CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
Locked
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:16 am

Official Rulings Digest #111 wrote:1) The question has arisen whether the previous understanding of the interaction of Marvels Told & Voices of Malice with The Witch-King of Angmar is correct. In light of digest 110's ruling on the interaction of nazgul events and certain event-cancelers, we are making the following ruling:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Witch-King is tapped in response to the play of Marvels Told or Voices of Malice, then it will resolve before MT/VoM and thus be unaffected by them. If, by contrast, MT/VoM is played in response to the tapping of the Witch-King, then MT/VoM will resolve first, and discard (and thereby cancel, since it has not resolved yet) the event.

Note that Ancient Secrets does not work in the same way because it can only target permanent events.
Underline mine.

It is true that unlike other Nazgûls tapped the Witch-King of Angmar does not become short-event, but long-event. However it is not yet enough to target it with Marvels Told.
This diference merely removes one issue. Second issue is that tapped the Witch-King of Angmar is just declared Long-Event and Marvels Told, unlike Twilight, cannot target unresolved cards, declared in the same chain of effects.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by miguel » Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:06 am

The ruling which your quoted ruling refers to is this (relevant portion underlined):
CoE Digest #110 wrote:(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).
Based on this, the Nazgul event is not "played" when tapped, but already on the table and in play. That's why MT/VoM is able to target and discard a tapped Witch-king.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:49 pm

Thanks. Now finally I understand this justification, a subtle difference - "is declared, although not being played" - so "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
" has no effect on such card.

Anyway CoE Digest #110 is contradicting with:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Nazgûl wrote: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.


So it is not even question "whether a card may be considered played if it does not come from hand?".

CoE 111 is compliant with CoE 110, but CoE 110 is not compliant with CRF.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by miguel » Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:15 pm

I think you shouldn't read that CRF entry too literally. Nazgul-event targeting/timing was a mess, and the CoE rulings were necessary. The netrep team was fully aware of all the relevant CRF entries when the rulings were made. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:30 pm

The netrep team was fully aware of all the relevant CRF entries, but was not respecfull to them at all.
If so, it should not be a big effort to include phrase like 'I'm overturning "CRF, Ruling by Terms, Nazgûl"'.
Otherwise I see a little value in clarification/errata that is less clear than original, not-clarified/errated rule.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:10 pm

Besides I see dichotomy in such interpretation.

If to comes to the:
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.
then approach is: "don't take it literally" - a Nazgûl short(long)-event is being declared, but it is not being played.

If to comes to the:
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.
then approach is: "take it literally" - "When the play of a card is declared" cannot be applied to the card that is only being declared, but is not being played [and Nazgûl short(long)-event is example, according to the previous statement].
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:59 pm

To make things clear. If above dichotomy is OK, then only one thing that I would wish is clear statement "This ruling supersedes CRF, Rulings by Term, Nazgûl"*,
because CoE 110, "CRF, Rulings by Term, Nazgûl", and Annotation 1 cannot coexist if each of them would be taken serioulsly.

*) Or statement "Do not take "CRF, Rulings by Term, Nazgûl" too seriously :)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by miguel » Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:10 am

I'm afraid we can't overrule anything in the CRF without CoE's vote and approval. All I'm saying is that the CRF entry is poorly worded and should be read with a little interpretation (yes this is gray area, but when absolutely necessary we can go there).

"At this point, the Nazgûl is a short-event just as if had been played as such from your hand." Should IMO be read as: At this point, the Nazgûl is a short-event similarly as if had been played as such from your hand. With a too literal (just as = exactly as) interpretation the timing/targeting of the cards dealt with in the digests is a mess, and certainly that was never intended.

Personally I'm satisfied with the rulings made, and don't think there's too much to discuss about the matter. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: CoE 111: Marvels Told vs. The Witch-King of Angmar

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:43 am

Ok. If workaround for inability to make errata to the CRF is stating rulings contradicting with CRF and not naming them errata, then we just must live with such state of things.
(It is no sarcasm, just describing a state of things).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”