCH of CRFs for like each card for some reason and I have to go thru each on per card basis.

I started reading all the rule PDFs again, but I was like bah, why? Well because I learned of the One Ring ruling, where I was informed of: it's 7 and not 6.

But then reading the actual rules under the corruption section there is the Frodo example:

When Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin flee the Shire, Frodo only has one item: The One Ring (it gives Frodo 6 corruption points). Suppose Frodo has to make a corruption check (roll 2D6) in this situation: if a 2 is rolled, the modified roll is 6 (2 + 4 for his special ability) and Frodo is discarded. Any other roll would have no effect on Frodo.
When Tom Bombadil rescues Frodo and company in the Barrow Downs, Frodo receives a Dagger of Westernesse (1 CP). So Frodo’s CP total becomes 7. He would be discarded if he makes a corruption check roll of 2 or 3 (if there are no other modifications).

It's just hard to adjust to the CRF/CoE community, because there are things in B&W, and believe me I have read the Collected Rulings File many times and the quick rulings given back in the days...but that's just verbatim from the Rulebook...

But it's like man, am I going to spend 5 more years going over the rules and errata?

I just wonder why errata and rule changes are made? (I have heard comments like, "because it was to easy") That's the REAL CULPRIT...

PEACE OUT COMMUNITY, back to reading...

URD wrote: During the site phase, you may attempt to influence away one of your opponent’s characters if the following apply:
1. You have not made an influence attempt against your opponent or attacked your opponent with a company this turn;
2. It is not your first turn;
3. It is not the turn your played your avatar; and
4. One of your characters is at the same site as one of your opponent’s characters.

1. First half needs [CRF]. Second half is MELE.

3. Typo underlined. Differs from MELE, which only prevents the avatar itself from making the attempt the turn it is played. Other characters can still make the attempt. Any reference for this stricter requirement?

4. Differs from MELE, which requires that the character making the attempt be at the same site at the target of the attempt. Any reference for this weaker requirement?

Good points. Once the URD is firmly in the hands of the CoE, it should hopefully get updated.

Theo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:16 am

URD(CoE 56) wrote: • Prisoner-taking cards which state they are playable on a character facing an attack/strike are not able to be revealed on-guard because the target did not exist during the Movement/Hazard Phase [CoE 56].

1) I believe this is actually from CoE 57.

2) It was only referencing Flies and Spiders.

3) What?? Underlined part seems bogus. Maybe there were spider attacks during the movement/hazard phase such that Flies and Spiders did have a valid target during that phase.

Can that part be replaced by noting that a hazard event can only be revealed on guard if:

URD wrote:♦ It does not:
   о Potentially remove a character from a company, besides combat or corruption checks.

which is universally violated by prisoner-taking cards.

3. Even if in M/H phase a target character was facing a Spider attack it was not the same Spider attack as faced in site phase.
In other words: in M/H phase it was not possible to play Flies and Spiders on any character facing a Spider attack in site phase.

Can that part be replaced by noting that a hazard event can only be revealed on guard if:

URD wrote:♦ It does not:
о Potentially remove a character from a company, besides combat or corruption checks.

which is universally violated by prisoner-taking cards.

No. Being taken prisoner is in result of combat. It is not valid reason to forbid revealing "Prisoner-taking cards which state they are playable on a character facing an attack/strike", nor Prisoner-taking cards at all.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:54 am No. Being taken prisoner is in result of combat. It is not valid reason to forbid revealing "Prisoner-taking cards which state they are playable on a character facing an attack/strike", nor Prisoner-taking cards at all.

Where are you quoting from?

Taking a prisoner is not a result of combat, it is the result of a card effect. The definition of Hazard Hosts in MEDM mentions nothing about combat being required. While particular Hazard Hosts may happen to require combat in order to trigger their prisoner-taking effect, they are separate concepts, and prisoner-taking is not combat nor a component of it.