[MECCG] CRF 9 Changes

22 views
Skip to first unread message

Ichabod

unread,
Dec 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/5/97
to

CRF 9 Changes

This update includes rulings through November 31, 1997; and digest 15 of
the mailing list.

Turn Sequence Rulings

Organization Phase

Playing Characters
If you play a Ringwraith at a non-Darkhaven site where there is a non-
Ringwraith company, one of the companies must move that turn. If both
companies are still there at the end of the movement/hazard phase, discard the
non-Ringwraith company. [Effective 11/17/97]

Movement/Hazard Phase

General
If both players have access to region movement, then neither player may be
stopped from using region movement. Access includes region cards or an
appropriate map.

Playing Hazards
For the purposes of interpreting hazards, no Darkhaven or Haven has a site
path except for Geann a-Lisch.

Site Phase

General
You may only play a free minor item after playing an ally, faction, or item
that taps the site.

Free Council
You may only call the Free Council if you have met the deck cycling and
marshalling point requirements, not if only your opponent has.

Rulings by Term

Character
Prowess modifications due to tapped and wounded status apply only during
the strike sequence.

Corruption
A character attempting to remove a corruption card on another character may
ignore the tapping requirement and recieve -3 to the roll.

Dragon
If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the automatic-
attack at the associated site is removed, and that site therefore loses its
hoard status.

Ringwraith
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.

Under-deeps
Creatures revealed as automatic-attacks do not count as creatures.

Tournament Rulings

Deck Construction
You may include hero items in a Ringwraith deck even in a Ringwraith vs.
Ringwraith game.

Victory Conditions
Eliminating a Wizard or Ringwraith does not end the game. An eliminated
Wizard or Ringwraith is placed in the out-of-play pile, and gives -5 MP to the
final total. That player may not reveal another Wizard or Ringwraith. This
includes Wizards who fail corruption checks. [effective 1/1/98]

Card Errata and Rulings

Beater and Biter
Beater and Biter increases the bonus the weapon gives, so maximums on the
weapon still apply.

Enchanted Stream
Enchanted Stream stops you from moving in the first place, so effects that
keep your company from being returned to their site of origin do not stop it.

Fury of the Iron Crown
Orc and Troll characters may use a creature enhanced by Fury of the Iron
Crown as a trophy.
A player only gains marshalling points from the creature if he would have
recieved them normally.

No Escape from My Magic
Card Erratum: Change "Playable on any faction in play" to "Playable on any
unique faction in play." [Effective 12/1/97]

Reluctant Final Parting
Reluctant Final Parting has no effect on The Balrog.

Ride Against the Enemy
Hazards have no effect on the attack, and any resource effects that benefit
the attack are cancelled. The attack may still be cancelled.
You may not use a Wizard your opponent has played Sacrifice of Form on.

Stealth
Prevents the revealing of a creature on-guard.

Thong of Fire
The prowess requirement only applies when transfering or playing Thong of
Fire, and includes modifications to the characterąs prowess.

Use Your Legs
All strikes by the entire company count for capturing Hobbits.
The characters placed off to the side are not considered prisoners for MP
purposes.

Wolves
Card Erratum: Change "Animals" to "Wolves."

------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien, www.cstone.net/~ichabod/, ich...@cstone.net
Assistant Editor, ICE Me:CCG Official Netrep
"Home isa where you hanga your hat!" -Dr. Emilio Lizardo
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Perez-Miller

unread,
Dec 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/10/97
to

Ichabod (ich...@spamblock.net) wrote:
: CRF 9 Changes

: This update includes rulings through November 31, 1997; and digest 15 of
: the mailing list.


<snip>


: Corruption


: A character attempting to remove a corruption card on another character
: may ignore the tapping requirement and recieve -3 to the roll.


Whoa. Since when can a character try to remove a corruption card on
another character? This is a pretty major change, unless I haven't been
paying attention.

--Anthony
aper...@indiana.edu


: ------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------

Anthony Perez-Miller

unread,
Dec 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/15/97
to

Sorry if an answer came through on this already; if so I missed it. It
seems an important enough question to warrant a repost.


==========================
Anthony Perez-Miller (aper...@ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:

Anthony Perez-Miller

unread,
Dec 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/15/97
to

Anthony Perez-Miller (aper...@ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:

: Sorry if an answer came through on this already; if so I missed it. It


: seems an important enough question to warrant a repost.

: : <snip>


: : : Corruption
: : : A character attempting to remove a corruption card on another
: : : character
: : : may ignore the tapping requirement and recieve -3 to the roll.


: : Whoa. Since when can a character try to remove a corruption card on
: : another character? This is a pretty major change, unless I haven't been
: : paying attention.


Actually, I think I figured it out. This ruling is not referring to
corruption cards in general, but only those which (for example) require a
sage in the company to tap.

Is this a correct interpretation? And is it extended to things such as
dark enchantments that require a sage in order to be rid of?


: : --Anthony

Andy

unread,
Dec 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/15/97
to

> Anthony Perez-Miller (aper...@ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
> : Ichabod (ich...@spamblock.net) wrote:
> : : CRF 9 Changes

> : : Corruption
> : : A character attempting to remove a corruption card on another
character
> : : may ignore the tapping requirement and recieve -3 to the roll.
>
>
> : Whoa. Since when can a character try to remove a corruption card on
> : another character? This is a pretty major change, unless I haven't
been
> : paying attention.
>

> : --Anthony

This only applies for certain cards which allow another character to
attempt to remove a corruption card, and in which a listed condition is
tapping. (So I was told by Ichabod.)

Eomer

Ichabod

unread,
Dec 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/16/97
to

In article <67453p$ght$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, aper...@ucs.indiana.edu
(Anthony Perez-Miller) wrote:

>Ichabod wrote:

>: : : Corruption


>: : : A character attempting to remove a corruption card on another
>: : : character
>: : : may ignore the tapping requirement and recieve -3 to the roll.

>Actually, I think I figured it out. This ruling is not referring to


>corruption cards in general, but only those which (for example) require a
>sage in the company to tap.
>
>Is this a correct interpretation? And is it extended to things such as
>dark enchantments that require a sage in order to be rid of?

It is the correct interpretation, and no, it is not extended to
non-corruption cards.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages