URD Errors - Post Here

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

5.
URD Glossary - Attack wrote:Controversial Cards: Hoarmûrath Unleashed
This card is only controversial in conjunction with the current ruling on Adûnaphel (the Nazgûl hazard). Hoarmûrath Unleashed states: “Playable on Hoarmurath the Ringwraith (as your Ringwraith). Cancel an attack against any one of your companies.” According to the above rule, this card should nevertheless only be capable of canceling an attack against Hoarmûrath’s company as per the above rule, just as Adûnaphel is only capable of targeting the current company despite being able to cause “any one character to tap.” Current rulings state that Hoarmûrath Unleashed overrides the related limiting rule and Adûnaphel does not despite having the exact same wording. If challenged on this, the best option is to shrug apologetically, as no explanation has really been forthcoming for the contradictory rulings.
The Editor's comment takes the CRF statement out of context. The CRF is refering to effects that "cancel an attack" like in Star-glass and Many Turns and Doublings. To use these cards, the character needs to be in the company facing the attack. Such effects that "cancel an attack" are not the same as Hoarmurath Unleashed's effect of "cancel an attack against any one of your companies." For Hoarmurath Unleashed, clearly Hoarmurath doesn't need to be in the company.

And of course Adunaphel the Nazgul hazard cannot target any company because hazards can only be played against the moving company.
ICE Digest 55; ICE FAQ: Adunaphel can only target characters in the company currently taking their movement/hazard phase.
Rulings can be confusing when they taken out of content and when rules on one topic are conflated with rules on a different topic.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

6.
URD - Glossary - Attack wrote: • Once a declared attack has resolved in a chain of effects, you may not fizzle it by removing the card that created the attack [CoE 28].
This is misleading and is based on an incorrect ruling in CoE 28. I mean, it's true that you can't "fizzle" something that has been resolved. But CoE 28 is not talking about fizzling. So, at the very least the summary provided by the URD Author is not representative of the underlying ruling.

Update: I knew this was wrong under the rules but I found an ICE Digest indicating that it is wrong:
ICE Digest 111 wrote:Question: If Regiment of Black Crows is tapped to cancel the first Slayer attack (keyed to Borderlands) is the second attack also automatically cancelled (or nullified) by the fact that the Slayer's card is sent back to the hazard
player's hand?

Answer: Yes.
Also, note that the CoE ruling was instead discussing canceling (not fizzling) of attacks that have resolved. And the CoE ruling incorrectly states that attacks created by events cannot be canceled after they have resolved. There is no basis for this conclusion:
CoE 28 wrote:Is forcing the discard of the card that created the attack considered canceling the attack for annotation 13? E.g. If I am attacked by a Dragon Ahunt or At Home, could I wait until after the strikes are assigned to Marvels Told it? If so, could I also play MT during the strike sequence, as discarding the Ahunt affects the strike (i.e.. it causes the strike to disappear)?

*** The answer to all your questions is no. Once the chain of effects that creates the attack is fully resolved, creating the attack, the event has done its job, so to speak. Hitting it with a Marvels Told will not affect the current attack.
The answer "no" is correct because an attack cannot be canceled after strikes have been assigned, but the reasoning is incorrect. This ruling seems to believe that an attack created by an event is not an "effect" of the event. I see no rationale for this and the ruling provides none.

Instead, the rules are:
MELE p. 40 and 41 wrote:Permanent-event - The effects of a resource permanent-event are immediately implemented. Its effects last until the card is discarded.

Long-event - The effects of a long-event are immediately implemented when it is played... Its card and effects remain in play until your next long-event phase or until otherwise discarded.
There is no qualifier on which effects do not last. Clearly an on-going effect would not last past the corresponding event being discarded. There is no reason why an on-going attack would last past the discarding. Of course, you could always use Marvels Told to discard the event card in response to the declaration of the attack. But you could also used Marvels Told to discard an Ahunt dragon after Hoarmurath is used to give it +1 strike. Still, the attack could not be canceled after strikes are assigned.

ICE has held the same:
ICE Digest 94 wrote:Question: If an Ahunt Dragon is played during the m/h phase and its attack is triggered by the company's movement, will removing the Ahunt Long-event with Marvels Told stop the attack?
Answer: Yes. When a long or permanent event is discarded by another card, it immediately ceases to have an effect on play.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:16 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

7.
URD - GLossary - Attacks wrote: • An effect which reduces the prowess of the attack as a whole must be played before strikes are assigned. [CoE 41].
CoE 41 wrote:so what about reducing the prowess of the whole attack (for example black arrow). it would be logical (at least in my logic), that such an effect must also take place before strikes are assigned. but i couldn´t find anything in the crf.
*** An effect that states that it reduces the prowess of an attack must be played before the strikes are assigned.
This is incorrect and there is no basis for this in the rules. The CoE Netrep admits there is no basis in the rules or CRF and that this ruling is only based on his own logic. ICE Digest 90 (below) gives an example where a resource is played during the strike sequence that causes the prowess of the attack as a whole to be reduced.

Resources played during the strike sequence only need to affect the strike, they do NOT need to directly affect/target the strike. Affecting the prowess of the attack as a whole also affects the prowess of the strike. Therefore, cards reducing the prowess of the whole attack may be played during the strike sequence. In fact, you SHOULD be playing resources affecting the whole attack during the strike sequence after strikes are already assigned because at this point the hazard player can no longer enhance the strike nor can they use effects that add both prowess and strikes to the attack.

You could also play such effects between strikes during the M/H phase.
MELE p. 33 wrote:THE STRIKE SEQUENCE
4) The defending player may play resource cards that affect the strike (up to one card that requires skill).
Accordingly, cards affecting the prowess of an attack may be played before strikes or assigned or during the strike sequence, or even between strikes.

For instance, if the hazard player played Weariness of the Heart to give a character -1 prowess at Step 1) of the Strike Sequence, that same character could tap Black Arrow at Step 4) of the Strike Sequence. There is no requirement that the prowess of the attack cannot be changed at Step 4). It is better to wait and see whether you even need to use your resources.
ICE Digest 90 wrote:Question: I travel to Moria with my only company. My opponent has Scimitars of Steel (Perm Event) and Awaken Minions (Long Event) in play. At the end of the Movement/Hazard Phase, I draw up to hand size and get Marvel's Told. (There is an untapped Sage in the company.) Is there any way I can get rid of either card with Marvel's Told so that I don't face 8 strikes @ 8 prowess?

Answer: Yes. During the strike sequence you could play Marvels Told to discard Scimitars of Steel. You couldn't discard Awaken Minions, since that would change the number of strikes after strikes are assigned.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

8.
URD - Glossary - Attack wrote:The resource player decides the order of any passive strike-enhancing effects [CoE 51].
This is incorrect and misleading. The resource player does not decide "ANY" passing strike-enhancing effects. The original question asks about Plague of Wights (double strikes) and The Moon is Dead (+1 strike). Hazard effects in this type of situation, which are applied by passive conditions, are governed by Annotation 26 while other passive conditions are governed by Annotations 9 and 10.
Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.
Annotation 9: If a card specifies that an action is to occur as a result of some specific passive condition, this action becomes automatically the first action declared in the chain of effects to immediately follow the chain of effects producing the passive condition. The passive condition must exist when this resulting action is resolved in its own chain of effects, or the action is canceled. Note that actions in the strike sequence follow a different set of rules.
Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
The CoE NetRep knows just enough to be dangerous. He was originally close, seemingly deciding based on Annotation 26? And then changed his mind to rule based on Annotation 9, but that is incorrect. It would probably be helpful if the CoE NetRep actually cited the basis for his conclusions so that it would be more clear why he was wrong. And ICE already ruled on this exact issue numerous times. It should have been clear.

The first ruling from CoE 50 discussed in CoE 50.:
COE 51 wrote:First, mistakes from Digest #50:
========
I have both The Moon is Dead and Plague of Wights in play plus Doors of
Night. I play a Chill Douser. Do I get to add one strike first then
double or double first then add one?
*** It's the hazard player's choice.
--------
*** This was wrong and is covered below.
========
Then the updated ruling in CoE 51:
Now onto the old (some very old) issues:
*** The debate about how creature enhancing effects are combined is now
at an end. This should answer all the "How many strikes does an undead
get with all those events in play..." questions.
- The player who's turn it currently is (the resource player) gets to
choose what order passive effects from hazards are applied.
- The resource player may choose differently each time the situation
applies.
For example, in the case of an undead attack where The Moon is Dead,
Plague of Wights and Doors of Night are all in play, the resource player
may choose to apply the doubling effect from Plague of Wights first
before any strike adding effect is applied. Note this follow Annotation
10 which reads:
If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a
chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which
they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up
chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
No... This would be the case were it not for Annotation 26. See the correct ruling from the ICE Netrep based on Annotation 26:
ICE Digest 85 wrote:Question: If Doors of Night, Plague of Wights and The Moon Is Dead are in play, is the hazard player who gets to choose the order in which the effects are applied, or is there any other order to be followed?

Answer: If both were in play at the beginning of the movement/hazard phase, the hazard player chooses the order they are applied in. Otherwise, they are applied in the order in which they resolved.
So again, it is incorrect to say "The resource player decides the order of any passive strike-enhancing effects [CoE 51]."

Instead, if The Moon is Dead was already in play at the start of the M/H phase and Plague of Wights is played during the M/H phase, then their effects are applied in order, +1 strike first, then doubled. But if Plague of Wights was already in play and then The Moon is Dead is played during the M/H phase, then the strikes would be doubled first, and then given +1. If BOTH cards were in play at the start of the M/H phase, the Hazard player would decide the order (he would give +1 first then double) but the hazard player would not decide when they play the Undead creature, they would have to decide at the start of that M/H phase.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

9.
URD - Glossary - Automatic Attack wrote:The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence [CRF].
Editor’s Note: This means that cards which alter the number of strikes or affect strike assignment are not playable against automatic-attacks.
The CRF entry by the ICE Netrep is being taken out of context. The URD Editor is incorrect in saying "cards which alter the number of strikes... are not playable against automatic-attacks." This CRF ruling by the netrep was made against people trying to play We Have Come to Kill or Marvels Told in the Site Phase before facing the automatic attack. There is no indication that this ICE ruling was made to prevent reducing the number of strikes of an automatic attack using Quiet Lands, Not at Home, Deadly Dart, Veils of Shadow, etc. Furthermore, this CRF ruling above (only resources... cancel the attack) is based on this Site Phase ruling:

Note the rules on the Site Phase:
CRF Site Phase wrote:A company may not play any resource during the site phase until they have faced all automatic-attacks, unless that resource directly affects an automatic-attack. Removing an automatic-attack does not directly affect it, although cancelling does.
Cancelling the attack is not the "only" effect that "directly affects an automatic-attack." Note that removing the automatic attack (Rebuild the Town, wizard haven creation resources, etc.) is not allowed because the NetRep thought it was too good. Plus, you actually have to "face" the automatic attack per the METW/MELE rules on the site phase.

Also note this statement in the CRF introduction:
CRF wrote: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.
ICE Rulings:
ICE Netrep 3/26/98 wrote: Question1: about We Have Come to Kill - can this be used to bring in a character during the site phase? >
Answer1: Yes, if you have faced the automatic-attack.

Question 2: But if I bring a character (and the site) under general influence, who will face the automatick-attack?
Answer 2: No one. Which means you can't do it. (I'm assuming you mean, bring him in under GI when there is no one there at the site)

Question 3: Exactly that's what I mean. But which rule contradicts that I cannot do that? The character I bring in will face the auto-attack when I want to play something at that site, that's clear.
Answer 3: You can't play We Have Come to Kill during the site phase before the automatic-attack is faced. That's the rules. You can't do anything during the site phase before the automatic-attack is faced, unless it involves facing the automatic-attack. Therefore, you can't bring a character into play with WHCtK during the site phase if no one else is at the site, since you can never face the automatic-attack before doing so.
ICE Digest 91 wrote:Question: Bizzare Restriction #1 - the Site Phase: The problem is the >prohibition against playing ANY resources in the site phase, not that strike sequences "run together" as I previously thought, which they in fact do not. Normally, you would in fact be allowed to play your Marvels Told (or whatever) any time during the combat, because there is in fact "time" to take any legal action (Turn Sequence Rulings, Strike Sequence, last bullet). HOWEVER, since there is this explicit prohibition against playing resources during the site phase until after the auto-attack is completed (Turn Sequence Rulings, Site Phase, 4th bullet), normally and intuitively allowed combat activities are now disallowed (such as using And Forth he Hastened to untap to play a canceller - note that discarding Cram or Waybread to untap to use a canceller would by contrast be legal since it doesn't involve actually PLAYING a resource). Marvels Told, or for Minions, Freeze the Flesh, Well-Preserved, etc., may not be played. Period. Because they do not affect the automatic attack directly.

Answer: If you had been following the previous threads, you would realize that the restriction on the site phase is: Before you have faced the automatic-attack, you may only play card that cancel the attack, cancel the strike, or are playable during the strike sequence. If the play of Marvels Told affects the attack (as in discarding a Scimitars of Steel) it can be played during the strike sequence. Also, discarding a Cram is enacting a resource effect, and the same restrictions apply to it as playing a resource.
So, the Editor's Note is misleading. Cards that DIRECTLY affect the number of strikes of an automatic attack (Not At Home, Beils of Shadow, Dark Quarrels, etc.) may be played but cards that INDIRECTLY affect the number of strikes (e.g., playing Gates of Morning to discard Doors of Night) may not be played (under the ICE ruling, see CoE Errata 1 for an alternative).
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

10.
Companies can be:
» (a) For a Hero player:
♦ (i) hero
» (b) For a Minion player
♦ (i) covert minion
♦ (ii) overt minion
» (c) For a Fallen Wizard player
♦ (i) covert Hero (companies with nothing making them overt)
♦ (ii) covert minion (a company consisting of Half-orcs is non-overt, but nevertheless minion due to the presence of Orcs)
♦ (iii) overt
о (1) non-minion (due to overt-making non-Orc non-Troll ally, Freeze the Flesh, or Cast from the Order)
о (2) minion (due to presence of an orc, a Troll, or a Half-orc with other characters than only Half-orcs and Men)
This is entry in the URD is incorrect and is based on CoE 110 which was incorrect. Fallen Wizard companies are NOT minion companies. They are only considered to be minion companies for certain purposes. Another reason why the URD Author was "probably not playing Fallen Wizards correctly."

You can tell that this ruling is wrong because it violates the "Golden Rule" for rulings stated in the CRF Introduction:
CRF Introduction wrote:The main thing to remember, when making rulings based on the rules and the cards, is that if it isn't there, then it isn't there. If a card says a site counts as a Haven for purposes of healing, that does not mean the site counts as a Haven for any other purposes. If a card says it can be played as a resource, that does not mean it counts as a resource at any time except when it is being played. Remember: If it isn't there, it isn't there.
The White Hand Rules state:
MEWH p. 5 wrote:Overt companies are not minion companies for purposes of the detainment attack guidelines in the MELE rules (p. 31). Overt companies are minion companies for hazards that can only attack/effect minion companies (e.g., Sons of Kings).
Therefore, a Fallen Wizard's overt companies are not minion companies in general, and they are not minion companies for purposes of resources affecting minion companies (e.g., Power Against the Shadow, Spies Feared, etc.).

Instead, FW companies are only minion for purposes of "hazards that can only attack/effect minion companies," but not for any other purpose.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Just scrolling though the URD there are so many errors I can't bother to explain them all. But here are a list of other statements that are incorrect or misleading:

11.
URD - Glossarsy - Direct Influence wrote:A character’s direct influence must be greater than or equal to the mind attribute of another character to allow him to take control of that other character, even if the characters mind stat would be lowered once he /she became a follower [CRF, CoE].
Again, the URD author is just making stuff up and you can easily tell because no actual citation is provided. There is no basis for this statement in the CRF and I am not going to bother reading the CoE rulings to look for basis there.

Instead, note that the rules were changed so that company composition changes all happen at the same time. The ICE Netrep explains that the reason is so that characters can be moved around in order to use the DI efficiently.
CRF - Organizing Companies wrote:Company composition changes that you choose to make, including bringing a character into play, must all be done at the same time during the organization phase. During this time no other actions may be taken.
So if a characters mind would change such that they could fit under DI, that is fine since it is considered to happen at the same time.

12.
URD - Glossary - End of wrote:End Of: When an action specifies it must be taken at the end of a phase no actions may be taken after it in that phase that do not also specify that they must be taken at the end of said phase [CRF, CoE].
This is a bit misleading and is another case where it is easy to determine that the URD is making stuff up because there is no citation. New Friendship is not specifically playable at the end of the untap phase but it may be played in response to the corruption check caused by Lure of the Senses at the end of the untap phase.

Of course, I don't see how it could be possible for a second action (specified to be taken at the end of a phase) to happen in a second chain of effects after a first action (specified to be taken at the end of the same phase) in a different first chain of effects. Actions/effects happening at the "end" of the phase would have to happen all at the same time, and thus occur in the same chain of effects per Annotation 10. It should be clear that something happening before the "end" cannot also be the "end."

13.
URD - Glossary - Hoard wrote: • If a creature with the Dragon type is played as an automatic-attack, the site is considered to have a hoard for the rest of the turn [CoE 105].
NO. What is going on here? Please just actually read the rules. Again, actually citing the rules would help. Also, note that this ruling is not based on CoE 105, it is from CoE43.
CoE 43 wrote:what about playing cave-drake (it is called dragon, not drake!) at an underdeep-ruin as automatic attack?? so if the opponent is nice enough to play that creature: two hoard greater items at iron-deeps??
*** In this case, yes, the Cave-drake would cause the site to become a hoard site for that turn.
Here is the actual rule:
CRF - Errata wrote:Dragon Rules, Hoards: Change "Each site with a Dragon automatic-attack (i.e., each Dragon's Lair) contains a hoard" to "Each site which had a Dragon automatic-attack at the beginning of the turn contains a hoard."
Cave Drake played as an automatic attack at an underdeeps site is not an automatic attack that was there AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TURN.

What are these fake rules?
Last edited by CDavis7M on Fri Apr 17, 2020 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

It should be clear why I no longer bother to read the CoE Rulings or the URD.

Instead, I suggest actually reading the rules multiple times, back to back in one go, so as to get a coherent understanding of the context. Then read the CRF and consider the reasons why it might have been made as the context is not present in the CRF. So many rulings are taken out of context or applied to situations where they are not relevant.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

14.
URD - Glossary - Exhausting a Deck wrote:If there is ever a situation where your have no cards in your play deck or discard pile, the first card discarded becomes the new play deck [CoE 82].
This is not correct. The play deck does not automatically become exhausted when it has 0 cards in it. It is technically only exhausted when the last card in the play deck is drawn (there are no cards left to draw). The question in CoE 82 was about drawing cards so that all of your remaining cards are in your hand. Meaning, no cards are in your play deck or discard pile. In this case, discarding a card does not automatically exhaust your deck. Kind of a silly situation and it's not covered in the rules. It only really makes a difference for 3 or 4 deck games which are hardly ever played.

The actual rules are:
MELE p. 11 wrote:Clarification: Your play deck is "exhausted" when you draw its last card.
MELE Glossary p. 89 wrote:Exhausting a Play Deck: When you draw the final card from your play deck into your hand.
Here is the incorrect CoE Ruling:
CoE 82 wrote:I have two cards in my play deck and three in my discard pile. It is time for me to resolve my hand, which currently has 1 card in it, so I draw up 2 and exhaust, then shuffle the three in discard back into my play deck, and continue drawing those up too until I reach a handsize of 6 and a deck of zero. (Mmm, I love these questions.)
A)Now, if a card is sent to my discard pile while my playdeck is zero, is it automatically shuffled into the
play deck, or does such shuffling-in only happen when I am required to draw cards?
B) If I become required to draw cards and my playdeck is zero, am I still considered to have "exhausted"
my play deck (and thus trigger the discard of cards on table that go when decks are exhausted, etc.)?
C) If my playdeck is zero, can I take actions that require me to shuffle a card into my playdeck, such as
Smoke Rings?
*** You are forced to perform any actions based on exhaustion of your play deck as soon as the last card
is drawn from it, not when you are required to draw another card. Therefore, the answers are as follows:
A) The discarded card immediately becomes your new play deck.
B) No, you have already exhausted. Needing to draw another card is irrelevant.
C) Given the fact that you have no cards in either your play deck or discard pile, yes.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

There are numerous errors per page in the URD. Actually trying to track down all of the errors and then correct them still leaves you with the URD itself, which is lacking because it's basically a long list of rulings with rules sprinkled between. For as long as this game has existed people have been asking for a consolidated easy to read version of the rules and the URD is not that.

I see no added value provided by the URD over the Rules and the CRF. It's even longer, contains numerous errors, and you get the Editor's commentary.

Even if you wanted to read the CoE rulings, you can't rely on the URD because the summaries are not accurate representations of the CoE rulings. So you might as well just Ctrl+F the pdf of the CoE rulings.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:50 am 2.
URD - Glossary - Ahunts wrote:Deal with card appropriately even if the card is discarded during the actual attack (i.e. put it in your marshalling point pile if you would gain MPs for defeating the attack, etc.) [CoE 29].
This situation cannot happen. After strikes have been assigned, the Ahunt Long-event cannot be discarded because discarding the Ahunt would cancel the attack and an attack cannot be cancelled after its strikes have been assigned.
--Annotation 13: An attack may not be canceled once its strikes have been assigned.
--MELE p. 41 - Its card [the long-event] and effects remain in play... until otherwise discarded.
Your references do not disallow the possibility of the Ahunt being discarded by another effect (e.g., Marvels Told), which would not cancel the ongoing attack.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:50 am 3.
URD - Glossary - Allies - Editor's Note wrote:The following list of permanent events are those that target an entity with a skill/race without specifying that it be a character:
• To Fealty Sworn
This statement is misleading because the Editor is discussing cards played on an Ally and To Fealty Sworn cannot be played on an ally because there are no ally is a Hobbit. Mistress Lobelia is an "Ally," not a "Hobbit."
How have you been misled?
This is not a case of the URD being in error; the URD editor's claim is true. Further, leaving To Fealty Sword out would make the list less complete.
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:50 am 4.
URD - Glossary - At Home - Editor's Note wrote:Editor’s Note: This is incorrect. Adding an automatic-attack is not affecting the attack any more than removing an automatic-attack affects an automatic-attack. An At Home dragon is not a creature, nor does it affect the automatic-attack. If the At Home dragon has an effect which applies during the Site Phase, it may be revealed, but the company will have already faced all automatic-attacks that were at the site at the beginning of the Site Phase.
This "Editor's Note" appears to believe that a hazard card can only be revealed when "the company decides to face the site's automatic-attack" if that hazard modifies the already existing automatic attacks on the site. That is incorrect. ... Adding an additional automatic attack DOES "modify the automatic attack" per the On Guard rules. For instance, Incite Minions creates an attack and can be revealed on guard when a company enters the site. At Home dragons can also be revealed on guard when a company enters the site. There are numerous instances of the ICE Netrep deciding issues about revealing Incite Denizens on guard but nothing specifically stating that they can be revealed on guard. No one else would try to assert that creating an automatic attack does not modify the automatic attack.
I do agree with you here! Woot! But rather than bandy about your opinions, I'll just point out another later CoE rulings was missed in URD v4.2:
CoE #112:
"Cards which create additional automatic-attacks can be revealed on-guard, provided the site already has an automatic-attack."
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

6. Again, the URD is not (necessarily) incorrect. If you want to disagree with CoE #28, take it to another thread. If you want to give an example that CoE #28 does not cover that invalidates URD conclusion, best do that.

7. Same thing. I even agree with you that CoE #41 is off base; but that belongs in a different thread, barring later CoE Rulings otherwise. The URD is following #41 correctly. For example:
CoE #119 wrote:4) The question has arisen whether a player can use initiate actions that affect the entire attack after strikes have been assigned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the resource player and the hazard player may take actions during the strike sequence that directly affect the prowess of the strike -- even if such actions also have other effects, except those otherwise forbidden (e.g. changing the number of strikes, altering strike assignment).
Again, URD v4.2 did not seem to incorporate the later CoE rulings.

I'm basically skipping all of the others in this vein... which is almost everything you've commented on. Enough said.

11-12. Yes. meccg.net added these in. A great number of things on there added in since CRF 15 are questionable. Not "the URD making it up", but they need to scrutinize that source's claims more closely.

The later CoE Rulings and the meccg.net falsehoods were pointed out to the revisers before this thread was made, so hopefully the next URD will be improved on those fronts.
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

kober wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:47 pm
URD page 54 wrote:Unrevealed on-guard cards are placed in your hand at the end of the Site Phase.
It should be: "at the beginning of the End-of-Turn Phase."
Do you have a more recent reference for this? MELE at least says "at the end of the site phase." Balrog Summary and CoE #17 agree.
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

15.
URD - Glossary - Fallen Wizard wrote:Editor’s Note: Of course, the White Hand rules still prevent a Fallen Wizard player from using a character with more than five mind. Presumably this would mean that a character with more than 5 mind would not be able to
take actions, initiate resource effects, move, control other cards, face strikes, etc. Since “use” is such a vague word, it is recommended that you clarify your position in this regard when organizing a tournament.
The Editor was ignorant of the ICE rulings on the MEWH rules. A Fallen Wizard may "use" a character with more than five mind (e.g., when Thrall is discarded, or mind is changed using an effect). A 6+ mind character can still take actions, initiate effect, move, control cards, face strikes, etc.
Ichabod Digest 78 wrote:From: kin...@mail.wsu.edu (Randall Kintner)
Question 1: I wonder whether playing An Unexpected Party with a Fallen Wizard would present any interesting possibilities?

Commentor 1: You actually can't play AUP as a Fallen Wizard. AUP requires a Dwarf with 6 or more mind and FWs can't use (I believe it says "play" at one spot in the rules and "use" in another) characters with more than 5 mind. If you take Gimli and put a Thrall of the Voice on him so that you can use him, he is no longer a 6 mind dwarf.

ICE Answer: Ignore the "use." Fallen-wizard may not play or start with characters with more than 6 mind. Thus, you can use Thall of the Voice to bring in Gimli, discard Thrall, and play AUP. (CRF, Rulings by Term, Fallenwizard).
----------

16.
URD - Glossary - Influence Check wrote:You may not make influence attempts against cards an avatar controls [ME:BA].
» Oh, yes you can. The game summary is just that --a summary, not new rules, which are clearly delineated. Therefore, the ME:LE rules
will take precedence over the ME:BA game summary, but not over the new rules presented in the ME:BA booklet [CoE 35].
This is incorrect. The rules were explicitly changed from the MELE rules and the newer rule is in the Challenge Deck and Balrog rules summaries. The CoE has "ruled" that the Summaries are not "authoritative" but that is incorrect. The Summary was written by the Craig O'Brien the ICE Netrep and he specifically said that this was a change to the rules. The ICE Netrep IS authoritative by definition.
Screenshot_20200412-115209_2.png
Screenshot_20200412-115209_2.png (316.83 KiB) Viewed 8207 times
So, "oh no you can't."

----------

17.
URD - Glossary - Mind wrote:Mind-altering effects are not considered when determining whether you have enough influence to bring a character into play. They are only considered once the character is in play [CoE 118].
This is incorrect for the same reasons given above with respect to "direct influence." The rules were changed so that company composition changes all happen at the same time. The URD author and the CoE netrep were unaware that ICE changed the rules.

The ICE Netrep explains that the reason is so that characters can be moved around in order to use the DI efficiently. So you can play a character and reorganize everyone in a company "at the same time" to sort out your influence. After doing that, if you still don't have enough influence, the character that was played is returned to your hand.
CRF - Organizing Companies wrote:Company composition changes that you choose to make, including bringing a character into play, must all be done at the same time during the organization phase. During this time no other actions may be taken.
ICE Digest 58 wrote:From: James R Moss <jrm...@jcpenney.com>

Question: Why was it necessary to change the rules to allow the play of a character even if you don't have the GI or DI to control it?

Answer: Say you want to join two companies and then transfer an influence increasing item between two characters. Since we introduced the rule that all company composition changes have to happen at the same time, you could not do this and then play the
character. So we made an exception to allow you to play the character before you had the influence to control him, and then
later get more influence.

There is also the case, which has already been mentioned, of playing a character and using his direct influence to free up general influence to control him with.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that "Mind-altering effects are not considered when determining whether you have enough influence to bring a character into play. "

Still, if you read the actual CoE Digest 118 you can see that the question was more subtle than the summary given by the URD Editor.
CoE 118 wrote:(6) Brian Min asked: "When exactly does the effects of a Minion Arkenstone take effect? Scenario: Minion player A has minion arkenstone in play. FW Player B plays We Have Come to Kill to play Gloin. Player B is currenly using 15/20 GI. Can he bring Gloin into play?"

Mind-altering effects such as The Arkenstone (minion), Palm to Palm, and Diminish and Depart are not considered when deciding whether a character has enough direct influence to control another character being brought into play with direct influence (e.g., through We Have Come to Kill, A Chance Meeting, or during the organization phase at a site where your avatar is not present).
Playing a character using We Have Come to Kill or A Chance Meeting is not part of "organizing companies" during the Organization phase and so it does not happen "at the same time." However, the effect of Thrall of the Voice is used instead of playing a character during the organization phase and so it counts as part of "organizing companies."
Last edited by CDavis7M on Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

18.
URD -Glossary - Nazgul wrote:Nazgûl: A type of hazard that is a manifestation of a Ringwraith.
• If a Nazgûl is tapped to become a short-event as printed on its card, it turns into a short-event upon declaration. At this point, the Nazgûl is a short-event just as if had been played as such from your hand [CRF].

» Wizard’s River Horses and In The Name of Mordor may be played in response to discard such before they resolve [CoE 110]. Note that a Nazgûl tapped in response to Wizard’s River Horses/In The Name of Mordor will resolve first and have their full effect.
This is incorrect and misleading. Wizard's River Horses and In the Name of Mordor (see explanation on how ItNoM can "cancel" WRH below) cannot "discard" a tapped Nazgul that has been declared but not yet resolved. This is because "a Nazgûl is tapped to become a short-event as printed on its card, it turns into a short-event upon declaration. At this point, the Nazgûl is a short-event just as if had been played as such from your hand." ... You cannot discard a declared short event (or declared long event) because a declared event is not in play and is not capable of being targeted per Annotation 1 and 8.
CRF wrote:Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions declared in the same chain of effects. An exception to this is a dice-rolling action, e.g. a corruption check.
CRF wrote:Annotation 8: An action that requires a target is considered to have the active condition that the target be in play when the action is declared and when it is resolved. An action may not be declared if its target is not in play.
ICE 4/15/97 wrote:Question: Can the tapping of a Nazgul PE be cancelled with 'Wizard's River Horses'? Is there a timing difference if you tap him for his inherent ability or for his sideboard ability?

Answer: Wizard's River-horses will not cancel the tapping of a Nazgul PE. The difference in tapping a Nazgul for sideboarding is that it does not become a short-event (or long-event in the case of Witch-king). However, when tapping for sideboarding the Nazgul is discarded at time of declaration.
Note: this ruling supersedes the note on Wizard's River Horses in the METW Player Guide. The note in the Player Guide is based on the older rules before the Rules Annotation were added in the METW Companion.

Also, note that In the Name of Mordor's effect states "this card cancels and discards one Nazgûl hazard event." Therefore, even though ItNoM does not discard a tapped Nazgul that becomes a declared event, it can CANCEL that event. Cancellation prevents a declared event from resolving because "an action in a chain of effects is negated if the conditions required to perform it are negated by another action that is resolved before it in the chain of effects" (MELE p. 69).

Let's see why the CoE Netrep was wrong:
(1) The interaction of Wizard's River-Horses, In the Name of Mordor, and Praise to Elbereth on the one
hand and Nazgul events (permanent, long, and short) on the other hand has been brought into question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Wizard's River-Horses (WRH), In the Name of Mordor (ItNoM), and Praise to Elbereth (PtE):
Since the tapping of a nazgul permanent event turns it into a short (or long) event, the short (or long)
event is never considered "played". Therefore, if a nazgul event is in play (as a short event, long event, or
permanent event) then it will be canceled by WRH, ItNoM, or PtE when they resolve.

There are some subtleties in the exact mechanism of each card due to timing and a certain CRF entry:

WRH: Here we must distinguish between two different chains. If a nazgul event is tapped in response to
the play of WRH, then it will resolve before WRH and thus be unaffected by WRH. If, by contrast, WRH
is played in response to the tapping of the nazgul event, then WRH will resolve first, and discard (and
thereby cancel, since it has not resolved yet) the event.

ItNoM: The timing issues for this card are identical to those of WRH.

PtE: According to the CRF ruling by card title on Praise to Elbereth, Nazgul events may not be tapped in response to the play of PtE. Therefore, there is only one chain possible for this card (PtE in response to the tapping of the nazgul), and so this card is 100% effective.

One final note: tapping a nazgul to access one's sideboard does not turn the nazgul into a short (or long) event; instead, tapping and discarding the nazgul are active conditions of using it in this way. Therefore, if a nazgul is tapped for this purpose, it cannot be targetted and cancelled by WRH, ItNoM, or PtE (in the same way that one cannot target Daelomin at Home with Marvels Told in response to his use, or target Baduila with Withdrawn to Mordor in response to his discarding).
The CoE Netrep did not realize that a becoming a short (or long) event is an active condition of tapping the Nazgul and that this happens at declaration as stated in the CRF.

Also note that Praise to Elbereth has this "cannot tap" ruling from back the old METW days when Nazgul were "too powerful." See more on this here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4102
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”