A Malady Without Healing

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

A Malady Without Healing

Post by the Jabberwock » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:52 am

I propose the following erratum be issued for this card (bold mine):

A MALADY WITHOUT HEALING
Magic. Shadow‐magic. Playable during the site phase on a non‐Ringwraith, non‐Wizard character at the same site as a shadow‐magic‐using character. Target character must make a corruption check modified by ‐1 followed by a body check (modified
by +1 if tapped). If target character is a hero and is eliminated by these checks, you receive his kill marshalling points. Unless the shadow-magic-user is a Ringwraith, he makes a corruption check modified by ‐5. May target an opponent's character.

The current status quo for this card as actually played by the community is in agreement with my suggested erratum (ie. it is widely accepted to allow play of this card on your opponent's characters).

The current strict rules interpretation, however, does not permit this card to target an opponent's character due to the rule which states that your resources may not target an opponent's characters or resources. While Malady suggests that it overrides this rule, it is not explicitly so stated.

It is without doubt that ICE intended for this card to be able to target opponent's characters as evidenced from the following ICE Rulings Digest. In ICE Ruling Digest 582, the following question was asked and the answer given by Van Norton as posted below:

"2. If my opponent plays A Malady Without Healing against me, can I respond to the corruption check with A Friend or Three (or any other resource) despite the fact that it is not my resource turn?

No. You may only play resources during your turn."


Clearly, the assumption was that Malady could be played on opponent's characters, and if that was not the case, then Van would have simply amended his answer to state that Malady may not be played on an opponent, and thus the question proposed is irrelevant.

Further discussion on this topic can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2739&hilit=target+ ... +resources

rezwits
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by rezwits » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:04 pm

Aye
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:48 pm

Sure, a no-brainer.
Though the consensus is such that a CoEOE (Council of Elrond Officil Erratum:-)) is hardly needed. There have been major GO tournaments where nobody objected to Malady decks.

On another note, though, about procedure, I thought we would discuss in the ROC which cards/issues would be up for an erratum. Or is this it? This proposal is very elaborate, hence the confusion.

And yet another note, perhaps it should include a broader perspective, 'resources playable on/or affecting opponent's resource or site', such as Spies Feared?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2425
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:50 pm

A card-by-card basis is a better approach, IMO. The whole problem is that blanket rules are insufficient to cover ICE's highly variable wording.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by the Jabberwock » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:21 am

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:48 pm
Sure, a no-brainer.
Though the consensus is such that a CoEOE (Council of Elrond Officil Erratum:-)) is hardly needed. There have been major GO tournaments where nobody objected to Malady decks.
Part of my agenda in cleaning up the rules is to provide clear answers for currently unclear situations. A player comes to our forum and asks "Can I play A Malady Without Healing on my opponent's character? He gets 2 answers: one saying that the rules don't allow this, and the second saying that everybody does it anyways. That is confusing.
All rules which do not agree with how the masses play a particular card or situation will need to eventually be clarified, one way or the other.

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:48 pm
On another note, though, about procedure, I thought we would discuss in the ROC which cards/issues would be up for an erratum. Or is this it? This proposal is very elaborate, hence the confusion.
To clarify: this sub-forum is to compile all rules erratum/clarifications suggested by members of the community to be included in the next Annual Rules Vote ballot. Any community member (as well as any Council member) is free to create a thread making a suggestion. Which is what I have done with this thread.
This is not to be confused with my role as part of the ROC, which is a completely separate function. When the time comes, the ROC will jointly review all of the threads in this sub-forum and determine which ones to include for the upcoming Annual Rules Vote.
Again, all members of the community (and Council) are encouraged to submit recommendations in this forum for review that they feel passionate about.
Yes, my proposal is a bit detailed, but it is simply to provide as much information up front to others in advance, because I already had that information on hand. Others who submit a proposal are not required to include so many details, however they are encouraged to include whatever information they are aware of and have easy access to. Sorry about the confusion.

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:48 pm
And yet another note, perhaps it should include a broader perspective, 'resources playable on/or affecting opponent's resource or site', such as Spies Feared?
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:50 pm
A card-by-card basis is a better approach, IMO. The whole problem is that blanket rules are insufficient to cover ICE's highly variable wording.
I tend to agree with Bandobras on this point. IMO, it is probably more straight forward to address each card individually. If we make a blanket rule, then perhaps it will create additional unintended consequences on cards we hadn't thought about or lead to additional confusion interpreting the new rule in unfamiliar situations. If Spies Feared needs a clarification, I would suggest that be submitted independently.

Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: A Malady Without Healing

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:44 am

Yes of course 1 CoEOE per card is better, but as you say, if this section is for compiling proposals, issues and suggestions, then add Spies Feared to that list. It's in a similar category.

The downside to such a detailed proposal here is that is gives the impression it is a final version, and that it is voting time. But ok, I applaude the thorough and accurate approach.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Post Reply

Return to “Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”