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: 4045
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 Dec 29, 2020 7:05 pm Look, if an automatic attack of a site has been reduced to a single attack, and that single attack is duplicated by Tidings or some hazard effect, then the single duplicate attack is neither "any non-Dragon Lair site with more than one automatic attack" or "any creature or other hazard with more than one attack" as required by Forewarned is Forewarned. Therefore, a duplicate of an attack that has been reduced by FiF does not get the effect of "cannot be canceled."
The site is reduced to having one AA, AA at the site is not reduced. The AA, not the site, is copied by Tidings of Bold Spies.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:05 pm The "cannot be canceled" effect on the automatic-attack at minion Old Forest does not apply to duplicates of that AA.
OK. Thanks.
Not that I agree, but I see that you are consistent here.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:51 pm The effect giving 5MP for defeating Balrog of Moria is also not a modification to the attack and so it does not apply when the Balrog's attack and modifications thereto are duplicated.
Text of Balrog of Moria says that an opponent receives 5MP if he will defeat "this 2nd automatic-attack". Even actual AA from Balrog of Moria may not necessarily be 2nd AA. It may be 1st or 3rd AA.
What should happen after facing an attack (as stated by the card that creates the attack, or by something else) is not feature of the attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
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 Dec 30, 2020 12:32 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:05 pm Look, if an automatic attack of a site has been reduced to a single attack, and that single attack is duplicated by Tidings or some hazard effect, then the single duplicate attack is neither "any non-Dragon Lair site with more than one automatic attack" or "any creature or other hazard with more than one attack" as required by Forewarned is Forewarned. Therefore, a duplicate of an attack that has been reduced by FiF does not get the effect of "cannot be canceled."
The site is reduced to having one AA, AA at the site is not reduced. The AA, not the site, is copied by Tidings of Bold Spies.
... because I left an "s" off of the word "attack" you are going to pretend that I am making up some nonsense argument? Why would I have argued "one attack is reduced to one attack"? Clearly I know what the card says and does. Recognize the context and fix the minor grammar error.
Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:32 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 7:05 pm The "cannot be canceled" effect on the automatic-attack at minion Old Forest does not apply to duplicates of that AA.
OK. Thanks.
Not that I agree, but I see that you are consistent here.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:51 pm The effect giving 5MP for defeating Balrog of Moria is also not a modification to the attack and so it does not apply when the Balrog's attack and modifications thereto are duplicated.
Text of Balrog of Moria says that an opponent receives 5MP if he will defeat "this 2nd automatic-attack". Even actual AA from Balrog of Moria may not necessarily be 2nd AA. It may be 1st or 3rd AA.
What should happen after facing an attack (as stated by the card that creates the attack, or by something else) is not feature of the attack.
I don't see anything here that is relevant to the CoE Ruling on Unabated in Malice.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
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 »

Great Ship came up on Discord and I thought I should clarify how it works (and Tom Bombadil and Leaflock). Also, there is apparently a "classic" misconception about the timing of Great Ship and people think that Lost at Sea works against Great Ship (it doesn't). But before all that, here are more wrong CoE rulings:

miguel wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:28 pmCoE 121
6)
Great Ship says: "Tap a character in target company during the organization phase to play Great Ship on that company. If the company's current site path contains a coastal sea region and no consecutive non-coastal sea regions, until the end of the turn any character in the company may tap to cancel the effects of one hazard that targets the company."

If your company moves through the required regions to trigger GS, then it moves a second time, but during the second time it does not move through the required regions, is GS's effect still in play? I would assume yes, since GS says "until the end of the turn." But it seems that no one has ever asked about this before in the digests.

Lastly, this can't do anything about ahunt attacks, right?
---------------------------------------------------
I agree that once Great Ship's effect has fully resolved it will stay on for the rest of the turn. You are also correct in assuming Great Ship can't help you with Ahunts because they don't target the company.
First of all, Great Ship does not say that. Second of all, the ruling is misleading at best, but likely just wrong.

I'm glad to see a CoE netrep quoting a card, which is pretty rare, even if it was the original question-asker quoting. But at least cross-check the quote and give the most recent printing of the card since most people are playing by the tournament rules. Great Ship actually states: "Tap a character to play this card during your organization phase on his company. Any character in the company this turn may tap to cancel a hazard that targets the company. This may be: a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card. The company's site path must have a Coastal Sea and no consecutive non-Coastal Seas regions to do this."

The question is "then it moves a second time, but during the second time it does not move through the required regions, is GS's effect still in play?". The Netrep states "I agree that once Great Ship's effect has fully resolved it will stay on for the rest of the turn. " ... Yes, the effect lasts until the end of the turn but the important part is that the tap-to-cancel effect can NOT be used since the required regions are no longer being moved through. It doesn't matter how long the effect granting the site-path-conditional on-tap ability lasts if the condition for using the on-tap ability isn't met.

----------

Now that we know how Great Ship works, we can see that another CoE Ruling is wrong:
From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #57

Along the agents theme, can cards like Great Ship and Leaflock cancel
agent attacks and/or agent actions?
*** Yes.
This is wrong. The answer is No. An agent attack/action is not "a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card" so Great Ship cannot cancel it. Tom Bombadil and Leaflock's cancellation ability works the same as Great Ship. They can cancel and discard creatures and events -- so not agents actions or agent attacks.

This updated Great Ship card text reflects the more recent clarifications in an version 1 of the CRF:
CRF 1 wrote:Great Ship: Allows the cancelling of one creature or the cancelling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company

Tom Bombadil: Allows the cancelling of one creature or the cancelling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.

Leaflock: No player may assign Leaflock strikes from an automatic attack. May tap to give a character +1 against an automatic attack. Allows the cancelling of one creature or the cancelling and discarding of an event that targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.
Previously, back in the METW and METD says it was ruled that Great Bombadillocks could cancel all sorts of stuff, including the on-going effect of a resolved and discarded River. It took a bit but the Designers got it sorted out and they clarified that Ship/Tom/Leaf only cancel and discard declared hazard events or creature cards that target a company/entity in the company.

----------

Another confusion is that people think Great Ship is declared at the beginning of the M/H phase similar to effects played during the organization phase and that depend on the site path. This is not the case. Great Ship is resolved immediately in the organization phase and it creates an on-going effect that allows a character to tap to create an cancellation effect. The on-going effect does not depend on the site path. As shown by the card text copied above, it is the on-tap-cancellation effect that depends on the site path. Great Ship's effect is already in play, it's not waiting to resolve.

It's wrong to state that Great Ship's effect is declared at the beginning of the M/H phase and that Lost at Sea (A classic example? Who plays this way?) can be played in response.

----------

MELE: "Targeting: Choosing a specific entity through which a card or effect will be played out. An entity chosen as such is the "target" of the action. Some possible targets are: characters, corruption checks, strike dice rolls, items, sites, and companies. A card that states it is playable on or with a certain entity targets that entity. Cards which affect an entire class of other cards do not target (e.g., Wake of War)."

Another argument I saw was that Great Ship can cancel the on-going effects of Lost at Sea even. First off, the effect of Lost at Sea is not "a hazard event that specifically targets the company or an entity in the company OR a creature card" so Great Ship cannot cancel it.

Second, the "do-nothing" effect itself of Lost at Sea does not "target" the company. The targeting (choosing / selecting) has already happened. It is the play of Lost at Sea (physically taking the card out of your hand and putting it on top of/with a company when playing the card) that performs the "targeting" of the company. This is because that is when the player chooses which company to play it on (it is "playable on a company"). The effect "the company..." does not by itself "target" since the target is already selected by the play of the card itself. There is no choosing of "the company" at this point in the card text.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
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 »

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:06 pm
CoE 63 wrote:In a game I was watching recently between Antonio and Jamie, Antonio
tried to play dragon's blood on alatar, who was facing a strike from a
cave drake. Jamie sac'ed it. Does Antonio get a body check vs the
wizard or no? If not, why? If the blood had been against another
character, say, a follower of the wizard who would also be discarded,
would there be a body check? What if the blood were on a non-follower?
*** In all cases above, the body check from Dragon's Blood is rolled.
Sacrifice of Form doesn't get around it.
Wrong. Unfortunately you have to use the Strike Sequence. Sacrifice of Form gets around the Wizard's body check from Dragon's Blood - it is not rolled.

Dragon's Blood is playable during Step (1) of the strike sequence: "Playable on a character facing a Dragon or Drake strike (before the dice are rolled to resolve the strike)." Sacrifice of Form is playable during Step (4) of the strike sequence: "All of the strikes from one attack against your Wizard's company fail."

Once Sacrifice of Form resolves, the strike has resolved - it fails. While a failed strike would trigger Dragon's Blood's effect (If the strike fails, the target character must make a body check") this is a special action of strike, which occurs after the strike dice roll, which is after Step (4). Special actions of a strike would not interrupt resolution of Sacrifice of Form at Step (4) of the strike sequence -- "Discard the Wizard and any non-item cards he controls." So the wizard (and any follower) would already be discarded and cannot make a body check.

If Dragon's Blood were played on a non-follower of the Wizard, then Dragon's Blood would cause a body check for them.
I saw this ruling mentioned elsewhere and checked on it and saw it was wrong. But apparently I already knew that.

----------

As an aside, I think I am starting to realize the historical origin of some of the confusion... Unfortunate really.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
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 »

From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 10:35 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #74

Can a player start with Double Dealing as one of his starting stage
cards as a FW?
*** Only on a Hidden Haven that has previously been played in the
draft. Double Dealing is playable on a site, so a site has to exist
when it is brought into play.
No, you cannot start with Double-dealing. Double-dealing has the condition "Playable on a site." There is no site in play for Double-dealing to be played on when starting companies are revealed. The companies starting site is only placed with the company after the starting company is revealed. There is no possibility to play Double-dealing in the play area and then later pick it up and place it on a site.

Just because the MEWH rules have a specific allowance for Hidden Haven to be a starting stage card does not mean that Double-dealing has an allowance as well.

Just because there is a clarification that you "bring out" your starting site when you reveal Hidden Haven does not mean that the site is in play such that Double-dealing can be revealed in the draft after Hidden Haven and then played on the site. The Character Draft does not work that way. The draft is simply the process for determining the starting company and handling duplicated characters. It does not supersede the other rules in 3 · GETTING READY TO PLAY.

MEWH states: "You may not start such a card if the conditions required to play the card do not exist." It's that simple.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
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 »

General rule is:
You may not start such a card
if the conditions required to play the card do not exist.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:46 am Just because there is a clarification that you "bring out" your starting site when you reveal Hidden Haven does not mean that the site is in play such that Double-dealing can be revealed in the draft after Hidden Haven and then played on the site.
Just because Hidden Haven has been mentioned does not make the card an exception.

There is a belief that cards revealed during draft are not played (only placed). I think that they are revealed and after verifying whether they are/are not duplicates of what opponents revealed, they are played or set aside. Otherwise I do not see how a player may benefit from Bad Company during draft, if the card is not in play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
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: Fri Oct 28, 2022 12:41 pm General rule is:
You may not start such a card
if the conditions required to play the card do not exist.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:46 am Just because there is a clarification that you "bring out" your starting site when you reveal Hidden Haven does not mean that the site is in play such that Double-dealing can be revealed in the draft after Hidden Haven and then played on the site.
Just because Hidden Haven has been mentioned does not make the card an exception.

There is a belief that cards revealed during draft are not played (only placed). I think that they are revealed and after verifying whether they are/are not duplicates of what opponents revealed, they are played or set aside. Otherwise I do not see how a player may benefit from Bad Company during draft, if the card is not in play.
Cards revealed during the draft are not played or placed because "play" and "place" typically mean play/place into the play area. Drafted cards that have been revealed are not in the play area and are not in play. The character draft is a guideline for revealing starting characters. It is used to determine what the starting characters (and other cards) will be -- not to play/place the starting characters. The draft rules also change how duplication works. That's it. That's all they do.

The rest of the game setup happens just as described in GETTING READY TO PLAY in METW and MELE. The starting company is revealed simultaneously in the normal rules. With the character draft, the drafted cards are the ones used to do that. The Character Draft rules do not say that they change the ordering of when the site card is placed or when the company is in the play area. The cards are not in play are until after drafting is complete. The starting site is not placed with the starting company until after the draft.

For Bad Company, just pretend that you placed you starting company and stage cards face down together and then revealed them all over at once as in the normal rules. As far as I know, Bad Company does not need to be drafted before an Orc or Troll is drafted. Bad Company allows such characters to be in the starting company. It doesn't allow them to be drafted to be in the starting company. The MEWH restrictions are on the starting company, not on the drafting process.

Just because there is a specific allowance for Hidden Haven does not mean there is an allowance for Double-dealing.
GettingReadyToPlay-Draft.png
GettingReadyToPlay-Draft.png (667.33 KiB) Viewed 420 times
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
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: Fri Oct 28, 2022 3:44 pm As far as I know, Bad Company does not need to be drafted before an Orc or Troll is drafted.
If it is complaint with rest of understanding of the game...
How about Gandalf's Friend or Squire of the Hunt? Are the cards played/placed on characters not in play?
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 3:44 pm Just because there is a specific allowance for Hidden Haven does not mean there is an allowance for Double-dealing.
I agree.
Maybe Hidden Haven has been mentioned because the card requires special allowance. If starting site is not determined, there are no conditiond to play the card. But once Hidden Haven on [-me_rl-] is in play there are condition for Double Dealing.
Fairly speaking, I do not know when (as early) a starting site may/must be determined.
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 3:44 pm or Bad Company, just pretend that you placed you starting company and stage cards face down together and then revealed them all over at once as in the normal rules.
By normal rules you mean starter rules?
Starter rules are not compatible with White Hand. Region Movement and revealing the starting cards one at time are must for White Hand.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
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 »

Your statement about Starter Rules makes me think that you're misunderstanding what they are. But that's besides the point really. Clearly the MEWH rules use the starter rules (and other rules).
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:36 pm revealing the starting cards one at time are must for White Hand.
That's similar to the misunderstanding that the CoE Netrep made. They were confusing the character draft with the rules on GETTING READY TO PLAY.

In the rules, starting cards are not revealed one at a time. They are all revealed at the same time. The MEWH rules do not change that. They state "These cards should be revealed as if they were starting characters." They say nothing about the draft being mandatory.

The character draft rules for tournaments change how the starting company is determined and how duplication of characters work, but it doesn't change when the starting cards are considered to be played. Or do people think that characters can exist in play without a site? This is why effects that modify mind do not help the starting company. The combined mind of the starting company must be 20 or less before they are revealed.

The clarification to "bring out" your site when you reveal Hidden Haven does not mean that site is in play.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
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 »

Good luck with the cards like Thrall of the Voice and not using draft. Especially if they are not in play after revealing.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:58 am The MEWH rules do not change that. They state "These cards should be revealed as if they were starting characters." They say nothing about the draft being mandatory.
Right.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
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: Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:58 am Your statement about Starter Rules makes me think that you're misunderstanding what they are.
My error. Draft is described in CONVENTIONS OF TOURNAMENT PLAY section of Lidless Eye manual. Theoretically it may be used even if Starter Rule are being used.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
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: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:51 am Good luck with the cards like Thrall of the Voice and not using draft. Especially if they are not in play after revealing.
Thrall of the Voice is not in play when revealed during the character draft. It is in play simultaneously with all other starting cards after those starting cards have been determined (either using the normal rules in the rulesbook or using the character draft).
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
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: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:46 am MEWH states: "You may not start such a card if the conditions required to play the card do not exist." It's that simple.
Simple check for the conditions required to play the card even if the card is not played during determining starting company.
So if eligible sage has been set aside (as duplicate of the card revealed by opponent), Pallando's Apprentice comes in play anyway?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
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 Nov 02, 2022 2:25 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:46 am MEWH states: "You may not start such a card if the conditions required to play the card do not exist." It's that simple.
Simple check for the conditions required to play the card even if the card is not played during determining starting company.
So if eligible sage has been set aside (as duplicate of the card revealed by opponent), Pallando's Apprentice comes in play anyway?
I'm not understanding how you are thinking about GETTING READY TO PLAY. My understanding of the game seems different from how you are understanding it.

It's true that the rules are spread out, but I think they are fairly clear when considered together.

The rules state:
METW wrote:3 • GETTING READY TO PLAY
. . .
3) Place one to five starting characters (no Wizards) face down in front
of you. The combined mind attributes (see page 19) of these
characters must be 20 or less. You and your opponent reveal your
characters simultaneously, placing any duplicated characters into
your play decks. Then organize your starting characters into followers
and companies and place them at Rivendell (i.e., place a
Rivendell site card next to them).
. . .
5 · CHARACTERS & COMPANIES
. . .
BRINGING CHARACTERS INTO PLAY
. . .
When you play a character, you may place him into a company
already at his arrival site or he may become a new company
(consisting of one character). In the second case, you must place the
arrival site card next to the character played. If the appropriate site
card is not available, you may not play the character.
Clarification: If character is played at his home site or a Haven site and there
is no company there, you must play the site card for his arrival site with him.
If the appropriate site card is not available, you may not play the character.
CONVENTIONS OF TOURNAMENT PLAY wrote:Starting characters are determined by Character Draft. . . Each player reveals his or her first choice for a starting character simultaneously with opponent. . .
MEWH wrote:GETTING READY TO PLAY
A Fallen-wizard player prepares for play just as a Wizard does,
with the following exceptions:
. . .
Starting Stage Cards
You must attempt to start with one, two, or three (your choice)
stage resource permanent-event cards in play. These cards must have
a combined total of 3 stage points. At least one of these cards must
be non-unique. You may not start such a card if the conditions required
to play the card do not exist. These cards should be revealed
as if they were starting characters with duplicate unique cards being
discarded.
. . .
Starting Site
Your starting company may begin play at The White Towers or at
any Ruins & Lairs site in Rhudaur or Arthedain. If you start at a
Ruins & Lairs site, one of your starting stage resource cards may be
a Hidden Haven played on your starting site.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
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 »

What is meaningful here?
[...] If you start at a Ruins & Lairs site, one of your starting stage resource cards may be
a Hidden Haven played on your starting site.
Does it exclude Bad Company or other Stage Card?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”