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

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:08 pm "There is no reason" does not mean "this is illegal".
That was not my conclusion. I never said that the play is illegal because there is no reason to declare a 2nd copy of Minions Stir.
My conclusion was that because a hazard limit increasing effect was mentioned in the same chain of effects, that means that there was not sufficient hazard limit without that effect. I said:
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:57 pm Given that the scenario includes tapping of Power Built By Waiting to increase the hazard limit, it's clear that there is no further hazard limit to play the second copy of Minions Stir. Therefore, the answer is NO, the chain is not legal because the copy of Minions Stir may not be declared before the hazard limit increase effect of Power Built by Waiting.
-----
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:08 pm There may be a reason. If something will make Marvels Told fizzled, there may be two Minions Stir in play!
This is not how the game works. The hazard player is not just blindingly playing cards. The player would know whether they can negate Marvels Told in the same chain of effects and so they would not declare a second copy of Minions Stir. Moreover they cannot attempt to play the 2nd copy of Minions Stir for no effect (it cannot be duplicated).
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:08 pm And tapping Power Built by Waiting in response to Marvels Told may either provoke an opponent to play another Marvels Told/similar card/similar action, or may prevent the opponent from doing so (in next chain of effects), if he would respond with Dark Tryst and got another copy of Marvels Told.
It would not provoke an opponent that understands the timing rules. Given the scenario presented (since you didn't mention another scenario), it would not be legal to declare a second copy of Marvels Told targeting Minions Stir since it would be played for no effect. A second copy could only be declared in response to an effect that would negate the earlier declared copy of Marvels Told.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If Cannot be duplicated card is targeted for removal, its second copy can be played. And even if first copy will be finally removed from active play, at some point there are two copies of such card in play. Rules do not provide any additional instructions regarding what to do if removing action will not succeed.

Player only rarely is certain about what its opponent can/cannot declare in response. Declaring an action that increases HL as its main effect may be a bluff that suggests that hazard player will need more of HL in current M/H phase. There is nothing in discussed scenario, that would allow to assume that tapping of Power Built by Waiting is done for purpose of other actions declared in the same chain of effects (obviously such action has not effect that increases HL until successfully resolved). The scenario does not provide any information about available HL.
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:06 pm It would not provoke an opponent that understands the timing rules. Given the scenario presented (since you didn't mention another scenario), it would not be legal to declare a second copy of Marvels Told targeting Minions Stir since it would be played for no effect. A second copy could only be declared in response to an effect that would negate the earlier declared copy of Marvels Told.
1st copy of Marvels Told may be played of Minions Stir (already in play),
2nd copy of Marvels Told may be played on (tapped or untapped) Power Built by Waiting.

Simple?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

But it's not a bluff. A bluff implies that something can happen. In your scenario the "bluff" makes no difference if the players understand the rules.

And the rules on Legal Play of Cards always apply. You cannot negate the play of your own card just to discard it for no effect.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Player may want to tap Power Built by Waiting just because he is stupid. It does not matter, if he can.
His opponent may play Smoke Rings in response, even if he could do it in next chain of effects.
Both actions do not require an excuse.

Bluff is when e.g. player takes an action that suggests that he needs more of HL (to be used in next chain of effects), while he does not need it actually.

Seems like you are assuming that all actions in the scenario are relevant to the one described chain of effects. E.g. that Power Built by Waiting is being tapped because player needs more of HL to be used in current chain of effects (that would not work, of course). Or that he plays second copy of Minions Stir counting on different effect than that that could be achieved if he would play Minions Stir in next chain, when first copy is discarded by Marvels Told. There may be a different effect only if Marvels Told on Minions Stir will fizzle (e.g. in result of Call of Home on target and enacting sage).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 6:53 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #61

How do Unabated and Tidings interact?
I would assume that placing Malice on the site, followed by Tidings
would create an attack like this:
Dragon 1@13 becomes 2@14, which then becomes an attack at 2@14. This is
fairly basic, but now for the fun part.
If in this situation the moving player's company responds with an attack
canceler
(Crept or whatever), this cancels that particular attack,
right? The attack isn't an the auto attack, its just a non-hazard
creature attack with no special characteristics. Or does it have the
added characteristic that the first cancelation just knocks it back down
to 1@13? In either case, the original auto attack is still effected by
Malice because Malice proper has not been canceled (and can't be until
the site phase), right?

*** 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 incorrect. Tidings of Bold Spies does NOT duplicate all effects of Unabated in Malice, it only duplicates the attack and modifications to the attack.

Unabated in Malice has two separate effects, one of which is a modification to the attack and the other which modifies attack-cancellation effects.
  1. (Modification to the attack) The attack receives +1 strike, +1 prowess, and -2 body.
  2. (Modification to an attack-cancellation effect) The first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the effects of this card.
If the player cancels an attack of Tidings of Bold Spies which is a duplicate of an automatic-attack upon which Unabated in Malice has been played, the attack of Tidings is canceled and the effect of Unabated in Malice remains in play for the automatic-attack.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:45 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #59
--------
One played Eyes of Mandos when his deck had ONLY ONE CARD in it. What
happesn?
*** The one card is drawn, it is put into that person's hand, and Eyes
of Mandos is discarded. After Eyes of Mandos is resolved and discarded,
the deck is considered exhausted.
This ruling is wrong. Eyes of Mandos has these effects which are resolved in order:
  1. "Reveal up to 8 cards from the top of your play deck"
  2. "Choose one to put into your hand"
  3. "shuffle the remaining ones into your play deck"
The deck is "exhausted" after effect (2) is resolved, causing the last card to be drawn, before it is time to resolve effect (3).

This is because of the rules on Exhausting on MELE p. 87 and 89:
  • Exhausting a Play Deck: When you draw the final card from your play deck into your hand. Immediately when the card is drawn, your discard pile becomes your new play deck"
  • Action: ... Meeting active conditions and exhausting a play deck are not actions--they are declared and resolve immediately.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:49 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #58

My Alatar is controlling Elrond at Rivendell, and then teleports to
another company. If there is not enough free general influence to
control him, then I think the influence situation does not need to be
resolved until my next organisation phase. I assume my free general
influnce is now zero for the purposes of cards such as Call of Home/the
Sea. In my next organisation phase there is still not enough influence
to control Elrond.
a) Is he discarded or returned to hand?
b) Can he bring in a small mind character as a follower first?

*** Regarding your assumptions: They are all correct except that
Elrond does not count against your GI until your next organization
phase. Regarding a): You must discard characters to get your used GI
at 20 or less, Elrond need not go, necessarily. Regarding b): If he
does bring in a character, it is required to go back to your hand, per
the CRF, before you start discarding characters to resolve your
influence issues
.
This part regarding (b) is wrong. The rules allow you to either play a character or discard a character. If all of your characters are controlled, you may play a character even if you do not have influence to control them. However, you may not play a character if you do not have sufficient influence to control all of your existing characters. Instead, you MUST discard a character.

You cannot play a new character, return them to your hand, and then discard characters if you must already discard characters (as asserted in the CoE ruling).

Here is the rule:
MELE wrote:DISCARDING CHARACTERS
Instead of bringing a new character into play during your organization
phase, you may discard a character that is at a Darkhaven or
at his home site. Your Ringwraith may not be discarded.
You must lake this action when you are forced to discard a
character due to a lack of available influence
. In this case, the
character(s) need not be at a Darkhaven.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

From: "Chad Martin" <chad@th...>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:49 AM
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #58

Re: No Way Forward
can companies attempt to move illegally in the face of these cards (i.e.
more regions than allowed) in the hope of drawing something to trash the
hazard, or are they automatically prohibited from attempting such movement?
*** They are prohibited from attempting the movement.
This question and answer are both confused. I think they are confused because they are using maps and forgot about region cards.

No Way Forward states: The number of region cards that may be played by a moving company using region movement is reduced by one (two if Doors of Night is in play) to a minimum of two. This card is effective during each player's organization phase.
The rules state: To use region movement, play a new site card (face down) and a series of up to four regions (face down) that connect the company’s current site with the new site (i.e., the company moves).
CoL states: an appropriate map of the regions of MECCG can be used to depict region movement
The CRF states: Maps of the regions of MECCG may be used in place of region cards in Council of Lórien tournaments. If two or more companies move on the same turn, then each company does not have to determine the site path to its new site until the beginning of it's movement/hazard phase.

The map merely "depicts" region movement. While the player does not need to depict the region connections until the start of the M/H phase, they cannot somehow depict more regions as their site path than they were allowed during the organization phase.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 3:54 am Unabated in Malice has two separate effects, one of which is a modification to the attack and the other which modifies attack-cancellation effects.
(Modification to the attack) The attack receives +1 strike, +1 prowess, and -2 body.
(Modification to an attack-cancellation effect) The first attempt to cancel this attack instead cancels the effects of this card.
If the player cancels an attack of Tidings of Bold Spies which is a duplicate of an automatic-attack upon which Unabated in Malice has been played, the attack of Tidings is canceled and the effect of Unabated in Malice remains in play for the automatic-attack.
The same could be said about "cannot be canceled" effect of Forewarned is Forewarned.
This is an feature of an attack like "attacker chooses defending characters".
Added or normal, they should stay with copy of the attack.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:33 am This is an feature of an attack like "attacker chooses defending characters".
Added or normal, they should stay with copy of the attack.
The effect is not part of the attack and so it does not stay with the attack. Whether or how the attack may be canceled is not a "feature" of the attack itself. It is a completely separate effect, not a modification to the attack. "Cannot be cancelled" may be a "feature" of the creature or effect that created the attack, but the only features of an attack itself are strikes, prowess, and type:
MELE wrote:Combat consists of one or more attacks that must be resolved one at a time. An attack consists of one or more strikes
. . .
Attack: An action against a company that lists a number of strikes and prowess. Most attacks are either hazard creature attacks or automatic-attacks, though certain cards cause attacks which are neither of these. Most attacks are further described with a creature type though they do not have to be. An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects.
----------
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:33 am The same could be said about "cannot be canceled" effect of Forewarned is Forewarned.
You're analogy is off base. Unabated in Malice has a targeted effect while Forewarned is Forearmed has a non-targeted effect that applies to both automatic-attacks and "any creature or other hazard." The timing of the duplication of the attack matters. If FiF modifies the automatic-attack before it is duplicated by Tidings, then the duplicated attack does not meet the conditions of FiF and so the "cannot be cancelled" effect does not apply to the duplicated attack. If Tidings duplicated the automatic attack and then FiF is played, then FiF may reduce the attacks of Tidings (an "other hazard") and make it so that the reduced attack cannot be canceled.

Unabated in Malice does not work this way because it is a targeted effect -- it only applies to the original automatic-attack.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I agree that Forewarned is Forearmed does not target an attack. But I do not see how it is relevant.
Either a number of the automatic-attacks to be copied are reduced or not; an isolated automatic-attack can or cannot be canceled.
If copy of normal automatic-attack at minion Old Forest cannot be canceled then I do not see a reason for which a copy isolated by FiF should not be an attack that cannot be canceled.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:26 pm I agree that Forewarned is Forearmed does not target an attack. But I do not see how it is relevant.
Forewarned is Forearmed is not relevant to the CoE Ruling on Unabated in Malice because Unabated in Malice only affects the targeted attack, not any duplicates, while FiF can apply to any attack that meets its conditions.

--------
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:26 pm I do not see a reason for which a copy isolated by FiF should not be an attack that cannot be canceled.
If the attack was not reduced by FiF then FiF does not make it "cannot be canceled." Here, the original automatic attack is the attack that is reduced by FiF, not the copy. The copy is merely based on the already reduced attack. The duplicated attack itself is not actually reduced by FiF and so it does not get the "cannot be canceled" effect of FiF.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:47 pm Forewarned is Forearmed is not relevant to the CoE Ruling on Unabated in Malice because Unabated in Malice only affects the targeted attack, not any duplicates, while FiF can apply to any attack that meets its conditions.
Forewarned is Forearmed may affect both original AAs and their/its duplicate.
If it will affect an original AAs, then it will not affect the copy. The copy will consist single attack.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:47 pm If the attack was not reduced by FiF then FiF does not make it "cannot be canceled." Here, the original automatic attack is the attack that is reduced by FiF, not the copy. The copy is merely based on the already reduced attack. The duplicated attack itself is not actually reduced by FiF and so it does not get the "cannot be canceled" effect of FiF.
How it is different from not coping of "cannot be canceled" of AA at minion Old Forest?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 6:39 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:47 pm Forewarned is Forearmed is not relevant to the CoE Ruling on Unabated in Malice because Unabated in Malice only affects the targeted attack, not any duplicates, while FiF can apply to any attack that meets its conditions.
Forewarned is Forearmed may affect both original AAs and their/its duplicate.
If it will affect an original AAs, then it will not affect the copy. The copy will consist single attack.
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."
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 6:39 pm How it is different from not coping of "cannot be canceled" of AA at minion Old Forest?
The "cannot be canceled" effect on the automatic-attack at minion Old Forest does not apply to duplicates of that AA.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

The cancellation modification effect of Unabated in Malice does not apply to the duplicated attack created by Tidings because it is not a modification to the attack.

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.
ICE wrote:Balrog of Moria puts an automatic attack on the site. Then Incite Minions puts another automatic attack on the site, copying the automatic attack put on the site by the Balrog of Moria. The marshalling points are given by the Balrog of Moria for defeating the automatic attack it puts there. The one put there by Incite Minions gets no marshalling points because Incite Minions says nothing about marshalling points. It copied the automatic attack put on the site, and the MPs were not put on the site by the Balrog.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”