All Individual Card Rulings at TLHH

[Tbiesty]

This is not so much a question, as it is a request for help from fellow players here at TLHH.

I've found it difficult to keep track of rulings we make on this forum.  So to make organization easier, I've created a document that will be used to contain all rules.

Here is the document:   ---->  Unofficial Rulebook  <----

If you are not interested in any of the "Unofficial" rulings that we are going to be making together, here is a version of the document that does not include any of these rulings: Unofficial Rulebook (only official rules)

I started this document with all of the rules I could find from all official rulebooks and CRD's I could find.  The goal is for this document to contain all rulings that we make here at TLHH.  Of course, since we are not Decipher, we can not call our rulings "official", which is why the document is "unofficial".  However, in my opinion, the players here at TLHH are the most qualified in the world to make quality rulings, so let's document them.

Key Point: The idea isn't to update this document every time there is a question about something that is clearly identified in the current rulebooks, but rather when there is an issue that requires an actual ruling or clarification from the lack of an existing one.

What I need from you

Step 1: (Complete)   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.

Step 2: (In Progress) 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.

***At this point, even though this is "unofficial", nothing really will be different from Decipher's rules, we would have just clarified unclear rulings.***


When it comes to the discussion or voting on a ruling. Anyone that wants to is allowed to participate, no matter how long you've been on TLHH, or how many posts you have.

Thank you all in advance!

List of topics that have been discussed and ruled upon:

1) How does playing White Hand Sieger work? (discussion and ruling)
2) Can you discard (or exchange) your hand if there are no cards in it? (discussion and ruling)
3) Do minions need to exert from Neekerbreekers' Bog? (discussion and ruling)
4) With Ulaire Otsea, Black-Mantled Wraith, does the the Free People's Player choose which happens? (discussion and ruling)
5) Can the site number of a minion be modified to be greater than 9? (discussion and ruling)
6) Can the game text of The Witch-king's Beast, Fell Creature be used multiple times at a site? (discussion and ruling)
7) Can Rabbit Stew be transferred to any Fellowship companion? (discussion and ruling)
8) How does Helpless work with Sam, Bearer of Great Need and Frodo, Frenzied Fighter? (discussion and ruling)
9) How does Held work with Frodo, Frenzied Fighter? (discussion and ruling)
10) Can Followers be transferred between characters? (discussion and ruling)
11) With Crashed Gate, when can the Free People's Player choose each option? (discussion and ruling)
12) Does Borne Far Away cause threats to trigger? (discussion and ruling)
13) Does Vile Pit and Spurred to Battle trigger during another Shadow player's shadow phase? (discussion and ruling)
14) Can Footman's Armor change who won/lost the skirmish? (discussion and ruling)
15) How does overwhelming work with Final Triumph or One Last Surprise, when cards like Coat of Mail are involved? (discussion and ruling)
16) Does Crashing Cavalry prevent any special abilities from being used during skirmishes involving either of the characters? (discussion and ruling)
17) Can Bilbo, Bearer of Things Burgled be used to play any tale during regroup phase? (discussion and ruling)
18) With Sting of Shelob, is a companion returned to hand after the other companion is placed in the dead pile? (discussion and ruling)
19) With cards like Armor and Gimli's Helm, if another card, like Sapling of the White Tree or Dwarven Bracers is used to prevent the would-be first wound during a skirmish, does the character avoid taking any wounds at all during the skirmish? (discussion and ruling)
20) If the game text of A Shadow Rises or a deceived wizard is removed by Phial of Galadriel, Star Glass, what happens? (discussion and ruling)
21) Is replacing someone in a skirmish considered being assigned to a skirmish? (discussion and ruling)


Deciding on a ruling:

Step 1)  For issues that I think the rules, previous discussions, etc. definitely favor one of the options, I still want to have the discussion just in case there is "something we are not considering..." that would favor the other option. So in those cases one of the options has the "burden of proof". I'll make sure to clearly spell out when this is the case in the initial post of each discussion. If that "something we are not considering..." is found, the burden of proof will be lifted, proceed to Step 2.  If the rules, previous discussions, etc. really do favor one option over the other, and nothing clearly supporting the other option is found, I obviously expect a majority will agree with the favored option anyway.

Step 2) A majority vote wins (if we actually get a tie, we'll deal with it at that time).

[MR. Lurtzy]

There are very few "rulings" that have more than 3 or 4 people backing them. Hardly a consensus.

[putridbreath]

There are very few "rulings" that have more than 3 or 4 people backing them. Hardly a consensus.

I propose we set a number that reflects a consensus--more people (including myself) will come out of the woodwork to give input on issues now that there will be some weight to the rulings. I'm sure we can come up with a way that is not 3-4 people ruling every case with no outside support.

[Cw0rk]

I've found it difficult to keep track of rulings we make on this forum.  So to make organization easier, I've created a document that will be used to contain rulings, organized by card.

I do not find it difficult at all, I use the search function at the top of the page.

I'm not against such a document, I just don't need it. I also think that it would take a lot of time to make and I'm not sure that its worth it. There are 29 pages with 20 posts each in this section, that's a lot of rulings. I'm not interested in participating, although I might post a few replies here and there.

By the way ket, when it comes to ruling concensus, it's not all about post count.

[Witchkingx5]

There are 22 people on this site with over 1000 posts.

I have just 837...

[Imrahil]

Go for it Tbeisty.  This looks like an intelligent way to make progress while still avoiding legal issues.  Although I'm not sure how much progression you'll be able to make on the "big" issues that desperately need solving.

How are you ever going to get such a consensus on Gil-Galad?  Or the abomination that is LR?  We've been squabbling like children over those cards for ages, and nobody can come up with a satisfactory solution.

Perhaps the four mods (I think?) would have to approve a change unanimously, but even then the situation would be confusing.  I mean, would the changes be built into gccg?  Would they be enforced at tournaments set up by TLHH members?

[Tbiesty]

Go for it Tbeisty.  This looks like an intelligent way to make progress while still avoiding legal issues.  Although I'm not sure how much progression you'll be able to make on the "big" issues that desperately need solving.

How are you ever going to get such a consensus on Gil-Galad?  Or the abomination that is LR?  We've been squabbling like children over those cards for ages, and nobody can come up with a satisfactory solution.

Perhaps the four mods (I think?) would have to approve a change unanimously, but even then the situation would be confusing.  I mean, would the changes be built into gccg?  Would they be enforced at tournaments set up by TLHH members?

This is a first step in a long progress.  Right now, the goal is to identify issues where there may be multiple rule interpretations that may be valid because of a lack of guidance in the current rules, and as a community, choose the best interpretation that we are willing to stick with as a ruling.

The other "issues" you mention, I think, will be dealt with eventually.  First, we need to learn to work together by starting to work out the unclear rulings that exist today.  Then, we will be better able to deal with the type of "issues" you mention.  I look forward to it!

[chompers]

One example i can think of ... can I cancel skirmishes involving the Ringbearer? Some say ...

No ... the rulebook clearly says you can't
Yes ... but it depends on the format as the rule was only introduced after the card pool expanded and becoming unplayable.

It seems we here at TLHH have chosen the Yes option. Everyone may not agree, but you can't please everyone. This game would be alot easier if we were all on the same page (or unofficial rule guide in this case). Sure there might be issues and teething problems, but why not work together and try and make things better than they were in the past. If it doesn't work ... nothing lost except for a bit of time.

If something like this is in the Unofficial Rulings Guide any new player electing to learn the game does not have to scan through 29 pages of rulings that they probably do not yet understand. And how do they know to scan for a ruling they dont even know that they need? Anyone that posts this question on the forums could be referred to the Unoffocial Rules Guide. There are benefits in doing this. I don't think it is time comsuming ad the discussion is already happeing anyway. One person just needs to transfer some solution to a document that is updated periodicially. It can even create more discussion which is the purpose of these forums.

[Elessar's Socks]

Nice work, Tbiesty! Maybe there can be two separate documents, one containing only official rulings, and the other being an unofficial addendum.

I have an internal CRD thing that tries to hammer out rules issues that have come up (though it gets put on the back burner now and then, so I bet I'm missing some things). Maybe we can compare notes, though as you said, we lack a foundation that can move this beyond the musings of individuals.

Edit - Have a few gaps to fill, then I'll attach it to this thread.

[Tbiesty]

The document should now contain all "official" individual card rulings.  I'll continue to work on adding "official" general rulings to it as I have time.   Once I'm done, hopefully by August 20th, I'll save away that version, so it only contains official rulings.  Then we can all work together on adding stuff to the "unofficial" one.

In the meantime, please post links to rulings that need to be discussed.

Thanks!

[Kenddrick]

Oh wow this looks goood!

[chompers]

Whisper in the dark links

http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,4015.0.html
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,3283.0.html (olnly some of the discussion seems relevant)

[MR. Lurtzy]

This one is clear: "Bearer must be a follower" does not grant a follower the right to bear the card, it simply states who can bear it. The card itself is not specifically overriding the rule of preventing followers from bearing cards, so followers may not bear it.

[Cw0rk]

This one is clear: "Bearer must be a follower" does not grant a follower the right to bear the card, it simply states who can bear it. The card itself is not specifically overriding the rule of preventing followers from bearing cards, so followers may not bear it.

Then can you tell me why Decipher created this card? I think that followers should be allowed to wear this card. Your interpretation doesn't make sense to me. Otherwise, I suggest that everyone who got this card in a booster intend a class action vs Decipher because they got ripped-off when they bought it.

I've looked at the topics and you are the only one claiming that followers can't bear WitD.

[MuadDib85]

I agree with you Cw0rk. WITD is not really even that debatable.

Does anyone else besides MR. Lurtzy have a problem with WITD?