Council of Elrond

So, I think I finally figured out the glitch in my head when it comes to Sauron.

According to the latest URD (I have), in a General Opponent (2-deck system) Official Tournament:

A. Sauron can NEVER play against the Balrog.
BUT
B. In casual play, with a friend for instance,
even if you want things/rules to stay "Official",
we CAN have a Sauron vs Balrog game,
and it's "essentially" legit, according to the URD.

CORRECT??

Thanks...

p.s. I mean don't get me wrong WE can DO whatever we want, but I am saying to "Be Official/Legit"

Just to clarify....

The URD is an excellent guide and resource, but it is not “official.”

I don’t believe the CoE at the time ever got around to properly reviewing it and sanctioning it.

Efforts are currently underway to make an updated version of the URD which will be “official” for future use. Once this is completed, it will be uploaded to the Rules section of the main website.

As to your question about manifestations and Sauron/Balrog, I’m not sure what the URD indicates as I haven’t looked.

Just from the URD,

The Lidless Eye
• Playing this card discards its player’s Bade to Rule and prevents him from subsequently playing Bade to Rule [CRF].
• You may only play this card if none of your opponents are Ringwraiths [CRF].

Balrog rules (p. 1) state

A Balrog player acts as a Ringwraith player. Any card and rules text applying to a Ringwraith also applies to The Balrog (e.g., if a card refers to a Ringwraith, it now applies to "a Ringwraith or The Balrog")

so I'd say rules forbid the play of Sauron vs. Balrog
(however, thematically, this ruling could be overturned)

Yeah I was just wondering why, they would restrict it to Ringwraith, in the URD, instead of saying minion.

My initial question I was trying to figure out "by myself" was:

Is the restriction on LE, Playable if your opponent is a Wizard, inclusive or exclusive.
i.e. does Fallen-Wizard, fall into the category of "Wizard", or is this "exclusive."

But then it said the LE-URD Ring-wraith ruling, but then I was like, but what about "The RW/Balrog, replacement rule" from the MEBA rules insert, that you mentioned, etc and UGH, so I just came here and threw it out. haha

But after reading the URD more and more, there are some rulings in there, that I wonder what people are/were smoking?!?
There are citations for instance that are like (example):

This rule says that you can
But this CRF says you can't
But a NetRep ruling says you can.

It's like well which one??

There are card, that are IN ENGLISH, that are SO EASY to Understand, but for some reason, have been DRAGGED thru the MUD, so HARD, I am almost to the point where I don't care anymore. I want to just go by the English, wording, and if it is 100% clear as crystal, and doesn't need, errata or whatever then just use the English card text. Unless there is some kind of argument, where the English isn't clear, and things seem ambiguous, I would say consult a dictionary first, and then do a search in the "DOCS", if really really severely needed for arguments sake.

And this one takes the cake as I don't care anymore, some people on here are going in circles and it kinda ruins the game.

Check this ruling for A Malady Without Healing:

A Malady Without Healing
• When making the corruption check caused by this card, you may not respond to the corruption check by playing resources because it is not your turn [Van 582].
• Cannot actually be played on your opponent’s characters, as you may not target your opponent’s characters with your own resources. Fallen Wizards may get use of the kill MPs awarded from characters eliminated by means of this card.

Editor’s Note: CoE 21 desperately tries to justify pla- ying this on opponent’s characters, but it won’t wash. The card does not specify that you may play it on an oppo- nent’s characters. Kiss AkhôraKILL goodbye; it was pre- tty broken anyway. CoE 46 follows suit by saying it was two sets before the release of ME:WH, but it really doesn’t matter.
The Nazgûl auto-attacks on Balrog sites are uninten- tionally detainment, but that doesn’t mean we can throw out the rules on detainment attacks for those sites. Nowhe- re does this card state that it may target an opponent’s characters. Feel free to recommend that the CoE publish an erratum to this card. A Malady Without Healing can be useful for getting rid of characters with annoying perma- nent-events on them (So You’ve Come Back, Plague...) or getting rid of a wounded character you can’t realistically heal and freeing up some influence thereby.

Editor’s Note: The CRF states that you may not re- ceive Kill MPs from a card you played. Therefore it’s an- ybody’s guess as to whether A Malady Without Healing provides MPs in any case, but my hunch is that “If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points.” is sufficient to overri- de the CRF rule.

This card is so obvious what it does, I don't see why people went in circles like this over this card.

In case you don't have the text for the card:

Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable during the site phase on a non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character at the same site as a shadow-magic using character. Target character must make a corruption check modified by -1 followed by a body check (modified by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by -5.

I could break the rules down line by line but I am tired of this...

Let me know when you're as tired of it as I am.

The process I went through was to do the rulebooks first, add in the ICE-era stuff next, and finally add in the rulings digests.

There were some cases where I felt it was beneficial to leave the history of rulings on a card, both to indicate that ruling bodies are capable of changing their minds, and also to clarify where misconceptions might come from. The last bullet point will be the most current ruling. I can see how that might be confusing, and if the NetRep had ever bothered to update the document, such things might have been ironed out. One fundamental problem in the making of the URD was attempting to work through the way rulings have been handled across the years.

Sadly, my last attempt to get some sort of consistency on the rulings across various cards resulted in the NetRep discussion board being hidden, the NetRep complaining about the legitimacy of the document, the document being given to the NetRep to polish and maintain, and then the NetRep flatly refusing to do anything productive with it.

If some of the editor's notes come off as frustrated or cynical, many of the reasons can be found in the previous paragraph.

Regarding A Malady Without Healing:

CRF, Targets wrote:You cannot target an opponent's character or resources with your own resources.

This is unambiguous. Nothing on Malady overrides that. I have been consistently and repeatedly assured by various NetRep teams that a card must explicitly override the rules or the rules remain in force.

Except that every time you point out a card that doesn't explicitly override the rules but is still played as if it does, you're essentially told to shut up, if not accused of quoting things out of context even though you provide a link to the original thread. Arguing for a consistent application of the game's ruleset qualifies as "malice." And "maintain" in the Charter, as it was then, apparently didn't extend to making sure that something was actually working the way it's supposed to, which was how I understood "maintain."

To return to where we started, if you're tired of all this, I still might be several years ahead of you in that department.

I asked this question back in the day:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2171&p=19366&hilit ... 3F#p19366

And I am sticking to it!

REL
Lowest to highest in ruling

Latest Rule Book or Combination there of (Balrog, LE, Wizards, etc)
Rules Inserts for any specific Expansion
CRF
CoL Tournament Policy
NetRep Digests
CoE Errata

Those are the only official rules in standard tournament play.

But here is my thing, I am almost going to just build a rules reference for myself, that is 1994-2001-ish, and that's it, anything after that is BS.

The rules and errata have gone BACK and Forth, so many times on so many cards, so like I said, if the English on the card is CLEAR, I'll go with that!

BAH!

oh check this:
CoE Ruling (back in the day)
4. Say I have Ren as my ringwraith. Using a mode card, I travel to the same site as a hero company. Can I play Ren Unleashed, A Malady W/O Healing and attack in CVCC in the same site phase? Please describe any limitations.
*** Yes, you can play all 3 in the same site phase.

With these new "wording" and "interpretations" these guys have BUTCHERED the cards, the rules, the system, and the game! sometime from 2007 to 2017.

They argue about this all the time:

You can't play cards resources cards in CvCC unless it directly effects the strike etc, and then twist it and abuse it, to ALMOST include a card like Ren Unleashed, where you WOULDN'T be able to play it!

Please guys get your "you know what" straight...

Makes me SICK, to my stomach...

I am just adding to that REL competitive ruling, one addition:

English (almost every time, is the Ruling, unless unclear), for me...

I mean I just don't feel like arguing with guys about the rules when I only have like 7 years of staying home and reading them over and over, while they have since 1995 till 2017...

But really ENGLISH, is clear, I just wonder if there is some lack of clarity when it comes to Foreign interpretations?

Incidentally, the URD needs to be updated to say that cards *and rules* that apply to a Ringwraith apply to a Balrog in the Glossary.

I hope the NetRep does it some day; I'd hate to step on his toes.

rezwits wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:47 pmBut really ENGLISH, is clear, I just wonder if there is some lack of clarity when it comes to Foreign interpretations?

Your confidence in the clarity of the English language is very misplaced.

Ren Unleashed wrote:Playable on Ren the Ringwraith (as your Ringwraith). All characters at the same site as Ren must make a corruption check modified by -2.

This isn't played during CvCC. It is played before or after. It affects your opponent's characters because it doesn't target them; it acts through an entire class of things (characters at the site, in this case).

rezwits wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:26 pm Editor’s Note: The CRF states that you may not re- ceive Kill MPs from a card you played. Therefore it’s an- ybody’s guess as to whether A Malady Without Healing provides MPs in any case, but my hunch is that “If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points.” is sufficient to overri- de the CRF rule.

Actually CRF says:

CRF, Rulings by Term, Marshalling Point Pile wrote:You may not gain marshalling points from a hazard you played yourself.

Underline mine.

haha we posted around the same time.

But your reference to CONTEXT. People don't take the CONTEXT as overriding the rules, especially in the case of Malady.

Magic. Shadow-magic. Playable during the site phase on a non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character at the same site as a shadow-magic using character. Target character must make a corruption check modified by -1 followed by a body check (modified by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by -5.

1st read the whole card.
Next line by line.
A. Playable during the site phase.
1. You don't kill your own characters during the site phase. I understand Plague implications, but if you think I am reaching, THAT is REACHING.
B. on a non-Ringwraith
1. For Taladan for instance, with Prone to Violence.
2. Also needed for Fallen-wizard.
C. non-Wizard character
1. Right there tells me this is MEANT for CvCC, how can a Minion card even be played on a Wizard? barring FW, already mentioned.
D. Target blah blah, this is just the effect of the card. The slaying part.
E. If target character is a Hero
1. Again, minion card Vs a Hero in CvCC, CASE 2! making things once again CLEAR as Crystal
2. And I don't want to hear the this is MEANT for a FW REACH
F. You receive his kill MP
1. You can't receive, kill MP for your OWN cards you KILL
2. CASE 2! you don't play this on your OWN guys.

2 perfectly clear "contexts" that override the rules, such as can't play a resource during CvCC, with both having 2 citations, to reverify the overriding of the standard rules?

4 context that clearly state when the card can be played and what is does?

This card and the rulings over the years, clearly demonstrate the BLATANT disrespect,
and disregard for I.C.E. and the game they designed from 1993-2000.

p.s. I totally get the URD, as you have tried to cite all notations for cards which have "Problems" in these areas.

And have stated clearly, that "Hey guys it's kinda up to you to argue your case in certain instances, because One guy said this, and One guy (or even the same guy!! haha) said that contradicting his own previous ruling HAHA

But Shocked, Shocked I tell you to even see this Malady ruling, Laughing and Crying, because it's just like WTF, has happened since 2007-2017...

Sorry gotta run!

Thanks for responses (and for URD, always!!)

I wanted to quote CRF ruling 3 or 4 on the play of Ren the Unleashed and Malady by Ren the Unclean back in the beginning of the CRFs - which clealy states “Yes - this is playable”. then over the the next 200+ arguments/discussions it got to “twisted”

Shows clearly that the Ruling was made “and some people just couldn’t accept it”

SAD and pathetic!

I’ll quote the rule from my collection of CRFs - when I get back home...

rezwits wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:17 pm1st read the whole card.
Next line by line.
A. Playable during the site phase.
1. You don't kill your own characters during the site phase.

So far as I can tell, this is completely made up. It is found nowhere in any rules collection I am familiar with.

THAT is REACHING.

B. on a non-Ringwraith
1. For Taladan for instance, with Prone to Violence.
2. Also needed for Fallen-wizard.

Fallen Wizards are not considered Ringwraiths. At all. Ever. Therefore, this part has no application to a FW Character.

C. non-Wizard character
1. Right there tells me this is MEANT for CvCC, how can a Minion card even be played on a Wizard? barring FW, already mentioned.

This is the part that applies to Fallen Wizards.

When you play a Fallen-wizard, assume that your Fallen-wizard is a METW "Wizard".

E. If target character is a Hero
1. Again, minion card Vs a Hero in CvCC, CASE 2! making things once again CLEAR as Crystal
2. And I don't want to hear the this is MEANT for a FW REACH

Whether you want to hear it is irrelevant. ICE introduced concepts that were not to be used in the expansion/set they came with. Else why do you think that all the Minion Agents from Dark Minions have text that reads "Agent Only."? When Dark Minions came out, Minion Agents couldn't be anything but agents. When MELE came out, a hero couldn't then be targeted. Later that same year, heroes could.

F. You receive his kill MP
1. You can't receive, kill MP for your OWN cards you KILL
2. CASE 2! you don't play this on your OWN guys.

As Konrad points out, this is not quite correct. You don't receive MPs from your own hazards.

2 perfectly clear "contexts" that override the rules, such as can't play a resource during CvCC, with both having 2 citations, to reverify the overriding of the standard rules?

This card and the rulings over the years, clearly demonstrate the BLATANT disrespect,
and disregard for I.C.E. and the game they designed from 1993-2000.

So do the number of completely made up rules in your explanation. Thus the difficulties.

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:43 pm Regarding A Malady Without Healing:

CRF, Targets wrote:You cannot target an opponent's character or resources with your own resources.

This is unambiguous. Nothing on Malady overrides that. I have been consistently and repeatedly assured by various NetRep teams that a card must explicitly override the rules or the rules remain in force.

For argument's sake, could not the line on Malady that reads,

A Malady Without Healing wrote:Playable during the site phase on a non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character at the same site as a shadow-magic using character.

be interpreted as explicitly overriding the quoted CRF rule? It states, unambiguously I would argue, the exact conditions under which the card is playable. These are the conditions, no more, no less. Thus it seems to me this line indicates Malady can be played on any character at the site so long as that character is not a Ringwraith or Wizard (or FW or Balrog).

Edit. That said, what is ambiguous, in this case, is whether you could just play the card on any company with a non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character AND a shadow-magic using character. Would be rather amusing to play it on an opponent's company that just happens to have a shadow-magic using character.