The designer of Helm of Her Secrecy clearly did not intend for the player to declare multiple copies in response to each other. Just because the playability conditions of the card do not prevent the player from doing that does not mean that the rest of the card text actually works when the player tries to do that. And it certainly doesn't allow a card to be played for no effect.
Also, there are a lot of points being raised without support in the rules. It would be helpful to read the rules and then provide quotes as basis for an interpretation of card text.
I have already quoted the rules and explained and addressed these issues regarding HOHS above.
TomG wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm
But, which takes precedence: card text or rulesbook?
You are misunderstanding. This is not an issue of card text vs rulesbook. This is an issue of card text and rules vs. a
ruling that is supposed to be based on the card text and rules. The entry in the CRF is a ruling. Rulings are specifically required to be based on the card text and the rules. Rulings from the Netrep do not override the rules. This entry on HOHS is a ruling by the Netrep (as shown above) and it does not override the rules.
The CRF itself makes this clear for the non-card rulings in the CRF Introduction which states: "
The Turn Sequence and Rulings by Term sections are specifically considered clarifications to the rules, and are therefore overridden by card text that specifically does so."
There are many wrong or outdated rulings in the CRF. The CRF was only overhauled twice to remove old/outdated rulings. In fact, the Netrep acknowledged this and decided not to do anything about it. When the Netrep (Ichabod) was looking for someone to replace him as Netrep, one of the criteria was being able to determine which rulings were outdated. Most people still don't even know which rulings are outdated. There are many outdated or wrong rulings in the CRF and clearly they don't override the actual rules.
TomG wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm
The card then states: Ewoyn "may" be played. Not "must" be played.
The use of "may" does not support a conclusion that 3 copies of the card work. Basically every resource event card states "may" instead of "must." This is because the word "may" means that someone is being given permission to do something that they want to do but are not otherwise allowed to do. Resource event cards allow the player to take actions that are not otherwise allowed by the rules. In English, it does not make sense to use the word "must" when giving the player permission to do something that they want to do but are not otherwise allowed to do. I'm not aware of any card in the game that states that the player "must" do something that they want to do. Instead, "must" is used when the player has to do something that they don't want to do (like make a corruption check).
The bottom line is that while HOHS doesn't require that Eowyn "must" be played, she must be played in order for HOHS to be a "Legal Play of a Card" as I explained above.
TomG wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm
The PE is only discarded following the attack. Until then, it presumably stays in play. And it will have an effect because if Ewoyn is played (say after 2 more HohS are played) she gains the +2/+1 increases, and because the card does not prevent duplication, these are cumulative in my view if more than one HohS is played.
This is not how the rules work. I already explained this above. Why not point to the rules to explain your interpretation?
The rules are clear: "
Permanent-event — The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded... If the play of a card requires other actions (e.g., corruption checks), the actions are resolved in the order in which they appear on the card."
Event cards do not work like Items. The effects of events are resolved in the chain of effects. The effects of Items are not resolved in a chain of effects. If Eowyn is not in play when the "
She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" effect is resolved, then she does not get the bonuses. This is the same as if Eowyn were not in play when the Wizard plays Kindling of the Spirit "+2 prowess against one attack for all characters in the same company as the Wizard." Eowyn cannot get the bonus of Kindling of the Spirit if she was not in play.
The symbols on the left side of the event are merely reminders because the Eowyn card will be covering HOHS's card text. The rules say that this is merely for emphasis. It is not some universal effect that has an effect on the game.
Compare HOHS to Sacrifice of Form: "
If the Wizard is put back into play, return his items to him and place Sacrifice of Form with him. Wizard receives +1 to his prowess, body, and direct influence." If HOHS were intended to be used with multiple copies, it would be worded similar to Sacrifice of Form where the bonuses are applied after the card is placed with the character.
TomG wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm
Other PE are also playable while their effect may be deferred to a future time. For example, Nazgul PE which may be tapped later in game for effect.
Again, you are misunderstanding how the rules work. Some cards create an active condition mechanism that allows the player to use the effect later. When those permanent events are resolved, they create the on-going effect that allows the player to declare the "deferred effect" at some point later using the specific active condition. The player declares the Nazgul's effect by tapping (the active condition). The player declares "When You Know More's" effect by tapping the sage.
HOHS does not give the player any sort of active (or passive) condition to trigger the "
She gains +2 prowess, +1 body, and +1 direct influence" effect. Since no trigger is required, then the effect is implemented immediately.
TomG wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm
In any event, from a narrative/conceptual point of view I thought it odd at first that someone could have more than one helmet, but then this card is not an item, but an event. So from a game narrative perspective, I guess in some cases, she is simply more secret than others and hence the higher bonuses (or so I'm thinking)
.
In any event, the rules do not support this. And from a narrative perspective, there is zero possibility of Eowyn, a Man, being stronger than both the heir of Eärendil and a Calaquendi balrog slayer. We know this because "
Men were more frail, more easily slain by weapon or mischance, and less easily healed subject to sickness and many ills; and they grew old and died."
TomG wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm
It seems to all boil down to the "may" be played, and when this PE would be discarded.
You are misunderstanding my position and the rules. The word "may" has nothing to do with why HOHS can or cannot be played multiple times.
It all boils down to the fact that the effects of events are resolved in a chain of effects and there is no possibility of those effects coming into play later unless the card text provides some active/passive condition to trigger the effect later, or unless the effect modifies the existing allowances of the game. There is nothing in HOHS that does this.
TomG wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm
Until there is some definitive ruling, it may be that each player group will have to decide.
The rules are clear. Many people make decisions without reading the rules, quoting the rules, or understanding the rules.