All Individual Card Rulings at TLHH

[chompers]

Flaming Brand is a good example as comparison. It says:

'This weapon may be borne in addtion to 1 other hand weapon'.

The card over-rides the rules because it grants permission with the use of the word may .

However, WITD does not grant permission, it does not over-ride the rules, it just tells you where it can go. Note the absence of the word 'may' or similar. The use of the word 'must' prevents it going anywhere else, but it does not actually say that they can bear them. So WITD cannot be used.

Arguing what Decipher intended compared to what they achieved are two different things. They had little quality control and play-testing on cards released towards the end of LOTRs run. They released a card that can't be used in the existing framework of the rules. So until the card gets errata it can't be used and that isn't going to happen anytime soon as Big (Little?) D don't want to play

That's how I see it ... and i see it that way because Cwork or MuadDib or someone else convinced me in a previous thread. It makes sense to me.

[Tbiesty]

I went through the entire "Archives of Minas Tirith" forum and picked out the rulings that I think should be clarified.  Please let me know if there are any other's that come to mind by August 20th.  Until then, I'd like to keep this particular forum topic related to just identifying issues to discuss.  I posted links to existing discussions if you guys want to start discussing any of the listed issues before then.

Thanks guys! 

[MR. Lurtzy]

Flaming Brand is a good example as comparison. It says:

'This weapon may be borne in addtion to 1 other hand weapon'.

The card over-rides the rules because it grants permission with the use of the word may .

However, WITD does not grant permission, it does not over-ride the rules, it just tells you where it can go. Note the absence of the word 'may' or similar. The use of the word 'must' prevents it going anywhere else, but it does not actually say that they can bear them. So WITD cannot be used.

Arguing what Decipher intended compared to what they achieved are two different things. They had little quality control and play-testing on cards released towards the end of LOTRs run. They released a card that can't be used in the existing framework of the rules. So until the card gets errata it can't be used and that isn't going to happen anytime soon as Big (Little?) D don't want to play

That's how I see it ... and i see it that way because Cwork or MuadDib or someone else convinced me in a previous thread. It makes sense to me.

Very well said. 

[MuadDib85]

Flaming Brand is also a no-brainer. It was intended to be used, so should be and is allowed in FOTR block...

[Witchkingx5]

Flaming Brand is a good example as comparison. It says:

'This weapon may be borne in addtion to 1 other hand weapon'.

The card over-rides the rules because it grants permission with the use of the word may .

However, WITD does not grant permission, it does not over-ride the rules, it just tells you where it can go. Note the absence of the word 'may' or similar. The use of the word 'must' prevents it going anywhere else, but it does not actually say that they can bear them. So WITD cannot be used.

Arguing what Decipher intended compared to what they achieved are two different things. They had little quality control and play-testing on cards released towards the end of LOTRs run. They released a card that can't be used in the existing framework of the rules. So until the card gets errata it can't be used and that isn't going to happen anytime soon as Big (Little?) D don't want to play

That's how I see it ... and i see it that way because Cwork or MuadDib or someone else convinced me in a previous thread. It makes sense to me.

Very well said. 

And where's the gain? I mean, you just destroy a card like that, make it completely useless. Isn't that the most contraproductive thing you can do in a TCG? I actually don't understand why you have such a problem with that card. Ok, it's worded really bad and it probablx can't be played like that. But guys, we're trying to keep this TCG alive! And making cards unusuably is probably the best way to prevent it.

Just my opinion. If you don't like to use that card, ok. But I will use it cus' I wanna use most of my cards to give more diversity tothe game.

Oh, and it's pretty pointless talking about DCs if you wanna ban cards or make them unusable. I don't wanna offend anyone, but if you all are so captious, give the card an erratum.

[Tbiesty]

Initial post updated again...  Now up to 24 issues to discuss.  Thanks guys!  Keep them coming!

[Elessar's Socks]

I've attached the rulings document I've been working on, which itself is a continuation from this thread. For the most part the issues are ruled one way or another (with thoughts subject to change!). It's just a decidedly unofficial way of seeing how much can be patched up.

Edit - Document updated 8/8/2010

[Witchkingx5]

taken from the rulings draft:

0P62 - 0P67
Legal in: none

Why that?

[chompers]

taken from the rulings draft:

0P62 - 0P67
Legal in: none

Why that?

Are these the online only cards? So no physical forms of the cards exist?

[MR. Lurtzy]

taken from the rulings draft:

0P62 - 0P67
Legal in: none

Why that?

Are these the online only cards? So no physical forms of the cards exist?

No, these were real. The online only ones were the high D cards.

[MuadDib85]

I know you have this on your list already, but want to add my opinion to White Hand Sieger. I think it is obvious what the intention is for this card.

Why is it free? Because you must have a site controlled before being allowed to play him..

[TheJord]

I think Assault Commander needs errata to make his ability "until the end of the regroup phase". He is useless otherwise.

This would be totally unofficial obviously

[MuadDib85]

The Witch-King's Beast, Fell Creature also is obvious imo. One extra skirmish phase.

[Cw0rk]

Step 1: (Now)   Identify rulings (or discussions that did not lead to a clear ruling) that have been made on TLHH due to lack of guidance from the existing rulebooks.  Either clearly describe it or post a link to the topic that contains the ruling (or lack of one). This way the document will serve as an easy reference for rulings that have already been made.  Let's give it until a month from now, which will be August 20th, to give time for everyone to identify these existing rulings/clarifications.

---- Staring August 20th ----

Step 2: (Later) We will discuss and vote on unclear rulings. At that time, we will tackle these issues one by one.  We'll open an issue for discussion for a set length of time.  Then vote on it.  The document will be updated with any rulings or clarifications based on the conclusion we come to.  Then we'll move on to the next issue.

This is a quote of the first post. Do we need to start a poll to see who thinks followers should be able to wear WitD and who believes they should not? Who is going to decide if it can or can't be done? I disagree with chompers and Lurtzy. Even if their interpretation looks logical... I'd rather use common sense than going very deep into the rules with a conclusion that basically says 'this card makes no sense, it shouldn't have been made like that'.

[Tbiesty]

I wanted to give everyone a month to identify issues, and also to give people time to learn about this and decide if they want to do their own investigation and get involved.  Some players may only check the boards once a week, so I didn't want to start this without giving a reasonable amount of advanced notice.

Once we get close to August 20th, say a week before, we can pick what order we want to go through the listed issues; perhaps start with ones that people think are more obvious as to the ruling.  Once we reach August 20th, I was planning to open a forum topic for an issue for 3 days of discussion and voting, then do the same thing for the next issue.

Of course, we can definitely discuss these issues (as we already do) on these forums before then, but we'll actually do the voting during that 3 day discussion.

Thanks!