[MECCG] Rules Digest 553
Van Norton
NEW RULINGS!
Balrog
--------
A Balrog player gets no marshalling points for hero items played at his
Darkhavens.
Movement
------------
A company that is returned to their site of origin by any means other than a
failed underdeeps movement roll may do nothing during the site phase.
------------------------------
>From: "Gerold Feise" <sol...@physik.uni-paderborn.de>
>Subject: [VAN] questions on manifestations
>
>The Balrog rules say that your opponent is not allowed to
>play any manifestations of the Balrog. On the other hand on the
>Character card of the Balrog is stated that all OTHER manifestations
>of the Balrog are discarded.
>
>This gives me a bit of a problem, as your opponent is not allowed to
>play any manifestation and yourself are not allowed to HAVE multiple
>non dragon) manifestations of the same card.
>Who on earth is there to play other manifestations of the balrog (to
>be discarded when the character card enters play)?
It is possible that it might come up in some future event. For now,
Consider the text redundant.
>This leads me to an other question:
>Considering someone IS allowed to play a hazard manifestation of your
>named avatar (Balrog / FW / Sacrifice of Form / stating your
>indentity at the start of a game with 5+ players ). What happens if
>this manifestation is defeated ? Do you loose the game (accordingly to
>the rule that you loose if you avatar is killed.) ?
No, you don't lose the game, but your avatar can never come into play.
------------------------------
>From: "Andy Fredricksen \(ECA\)" <a-an...@microsoft.com>
>Subject: [Van / Ick] Balrog in Nurn
>
>So, two or three times I think I've seen people say, "But there's
>no Balrog-specific Urlurtsu Nurn. What about that?" If there
>ever was a response, I missed it.
>
>So, unless I'm ignorant, shall I take it as tournament legal (if
>utterly monstrous in common sense) that I can send my Balrog to
>Urlurtsu Nurn and, since "Ringwraith" is read "Balrog," I may tap
>my Balrog here to bring one Orc or Troll from my discard into
>play?
I ruled on this, but maybe it was via private email. Balrogs must
use Balrog Darkholds. There is no Balrog Urlurtsu Nurn, so Balrog
companies may never move to Urlurtsu Nurn.
<They have a little sign at Urlurtsu Nurn that says 'No Balrogs.'
I understand the Mordor Civil Liberties Union has brought a lawsuit
but until then...>
------------------------------
>From: "Charles E. Bouldin, Esq." <cbou...@mail.pacificnet.net>
>Subject: [VAN] rules digest 552 QA check
>
>Would be so kind as to double check the following answer?
>According to what Craig has stated and what was published in the
>rules digests, the characters not used from the starting pool of
>10 can be added to the deck and are not restricted to the 10 char
>max per deck+sideboard rule. Thus theoretically one could have
>one character in play, add the remaining 9 from the draft pool to
>the deck, plus the 10 characters (not including wizards) for a
>total character+avatar of 19. Did I misconstrue a statement of
>Ichabod's?
According to the the CRF-Tournament Rulings-Character Draft, "When
players are finished, each may put up to 10 characters into their
deck, including characters from his starting pool that did not end
up in the starting company." I confirmed this as 10 characters
maximum in the deck including the leftovers from the draft. You
could have ten characters set aside to go into your deck and then
add the leftovers from the draft. Out of this group of characters,
you select the maximum of 10 to go into the deck.
>Also, if a company uses a card to jump to a second site, is it
>not true that an on-guard card on the former site of destination
>(now site of origin) remains on that site until the end of the
>site phase (per the rule book) because the company might be
>bounced back to the site of origin (for the current m/h phase)?
The on-guard card stays on the site as long as the site is in play.
However, the site of origin will be discarded at the end of the M/H
phase when hands are reconciled. So, when that happens, any on-
guard cards at the site of origin are returned to the owners hand.
This will usually only happen when a company has multiple M/H
phases. Otherwise, it is very unlikely that a site of origin that
is being discarded will have an on-guard card on it.
>Adjunct question. It would seem that if my hypothesis above
>regarding on-guard cards and sites used to bridge is true, then
>one is not able to use the site for agent movement. Correct?
I don't believe your hypothesis is correct.
------------------------------
>From: Eric Silverman <sil...@saber.towson.edu>
>Subject: Balrog corruption Q
>
>I was just looking over the rules, and I couldn't figure out if
>characters in the Balrog's company get +2 to corruption checks the way that
>characters in a ringwraith company do. Does anyone know the answer
>to this one?
Yes, Balrog characters get +2 on corruption checks. The Ringwraith reference
to the bonus is on p.63 of the MELE rulebook.
>Another question that I remember being asked but I don't remember
>an answer. Can mind rings be discarded by 'rolled down to the sea' ?
Yes.
------------------------------
>From: Tim Owen <ow...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
>Subject: Agent site-card question
>
>Yet another question...
>
>If you are using Agents against the opposite alignment, must you
>use the opposite alignment's site-cards to move your Agents? For example,
>I am playing Hero vs Minion and I want to reveal Anarin at Moria, do I
>use the Hero or Minion version of Moria?
If you are a hero, you use the hero Moria for your agent.
------------------------------
>From: MxP...@aol.com
>Subject: Another question
>Message-ID: <b5ecfeae...@aol.com>
>
>first...in my previous email to the list it was supposed to be deck
BUILDING
>...not builind(however i got that) but heres my next question
>
>what the HECK does this mean:
>Companies can only combine at a Haven-just remove all but one of the
>companies' Haven site cards. The resulting company then has one site card
>consisting of one Haven site card.
>One company can split into two or more companies only at a Haven (use two
>Haven cards).
Hi Travis, Welcome to MECCG!
I'm the NetRep, so if you need an official ruling, I'm your man. Most of
Your questions have been general, and I'll be glad to answer them to if
Someone else on the list doesn't beat me to it.
To answer this question, you may have as many havens as you wish in your
site deck. This is mainly important if you wish to conceal where your
companies are moving to or have haven tapping cards. If two companies move
to the same haven, you can combine them and return the extra site card to
your site deck.
------------------------------
>From: "Sha'iich Desert Twister" <dtel...@netvision.net.il>
>Subject: Rules question
>
>If my opponent plays:
>Eagle Mounts
>Quiet Lands
>
>And then moves to Mount Doom, what creatures can I key at him?
You can play any creature keyable to the site, regardless of Quiet Lands
and Eagle Mounts.
------------------------------
>Subject: Re: [VAN] Balrog thru the Morannon?
> I don't have my MELE rulebook with me. The Balrog rules insert says:
> "instead of using the special rules listed on page 59 of the MELE rules (=
> wherever else these rules may appear), a Balrog player uses the
> following..."
> Does anyone know if the page referenced includes the rule that minions may
> move freely between Udun and Dagorlad? IOW, may the Balrog? It would make
> sense that he couldn't...
Balrog companies may move from Udun to Dagorlad. If you need a reason, they
simply pretend to be minions loyal to Mordor.
------------------------------
Van Norton
MECCG NetRep
Mark Jones
>
> Rules Digest 553
>
> NEW RULINGS!
>
> Balrog
> --------
> A Balrog player gets no marshalling points for hero items played at his
> Darkhavens.
Okay, that stops the Bouncing Balrog. But those Noldo Lanterns can
still be played elsewhere...
> Movement
> ------------
> A company that is returned to their site of origin by any means other than a
> failed underdeeps movement roll may do nothing during the site phase.
<blink, blink> Look, there's a horrible snowstorm. Let's just stay
here at Sarn Gorwing and sit on our hands, despite those two Blasting
Fires sitting over there and those Great Bats asking to be played with.
What was the reasoning behind this one? Seems to me to just add to the
overgrowth of specific rulings already too rampant in this game.
Mark Jones
>
> Mark,
> Because:
>
> #1 - The Balrog can sit at his havens and get 12 MP's without leaving
No, no. THAT one I understand. It also adds to the specific rulings
thing, but this one is NECESSARY. Not only are they moving between two
havens, mind you, but there isn't even a site path. My second comment
about still using them was probably out of place.
> #2 is because of a rule that forces 2 companies which contain leaders who
> end up at the same site - the one that moved there must return to site of
> origin. Think minion squatters...They stay at a tapped site, right? Well,
> if they put a leader at another site, and then MOVE to that site with
> another leader, they can draw cards AND end up back at their original tapped
> site....drawing MORE cards is even tougher on people trying to defend
> against squatter decks....River, Heedless Revelry, etc. become meaningless
> as they can only be played on their site of destination.
Okay, that kinda makes sense. I have never seen (or thought of...how
clever) that trick before, so I have no idea how abusive it is. Just
from initial thought, it doesn't seem like it requires a ruling; then
again it doesn't come up very often otherwise and, like I said, I have
no idea how abused that situation is (in general, Leaders aren't cheap,
mind-wise).
Jason Klank
Because:
#1 - The Balrog can sit at his havens and get 12 MP's without leaving
them....Add some character MP'e (we can get 15 total) into play, and have
27MP's to call council...Combined with an all event/agent based haz strat
and extra events/dark trysts in the resource, we could get it to cycle on
turn 4 70% of the time...What's more, even though they can play them
elsewhere, they still have to MOVE to those sites - and most of those sites
have bad auto attacks, and you can key non-detainment attacks to them
#2 is because of a rule that forces 2 companies which contain leaders who
end up at the same site - the one that moved there must return to site of
origin. Think minion squatters...They stay at a tapped site, right? Well,
if they put a leader at another site, and then MOVE to that site with
another leader, they can draw cards AND end up back at their original tapped
site....drawing MORE cards is even tougher on people trying to defend
against squatter decks....River, Heedless Revelry, etc. become meaningless
as they can only be played on their site of destination.
However, I would expect some clairifications to the 2 new rules because
they're still full of holes...
--
Thanks,
Jason Klank
*************************************************
Come to Mystical Alchemy for all the
latest Middle Earth CCG Info.
Rules, Spoilers, Info, Files, Etc!
www.therealm.org
*************************************************
Mark Jones <mark...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:36C80997...@mindless.com...
>Van Norton wrote:
>>
>> Rules Digest 553
>>
>> NEW RULINGS!
>>
>> Balrog
>> --------
>> A Balrog player gets no marshalling points for hero items played at his
>> Darkhavens.
>
>Okay, that stops the Bouncing Balrog. But those Noldo Lanterns can
>still be played elsewhere...
>
>> Movement
>> ------------
>> A company that is returned to their site of origin by any means other
than a
>> failed underdeeps movement roll may do nothing during the site phase.
>
><blink, blink> Look, there's a horrible snowstorm. Let's just stay
>here at Sarn Gorwing and sit on our hands, despite those two Blasting
>Fires sitting over there and those Great Bats asking to be played with.
>
>What was the reasoning behind this one? Seems to me to just add to the
>overgrowth of specific rulings already too rampant in this game.
Van Norton
>
> Van Norton wrote:
> > Movement
> > ------------
> > A company that is returned to their site of origin by any means other than a
> > failed underdeeps movement roll may do nothing during the site phase.
>
> here at Sarn Gorwing and sit on our hands, despite those two Blasting
> Fires sitting over there and those Great Bats asking to be played with.
>
> What was the reasoning behind this one? Seems to me to just add to the
Here is the deal. If your opponent already has a roadblock card on the
table, and you have a card you can play at your current site, then you
aren't going to move. No major loss. If there isn't already a roadblock
card on the table, and you get bounced back to your previous site,
chances are _really_ good that you can't play the card at site you were
forced back to or you wouldn't have moved. Again, no major loss.
If you are a beardy fallen wizard, you could play roadblock, move from
your wizardhaven, draw lots of cards, get immediately bounced back and
play stuff at the haven you never wanted to leave in the first place.
Cheesy and not what was intended by the rules.
As a minion, you can do the leader bounce trick that Jason mentioned.
Again, it is an artifact of the rules not an intent of the game.
The second ruling plugs two loopholes while only making roadblock a bit
more powerful. ICE believes it is an improvement to the overall game
environment.
Good gaming and thanks for the comments,
Van Norton
MECCG NetRep
Mark Jones
>
> The second ruling plugs two loopholes while only making roadblock a bit
> more powerful. ICE believes it is an improvement to the overall game
> environment.
Okay, that's enough examples to justify it in my eyes. Guess I just
don't think that way about this game. Thanks for the response.
Van Norton
I always appreciate hearing what people think about the game - positive
or negative. Keep the comments coming!
Good gaming,
Van Norton
MECCG NetRep