Council of Elrond

Some of questions asnswered by this ruling was not discussed at NetRep subforum, some was merely raised. So I've decided to put my comments here.

1). Charles asked: " When can an on guard Lure of Power be revealed?

I think that answer 3 is valid too. As long as on-guard is revealed in the same coe initiated by X it is considered as revealed in response to X.

2). Characters itself cannot be returned to the site of origin. Companies can be returned. For this reason target of Seized by Terror forms its own company that is immediately returned to the site of origin.
"Moving" state of company is condition sine qua non for returning company. So if company was returned it was moving by (at least) some time. At this moment Palantir should be discarded.

3). Fully agreed.

4). I'm not sure.

5-8). Fully agreed.

9). I think that it may be used to remove corruption cards on target during Audience/Council.

10-15). Fully afreed.

16). I think Birk is assuming here that answer to 15). is "Yes" and he is asking for site that is normally FH, has been changed to BH and as BH was used with LGS. Because answer to 15). is "No", such situation may not happen.

17-18). Fully agreed.

19). I think that re-rolls required by The Riddle Game are in fact the same roll (in other words there is only one roll on one attempt). Re-roll is made, because ties are inacceptable. It is similar to situation when rolled dice stops in udetermined position (not at 1,2,3,4,5,6). Physically new roll is made, but technically it is the same roll.

21). I could repeat my opinion written here:
http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =7931#7931
Some records from CRF says about "playing a card from hand".
If words "from hand" would be added in these cases by accident, it would be accidentally added to the definition too.

However if definition of playing card would be actually
"Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play."
and not just:
"Playing a card is the process of bringing a card into play."
thet it leads to some phenomenons like creature cards that are in play (for all purposes), but was never played (only revealed).
Also such ruling will have impact on interpretation of Exhalation of Decay and In Great Wrath.
Case of Long Dark Reach shows that in some circumstances creature can attack even if it cannot be played. Nazgul or Undead from Discard Pile are not played according to the definition:
"Playing a card is the process of bringing a card from your hand into play."
Such things only happens when language glitches becomes rules.

Thanks, Konrad You always clarify the issue

Err, Mark, so does that mean he's **right**?

Or do we have to wait for Mikko to decide in the next digest?

zarathustra wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:09 pm 20)
Sebastian asked, "when i play flatter a foe and reduce the hazard limit to zero, which cards can my opponent play in reponse? any hazard short event? many sorrows befall makes sense to me in this case because my intuition says: if flattery a foe reduces the hazard limit to zero, only cards that cancel the flattery attempt can be played in response. but i'm afraid that's wrong

so is the opponent also allowed to play hazards, that don't effect flatter a foe? for example river?
creatures are not allowed to play right? what about permanent and long events?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your opponent can play anything that needn’t start a chain of effects. Hence, he may not play a corruption card or anything that might cause an attack (e.g., a creature, an ahunt dragon, tidings of bold spies). Otherwise, he can play anything he likes.

Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects
Playing a Dragon Ahunt does not declare an attack. It creates an effect that triggers an attack using a passive condition. So, you can play a Dragon Ahunt long-event in response to another card/effect, including Flatter a Foe.

zarathustra wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:09 pm 19)
Karsten asked "I'd really like to get an official answer from the netrep concerning my question on ties in The Riddle Game. As far as I know this hasn't been answered before. Here is the link to the discussion: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... .php?t=992
The Riddle Game wrote:
Riddling attempt. Playable during the site phase on a character at the same site as one of opponent's companies. Tap the character Opponent chooses a character from his company to play the riddle game. Each player makes a riddling roll (or draws a #) modified by +2 if his character is a sage and by +1 if a Hobbit (re-roll ties). The player with the highest result wins. He then names two cards and the other player reveals his hand If any of the named cards are revealed, they are immediately discarded.

Wit wrote:
Modify one riddling roll by +3. If applicable, this card may also be played during your opponent's site phase if a riddling roll is called for.

I wonder about the re-roll ties-part in The Riddle Game. What happens if I played Wit on the roll and a re-roll is necessary. Do I get +3 to the second roll, too?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you do not get the +3 on the second roll.

Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions.

Riddling Game says re-roll. "re" -- the same again. It doesn't make sense for the re-roll to be some new/different roll that either interrupts the existing chain of effects. And it doesn't make sense the the re-roll to be some separately declared action that is declared when Riddling Game is declared. Instead, re-roll just repeats the same riddling roll with the same +2 for sage, +1 for Hobbit, and +3 for Wit.

Catching up on old CDavis posts...

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:16 am Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects
Playing a Dragon Ahunt does not declare an attack. It creates an effect that triggers an attack using a passive condition. So, you can play a Dragon Ahunt long-event in response to another card/effect, including Flatter a Foe.

CoE #72 wrote:you cannot respond to a card with a dragon Ahunt, it must start a chain of effects.

Otherwise I agree.

That CoE ruling is wrong. Playing a Long Event does not declare an attack in the chain of effect in which the long event is played. The restriction in the rules is on declaring attacks, not on triggering attacks by a passive condition, as with Ahunts.

CoE made its own rules. Cue Bandobras' signature.

Theo wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:48 am CoE made its own rules. Cue Bandobras' signature.

Except they specifically stated in the Charter that they did not make their own rules.

The wrong ruling is ignorant, not attempting to make a new rule.

Which charter?

It is quite clear from CoE Rules Digest #22, which #72 was presumably based on, they they were deliberately making their own rules. I agree many were clueless, but that's the state #120 had for its ruling.

Theo wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 3:28 am Which charter?

The CoE Charter that was in existance at the time that the CoE rulings we are discussing were made:

CoE Charter wrote:We, the members of the Middle Earth Card Game Player community, establish by this charter the Council of Elrond, an organisation whose purpose is to facilitate organized play and to ameliorate the playing environment...
The Council shall enact new rules of play, or modify existing rules of play, upon the assent to two thirds majority vote of a quorum...
Rules enacted or modified shall be ratified only by the affirmative vote of two thirds of the members of metw@silent-tower.org

There was never any vote or quorum on the mailing list to enact new rules or modify existing rules of play.

----------

Theo wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 3:28 am It is quite clear from CoE Rules Digest #22, which #72 was presumably based on, they they were deliberately making their own rules. I agree many were clueless, but that's the state #120 had for its ruling.

Read the ruling again. The ruling is not some specific ruling on Ahunts. Instead the ruling merely mistakenly includes Ahunt long-events in a list of actions that must be declared first in a chain of effects. Also, while the ruling is partly correct, it doesn't bother to directly address the player's flawed intuition and of course it doesn't bother to recite the rules.

zarathustra wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:09 pm 20)
Sebastian asked, "when i play flatter a foe and reduce the hazard limit to zero, which cards can my opponent play in reponse? any hazard short event? many sorrows befall makes sense to me in this case because my intuition says: if flattery a foe reduces the hazard limit to zero, only cards that cancel the flattery attempt can be played in response. but i'm afraid that's wrong

so is the opponent also allowed to play hazards, that don't effect flatter a foe? for example river?
creatures are not allowed to play right? what about permanent and long events?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your opponent can play anything that needn’t start a chain of effects. Hence, he may not play a corruption card or anything that might cause an attack (e.g., a creature, an ahunt dragon, tidings of bold spies). Otherwise, he can play anything he likes.

MEBA p. 4 wrote:Instead of a nearest Haven, each Under-deeps site lists all of its "Adjacent Sites." Each Under-deeps site is adjacent to its one surface site and a number of other Under-deeps sites. The first adjacent site listed is always the Under-deeps site's surface site

"is adjacent to its one surface site" does not mean that Under-deeps site may be adjacent to only one surface site.
"and a number of other Under-deeps sites" does not render the sites adjacent by Caverns Unchoked the Under-deeps sites.
What cards are listing is the their normal state, often changeable.

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 pm Except your conclusion is inconsistent with your premise,

My conclusion (sites made adjacent by Cavern's unchoked are not "surface sites") is not inconsistent with my premise ("surface site" and "adjacent sites" are different game concepts and only the first listed adjacent site is the surface site). Your explanation below fails to show any contradiction. Also, I agree with some of what you said.

Since we are playing "sum up someone's position," your position is that because you don't know how to play Balrog, that the card must work in a way that's not supported by the rules.

----------

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 pm ...for the rules also say "One of your companies that begins its turn at an Under-deeps site may only move to one of the adjacent sites listed on the Under-deeps site card." And the rules also require that a roll exceed the number in parentheses following adjacent sites, which cannot be verified for the sites made adjacent by Caverns Unchoked, and thus the movement cannot be successful.

Exactly. Just because a site is "adjacent" to some under-deeps site does not mean that it is the "surface site" of that under-deeps site. Only a company at the corresponding surface site can move to down to that under-deeps site.

This understanding does not make my argument above inconsistent.

----------

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 pm As near as I can tell, we would need to conclude that the adjacent effect of Caverns Unchoked is almost entirely pointless (Spider of the Morlat and Nameless Things could be played against the Balrog there if Doors of Night is in play?).

You should play Balrog more. It is easy to tap the surface site (faction, etc) and then have no way out from the corresponding under-deeps site. Caverns Unchoked lets your companies get out.

----------

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 pm Or, surface sites on the cards are merely described by the rule you quoted, but not constrained to that alone if card text says otherwise.

But there is no card text stating otherwise. Caverns Unchoaked could have made sites be considered "surface sites" but instead it makes them "adjacent sites." "Adjacent site" and "surface site" are different game concepts. That is clear from the rules.

----------

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 pm We see this also for Deep Mines, which goes so far as to say that a surface site implies that the roll required to move between them (in either direction) is zero.

I don't see any implication or relevance to the discussion.

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 pm Stretching Caverns Unchoked from adjacent to surface site as done in CoE #121 seems like one reasonable way to make the effect meaningful.

The effect already is meaningful. Any "stretching" just confirms that there is no basis in the rules. This contradicts ICE's ruling paradigm: If it isn't there it isn't there.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:05 pm

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 pm Except your conclusion is inconsistent with your premise,

My conclusion (sites made adjacent by Cavern's unchoked are not "surface sites") is not inconsistent with my premise ("surface site" and "adjacent sites" are different game concepts and only the first listed adjacent site is the surface site). Your explanation below fails to show any contradiction. Also, I agree with some of what you said.

Except your premise, which I quoted, had two parts, only one of which you mention now. Look, I'll quote it again!

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:12 am While this might "make sense" because those sites are not underdeeps sites, there is no support for this conclusion in the card text and it contradicts the rules.

You then underlined the phrase "one surface site" as if it was an all-encompassing restriction. The part of your conclusion that I meant was a contradiction with this premise was:

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:12 amCaverns Unchoked lets a company move from the underdeeps site to new adjacent sites, but it does not let a company move from those new adjacent sites back to the underdeeps site.

Since interpreting the rules text as strictly as you seemed to would make it impossible for Caverns Unchoked to allow a company to move to new adjacent sites, since they aren't listed on the card.

Hopefully this clarifies.

-----

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:05 pm Since we are playing "sum up someone's position," your position is that because you don't know how to play Balrog, that the card must work in a way that's not supported by the rules.

Heh. Whether I know how to play Balrog or not is irrelevant. I say nothing about "how the card must work". What I am trying to say is only that a strict reading of the rules as you have started to do but were inconsistent about leads to a card effect that does (essentially) nothing. CoE offered an alternative. Your not liking it because you don't think the card needed fixing is fine. I'm just trying to point out the full conclusion that I think that route implies if one is consistent in interpretation strictness for that section of the rules.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:05 pm Caverns Unchoked lets your companies get out.

By a strict reading: no it doesn't, on the two grounds I mentioned above.

-----

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:05 pm The effect already is meaningful.

I'm not saying playability of two hazards if Doors of Night is in play is meaningless. I just don't think it has very much meaning. CoE apparently preferred a different meaning. Does this contradict the original card? I absolutely agree that it does. Have fun playing your way.