Hazards and CvCC

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

ICE Digest 563 wrote:>Van, I just wanted to make sure you haven't forgotten my question
>about what happens to hazards during CVCC. (Rulebook says hazards
>have no effect on CVCC combat.) 3 digests ago you said you would
>answer it in the next digest. I still haven't heard an answer.

No, delayed but not forgotten. Ichabod and I have been discussing changing the rule to make it more clear. I had one wording, he another. Ultimately, I spent an evening going through every hazard in the game to see how they impacted each wording of the new rule. To make a long story short [too late] here is the new ruling for Company vs. Company combat:
Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on CVCC.

This is an errata and will be posted as a Rulings Monday on 3/22/99. The new rule will take effect 4/5/99.

Commentary:
This means that if a hazard effect directly affects an attack, it has no effect on Company vs. Company combat. So, if the hazard says, "All orc attacks have +1 prowess." it would have no effect. On the other hand, if the hazard says, "All orcs have +1 prowess," it will have normal effect.

Remember to that no hazards can be played during the site phase and no company vs. company combat will trigger an on-guard card. So the only hazards that would have any effect are hazard effects already in play.

The hazard "Night" is an excellent example for the new rule. The card text reads:
"The prowess of each non-ranger Dunadan is modified by -1. Additionally if Doors of Night is in play, the prowesses of all attacks are are modified by +1 and the prowess of each Man and Dunadan is modified by -1. Cannot be duplicated."

During company vs. company combat, with Doors of Night in play, non-ranger Dunadan have a -1 prowess and additionally all Man and Dunadan characters have an additional -1 prowess. Since the plus to prowess directly effects attacks, it has no effect on CvC combat.
Anyone have ideas about why this didn't show up["hazards have no effect on company vs. company combat" was not removed] in CRF 15 a few months later? It is also repeated in ICE Digest 579, which came out after CRF 15, and so I would regard this as ruling over CRF 15.
ICE Digest 579 wrote:>2. What, if any, hazard effects would affect characters (either
>normally or in CVCC)? Conversely, what resource effects would
>affect hazards? Can a hero resource modify a minion character and
>vice versa? I understand that, by the CRF, that a card like Chill
>Them with Fear wouldn't affect Glorfindel attacking aminion
>company, or in any other combat situation. However, is
>that because it says "...Elf, Dwarf...ATTACKs get +2 strikes and
>+2 prowess"? Conversely, would an Elf-lord Reveled in Wrath (or
>any Elf/Dunadan creature) get a bonus from Star of High Hope since
>Star says "The prowess of each Elf and Dunadan is modified by +1
>(by +2 if Gates of Morning is in play)"?

This is a long question, so I'll try to sum it up. In company vs. company combat, if the hazard says it affects attacks (like Chill Them with Fear) then it has no effect on CvCC. If it doesn't affect attacks, then it has it's normal effect (like Gloom's first ability).
However, this seems to be naively overruled by:
CoE #105 wrote:"Do hazards like Despair of the Heart and Something has Slipped trigger when characters are wounded in CvCC?"

*** No. Hazards have no effect on CvCC.
Would CoE like to comment?
Last edited by Theo on Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:17 am
ICE Digest 563 wrote:Ichabod and I have been discussing changing the rule to make it more clear. I had one wording, he another. Ultimately, I spent an evening going through every hazard in the game to see how they impacted each wording of the new rule. To make a long story short [too late] here is the new ruling for Company vs. Company combat:
Hazard effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on CVCC.

This is an errata and will be posted as a Rulings Monday on 3/22/99. The new rule will take effect 4/5/99.
Anyone have ideas about why this didn't show up in CRF 15 a few months later? It is also repeated in ICE Digest 579, which came out after CRF 15, and so I would regard this as ruling over CRF 15.
This errata DOES show up in CRF 15. Either you are missing it or you have an earlier version of CRF 15, but I think all versions have it. Yes, there were multiple versions of the same "version 15" between May 29, 1999 and December 21, 1998. Some still have the old ruling still under CvCC with the new ruling in the errata section, some have both rulings together in the CvCC section and indicate that the new ruling replaces the old ruling, some have just the new ruling replacing the old ruling under CvCC and under errata.

Theo wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:17 am
CoE #105 wrote:"Do hazards like Despair of the Heart and Something has Slipped trigger when characters are wounded in CvCC?"
*** No. Hazards have no effect on CvCC.
Wow.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I was referencing the version you posted.

"Hazards have no effect on company vs. company combat."

You are right, the effect language does show up. The problem is that the above line is not removed, presumably leading to the errant CoE ruling.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:34 am I was referencing the version you posted.

"Hazards have no effect on company vs. company combat."

You are right, the effect language does show up.
Right. There is another version posted from the Yahoo CoE/METW Archive in my same post. Unfortunately it was taken down in December 2019 before I realized it. So I don't know the original posting date. And then I have another version from December '99 re-hosted by a regional council.
Company vs. Company Combat
The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.
True Fána and Sacrifice of Form cannot be used in company versus company combat.
Hazards have no effect on company vs. company combat.
Company vs. Company Combat
The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.
True Fana and Sacrifice of Form cannot be used in company versus company combat.
@ Rules Erratum: Hazards effects in play that affect attacks have no effect on company vs company combat.


Theo wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:34 am The problem is that the above line is not removed, presumably leading to the errant CoE ruling.
You're giving them a lot of credit!
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”