CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

All discussion of candidate rules for errata; open to non-members.
Post Reply
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1492
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed May 31, 2017 7:24 pm

To get the ball rolling on the topic of what rules issues have arrisen recently that might require a NetRep Ruling or even a CoE Erratum, I'll list the most important ones here. We'll also ask the NetRep-team to contribute what they see as the major issues.

I'll be editing this post as we proceed. Please feel free to post your suggestions.


MELE Rules that do not apply to FW: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2720
issue coined, potentially game-changing consequences, as of yet unclear.

One Ring strike cancellation: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2794
issue mostly thematic, might need a ruling if deemed important enough (or even CoE Erratum).

How many on-guard cards can be revealed: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2876
issue coined, potentially game-changing consequences. It seems actually clear, but also goes against current common practise.

Healing Herbs: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... 6&start=15
issue coined, as of yet unclear, might need a ruling (or even CoE Erratum).

Cannot be duplicated exploit: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2775
issue coined, as of yet unclear. If so, might need a ruling.

Different manifestations during Draft: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2841
issue seems clear, is not big in effect, but might need a ruling.

Hazard limit: During opponent's m/h phase, the number of hazard cards that you may play on one of your opponent's companies is that company's hazard limit. http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... 11&p=23445
This rules vagary has had no real game-changing consequences so far only because everybody has ignored it. Might require CoE Erratum: play against, not play on a company.

Declaring movement to a site in play:
http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2938
issue seems clear, many people (including me) is/was playing it wrong, might need a ruling

Meaning of moving during organization phase: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2937
issue coined, as of yet unclear. If so, might need a ruling

Freeze the flesh: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2916
issue coined, as of yet unclear. Card doesn't work as written, needs errata

Limited site use for FW companies?: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =12&t=2934
and http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2932

Open to the Summons: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2957
Needs clarification that it allows one to start the game with an agent character in the starting company.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 7:56 pm

Thanks for getting the ball rolling with this beast of a project Thorsten! I also think that once the new web page and forum is up and running, we need to open this discussion up to the whole community and allow everyone to submit suggestions for rules clarifications and errata that needs to be looked at.

Here are a couple off the top of my head that I would like to see cleared up. I will post more after I have an opportunity to do some digging. Sorry, I don't have links at the moment, but will try to find them later.

A Chance Meeting & We Have Come to Kill: Can these be used to bring in a character during any phase while at a site, or only during the organization phase? I think it is commonly played as being allowed at any time (I believe the Spanish community plays it this way, Marc and Jose-san can correct me if I'm wrong); however, I'm not sure which interpretation is the most in tune with the rules, and which interpretation is the most beneficial and enjoyable for game play.

A Malady Without Healing: It is commonly allowed to use this card to target an opponent's character. This seems like common sense and very logical. The card itself states "non-Wizard" and "if target character is a hero" which (to me at least) clearly shows the intended design of this card is to be able to target your opponent. However, there is a rule about not being able to target your opponent's characters with your own resources, so an argument has been made to not allow this use for this card. I feel it needs a clarification one way or the other.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 7:58 pm

On Friday, April 14, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:Here's the Hazard Limit discussion:

http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... 11&p=23445

@Jabberwock: The last I heard was that one of the player guides/companions that ICE published mentioned that Chance Meeting could be used outside the organization phase. Were it not for that, the rules are actually pretty strongly (though not incontrovertibly) against it, but an ICE publication can be considered a good indication of ICE intent.

As for Malady, being able to play it on opponent's characters is indeed a violation of rules with no justification, and the Akhorakill deck is pretty broken. However, since everybody has always played it that way, nobody has enforced the proper interpretation. The card is useful for getting rid of a character you don't want in your company. The phrase about killing a hero has validity for FWs, and Dark Minions is sufficient to show that ICE released content with future expansions in mind.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 7:59 pm

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Jose-san wrote:
Jose-san wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote: A Chance Meeting & We Have Come to Kill: Can these be used to bring in a character during any phase while at a site, or only during the organization phase? I think it is commonly played as being allowed at any time (I believe the Spanish community plays it this way, Marc and Jose-san can correct me if I'm wrong); however, I'm not sure which interpretation is the most in tune with the rules, and which interpretation is the most beneficial and enjoyable for game play.
To the best of my knowledge it's played that way everywhere. I think to remember that the reasoning behind that interpretation is that nowhere in the rules is explicitly stated that you can't bring characters into play out of the organization phase, but I don't want to open that can of worms again xD.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 8:00 pm

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:That's actually a common debate of rules interpretation throughout games generally: the "It doesn't say I can't!" philosophy vs. "Does it say that you can?"

P.S. The rules actually outline two ways to bring characters into play: through the organization phase, with home site restrictions, or in the site phase, as the result of an influence attempt. If there are other methods, we don't know what the procedure is. The actual issue is whether Chance Meeting/WHCtK *enable* character play or *modify* character play. As mentioned, there's indications in supplemental material that the former is what they meant to be the case, though my hunch is if they saw how it's used today, they would turn to the latter regardless of their original intent.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 8:01 pm

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Jose-san wrote:
Jose-san wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:The actual issue is whether Chance Meeting/WHCtK *enable* character play or *modify* character play. As mentioned, there's indications in supplemental material that the former is what they meant to be the case, though my hunch is if they saw how it's used today, they would turn to the latter regardless of their original intent.
Well, it was already played that way back in ICE days. I have a magazine with an article about the second world championship and it cites WHCTK already being played during the site phase. I remember playing on tournaments while the game was still being published and feeling outraged because of this ruling xD

Does anybody know when this was wrote?
Ruling Digest 585
2.) A Chance Meeting
May I use this card to bring my wizard in play ? And what will be the amount of his mind ? May I use ACM at any time during my turn (during movement hazard phase to assign the new character a strike; will this increase the number of hazards) ? May I play a second character with ACM during organisation phase ?
No, you can't use A Chance Meeting to bring in Wizards. You can only play A Chance Meeting when you are _at_ a site, normally, the Untap, Organization, Site and End of Turn phases.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 8:02 pm

On Monday, April 17, 2017, user Logain wrote:
Logain wrote:Theme of the game is to travel, have opponent play hazards to simulate encounters, then play some marshalling points during the site phase if company is not weary & wounded from said travel.

To me squatting, heavy roadblock (one that bloks opponent several turns and tap his sites), replacing normal creatures by detainment in one's hazard deck to avoid giving kill points away, and most untapping mechanisms during the site phase (Cram, WHCTK / A chance meeting) all go against that said theme of the game.

I know, going back on track theme wise would be a big change ruleswise (or in adding some meta cards in the non DC sets), but i still wanted to have my opinion appear on this page ^^
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 8:03 pm

On Monday, April 17, user Jose-san wrote:
Jose-san wrote:Other topics:

Declaring movement to a site in play: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2938
issue seems clear, many people (including me) is/was playing it wrong, might need a ruling

Meaning of moving during organization phase: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2937
issue coined, as of yet unclear. If so, might need a ruling

Freeze the flesh: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2916
issue coined, as of yet unclear. Card doesn't work as written, needs errata
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 8:04 pm

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, user the Jabberwock wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote:Open to the Summons: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2957

Needs clarification that it allows one to start the game with an agent character in the starting company.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 8:05 pm

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, user Shapeshifter wrote:
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:59 am

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 7:24 pm
How many on-guard cards can be revealed: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =16&t=2876
issue coined, potentially game-changing consequences. It seems actually clear, but also goes against current common practise.
For precision, it should be "How many on-guard cards can be played." That is what the rule defines.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

rezwits
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by rezwits » Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:26 am

Yeah well the link is broken, and from my reading and learning, the answer is ONE.

For multi-player I would say if the 1st Hazard Opponent (player to the left) has declined an on-guard card, then the next hazard player has the option to play hazards and then an on-guard or decline, etc continue...

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

Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:40 pm

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2876

There's the new link; the issue is that the maximum total on-guard cards that can be played during an opponent's movement/hazard phase is equal to the number of their companies. You don't get to play extra on-guards if one of your opponent's companies moves multiple times in a single movement/hazard phase.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

rezwits
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by rezwits » Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:52 pm

Well yeah, 1 per company, but you can't play two on-guard at the same site, during different Movement/Hazard phases (i.e. during each companies), and then put 2 on-guard for 1 site. At least I don't think you can...

Unless you have two companies meeting at the same site, but then each on-guard is for each company, correct?

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

Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: CoE discussion; Rulings and/or CoE Erratum

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:00 pm

Right. The main thing is that the hazard player doesn't get to play one per company's movement/hazard phase, which makes movement enhancers stronger.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”