Miruvor: YES, it's usable after being wounded but before body check

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:34 am Any argument against ICE's statement in Orc-Liquor? Affecting body affects the body check roll.
No matter how many times someone will say that 1+3=5, it will not become a true.
No matter what authority would say that a changing of value against which a roll is made affects the roll, it will not become a true.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:34 am
Theo wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:33 am 1) In fact, I'll Report You is not played on a company, but rather on one leader. It has an effect that affects all characters in the leader's company, but it is not an effect played on a company.
If you read the card again you'll the that the effect is on "his company" (the leader's company).
Well, it feels like you are at least half way there. What you mean by "effect is on" in place of "effect is played on" is your own business.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:34 am Any argument against ICE's statement in Orc-Liquor?
To (re-)summarize:
1) Your reference is from a publication that is not recognized as a rules source by CoE, even if it is recognized as a rules source by you personally.
2) Even if your reference was recognized by the CoE, it would be overruled by the literal wording of CRF 15. The literal wording of CRF is generally interpretable/enforceable; opinions about what the CRF does not literally say are not.
3) Even if your reference was recognized by the CoE, it would be overruled by CoE #55, which is presumably recognized by CoE (since it is CoE's own ruling) even if not by you personally.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:25 am I was going to say that I don't understand why you keep pretending that I'm making up stuff, but then I do understand why someone would do that.
To each their own. I double checked my posts... the only thing I directly implied that you were making up (in this thread at least) is your restriction against playing items during an attack that occurs when items could normally be played, which you still haven't explained. But it seemed like you originally meant to say something else.
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: Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:25 am
Theo wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:33 am Since each playgroup/reader decides for itself; we can only hope that some value deductive reasoning over subjectivity. At some point I imagine pointing out more holes in arguments does no additional service.
As far as I know, all play groups play by ICE rulings or would if they knew them.
I wish I could agree. Deliberate disregard for ICE rules/rulings: CoE ARV 2018 #35a; CoE ARV 2018 #8. (or maybe your player guides/companions care to comment?)
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 Jan 28, 2020 4:22 am
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:34 am Any argument against ICE's statement in Orc-Liquor?
To (re-)summarize:
1) Your reference is from a publication that is not recognized as a rules source by CoE, even if it is recognized as a rules source by you personally.
2) Even if your reference was recognized by the CoE, it would be overruled by the literal wording of CRF 15. The literal wording of CRF is generally interpretable/enforceable; opinions about what the CRF does not literally say are not.
3) Even if your reference was recognized by the CoE, it would be overruled by CoE #55, which is presumably recognized by CoE (since it is CoE's own ruling) even if not by you personally.
Except that the publication statement is just confirmation of the CRF statement on Body Checks and they were literally written by the same person.

Theo wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:22 am the only thing I directly implied that you were making up (in this thread at least) is your restriction against playing items during an attack that occurs when items could normally be played, which you still haven't explained.
When would there be a body check during a point at which items are playable?
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:17 am
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:25 am As far as I know, all play groups play by ICE rulings or would if they knew them.
I wish I could agree. Deliberate disregard for ICE rules/rulings: CoE ARV 2018 #35a; CoE ARV 2018 #8. (or maybe your player guides/companions care to comment?)
What is the point of even saying this? If the CoE explicitly overruled an ICE ruling that is different from the CoE or the players not knowing the ICE rules. CoE 1 explicitly overrules the ICE ruling. I haven't heard of this issue coming up locally or online.

By the way, ARV #35 overrules a CoE Netrep ruling, not an ICE Netrep ruling.

And while ARV #35a mentions ICE ruling by Van it didn't overrule it. Van stated WHCtK cannot be used to play a Ringwraith. The CoE recognized this ICE ruling was not about Ringwraith Followers.

So, neither of those ARV votes even had deliberate disregard for ICE rules. Instead look at CoE #1 where a person with a good understanding of the game actually laid out the ICE rulings, rationales, and examples. What a far cry the 2019 ARV is to this.



Anyway, if you want to continue to pull out individual statements out of context and argue with them, that is your own time to spend. If you want to discuss Miruvor, I'm afraid everything has been said. Sorry.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:34 pm Except that the publication statement is just confirmation of the CRF statement on Body Checks and they were literally written by the same person.
For better or worse, intent does not equate to law.
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/
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”