[MECCG] Rules Digest 556
Van Norton
>From: "Oskar" <os...@netreach.net>
>Subject: [VAN] - rules questions (before Friday please)
>
>Hey,
>Since there haven't been any posts on the list this weekend I
>thought I might as well ask some questions I have thought about
>for some time now.
>
>1. Can I have 3 tLE and 3 Sauron in my deck? Craig said he
>wasn't sure so I thought it might be good to ask again.
As far as I know, there is no restriction on the number of
manifestations that you may put into a deck as long as you obey the
3 non-unique/1 unique rule. The Lidless Eye and Sauron also do not
seem to fall into the rules catagory of Wizards/Ringwraiths without
some errata stating that they do. So, my ruling is that you may
include three of each in a minion deck if your opponent is a hero.
Craig may have something to add...
>2. Does Reluctant Final Parting discard Ready to His Will at any
>site? Yes or No? If yes, is there any other allies it discards
>at any site?
No, I would say Reluctant Final Parting will discard a Ready to His
Will ally only in the Underdeeps (where there is no 'nearest
haven').
>3. I have the Great Eye and the mouth in play. During my
>movement/hazard phase my opponent plays Mouth of Sauron. I choose
>to cancel it with tGE. Is the mouth still discarded? I guessed
>no, was I wrong?
You are correct, since The Great Eye cancels the _play_ of Mouth of
Sauron, The Mouth remains in play.
>No, I wont be playing minion at Prezcon....
Good luck with your hero deck ;-)
------------------------------
>From: Leif Gunderson <sin...@flash.net>
>Subject: A Quick Question.
>
>When Foul Fumes, or Fell Winter taps a site does it stay tapped
>for one turn or until you go through your whole deck and
>reshuffle.
It stays tapped (and is discarded when it leaves play) unless you
have some way to untap the site. (Fireworks, Dwarven Ring, etc.)
You will have to go through your whole deck to untap the site.
------------------------------
>From: kin...@mail.wsu.edu (Randall Kintner)
>Subject: Peril Returned/Will of Sauron [VAN]
>
>Just trying to make sure I've got the details right on this one.
>
[Snip card text]
>This combo is clearly immune to Twilight, and vulnerable to
>Marvels Told/Voices of Malice.
Right.
>Now for the tougher one. If you only have 1 PR and 1 WoS, this is
>vulnerable to Gates of Morning, yes? You read through the card
>(i.e. Peril Returned) once, so playing Gates takes you to the
>second sentence of PR, where Gates is considered to be out of
>play. However, the first sentence has been passed, Doors of Night
>is no longer considered to be in play, and WoS discards, taking PR
>with it. However, if you have 2 PR (can be duplicated) and 1 WoS,
>the combo is immune to Gates. The first PR, reverts Gates in play
>to Gates out of play, and the second PR moves the environment from
>no Gates in play to Doors is in play. Now the combo is only
>vulnerable to Marvels Told or Voices of Malice (or The Cock Crows
>+ Crown of Flowers). Is this correct?
Randy, this is one of my favorite combos to discuss (tongue firmly
planted in cheek). I believe Annotation 9a regarding Passive
Conditions comes into play. Will of Sauron has a passive condition
that it will discard if Doors is no longer in play. Annotation 9a
says, "If a card is required to be discarded by some passive
condition, the card is discarded immediately when the condition
resolves, not in the following chain of effects." As a note,
Annotation 10 says that if more than one action is required,
resource player chooses the order.
So, you are the hazard player. Your opponent plays and resolves
Gates of Morning. This will create a new chain of effects for all
the passive conditions to resolve. However, rule 9a says not to
wait for the chain of effects to resolve. So your opponent chooses
to resolve Will of Sauron first. It resolves and is discarded. It
takes the two Perils with it.
------------------------------
>From: ken...@mindspring.com (William & Aida Kenyon)
>Subject: [VAN] Another We Have Come To Kill Q
>
>Here's the scenario:
>Say I'm moving a minion company through some roadblockable region,
>and they are sent back to their site of origin. Can I use We Have
>Come To Kill during the movement/hazard phase to pop up a
>character at the site they were ATTEMPTING to reach? It is in
>play, after all.
No, you must face the auto-attack to do anything at the new site.
------------------------------
>From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>
>Subject: [Van/Ick] Incorrect tourney ruling
>
>If a Nazgul p-e taps/discards in response to being targeted by
>Marvels Told, the Nazgul effect succeeds because of LIFO
>resolution.
>
>After a Nazgul p-e taps/discards IMMEDIATELY becoming a
>short-event, Marvels Told cannot be used because MT cannot target
>short events. The lone exception here is the Witch-king of
>Angmar's tap/discard effect which becomes a long-event (although
>not indicated by any card in play) and is thus targetable by MT.
[snip discussion]
I will see if I can add something to the next CRF (under Nazgul).
------------------------------
>From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>
>Subject: [Van/Ick] An involved situation
>
[snip card text]
>In a game this weekened, the following occurred:
>
>A minion company including two Troll leaders with *Orders from
>Lugburz* and other characters are moving from site A to B. During
>the m/h phase the company faced a non-detainment attack from a
>*Chill Douser* with *Turning Hope to Despair*. The attack was not
>defeated and one of the Troll leaders and another character rolled
>results which would cause them to each split into their own
>company, etc.
>
>From the above it's not clear what should happen, alternatives
>are:
>1] The troll leader splits into his own company, the "original"
>company loses Orders from Lugburz since a leader has left the
>company. At the beginning of the site phase these two leaders
>combining into one company would now be illegal, so one of the
>troll leader companies must return to site A.
>
>2] The troll leader splits into his own company, but the
>"original" company does not lose Orders from Lugburz, since losing
>it would be considered an "effect" which could (if both leaders
>survive the m/h phase) cause a company violation and is therefore
>cancelled (according to the quoted MELE rule).
>
>3] The Turing Hope to Despair "effect" which caused the troll
>leader to split into a separate company is cancelled since it
>would cause the loss of Orders from Lugburz, hence a potential
>company violation. Non-leader characters in the company could
>still be affected by THtD.
>
>4] Since the THtD effect could potentially create an company
>violation it is cancelled in total --- no characters need roll to
>check for splitting off into separate companies.
In this case, an effect that causes a violation would be something,
usually a resource, that directly places a company in violation of
the composition rule. Taking it step by step, the characters
splitting off did not directly violate the rule, so that's OK.
Losing Orders from Lugburz did not directly violate the rule
because the characters are now in seperate companies, so that's OK.
The companies rejoining does not directly violate the rule because
companies are allowed to move to the same site, regardless of how
many leaders may ultimately end up there, so that's OK. Only when
the companies arrive at the site is the party in violation, and no
specific effect caused it, so nothing is canceled. Option 1 above
is the correct response.
An example of an effect that would cause a direct violation would
be using We Have Come to Kill to place a second leader in a company
at a non-darkhaven site. That effect would be canceled.
>Also, in cases where a company violation requires a company to be
>sent back to its site of origin, who chooses which company(s) when
>there's more than one candidate, the moving player or the hazard
>player? I think its been ruled the hazard player does so, but I
>can't remember for sure.
If only one company is moving, it returns to its site of origin. If
two or more companies are moving to the same site, the hazard
player chooses which company to return.
------------------------------
>From: Konstantine Athanasiou <elf...@otenet.gr>
>Subject: Re: How can someone harm at Cirith Gorgor?
>
>That is really cool!!!!
>That means Shadow Magic user Agent+Shadow Out Of The Dark kick
>any orcish and trollish ass in Cirith Gorgor!!
The limit on playing hazard cards which require an agent against
minions is still in effect. You cannot use Shadow Out of the Dark
against a minion player.
------------------------------
>From: Ndongo Bastos <ndongo...@swipnet.se>
>Subject: [Van/Ick] Tom and Leaflock
>
>A question surfaced during a recent game of NetMECCG I played
>I was playing a boring corruption hazard strategy... and my
>opponent used Tom Bombadil's and Leaflock's special abilities
>to remove corruption cards.
>
>My question is: Is this legal?
It is legal. Canceled cards are discarded.
------------------------------
>From: "Jean-Paul Keulen" <keu...@phys.leidenuniv.nl>
>Subject: Question about Challenge Deck Tourneys
>
>When playing a Challenge Deck Tourney, do you have to play with
>the starting company the book suggests, or can you compile your
>own?
Under the Council of Lorien rules, you must play with the starting
company and minor items the book suggests.
------------------------------
>From: Spen...@aol.com
>Subject: Promptings of Wisdom
>
>Just a question about Promptings of Wisdom:
>Can you remove it from one of your own characters after it has
>served its use?
>It gives 2 CP and its a resource perm event that does not
>specifically list any way to discard it. Suppose you play it on a
>character and realize that your opponent is playing corruption
>instead of roadblock. Are you stuck with 2 unremovable CPs? You
>can't Marvels Told it or Twilight it. As far as I know, there is
>no way to remove a resource perm event. Is there something I'm
>forgetting?
Other than somehow removing the character from play and returning
the character later, I can think of no way to remove Promptings of
Wisdom or similar cards.
------------------------------
>From: "Andy Fredricksen \(ECA\)" <a-an...@microsoft.com>
>Subject: [VAN] Minion Palantir of Amon Sul Q
>
>The minion Palantir of Amon Sul reads, in part: "...or tap [PoAS]
>to use the abilities of either the minion Palantir of Annuminas or
>minion Palantir of Elostirion if either one is in play."
>
>My grammatical, rules-lawyer inspection suggests to me the
>following interpretation:
>If EITHER PoA or PoE is in play, I can duplicate EITHER Palantir's
>effect.
>
>My common-sensical inspection suggests that's only so much
>hogwash. But this would be good to know for sure, one way or the
>other.
The Palantir of Amon Sul can only use the abilities of the Palantir
in play.
------------------------------
Van Norton
MECCG NetRep