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

[CDavis7M]

4)
Scenario: I declare hazard play and the hazard limit is checked. My opponent cancels the hazard
before it resolves.
Question: Is the hazard limit reduced or not? I know the hazard limit is checked on declaration
and resolution, but when is the hazard limit actually reduced by the play of a hazard?
---------------------------------------------------
Ok, common misconception: Playing hazards reduces the hazard limit. This does not happen.
Hazard limit is just a value you compare the number of hazards played to.
Now for example if you play Doors of Night on a company with HL of 3, and I Twilight it, that
DoN still counts as a hazard played. Therefore the company's HL is still 3, but you have played 1
hazard so you can play (3-1=) 2 more.

Close, but incorrect terminology caused by failure to cite the rules. DoN is not "played" because "playing a card" is the process (e.g., declared and resolved in a chain of effects) of bringing the card into play, which did not happen here (DoN was never brought into play).

The checks against the Hazard Limit do not consider played hazards, but declared hazards.

At declaration there must be less hazards already declared than the hazard limit. At resolution there must be no more hazards declared than the hazard limit.

In the Example, DoN was still declared, and so it still counts when checking the Hazard Limit.

[CDavis7M]

3)
Do the guidelines for wounding/eliminating agents apply to detainment attacks from agents? Will
Gothmog get tired of Golodhros pestering him and simply rip him a new one?
---------------------------------------------------
Detainment attacks can't be defeated, so all Gothmog can really do is tell Golodhros to "shove
it".

This is wrong. Gothmog can do more than tell Golodhros to "shove it," he can wound him. It's true that detainment attacks cannot be defeated but it's also true that strikes of detainment attacks can fail.

Putting aside Agents for now, look at the rules on resolving Combat and Detainment attacks.

(MELE p. 30)Resolving Strikes
Strikes are resolved one at a time as decided by the defending player. When you choose a strike to resolve, determine all of the factors affecting the strike before the roll is made (see "The Strike Sequence on page 33). To resolve a strike, the defender makes a roll (2D6) and adds his modified prowess:
• If this result is greater than the strike's prowess, the strike fails. Such a strike is defeated if its body attribute is "-" or if it has a body attribute and fails a body check.

(MELE, p. 31) a strike that fails is defeated if its body attribute is"- " or if it has a body attribute and fails a body check.

(MELE p.32) DEFEATING AN ATTACK
An attack by a hazard creature is defeated if it is not a detainment attack and if all of its strikes directed against (i .e., assigned to) a company are defeated.
A detainment attack from a creature is never defeated and the creatures card is always discarded after the attack is resolved.

Clearly a strike from a detainment attack can fail. But the detainment attack itself can never be defeated.

What about agents?

(MEDM p. 5) Resolving Combat With an Agent
When one of your agents attacks it is considered to be the attacker and it has one strike unless modified. Combat with an agent is handled like any other combat with the following exceptions:
...
*After the combat, the agent remains in play and it must be face-up and tapped or face-up and wounded

(CRF Agents) Rules Erratum: Agent attacks against minions are always detainment.
(CRF Agents) To wound an agent you only need to defeat the prowess of one strike. To eliminate an agent you must defeat the prowess and body for all strikes.

Agent combat against minion players are handled like any other detainment combat. If one of the agent's strike fails, then the agent is wounded. But the agent cannot be eliminated by a minion because detainment attacks are never defeated. The agent remains face-up and wounded.

[CDavis7M]

3 b)
Or, when it’s Ettenmoors and it returns to deck I lose all stages at this site and it isn’t a haven anymore - Deep Mines is still connected with this site or not?
---------------------------------------------------
If Ettenmoors became the surface site of a Deep Mines, it will remain as such as long as that Deep Mines is in play, regardless of Ettenmoor’s protected Wizardhaven status.

This was already discussed in the 2018 ARV, but this CoE ruling contradicts the ICE rulings and the Deep Mines card text.

Question 1: [re: getting stuck in the Deep Mines]
Firstly, I think the assumption that the surface site doesn't exist anymore is wrong. Which site is the surface site is set upon declaration of the move to the Deep Mines. If at that moment Ettenmoors is your protected Wizardhaven, Ettenmoors becomes the
surface site.

Answer 1: Except the surface site is *not* referenced to as 'the site you moved from,' it is references to as 'the protected Wizardhaven.' By my reading, that means you must return to a protected Wizardhaven. Also, if it is not the protected Wizardhaven, you have no way to reference which site is the surface site. Admittedly, even with a protected Wizardhaven you can have a couple possibilities to remember between, but if the site is no longer a Wizardhaven you have no marker at all.

Question 2: Returning to the Deep Mines thing, this means that you are always able to return to the Mines' surface site.

Answer 2: If it has one. By my reading, it no longer does.

[CDavis7M]

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

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

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

[CDavis7M]

(5) Joe Bisz asked: "Can Gothmog be placed on-guard then revealed at the minion Under-Leas?"

Only if the company faced an orc attack during the movement-hazard phase. As I'm sure you know, you cannot reveal an on guard card unless it was playable during the mh-phase.

This is clearly wrong. Minion Under-leas is a Shadow-hold. Gothmog can only be keyed to Dark-hold/domain.

The on-guard rules specifically state "if the on-guard card is a hazard creature keyed to the site." When Gothmog is played following an orc/troll attack, he is not keyed to the site.

[CDavis7M]

If my opponent reveals his fallen Gandalf first and he plays the same
one like me, I have to discard all fallen Gandalf specific resources and
I can´t play further fallen Gandalf specific resources.
*** This is incorrect. The first part above applies when your
Fallen-Wizard leaves play, but there is no requirement to discard any
cards when an opponent's Fallen-Wizard enters play.

(15) Joe Bisz asked: The CRF says: "If your opponent is playing the same Fallen-wizard as you, and he
reveals that Fallen-wizard first, discard any Fallen-wizard specific stage resources that you have in play."
Wim mentioned in the forums that "You may continue to play Fallen-wizard specific stage
resources afterwards." Is this correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.

These are incorrect. This might appear to be the case based on the White Hand rules alone, but ICE has ruled otherwise numerous times: you can only have or play wizard-specific resources if you actually ARE that Wizard. If the wizard dies or if your opponent is revealed as that same Wizard, then you are not that wizard and your wizard-specific cards are discarded and you cannot play anymore.

If your Fallen-wizard dies, you may not play cards specific to that Fallen-wizard, and you do not count as that Fallen-wizard for card effects such as Gatherer of Loyalties.

From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Ichabod)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 35
Date: 1998/01/27

>If you're playing a FW against another FW and he gets the FW out first, are
>you still considered to be that FW for the purposes of playing your stage
>resources? What if your wiz is eliminated? Heh, there needs to be a FW
>discarding card. Getting the same FW stinks.

In either case, all of your Fallen-wizard specific cards are discarded,
and you may not play any more.

------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien www.cstone.net/~ichabod/
Assistant Editor, ICE Me:CCG Official Netrep
"Home isa where you hanga your hat!" -Dr. Emilio Lizardo
-------- To email me, remove spamblock from the reply adress --------

From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 51
Date: 1998/04/19

>> All Wizard specific stage resources are discarded, and no more may
>> be played. Note that this assumes you are using the tournament rules
>> that the game does not end when the Wizard is killed or corrupted.
>>
>
>But what happens with conditionnal stage ressources such as Gatherer of
>Loyalties or An Untimely Brood ?

They stay around.

------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien Remove spamblock to reply by email
Assistant Editor, Iron Crown Enterprises Me:CCG Official Netrep
http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod/ Alternate Official Me:CCG Website
------- "We shall pick up an existence by its frogs" -Fort -------

From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 81
Date: 1998/05/10

>1) This is a bit of a weird one, but here it is: when your
>Fallen-Wizard gets eliminated, you have to discard all
>wizard-specific stage resources. One player found a loophole, and
>claimed that that doesn't mean you cannot then PLAY new
>wizard-specific stage resources. So, if your Wizard gets eliminated,
>it doesn't stop you from playing specific stage resources afterwards.
>I think this is absolutely silly, but I promised to ask , so: True
>or False?

Duh, false. You may not play Wizard specific resources if that
Wizard has been eliminated.

From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Craig Ichabod O'Brien)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 109
Date: 1998/07/16

> AFAIK when a Fallen-wizard leaves active play you have to discard
>every specific card already in play, but nothing prevents you from playing
>them again after that.
> So, if you play with the tournament rule "you only suffer -5 MP
>when your wizard/ringwraith dies" I think you could still play fw-specific
>card even if your fw is dead... the same could be for the balrog...


That is incorrect. If your Fallen-wizard dies you do not count as that
Fallen-wizard, and you may not play cards specific to that Fallen-wizard.

------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien Remove spamblock to reply by email
Assistant Editor, Iron Crown Enterprises Me:CCG Official Netrep
http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod/ Alternate Official Me:CCG Website
------- "We shall pick up an existence by its frogs" -Fort -------

[CDavis7M]

(13) Joe Bisz asked: Are cards that give a negative bonus, like a killed Frodo, worth 1 mp for FWs, or have
their negative ignored?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to CoE Digest 93: Cards that are worth negative marshalling points are worth 1 MP for Fallen Wizards, unless stage or Fallen Wizard cards modify this value. (e.g. Great Patron)

You get 1MP if your Frodo is eliminated? That is not supported by the White Hand rules. An eliminated Frodo is not worth 1MP to a Fallen-wizard. Instead, the eliminated Frodo doesn't give MP and the effect gives -2 MP.

White Hand:"Marshalling Points - Marshalling points for stage resource cards are handled normally (i.e., as printed on the card). However, all other marshalling point cards are only worth 1 marshalling point each to a Fallen-wizard (regardless of their printed value). These MPs can not be modified by a hero or minion resource event."

CRF on Fallen-wizards: "None of a Fallen-wizards MPs may be modified by non-stage resources."

It's true that cards that all marshalling point cards are worth 1MP to a Fallen-wizard. But an "effect" is not a "card." While Frodo is a marshalling point card, Frodo's effect of "-2 Marshaling points if eliminated" is an effect, not a card. Frodo's effect is a separate source of MP compared to the printed 2MP and it does not modify that 2MP. The FW MP rule doesn't apply. A Fallen-wizard gets -2MP from Frodo's effect when their Frodo is eliminated.

[CDavis7M]

My minion opponent plays Long Grievous Siege on his border-hold, Bree.
LGS reads "-5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the
border-hold." I move to my hero version of Bree, play Mischief in a
Mean Way to turn it into a haven and a Fallen-wizard site, and attempt
to play the Rangers. 2a) Does LGS still give me a -5 to playing the
Rangers? Or no, because it is no longer a border-hold?
*** There is no text on LGS that nullifies the effects of the card if
the site type changes. It was played successfully on a border-hold, so
its effects stay in play.

This ruling is incorrect and misleading . First of all, the CoE Ruling is incorrect because if it were possible to change the site-type then it would nullify the effect of LGS since LGS specifically refers to "the border-hold" and not "the site." However, there is no possibility of the "off to the side" site-type changing for Long Grievous Siege's effect as discussed below. Also, the ruling is misleading because there is a difference between "the border-hold" and the opponent's site which is a "version" of that border-hold. "Any version" covers situations where the site type changes.

Long Grievous Siege states "Place a border-hold from your location deck "off to the side" with this card... -5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the Border-hold."

"The border-hold" is the one that is placed "off to the side" with LGS. Since it is "off to the side" there is no possibility of any other card changing it's site type because "Any card placed off to the side absolutely cannot be targeted or otherwise affected by the game except by cards that specifically affect cards placed "off to the side."" Also, even if the opponent's Bree card has its site-type changed, it is still "any version of the border-hold" Bree card placed off to the side with LGS.

[CDavis7M]

In Digest #61, it was asked: How do Unabated and Tidings interact? I answered:
*** Given that Unabated in Malice is played and resolved on the automatic-attack in question when Tidings of Bold Spies resolves, then all effects of Unabated in Malice will be duplicated, per the text of Tidings of Bold Spies, including the cancellation clause of Unabated in Malice.
*** This ruling is correct. To further clarify, if Unabated in Malice is cancelled during the Tidings of Bold Spies attack, its full effects are still in play, and will be applied to the actual automatic attack during the site phase.

No it won't because Unabated in Malice states "the first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the effects of this card." It's not just that the effects on that particular attack are canceled, the effects of the entire card are canceled. There is no way for canceled effects to somehow apply to the automatic attack during the site phase--they are canceled.

There are actually 2 issues here, (A) which was the CoE's point, which I addressed, but also (B) that was not addressed, but which is actually the crux of the issue.

(A) If the effects of Unabated are canceled with respect to a duplicated attack, are those effects still applied to the original attack?
(B) Does the "cancellation clause of Unabated in Malice" even apply when the attack is duplicated?

Issue (A) was discussed above. To reiterate, the CoE ruling indicated that it was possible for the effect of Unabated to still apply to the original Automatic attack if the Unabated's effect was canceled for the duplicated attack created by Tidings. I think this is clearly wrong as discussed above because Unabated says "the effects of this card" meaning all effects of this card, where ever they are applied.

But looking closer at the card text, it's clear that issue (A) is moot. Tidings states "this card creates one or more attacks on the company, the total of which duplicates exactly (including modifications) all automatic-attacks at the site." And Unabated states "The attack receives +1 strike, +1 prowess, and -2 body. The first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the effects of this card. Cannot be duplicated on a given attack."

The +1 strike, +1 prowess, and -2 body are the only modifications that the attack receives from Unabated. The "cancel the effects of this card" effect is not a modification to the attack -- no attributes of the attack are changed. Instead, it is an on-going effect (which is to cancel Unabated's effects) that gets triggered using a passive condition merely involving the attack (the condition being that there is an attempt to cancel the attack). This is not a modification to the attack, it is just an effect relying on the attack as a condition.

This understanding of the rules is the reason for this ruling:

Incite Denizens
When copying an attack put on the site by another card, Incite Denizens will not copy any other effects of the card.

[CDavis7M]

The rules book only references creature attacks when explaining
defeating an attack.
*** Non-creature attacks are defeated in the same way that creature
attacks are defeated. Furthermore, detainment attacks can wound neither
the attacker nor the defender.

There is no support for this in the rules. There is a difference between defeating a strike (beating the prowess) and defeating an attack (beating the body check for all strikes). The rules on failed (and defeated) detainment and non-detainment strikes are the same. It is the rules on defeating attacks that are different for detainment and non-detainment attacks.

The rules states that a detainment attack cannot be defeated. The rules do not state that a strike of a detainment attack cannot fail or that it cannot be defeated. This matters for Agent attacks against minions, which are detainment. If a strike of an agent attack fails (its prowess is beaten), then the agent is wounded whether the attack was detainment or not. If all body checks for an agent's failed strikes are beaten, the agent is only defeated if the attack was not detainment -- because detainment attacks cannot be defeated and agent attacks use these same rules.

(MELE p.30_ Resolving Strikes
If this result is greater than the strike's prowess. the strike fails.
Such a strike is defeated if its body attribute is "-" or if it has a
body attribute and fails a body check.

--this same rule applies to detainment attacks.

(MELE p.32) DEFEATING AN ATTACK
An attack by a hazard creature is defeated if it is not a detainment
attack and if all of its strikes directed against (i .e., assigned to) a
company are defeated...

[CDavis7M]

Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #102
*** An exact duplicate of a dragon at home attack is still a dragon at home attack. This means that cards
like Exile of Solitude can be played on an at home attack generated by Tidings of Bold Spies.

This is not how Tidings works, or how duplication of attacks works.

Tidings of Bold Spies states: "This card creates one or more attacks on the company, the total of which duplicates exactly (including modifications) all automatic-attacks at the site." It duplicates the attacks.

At home Dragons state: "<site> has an additional automatic-attack: Dragon # strikes at Prowess/Body."

Tidings only duplicates the attack itself (Dragon attack of # strikes). Tidings does not duplicate and apply The Dragons expansion rules to the duplicated attacked ("Each of the nine unique Dragons (see above) has three different manifestations: ... At Home - In this manifestation a Dragon is considered to be resident in his lair.").

The duplicated attack created by Tidings is not a "strike of an at home manifestation of any unique Dragon" as in Exile of Solitude, it is merely a strike of a non-At-Home-manifestation attack that is a duplicate of an automatic attack created by an At Home manifestation.

Also:

From: ich...@cstone.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: [METW] Balrog Question
Date: 1996/08/13

>If you incite an At Home manifestation, do you have to defeat both
>attacks in order to become King under the Mountain?
>
No. First of all, King Under the Mountain merely states that you
must defeat "an" At-home manifestation, not all At-home maninfestations.
Second, I believe Incite Denizens merely copies the automatic attack
and not the rest of the card that put the attack their (if any).
Therefore the Incite attack is just a dragon attack, not an At-home
mainfestation.

[CDavis7M]

*** During the Free Council, your opponent can only reveal unique cards
that are providing you positive MPs in order to lower your MP total by
1. In other words, they cannot reveal a unique hazard agent you have in
play, nor can they reveal a copy of Elrond when you got your copy killed
and are losing MPs for it, etc.

There is nothing in the rules about "positive MP" and the Elrond example is misunderstanding how eliminated character MPs work. Furthermore, the CoE's made up rule screws up other situations. The CoE could have just quoted the rules as written, which are clear and specifically address the concerns being raised.

Finally, you may reveal any unique marshalling point cards in your hand that match unique cards your opponent has in play. Each such revealed card reduces your opponent's final M.P total by one.

Consider the situation where your opponent has Angmarim (1MP) in play with One Dear to You is played on Angmarin "-1 faction Marshaling points" such that Angmarim is not providing positive MPs. Well, you can still reveal your own copy of Angmarim to lower your opponents MP total by 1 because Angmarim is still a unique marshalling point card that your opponent has in play.

[CDavis7M]

Is the following ruling correct?
The Way is Shut: If you use Under-deep movement and your opponent plays The Way is Shut you can
respond with e.g. Marvels Told but due to the fact that you can only respond to cards which are already in
play (ie. declared and resolved - cancelling a creature is an exception) you will eventually be bounced back.
This ruling also applies to The Way is Shut and cancelling Secret Passage / Entrance.
Marvels Told would work if it were written "Tap a sage to cancel the ongoing effects of a hazard..."

*** No. When The Way is Shut is successfully played, the next chain of effects starts with the
declaraction of its effect on the current company. This can be responded to with a Marvel's Told, which
will resolve first, discarding The Way is Shut and cancelling its effect.

This is incorrect because The Way if Shut has two different effects with different timing.

(A) A company moving to or from an Under-deeps site must return its site of origin.
(B) Additionally, cancels the effects of Secret Passage and Secret Entrance. Cannot be duplicated.

Effect (A) has an action (return to origin, the action of removing the new site) that is triggered by a passive condition (the company is moving to/from an Under-deeps site).

However, effect (B) is an effect that is immediately implemented. There is no action to be triggered by passive conditions.

The effects of Secret Passive and Secret Entrance are canceled when The Way of Shut resolves, before it can be targeted by Marvels Told. But Marvels Told can be played in response to the triggered return to origin action.

[CDavis7M]

In August, Jamie Pollock said, regarding Narya:
I'm revisiting this card I'm afraid, so buckle your seatbelts.
He went on at length about how he thought the CRF entry on Narya and the corruption check it causes is
incorrect. I will not quote it here, but here's the official response:

*** The CRF entry on Narya is correct. You cannot tap to support Narya's cc because the effect of
tapping only occurs when the tapping resolves (and that only happens when the cc resolves). Additionally,
Narya cannot be played on Gandalf if he has orcs or trolls in his company because Narya (a hero
resource) targets the company.

The CRF entry on Narya is correct but the CoE's statement on Narya and orcs is incorrect. The Orc/Troll restrictions in MEWH are:

1. You may not play a hero resource permanent-event on a company with an Orc or Troll in it.
2. A hero resource may not target an Orc or Troll character (e.g., Orc and Troll characters may not use Block, Escape, etc.).
3. A hero resource that requires a character with a specific skill may not use an Ore or Troll charactei- to fulfill that requirement (e.g., Concealment, Many Turns and Doublings, etc.).
4. An Orc or Troll character may not tap to initiate an effect from a hero resource (e.g., Praise to Elbereth, Great Ship, etc.).
5. An Orc or Troll character may be the bearer of a hero item, but all bonuses and special abilities are ignored (all restrictions to movement
   and playability still apply).

The CoE ruling states " Narya (a hero resource) targets the company." This is incorrect. The MEWH restriction (1) on "companies" with orcs and trolls only applies to permanent-events, and Narya is a short-event. Furthermore, neither "Narya" (the action of playing Narya) nor any of the actions in Narya's card text target the company.

The action of playing Narya targets Gandalf. The actions giving bonuses to prowess, body, and DI each target Gandalf. And the effect of "immediately untap all unwounded characters in Gandalf's company" does not target the company because a "company" cannot be tapped or untapped.

Even restriction (2) does not apply here because it states "A hero resource may not target an Orc or Troll character" and the untapping effect of Narya is considered a non-targeting effect. While the untapping actions are "played out through" the Orc/Troll characters, these entities are not considered to be targeted because the effect states "all unwounded characters," instead of specifying the untapped entities by number -- "all" is not a specific number. This is like how Doors of Night's effect does not target ("all resource environment cards in play are immediately discarded").

Restrictions (3), (4), and (5) clearly don't apply.

So not only can you play Narya on Gandalf while he is in a company with orcs, giving Gandalf his bonuses, but you can also untap the orcs and trolls with Narya's effect.

----------

By the way, Narya was explained several times. It comes down to the fact that the Designers intended for resolution of supporting a corruption check to be delayed until the CC is made, as stated in the CRF: "The resolution of a character tapping to give +1 to a corruption check happens when the corruption check itself resolves." So the character will not still be tapped in support when the CC for Narya happens, thereby negating their support.

From: ich...@cstone.net (Ichabod)
Subject: [METW] New Netrep, New rulings
Date: 1996/11/07

To clear one thing up: the Corruption check on Narya.

No one can tap to aid Gandalf with the corruption check from Narya. This
is because of a rule which had been assumed but never stated. To wit:
tapping to aid a corruption check does not resolve in normal last in
first out order, its resolution is delayed until the corruption check
actually occurs.

How it works (or rather doesn't work) out with Narya is as follows:

0. Gandalf and Elrond untapping in a company with Frodo tapped.
1. Gandalf plays Narya.
2. Elrond taps to give +1 to the corruption check.
3. No other effects
4. Elrond would normally resolve now, but waits until the corruption
check.
5. Narya resolves, do things in order on card:
a) Gandalf recieves bonuses
b) Untap Frodo and Elrond.
(Note that Frodo cannot tap to aid the corruption check in the
middle of resolving Narya)
c) Gandalf makes corruption check. Elrond's tapping to aid is
cancelled because he is untapped [Annotation 5]

[CDavis7M]

Cards that are worth negative marshalling points are worth 1 MP for Fallen Wizards, unless stage or Fallen
Wizard cards modify this value.
A Merrier World and Alatar's kill MP effect do not affect killed Roused Dragons or MPs gained from
CvCC.

The MEWH rules state "Marshalling points for stage resource cards are handled normally (i.e., as printed on the card). However, all other marshalling point cards are only worth 1 marshalling point each to a Fallen-wizard (regardless of their printed value)." The term "only" has different meanings in different contexts. It could mean "this and nothing else" (which is the interpretation the CoE takes) or it could mean "merely this, and no more." If the term "only" were removed from the rule, then it would still have the interpretation that the CoE took (all MPs even negative are worth 1MP). So then, why add the word "only" if it did not change the meaning? Given that the context is almost exclusively reducing larger MP values to be worth "only 1 MP," the wording suggests that "only" means "merely, and no more" instead of "this and nothing else."

I'd read this rule as non-stage "marshaling point cards are merely worth 1 marshalling point and no more each to a Fallen-wizard."