From: Chad Martin <chad@t...>
Date: Mon Apr 1, 2002 6:42 am
Subject: [NetRep] Rulings Digest #23

If i play a hall of fire at rivendel can my opponent benefits for its effects ?

*** According to the CRF, Rulings by Term, Site:

* A permanent-event played on a site affects only the copy of the site it is
played on, unless otherwise specified. A permanent-event not played on a
site affects all versions of affected sites.

So, no, your opponent won't benefit.
--------
Fear! Fire! Foes! states "Playable on a Free-hold or Border-hold. An
additional
automatic-attack is created at the site this turn: 5 strikes with 8 prowess
(detainment,
no attack type)."

So, my question is this: Since the card states it's an "additional"
auto-attack, does it
add an attack to a free-hold or border-hold that doesn't normally have one? Or
does it
only have an effect if the site already had one?

*** Firstly, the site need not have an auto-attack according to the
playability
conditions. Secondly, last time I checked 0 auto-attacks + 1 auto-attack = 1
auto-attack.
So, you can play Fear! Fire! Foes! on a site with no automatic-attack.
--------
Regarding Hour of Need:

*** Unless explicitly stated otherwise on the card or in a CRF or NetRep
ruling, you need
an untapped site to play a faction, and playing the faction taps the site at
which the
influencing company is.

This means that Hour of Need and Old Road will tap the site at which they're
played, and
you need an untapped site to play them.
--------
I just found this in the rulings by Van that have not been consolidated into
the CRF.

"Ruling Digest 586
From: vnorton@m...
Subject: Ruling Digest 585
2) If I play a guarded haven on a hidden haven, does that mean the site is
never discarded or returned to the location deck?
No. It is still discarded normally.

Actually, I find I am incorrect. A card with Hidden Haven and Guarded Haven
would be returned to the location deck, not discarded, if there were no
companies at the site. Resource cards on the site would be discarded. Sorry
if this answer was confusing."

Does your reasoning trump this, or is this correct?

*** Crap, where are my pants!? Oh, geez. Um, let me get back to you on this
one. I
like to be cautious in overturning previous rulings.

Chad Martin
chad@t...
Official Council of Elrond NetRep
http://www.mdi.net/~chscable/elrond.htm
Assisted by: Nigel Buckle, Wim Heemskerk and Brian Wong