[MECCG] Rules Digest 549
Van Norton
>From: "Kenneth Switzer" <stken...@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Spider Quesion (VAN/ICK)
>
>Hello All,
>
>Since the discussion of FW Squatters is now the hot topic, I got
>wondering about
>
>Shelob's Brood
>
>Description: Spiders. Four strikes. Playable at any Under-deeps
>site or surface site thereof.
>
>Since a Wizardhaven can get to any version of Deep Mines from any
>WizardHaven, then would the Brood be playable on any wizardhaven?
>
>Not that it will matter much, since it will be canceled as I
>figured out as I wrote this question, but I will ask anyways due
>to other cards that may effect the site.
Hmmm. I would say that protected Wizard-Havens are surface sites
for Underdeeps. Ichabod, anything to add?
------------------------------
>From: efmi...@amoco.com
>Subject: Re: Spider Quesion (VAN/ICK)
>
> One idea that would hurt squatter decks is that there are
>hazards in Balrog that say they can cancel any effect that would
>cancel a certain attack. For example, Black Vapour cancels a
>canceller vs. spiders/animals, and Unabated in Malice cancels an
>auto-attack canceller. I wonder if these hazards could cancel the
>wizard-haven's own attack-cancelling ability, allowing the attack
>to occur? That would be nice - Nature's Revenge could hit even a
>protected wizard-haven, etc. Regards, Ed
Hmmm again. I would say that the Wizard-Haven canceling is an on-
going effect and therefore could not be countered by Black Vapour.
But I am treading very thin ice here. Ichabod?
------------------------------
>From: Florian Kugler <flor...@gmx.net>
>Subject: Re: Balrog Impressions
>
[major snippage]
>Plus, a rules-question: If I manage to get The One Ring affect my
>Balrog via Challenge the Power, how does the strike-cancellation
>work? May he just cancel any strike, not making the CC (as he
>never makes any), or may he not use this part, (again because he
>never makes any CCs)?
The Balrog can use the canceling ability and no corruption check is
required.
------------------------------
>From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>
>Subject: [Van/Ick] Assassin clarifications
>
>The reason *Ready to His Will* works on an Assassin even if Rank
>Upon Rank is in play is one of timing and not the CRF "extra
>strikes become -1 modifier" rule. Here are snippets from
>the Q&A archives on this issue:
>
>[digest 77]
>
>From: Anders Gabrielsson <and...@strindberg.ling.uu.se>
>
>>Ready to His Will is really good against Assassins - as long as
>>Rank Upon Rank isn't in play. Forewarned is Forearmed is pretty
>>good, but also have other, less desirable effects, like making
>>that one attack impossible to cancel. (Though I guess you could
>>cancel the strike.)
>
>Just a minor point. Rank Upon Rank's effect is applied as a
>passive condition. That means it is the first declared effect in
>the first chain of effects after Assassin resolves. Thus, you can
>respond to it with a Ready to His Will.
>
>[digest 78]
>
>From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>>
>
>>Ichabod, does this mean that *Ready to His Will* works against
>>an *Assassin* even if *Rank Upon Rank* was in play before the
>>Assassin was ever played? If so this really seems weird.
>>
>
>That's exactly what it means. And yes, it is a bit weird. But it's
>either have something a bit weird, or make up a whole new timing
>rule. We went for a bit weird.
>
>>Tell me if the following is correct:
>>
>>With no Rank Upon Rank in play an Assassin is played, then Rank
>>Upon Rank is played, in respose to which Ready to His Will is
>>played; Ready to His Will successfully resolves because the
>>Assassin still only has one strike per attack at this point.
>
>Correct, assuming htis is done after Assassin resolves.
>
>>If, however, in the above example, Ready to His Will is played in
>>response to the Assassin and Rank Upon Rank is played in response
>>to Ready to His Will; RtHW will now fail because the Assassin now
>>has two strikes per attack when RtHW resolves.
>
>Incorrect. Ready to His Will is discarded with no effect, since it
>has no valid target (Assassin has not resolved yet).
>
>[digest 79]
>
>From: Martin Toggweiler <mtogg...@compuserve.com>
>
>>
>>Hmmm... if Ready to His Will had no valid target when announced,
>>wouldn't the announcement be illegal, thus the card could not be
>>played (at that time) in the first place and would be kept in
>>hand instead of discarded?
>
>Technically, yeah.
>
>>Anyway what I meant to ask was suppose an Assassin is announced
>>and resolves ( but the target/attacks not yet carried out); RtHW
>>is now announced, in response Rank Upon Rank is announced. The
>>chain of effects resolves, RtHW fails because the Assassin no
>>longer has one strike per attack. Right?
>
>Now that I think about it, RtHW does not fail. Remember, the
>effect of RUR is done as a passive condition, and is the first
>declared effect in the chain of effects immediately after the
>condition resolves (RUR and a man attack being in play).
>Therefore, Assassin only has one strike when RtHW resolves.
>>With regard to the weird timing rules which allow RtHW to work
>>on an Assassin even if Rank Upon Rank is in play before the
>>Assassin is announced, I really think this should be changed in
>>the rules when METW second edition is released, if not sooner.
>>The intuitive interpretation IMO would be that cards ALREADY IN
>>PLAY like RUR work immediately and continuously when a card it
>>modifies resolves (Assassin) and cannot be preempted by the
>>announcement of a card not yet in play at that point.
>
>Well, of course that's intuitive. And I already said that. But the
>choice is between an intuitive answer, and creating a whole new
>rule which will complicate the timing rules even more. We chose
>not making the rules more complicated. YMMV.
Thanks to Martin for posting this old discussion of Ready to His
Will, Rank upon Rank and Assassin.
------------------------------
>From: Philip Thomas Carroll <carr...@acme.highpoint.edu>
>Subject: [VAN] Balrog Q
>
>Hey, my Balrog decks and DeckMECG are arguing with each other!!
>DeckME says that the Balrog gets +2 prowess if he taps to face a
>strike, but my cards don't agree. What gives?
It appears that the spoiler list had incorrect text for the Balrog.
When in doubt, go with the card text.
>Also, is there a reason that the corruption cards in the challenge
>decks say that the opponent makes a roll to remove them? Or have
>they always read like that and I just missed it before? And who
>actually does it this way anyway?
That is the proper way to play them. It doesn't matter a great deal
either way.
------------------------------
>From: Andrew McAllister <andrew.m...@virgin.net>
>Subject: [VAN] Wounding Dragons
>
>What happens if a party faces an at home dragon, beats all the
>strikes but fails to beat the body?
Nothing. The Dragon is not defeated.
>Does the dragon have -1 prowess?
Nope. Quick healing critters.
>Also if one company faces an ahunt dragon, wounding it, does the
>dragon have -1 prowess for a second company moving in the required
>regions?
No.
------------------------------
>From: Ho...@aol.com
>Subject: Havens Question (Van)
>
>While reading about the ability of FWs to set up shop just about
>anywhere, declare that it is now a wizard haven and sit there
>completely immune from attack struck me as rather strange. Now
>darkhavens are also protected in the same manner, but are not
>quite as useful. Here is the question, why are Havens not
>protected? In the book the Havens survived the rest did not. In
>the game it seems Havens are not safe from attack whereas wizard
>havens are .......reasoning behind this would be greatly
>appreciated.
Havens are protected to a large degree. There are no hazard
creatures that can be keyed to havens. According to the special
text of the minion version of haven cards, minion companies cannot
start a company to company combat at a Haven. There are a small
group of Elven agents that may attack at a haven, but these have
not proven too powerful. Wizard-Havens are not 'completely immune
from attack' either. It just takes different ways to deal with
them.
------------------------------
Hi,
I seem to be coming down with the flu. Hopefully the answers in
this digest make sense. To steal a quote from some unknown movie,
"Hurts to think."
Bob Mohney says that the listing of the contents of each Balrog
Deck in now on the ICE web page. www.ironcrown.com
Van Norton
MECCG NetRep
vno...@mindspring.com
Mark Jones
> Since protected Wizardhavens are considered surface sites to Deep Mines, if
> Doors of Night is in play and my opponent has a company moving to (but not yet
> AT) such a protected Wizardhaven, can I play Nameless Thing keyed to his
> Wizardhaven? Are there other restrictions (opponent must have at least 6 SPs
> to allow the playability of a Deep Mines; a Deep Mines must actually be in
> play that is adjacent to the particular Wizarhaven; etc.)?
I would say Deep Mines has to actually be in play.
Van Norton
>
> From Rules Digest #31:
>
> > Since protected Wizardhavens are considered surface sites to Deep Mines, if
> > Doors of Night is in play and my opponent has a company moving to (but not yet
> > AT) such a protected Wizardhaven, can I play Nameless Thing keyed to his
> > Wizardhaven? Are there other restrictions (opponent must have at least 6 SPs
> > to allow the playability of a Deep Mines; a Deep Mines must actually be in
> > play that is adjacent to the particular Wizarhaven; etc.)?
>
> I would say Deep Mines has to actually be in play.
>
> Van Norton wrote:
> >
> >
> > >From: "Kenneth Switzer" <stken...@hotmail.com>
> > >Subject: Spider Quesion (VAN/ICK)
> > >
> > >Hello All,
> > >
> > >Since the discussion of FW Squatters is now the hot topic, I got
> > >wondering about
> > >
> > >Shelob's Brood
> > >
> > >Description: Spiders. Four strikes. Playable at any Under-deeps
> > >site or surface site thereof.
> > >
> > >Since a Wizardhaven can get to any version of Deep Mines from any
> > >WizardHaven, then would the Brood be playable on any wizardhaven?
> > >
> > >Not that it will matter much, since it will be canceled as I
> > >figured out as I wrote this question, but I will ask anyways due
> > >to other cards that may effect the site.
> >
> > Hmmm. I would say that protected Wizard-Havens are surface sites
> > for Underdeeps. Ichabod, anything to add?
Ichabod did correct me on that one. The Deep Mines have to be in-play
before the Wizard-Haven is considered a surface site of an Underdeeps.
Van Norton
MECCG NetRep
Mark Evan Jones
> Ichabod did correct me on that one. The Deep Mines have to be in-play
> before the Wizard-Haven is considered a surface site of an Underdeeps.
On a related question, are the Dwarf-Holds now considered surface
sites? Or are they only considered so for Balrog players?
Van Norton
I'll find out. Lot for it in a rules digest.
Van Norton
MECCG NetRep