A Universal Rules Document?

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:34 am

1.5: General CRF rules and Turn Sequence rulings incorporated. Up next: Rulings by specific terms! (Hello, expanded glossary!) :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:55 am

1.75: I've made it through "M" in the rulings by term section. Whew!
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:33 am

Version 2.0 is here! I'll upload it here and to the general rules forum. I will also keep the old version available so that those who want a casual game and not to bother with the complicated CRF stuff will have a ready source, too.

This document includes all non-card-specific CRF information, and also a rather sarcastic commentary on Hoarmurath Unleashed. I reserve the right to occasional sarcasm, as I've been working my butt off on this thing. :)
Attachments
Middle Earth Universal Rules Document 2.0.pdf
(340.29 KiB) Downloaded 114 times
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Bruce
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Rome, Italy

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bruce » Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:04 am

Great job so far!!! I took a quick read at the document but it seems really well done. With addition of pictures, this could be the ultimate document for rules reference.
Just a couple of suggestions for improvements:

1. Starting the introduction with a brief overview of MECCG and its background, to help beginners to get an intuitive grasp of the terms he'll encounter in the glossary and in the following sections. something like:

Middle Earth CCG is a Collectible Card Game (CCG) inspired by the works of JRR Tolkien. In order to play, each player needs his own deck and a pair of 6-sided dices. A map of the Middle Earth (divided into regions according with the game's rules) is recommended, too. The game represents the struggle between the forces of evil and the free peoples. The first are led by Sauron, the latter are supported by the five maiar (Alatar, Gandalf, Pallando, Radagast, Saruman) who were sent to fight Sauron etc.

In this game each player represents one of the parties involved in this struggle over the Middle Earth. Basically, there are three different alignments a player can choose to play:
- the forces of the free peoples, also knokn as the "Hero" alignment
- the forces of evil, also known as "Minion" alignment
- a renegade version of one of the five maiar, who abandoned his mission and chose to pursue his own goals, this is known as the "Fallen Wizard" alignment
(see the glossary section for more details)

The game is designed for two players, even though there is the chance to play multiplayer games. Each player controls characters (each one represented by a card) divided into one or more companies moving through the Middle Earth from a place to another. The game is divided in turns: during his own turn, a player tries to bring into play resources which can be useful in the struggle over Middle Earth. These resources can be certain items (powerful weapons, magic rings, legendary artifacts...) retrieved in some places, or they can be armed factions to be persuaded to join the war on your side, or they can be allies who can support you in your mission, and so on. The opponent tries to prevent the other player from successfully playing resources by means of playing hazards. The hazard cards represent dangerous creatures and/or events which may be enconutered by the characters wandering through the Middle Earth. Each player starts the game with certain characters into play. During the game, other characters could be brought into play (one of them representing the player's avatar, i.e. the player himself). As a result of the game mechanics, characters can be wounded, they can be healed, they can die, or they can be corrupted and thus abandon (temporarily or definitively) their mission.
(see the glossary and the player turn summary for more details)

Each card in the game represents a character, a places, an item, or an event described in the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, and other works by JRR Tolkien.
The different type of cards are:
- character cards
- resource cards (items, allies, factions, events)
- hazard cards
- site cards
[description of the cards and so on]

The game was published by Iron Crown Enterprises between 1995 and 1998. The first released set was Middle Earth the Wizards (METW) in 1995, the last one was Middle Earth the Balrob (MEBA) in 1998. Now the game is (unfortunately) no longer under production. Despite this, there is still a wide community of players all over the world. See http://www.councilofelrond.org if you want to know more (and join them).


Of course this is just a quick stub to give the idea. Anyway, the whole thing should be no longer than a couple of pages. I could work something more accurate if you want me to.

2. The Prisoners section could be placed after the "Combat As The Result of an Opposing Company (Company vs. Company Combat)" section, since Prisoners are usually taken as result of some form of combat. But this is a really minor thing.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:09 am

Hmm, I would keep the document as strictly to the point as possible, it's about rules, not advertisement/ attracting new players.
It's already huge, mind you. The point is to have a document easy to gloss and fall back on, not spend time reading. Or am I wrong in this?

In fact, I would skip the parts about the author as well as skip listing the used rules, or put that in some appendix at the end.

and I would not make the document too personal, for sure each has their style in writing, and it's a game, but I'd keep it more formal.

I'll come up with some less editorial remarks Ben, I know you abhore those, but you're pace is relentless. :wink:
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:23 pm

A compromise might be to put both "About the game" and "about the editor" as an appendix at the end. That way, it's there for those who want it but won't really interfere with the basic document.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by thorondor » Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:42 pm

i wouldnt mind to have aneven bigger introduction to the game. but i would like to use it for something else. as soon as the rules file is completed, wi will take up the starter-deck project again and write some simplified rules. too man rules at the beginning is causing frustration rather than motivation.
i really think this is something the game needs, cause its quite a task for newbies nowadays to start with MECCG.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Jose-san » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:25 am

Wow, what a great work Ben. I think this should be the top one CoE's priority. I'm reading it and I will post my comments.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Jose-san » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:26 am

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:Hmm, I would keep the document as strictly to the point as possible, it's about rules, not advertisement/ attracting new players.
It's already huge, mind you. The point is to have a document easy to gloss and fall back on, not spend time reading. Or am I wrong in this?

In fact, I would skip the parts about the author as well as skip listing the used rules, or put that in some appendix at the end.

and I would not make the document too personal, for sure each has their style in writing, and it's a game, but I'd keep it more formal.

I'll come up with some less editorial remarks Ben, I know you abhore those, but you're pace is relentless. :wink:
Totally agree.

Bruce
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Rome, Italy

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bruce » Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:55 am

thorondor wrote:i wouldnt mind to have aneven bigger introduction to the game. but i would like to use it for something else. as soon as the rules file is completed, wi will take up the starter-deck project again and write some simplified rules. too man rules at the beginning is causing frustration rather than motivation.
i really think this is something the game needs, cause its quite a task for newbies nowadays to start with MECCG.
I took the word "universal" way too literally: :) I thought this document was called "universal" both for encompassing the whole corpus of rules from all sources, and for being targeted to all MECCG players. I thought it could be a sort of "2-levels" document: a first part aimed at new players to get them into the essential game rules and mechanics, and a second part aimed at more experienced players.

But I guess Wolfgang is right: it's better if this URD is conceived as solely aimed at already introduced players with an overall knowledge of the rules who need further rules insights, and a separated (much smaller) simplified introductory document is made for the newbies.

Then the introductory part I had outlined is not necessary for the URD: the people who are meant to read this document already know what MECCG is. ;)

Just a couple of mistakes I spotted in the document:
1. The document includes the death of the opponent's avatar as a way of winning the game. Wasn't that rule abolished?
2. It is said that RWs can move from a surface site of an underdeep to the corresponding underdeep. Aren't they prevented from taking underdeep movement in any case?

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:21 pm

1) If you can find me the source for the -5 MP Avatar death rule, I'll incorporate it; I must have missed it.

2) No. Ringwraiths are only forbidden from Region movement and from moving from non-Darkhaven to non-Darkhaven sites. Under-deeps movement from a surface Darkhaven site is perfectly valid so long as the Ringwraith is in a mode; otherwise, they cannot move to non-Darkhaven sites.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Shapeshifter » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:04 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:1) If you can find me the source for the -5 MP Avatar death rule, I'll incorporate it; I must have missed it.
Council of Lorien Tournament Policy Number 3 wrote:Victory Conditions-The elimination of a player's Wizard or Ringwraith no longer ends the game. The eliminated Wizard/Ringwraith should be placed in the player's out-of-play pile. It provides -5 marshalling points, subtracted off the player's final marshalling point total at the End-of-Game. The -5 also comes off the player's "raw" total for the purposes of calling the End-of-Game. A player whose Wizard or Ringwraith has been eliminated may not reveal another Wizard or Ringwraith. This includes all Wizards who fail corruption checks.
Bandobras Took wrote:2) No. Ringwraiths are only forbidden from Region movement and from moving from non-Darkhaven to non-Darkhaven sites. Under-deeps movement from a surface Darkhaven site is perfectly valid so long as the Ringwraith is in a mode; otherwise, they cannot move to non-Darkhaven sites.
CRF wrote:Ringwraiths may not move from a non-Darkhaven site to another non- Darkhaven site unless they are using Dwar Unleashed. This means a Ringwraith may not move to Under-deeps sites that do not have a Darkhaven for a surface site.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:02 pm

Okay, I'll incorporate the -5 thing with its own special citation. :)

I'm wondering why you quoted the CRF ruling on RW movement; it agrees with what I said.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:35 pm

There was a section of the CRF I missed, the -5 rule is in there as well as several others. I'll be incorporating them as well as the first few CoE digests today.

I'm putting a 2.1 with the missing CRF info on the thread in the rules forum.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: A Universal Rules Document?

Post by Shapeshifter » Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:49 am

Bandobras Took wrote:I'm wondering why you quoted the CRF ruling on RW movement; it agrees with what I said.
It was not meant to object, I just wanted to quote the official text. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”