Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:46 am
Because the effect of The Way Is Shut cannot be declared and so Call of Home cannot cannot be declared "in response" to it. There is no reason why it "needs" to be declared.
Ah. This is how you understand cancelling. As inability of declaring a to be canceled action.

Probably you have a method of dealing with situations when a to be canceled action is one of actions of a card with multiple effects, and with situations when a to be canceled action happens conditionally (Dragon's Hunger against Nameless Thing when Forewarned is Forearmed).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1915
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:31 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:46 am
Because the effect of The Way Is Shut cannot be declared and so Call of Home cannot cannot be declared "in response" to it. There is no reason why it "needs" to be declared.
Ah. This is how you understand cancelling. As inability of declaring a to be canceled action.

Probably you have a method of dealing with situations when a to be canceled action is one of actions of a card with multiple effects, and with situations when a to be canceled action happens conditionally (Dragon's Hunger against Nameless Thing when Forewarned is Forearmed).
If Dragons Hunger cannot cancel an attack, it can still reduce the Hazard limit. These are 2 separate actions.

Also, Dragons Hunger canceling an attack is different from an ongoing cancellation effect as discussed above because an attack is different. An attack isn't resolved immediately when created. It stays in play until the strikes are resolved and there is time for multiple chains of effects. The same word is used in two different ways.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:51 am
If Dragons Hunger cannot cancel an attack, it can still reduce the Hazard limit. These are 2 separate actions.
There are two possible results.
Discarding of creature from hand and reducing HL.
OR
Revealing a hand and canceling an attack.
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:51 am
Also, Dragons Hunger canceling an attack is different from an ongoing cancellation effect as discussed above because an attack is different. An attack isn't resolved immediately when created. It stays in play until the strikes are resolved and there is time for multiple chains of effects. The same word is used in two different ways.
Inability of canceling of attack comes from Forewarned is Forearmed.
Questions are:
Can Dragon's Hunger be played against Nameless Thing when Forewarned is Forearmed is in play?
Can Riven Gate be played when Forewarned is Forearmed is in play?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1915
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:15 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:51 am
If Dragons Hunger cannot cancel an attack, it can still reduce the Hazard limit. These are 2 separate actions.
There are two possible results.
Discarding of creature from hand and reducing HL.
OR
Revealing a hand and canceling an attack.
The declaration of one action of a card being being prevented does not prevent the declaration of other actions of that card.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:15 am
Can Riven Gate be played when Forewarned is Forearmed is in play?
Obviously yes because there is normally no interactions between the effects of these two cards. Riven Gate is playable on a sorcery-user facing an automatic-attack at a border-hold. Forewarned is Forearmed does not normally affect such border-hold sites. Even if the particular border-hold was given another automatic-attack such that Forewarned is Forearmed would apply, Riven Gate has other actions besides cancelling the automatic-attacks. Meaning, even if Forewarned is Forearmed prevented the automatic-attack cancellation action from being declared, the influence bonus effect of Riven Gate would still be declared and resolved, and the corruption check would still be declared and resolved. This would work similar to Dragon's Hunger described below.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:15 am
Can Dragon's Hunger be played against Nameless Thing when Forewarned is Forearmed is in play?
It is easy to see how it works when the timing is described. Next time, you attempt to describe the timing details. I'll do it this time.

Dragon's Hunger played in response to triggered action of Forewarned is Forearmed on Nameless Thing:
  1. 1st Chain: Forewarned is Forearmed permanent-event is played and resolved.
  2. 2nd Chain: A Nameless Thing creature is declared and resolved, creating 3 attacks of 2 strikes each. This Nameless Thing is "any creature or other hazard with more than one attack" (the passive condition of Forewarned's action). Therefore, resolution of the Nameless Thing creature card triggers both (A) the "attack reduction" action of Forewarned is Forearmed and (B) the "make this attack uncancellable" action.
  3. 3rd Chain Declarations: Action A and Action B are declared in the 3rd chain. Dragon's Hunger is declared in response, targeting one of the three Nameless Thing attacks. Dragon's Hunger includes the following actions: (C) hazard player discards an available creature from their hand, (D) reduce hazard limit by 1 if a creature is discarded, (E) cancel the attack if a creature is not discarded. (F) hazard player reveals their hand if a creature is not discarded.
  4. 3rd Chain Resolutions: Action C fails to resolve because the hazard player does not have an available creature to discard. Action D does not resolve because the creature was not discarded. Action E resolves, the one attack is canceled. Action F resolves, the hazard player reveals their hand. Action A resolves: the Hazard player chooses 1 attack of the 2 remaining attacks and Nameless Thing is reduced to that 1 attack. Action B resolved: that 1 attack becomes uncancellable.
Dragon's Hunger played after resolution of the triggered action of Forewarned is Forearmed on Nameless Thing:
  1. 1st Chain: Forewarned is Forearmed permanent-event is played and resolved.
  2. 2nd Chain: A Nameless Thing creature is declared and resolved, creating 3 attacks of 2 strikes each. This Nameless Thing is "any creature or other hazard with more than one attack" (the passive condition of Forewarned's action). Therefore, resolution of the Nameless Thing creature card triggers both (A) the "attack reduction" action of Forewarned is Forearmed and (B) the "make this attack uncancellable" action.
  3. 3rd Chain Action Declarations: Action A and Action B are declared in the 3rd chain.
  4. 3rd Chain Action Resolutions: Action A resolves: the Hazard player chooses 1 attack of the 3 attacks and Nameless Thing is reduced to that 1 attack. Action B resolves: that 1 attack becomes uncancellable.
  5. 4th Chain Action Declarations: Dragon's Hunger is declared, targeting the one (reduced) attack of Nameless Thing. Dragon's Hunger includes the following actions: (C) hazard player discards an available creature from their hand, (D) reduce hazard limit by 1 if a creature is discarded, (E) "cancel the attack if a creature is not discarded." However, action E cannot be declared because the attack is uncancellable. (F) hazard player reveals their hand if a creature is not discarded.
  6. 4th Chain Action Resolutions: Action C fails to resolve because the hazard player does not have an available creature to discard. Action D does not resolve because the creature was not discarded. Action E was never declared and so cannot resolve. Action F resolves, the hazard player reveals their hand.
If the hazard player actually discarded a creature, we would not be discussing this as there would be no interaction.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:52 pm
Next time, you attempt to describe the timing details. I'll do it this time.
I have asked:

Can Dragon's Hunger be played against Nameless Thing when Forewarned is Forearmed is in play?

because I wanted to read your opinion about timing, I did not want to present mine.
So do no lecture me. It does not make a sense here.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1915
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:26 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:52 pm
Next time, you attempt to describe the timing details. I'll do it this time.
I have asked:

Can Dragon's Hunger be played against Nameless Thing when Forewarned is Forearmed is in play?

because I wanted to read your opinion about timing, I did not want to present mine.
So do no lecture me. It does not make a sense here.
Well, I'll ask then.
What is your explanation of the timing of Dragon's Hunger played on an attack of Nameless Thing when Forewarned is Forearmed is in play?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

Forewarned is Forearmed does not prevent of declaration of canceling action against attack that cannot be canceled.
When resolves the action has no effect on such attack.

Dragon's Hunger may be declared, when it resolves, then either creature card will be discarded from hazard player's hand and HL will be reduced OR attack will not be canceled and hazard player will reveal hand.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

And the effect of Forewarned is Forearmed is immediate. Any matching creature, hazard, site in play is affected. It does not happen in chain of effects.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1915
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:30 am
And the effect of Forewarned is Forearmed is immediate. Any matching creature, hazard, site in play is affected. It does not happen in chain of effects.
Why would Forewarned is Forearmed's effect to reduce the number of an Assassin's attacks use "immediate" timing while Rank Upon Rank's effect of increasing the Assassin's strikes use Passive Condition timing?

There is no basis in the rules for "immediate" timing of non-targeted effects being applied to particular targets. This is what Passive Conditions are for.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:25 am
Forewarned is Forearmed does not prevent of declaration of canceling action against attack that cannot be canceled.
A player cannot actually declare an effect that is not playable. If the player attempts to declare a card when the playability conditions are not satisfied, the card returns to their hand. The card's effects do not get declared and then fail to resolve. If an attack cannot be canceled, the conditions for cancelling it do not exist.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:25 am
When resolves the action has no effect on such attack.
This literally makes no sense because "resolving an action" necessarily includes implementing that action. This is what "resolving" means in games. A "resolved" action HAS an effect -- the effect that was implemented. Maybe you mean: when it comes time to resolve the effect in the chain of effects, it cannot be resolved.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:46 pm
Why would Forewarned is Forearmed's effect to reduce the number of an Assassin's attacks use "immediate" timing while Rank Upon Rank's effect of increasing the Assassin's strikes use Passive Condition timing?
Because otherwise it would not work.

If reduction of number of attacks and making the one isolated unable to be canceled would be declared then resource player could respond with Riven Gate, or at least with action that cancels single attack.

Please note that in first place the effects of FiF do not operate on attacks, they operate on sites, creatures, hazards. In second place they operate on attacks - isolated attack is unable to be canceled.
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:46 pm
There is no basis in the rules for "immediate" timing of non-targeted effects being applied to particular targets. This is what Passive Conditions are for.
Did you mean by non-targeted effects the non-targeting effects?

If so, then yes for first sentence. There are no non-targeting effects applied to targets. There are non-targeting effects affecting objects.
Passive Conditions rules are for triggered actions.
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:46 pm
A player cannot actually declare an effect that is not playable. If the player attempts to declare a card when the playability conditions are not satisfied, the card returns to their hand. The card's effects do not get declared and then fail to resolve. If an attack cannot be canceled, the conditions for cancelling it do not exist.
Yer for first, second sentence.
Player is able to declare Voices of Malice on Ringwraith/Ally unable to make cc. Player is able to declare Call of Home on character at Haven even if Elf-song is in play.
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:46 pm
This literally makes no sense because "resolving an action" necessarily includes implementing that action. This is what "resolving" means in games. A "resolved" action HAS an effect -- the effect that was implemented. Maybe you mean: when it comes time to resolve the effect in the chain of effects, it cannot be resolved.
I do not think so. Action must resolve in first place, then it is eventually executed.
Narya's untapping action resolves even if there are some characters in company that are tapped but cannot untap.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1915
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:48 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:46 pm
Why would Forewarned is Forearmed's effect to reduce the number of an Assassin's attacks use "immediate" timing while Rank Upon Rank's effect of increasing the Assassin's strikes use Passive Condition timing?
Because otherwise it would not work.

If reduction of number of attacks and making the one isolated unable to be canceled would be declared then resource player could respond with Riven Gate, or at least with action that cancels single attack.

Please note that in first place the effects of FiF do not operate on attacks, they operate on sites, creatures, hazards. In second place they operate on attacks - isolated attack is unable to be canceled.
It does work. Please note how the game is actually played. Riven Gate is played against an automatic attack in the site phase. The site has been in play LONG BEFORE the site phase. Therefore, Forewarned is Forearmed has modified the automatic attack to be uncancellable LONG BEFORE Riven Gate can even be played. It works.

Forewarned is Forearmed also works against non-automatic attacks. I already explained this above. This is because it only affects things with MULTIPLE attacks and the 2nd attack that is not being faced cannot be cancelled before Forewarned makes it uncancellable. This is because an attack that is not currently being faced cannot be canceled.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:48 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:46 pm
There is no basis in the rules for "immediate" timing of non-targeted effects being applied to particular targets. This is what Passive Conditions are for.
Did you mean by non-targeted effects the non-targeting effects?

If so, then yes for first sentence. There are no non-targeting effects applied to targets. There are non-targeting effects affecting objects.
Passive Conditions rules are for triggered actions.
Forewarned is Forearmed's attack reduction IS a triggered action. The rules on Passive Conditions are used for implementing its effects. Reducing attacks is the same as increasing strikes. Both are modifications to attributes of an entity. It works the same.

There is no need to make up rules. The game works.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:48 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:46 pm
A player cannot actually declare an effect that is not playable. If the player attempts to declare a card when the playability conditions are not satisfied, the card returns to their hand. The card's effects do not get declared and then fail to resolve. If an attack cannot be canceled, the conditions for cancelling it do not exist.
Yer for first, second sentence.
Player is able to declare Voices of Malice on Ringwraith/Ally unable to make cc. Player is able to declare Call of Home on character at Haven even if Elf-song is in play.
You are confused about the disction between the action of playing a card and the actions listed in the card text. Playing a card is a separate and distinct action. You can declare the play of a card even if one of the effects of a card cannot be declared. It's also possible that the action of playing a card cannot be declared. You cannot declare play of a resource card when it is not your turn. It's not just that the resource cannot be resolved when it's not your turn, the resource cannot even be declared.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:48 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:46 pm
This literally makes no sense because "resolving an action" necessarily includes implementing that action. This is what "resolving" means in games. A "resolved" action HAS an effect -- the effect that was implemented. Maybe you mean: when it comes time to resolve the effect in the chain of effects, it cannot be resolved.
I do not think so. Action must resolve in first place, then it is eventually executed.
Narya's untapping action resolves even if there are some characters in company that are tapped but cannot untap.
I don't have to think so. "Resolving" is a basic term in gaming and it is not used differently in MECCG. "Resolving" means "implementing." An action cannot "resolve" and then eventually be implemented. Narya's "untapping action" is actually multiple different untapping actions, one separate untapping action for each different character. If a particular character cannot untap due to some effect, the untapping action for that particular character cannot even be declared, let alone resolve. The other untapping actions are separately declared.

Furthermore, the MECCG Designers disagree with your interpretation of "resolve." Resolving an Action: Carrying out the actual effect on the game of an action.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:43 pm
You are confused about the disction between the action of playing a card and the actions listed in the card text.
I see the distinction.
I think that declaration of a card involves a declaration of all actions and effects listed in the card text.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:43 pm
Furthermore, the MECCG Designers disagree with your interpretation of "resolve." Resolving an Action: Carrying out the actual effect on the game of an action.
Sometimes the actual effect may be something like "nothing".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1915
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

NetRep] CoE Rulings Digest #123
1 a)
Can I play play Sacrifice of Form with Crown of Flowers and then later Twilight CoF and play a second SoF?
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, if all requirements for such are met, it is legal.
This is incorrect. Sacrifice of Form specifically targets the wizard because it states "Wizard only" as a play condition. Since Sacrifice of Form is played on the Wizard, it cannot be "placed with" Crown of Flowers. Crown of Flowers is used with non-targeted events, it is not a method for overcoming the drawbacks of your own resources.

This is discussed extensively here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4271&hilit=crown+of+flowers

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1915
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Incorrect and non-ratified CoE rulings that contradict the existing ICE rulings and the Rules

Post by CDavis7M »

[NetRep] CoE Rulings Digest #121 wrote:5)
Do the sites that have become adjacent to an under-deeps site due to Caverns Unchoked count
as surface sites.
---------------------------------------------------
The answer is yes, so you cannot play cards like A Few Recruits at those sites anymore.
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.
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
Each under-deeps site has one "surface site". The first listed adjacent site is the "surface site." Other sites are not the "one surface site."
Caverns Unchoked wrote:Each other site (of yours) in the same region as its surface site is considered adjacent to this Under-deeps site.
Caverns Unchoked could have said that the sites in the same regions are considered "a surface site," but it says that they are just considered to be "adjacent." These sites are not "surface sites" because they are not the first listed adjacent site. And even Caverns Unchoked says "its surface site," referencing the one surface site.

This matters for several cards that refer to a "surface site." It also matters for the rules on Underdeeps movement (MEBA, p. 4): "One of your companies that begins its tum at the surface site of an Under-deeps site can move normally or it can move to its adjacent Under-deeps site. 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." Caverns 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.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”