All Individual Card Rulings at TLHH

[MuadDib85]

Yes it could avoid confusion or create more depending how you look at it. Look at it like this, no matter what there will never be a physical change to card WITD, the text will remain the same, so why not just agree: 'it is okay to use as is' (no-one seems to actually want it banned) instead of creating an unneeded errata.

[MuadDib85]

It already has the text 'bearer must be a follower'.

Can't we just agree to let that text be enough to let it be played?

Unless you think Decipher might print more cards in future that also say 'bearer must be follower' (not likely), then I can see why people would have an issue with WITD, because cards like Radagast's Staff etc.. exist.

However there are no other cards that says 'bearer must be a follower' nor are any forthcoming, so isn't that fact alone enough to give WITD the nod just the way it is?

[MuadDib85]

Maybe clearly defining that 'bearer must be follower' defeats / overrides / wins against 'followers cannot bear other cards' would be the easiest way to go?

Sorry for tripple posting.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Sorry for tripple posting.

Then just update your previous post with new comments. It's quite rude.

But with WITD, I can see that you won't listen to reason as chompers and I have clearly, clearly specified why "bearer must be a follower" means nothing. An errata is needed to make the card playable, because right now, it is not.

[MuadDib85]

Sorry for tripple posting.

Then just update your previous post with new comments. It's quite rude.

It is also quite rude to send people damaged cards and then claim that are not damaged. But you don't seem to care about that.

Errata the card then, I give up.

[Cw0rk]

Sorry for tripple posting.

Then just update your previous post with new comments.

But with WITD, I can see that you won't listen to reason as chompers and I have clearly, clearly specified why "bearer must be a follower" means nothing. An errata is needed to make the card playable, because right now, it is not.

Do you know what an errata implies? Who has the power to make official erratas? Not us. 99% of the people want to see Galadriel, LR banned or errata-ed and it hasn't been done yet. The gentlemen's agreement that Galadriel LR can't be played in movie block makes 99% of us happy. It doesn't have to be official to work and it is the same thing with WITD.

If that doesn't work, here is what I suggest to add as a note:

Clarification: Allies may bear this card.

At the end of the day, it has the same effect as making an errata, except that you don't have to 'officialize' it.

EDIT: I personally defines an errata as 'an official change on a card made by Decipher'. We cannot do that. However, we can make gentlemen's agreement or clarifications.

[Tbiesty]

This entire task we are working on together is for an "Unofficial" document.  In fact, it really is a kind of "gentelmen's agreement" document for how to address things from the "Official" rules, etc. that "just don't make sense".  It allows us to play while being on the same page, if you want to.

Any thoughts on this as a compromise for Whisper in the Dark?

What if the rule "Followers can't bear other cards, including possessions or conditions." was updated to say "Followers can't bear other cards, except conditions."

It makes sense that followers shouldn't bear companions, minions, possessions, events, artifacts, allies, or other followers.  However, I do see potential from a follower bearing a condition.  Whisper in the Dark would be currently be the only card a follower could bear, and would now definitely be playable.

[MR. Lurtzy]

IMO changing the rules is worse than changing a single card.

[chompers]

Everyone's point of view is valid and each seems a fair solution to me.

* Change the rules (followers may bear conditions) ....  but we do not have permission to change the rules of the game (although it is an unofficial document ...)
* Change the card (Errata) .....we do not have permission to create errata and in the ideal world this is the best solution (IMO) but it is just not practical
* Add a clarification to the rulebook for this card ... Bearer must be a follower allows this card to played on a follower .... this may not be the best solution but it is the simplest solution

Is there anyway that any of these solutions will break the game?

In the end it seems we all agree that this card is not over-powered, so allowing its use is not a problem. It may not please everyone, but the rulings document is unoffocial and some players may elect to not use it. We can only ever hope to achieve a majority, not unaminoty (is that a word?)

It is kind of strange that we are debating this point so hard for a card that is not legal for use in movie block.

Just my 2cents

[MR. Lurtzy]

Adding a clarification is changing the rules. Regardless I don't think WITD is the most interesting rules problem here.

[chompers]

I agree, but there is definately a distinction between the two which is what i was going for. Adding a clarification may change the rules for that card which is different to modifying the rules of the game by allowing followers to bear conditions. For the three options I was trying to highlight what may be the simplest solution because banning the card doesn't seem to be working and probably makes less sense (why not use it if we can?).

[Tbiesty]

Whether it's a rule clarification/modification or a single card clarification/erratum, this is all "Unofficial", but will still benefit the LOTR TCG community.  The key is to figure which option is the best way to clarify each issue we come across.  

For clarifying when cards are allowed to be played out of phase, I think, would best be handled by rule clarification.  It's a general issue that affects many cards.

For an issue like "the wording on this particular card is not clear", I think, would best be handled with an individual card clarification.

For the issue with Whisper in the Dark, modifying the rule to say "Followers can't bear other cards, except conditions." would still currently only affect a single card, so it's really the same "amount" of change to the current game as the other two options.  But, what it also does is leave the door open for other conditions that can be borne by Followers to be created in the future (perhaps PC someday makes some v-cards, who knows).  So by trying to be forward-thinking about this particular issue, I was looking at it as a general issue, not just the issue of a single card.

[MuadDib85]

We all want it be playable though.

Lutzy wants to give the card an errata. 'Followers may bear this card'

Tbiesty wants to change the rules. 'Followers may bear conditions'

I think the card is fine the way it is and needs no change, but maybe the term 'This card may be borne by a follower' needs to actually mean something.

I will be happy with whatever unofficial rule is decided upon here for WITD, but as Cw0rk pointed out LR would have been banned if the players had their way, so even if we all agree on something and the times comes for decipher to listen and make some official changes, they probably will do it their way anyway..

[Tbiesty]

Awesome!  28 issues have been identified for clarification.  We've seem to exhausted all the current issues that people can think of, but August 20th is still a few weeks away.

I'm guessing the some of the issues will be "very obvious" to most people.  So, if you guys want to just get those out of the way, that way just the more interesting ones will wait until August 20th.

Point out any of the "very obvious" ones you think should be "no-brainers", and if nobody objects, we we can just start the discussion/vote for those issues starting as early as next week.

Thanks!

[Elessar's Socks]

Here's another try at the golden rules. I think the wording can be tightened up, but hopefully the gist is there.

Rule 1. If a card's game text or rule says an action or situation happens, must happen, or always happens in some manner, a card's game text can make that action or situation happen in another manner.

Example 1: The Red Arrow can play a Man during the assignment phase, even though the rules describe only a situation where companions are played during the fellowship phase.

Example 2: Some Secret Art of Flame can play a condition during the regroup phase, even though a rule says "A condition is always played during the fellowship phase (if it is a Free Peoples card) or the Shadow phase (if it is a Shadow card)..."

Rule 2. If a card's game text says to perform an action, and that action is directly prevented by a rule, that rule is ignored.

Example 1: Diversion ("...you may add 2 burdens to play this event during a skirmish involving a Hobbit") is directly prevented by (and therefore ignores) the rule that says "You cannot play an event during a phase that does not match its phase action." In contrast, the ability of Bilbo, Bearer of Things Burgled ("Regroup: Add a burden to play a tale.") cannot be used to play Nine-fingered Frodo and the Ring of Doom (a skirmish event), because that text does not directly reference playing an event outside its phase.

Example 2: Sent Back ("Fellowship or Regroup: Play a Wizard (even if another copy of that Wizard is in your dead pile).") is directly prevented by (and therefore ignores) the rule that prevents a unique companion from being played if another copy of that card is in your dead pile. In contrast, Delving ("Fellowship: Exert a Dwarf companion to draw 3 cards.") is not directly prevented by The Rule of 4, which allows cards to be drawn, but limits the number drawn.

Rule 3. If a card's game text says a situation can happen, and this situation is directly prevented by a rule, that rule is ignored.

Flaming Brand reads: "This weapon may be borne in addition to 1 other hand weapon." This text ignores the rule that says "Each character may bear one possession or artifact of each class at one time."

Rule 4. Whenever a card's game text says an action/situation can happen, and another card's game text says that action/situation cannot happen, the "not" case takes precedence.

Faramir, Bearer of Quality uses his skirmish special ability ("Skirmish: ...make a minion...roaming...") on a Nazgûl while Bill Ferny, Swarthy Sneering Fellow ("Nazgûl are not roaming.") is in play. Since Ferny represents the "not" situation, the Nazgûl will remain not roaming.

---

The above doesn't cover Whisper in the Dark; for that I'd add "A follower can bear cards that specifically allow its bearer to be a follower" to the rules.