All Individual Card Rulings at TLHH

[Tbiesty]

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.

Very nice!  I like what you've identified there.

[MR. Lurtzy]

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'.

The problem is that, just because you think this card should be useable doesn't make it so. The common sense, is to follow the rules, regardless of how complicated they may seem. An errata could be issued, but as it stands now, the card cannot be played.

[MuadDib85]

The common sense is to use the card that was printed. I am sure the vote on this particular rule will prove so when the time comes.

[MR. Lurtzy]

The common sense is to use the card that was printed.

Yep, so long as it is legal.

[MuadDib85]

By your argument,

Sam, Bearer of Great Need
Flaming Brand
Sent Back
Whisper In The Dark

all would not be allowed. I play on gccg a fair bit and all of these cards are used with no problems at all by anyone...

Why whine about WITD but then also change FOA so it's playable..?

Can't you just accept that WITD is supposed to be used and get over your rebellion against it?

[Tbiesty]

Fixing up these ambiguities is exactly one of the things we make sure we do here.  To do so, the rules must be consistent and clear, so we know which ruling is correct.

So here's how I think these contradictions between cards and rules should be handled:

For every rule, it either is or is not an "Absolute" rule.  (Ellesar's Armpits will find this very familar)
An "Absolute" rule is one that cannot be overruled.  Specific rules can be identified as "Absolute", the rest are not.

The thing that needs to be done is to identify the "Absolute" rules, and clearly identify them upfront in the Rulebook.  Here are the ones that I think are "Absolute":

1) "Absolute" rules cannot be overruled.
2)  Whenever a card's game text contradicts a non-"Absolute" rule, the card takes precedence.
3)  Whenever a card's game text contradicts another card's game text, the "not" situation takes precedence.
4)  Erratum for a card replaces what is on the printed version of the card.
5)  The Rule of 4.
6)  The Rule of 9.

All other rules have the potential to be overruled by a card's game text, even though most rules don't have a card that overrules them.

So to determine some of these issues, we need to determine whether a specific rule is "Absolute".

For example:
1) Is "You cannot play an event during a phase that does not match its phase action." an "Absolute" rule?
      -- Diversion, Bilbo, Bearer of Things Burgled with NFFATROD, Pass of Caradhras with Caradhras Has Not Forgiven Us.

2) Is "Each character may bear one possession or artifact of each class at one time." an "Absolute" rule?
      -- Flaming Brand, Hand Axe, etc.

[MR. Lurtzy]

By your argument,

Sam, Bearer of Great Need
Flaming Brand
Sent Back
Whisper In The Dark

all would not be allowed. I play on gccg a fair bit and all of these cards are used with no problems at all by anyone...

Why whine about WITD but then also change FOA so it's playable..?

Can't you just accept that WITD is supposed to be used and get over your rebellion against it?

The continued flaw in all of your arguments is that the other cards specificallly allow exceptions to be made, in their texts. WITD does not. If it were to say something like "followers may bear this card", then it would work, but it doesn't have any text that overrides the rule that followers can't bear cards. It doesn't matter if it was supposed to be played, because by the current (and only as far as I'm concerned) rulings, it cannot.

[Cw0rk]

The common sense is to use the card that was printed. I am sure the vote on this particular rule will prove so when the time comes.

+1.

Lurtzy, here is what your card would look like if you add your line:

Followers may bear this card. Bearer must be a follower. At the start of the maneuver phase, if you can spot a [MEN] Man, the Free Peoples player must exert an unbound companion.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Followers may bear this card. Bearer must be a follower. At the start of the maneuver phase, if you can spot a [MEN] Man, the Free Peoples player must exert an unbound companion.

I would agree with this errata.

[Gerontius]

Followers may bear this card. Bearer must be a follower. At the start of the maneuver phase, if you can spot a [MEN] Man, the Free Peoples player must exert an unbound companion.

I think "Bearer must be a follower" implies that followers can bear the card, so the first line is redundant anyways.

[MuadDib85]

Gerontius have a

You have it exactly right.

[Tbiesty]

Just remember to keep in mind Radagast's Staff and Saruman's Staff, when thinking about Whisper in the Dark.

[TheJord]

Thats why I think Lurtzy is looking for a distinction, otherwise everything is fair game

[MuadDib85]

Just remember to keep in mind Radagast's Staff and Saruman's Staff, when thinking about Whisper in the Dark.

Except that neither of those cards say 'Bearer must be a follower'. Which is even more reason for WITD to be allowed to be played. I think no-one has ever or would ever try to give one of the staves to a follower.

[chompers]

Just remember to keep in mind Radagast's Staff and Saruman's Staff, when thinking about Whisper in the Dark.

Except that neither of those cards say 'Bearer must be a follower'. Which is even more reason for WITD to be allowed to be played. I think no-one has ever or would ever try to give one of the staves to a follower.

Bearer MUST be a follower excludes anyone from using it except followers. But it does not grant permission.

Bearer MUST be Radagast says it must be Radagast but it does not grant permission.

Plays on Saruman tells you where it goes but it does not grant permission.

All of these cards prevent others from using them but do not over-ride the rules ... they do not grant permission.

So as I see it WITD is still not usable. Issuing an unofficial errata for this card (without a physical version of it) might be a way forward??