Whisper in the Dark

[MuadDib85]

I'm not completely sure.

[MR. Lurtzy]

I wasn't sure at the time. I am now.

[FingolfinFinwe]

Funny, because after reading this thread I'm pretty much convinced in the opposite direction.  It can be played, because as already stated, specific card text "overrules the rules" unless there is a specific ruling change at a later point.  Again, OEG is not a valid example since the rulings regarding canceling ringbearer skirmishes came after the card was printed.

Ugh a PC would be nice to make it official.

[Elessar's Socks]

Yes but the reason the no-cancel rule applies to OEG (and other rules don't override the cards) logically seems to be because the no-cancel rule came later. Again, Decipher didn't say this was their reason for treating OEG differently from, say, Sent Back, but it's a better explanation of their motivations than to say that the no-cancel rule is somehow different from all other rules, especially when the principle that later rules override earlier rules is such a fundamental assumption of rulemaking (if Congress passes one law saying the speed limit is 50mph, then later passes a law saying it's 60mph, we all know that the latter rule overrides the former; if it didn't, no rule could ever be changed).

But that's exactly what this entry is doing--it sets an example where a rule cannot be overridden by cards. The entry does not mention the card coming earlier as the reason it does not work (in which case it might be simpler just to issue an erratum). If the entry says "This text does not work because we have a rule that says so" then... that's it, without further qualifications. It's up to us to bend it whichever way.

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

Yes but the reason the no-cancel rule applies to OEG (and other rules don't override the cards) logically seems to be because the no-cancel rule came later. Again, Decipher didn't say this was their reason for treating OEG differently from, say, Sent Back, but it's a better explanation of their motivations than to say that the no-cancel rule is somehow different from all other rules, especially when the principle that later rules override earlier rules is such a fundamental assumption of rulemaking (if Congress passes one law saying the speed limit is 50mph, then later passes a law saying it's 60mph, we all know that the latter rule overrides the former; if it didn't, no rule could ever be changed).

But that's exactly what this entry is doing--it sets an example where a rule cannot be overridden by cards. The entry does not mention the card coming earlier as the reason it does not work (in which case it might be simpler just to issue an erratum). If the entry says "This text does not work because we have a rule that says so" then... that's it, without further qualifications. It's up to us to bend it whichever way.

Decipher has never been good at giving explanations. But if you did assume that rules overrode the cards, Sent Back, The Red Arrow, etc., wouldn't work. The only way you can reconcile OEG with Sent Back is by noticing that in OEG the rule came later.

[FM]

Card game designing is pretty similar and straigthforward, so most of them follows simple design rules, which are:

-Rules apply to cases covered by then;
-A card's text takes precedence over a ruling.

Of course, this is assuming best-case scenarios, where rules never have to undergo changes. If they DO undergo changes, until they finish changing ALL of the cards' clarification texts to fit the new rules, you apply the rules to all the cards already printed by the time they were altered. So, it comes down to this, in reality:

-A card's text takes precedence over a ruling, as long as it was printed UNDER said ruling.

This is why O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! had to be errata'ed, and a BUNCH of others had either errata issued, or their functionality changed even though no errata was issued (let's face it, D WAS lazy with stuff like this). So, bottom line, from what I've gathered, Whisper in the Dark came out AFTER the rules for followers had been set, right? So it CAN be used with its PRINTED functionality.

[ket_the_jet]

I'll be honest, I'm not so keen on the idea of allowing a card to subvert the rules written in the CRD; however, all signs point to this card being legal. And I don't think Sent Back is a good example, because it clearly states that you can play a card even if that companion is in the dead pile. So in that case, it has given a clear acknowledgement of the rules as they stand and this card allows you to go around it.

My biggest thought on the card being legal is that it was errata'ed. That implies that even the lowest-level employee at Decipher looked at the card.

But here's my question. What abuse is possible if followers are allowed to bear cards? I don't know of any of the major cards allowing the bearer to be a "character" anyways and since Followers don't have printed races, a card like Elven Bow (bearer must be an Elf) can't be put on Sabine Crossen...
-wtk

[Sam, Great Elf Warrior]

But here's my question. What abuse is possible if followers are allowed to bear cards? I don't know of any of the major cards allowing the bearer to be a "character" anyways and since Followers don't have printed races, a card like Elven Bow (bearer must be an Elf) can't be put on Sabine Crossen...

Good point, but there are also cards that refer to people by name like Radagast's Staff (on Radagast, ToB) or Saruman's Staff (on Saruman, SoS). It's easier to make one rule than multiple clarifications, especially if Decipher wanted to make more big-name followers (e.g. Elrond or Galadriel).

[ket_the_jet]

Sam. I forgot about the Staffs.

Well...what if the rule was "Followers Cannot Bear Artifacts"? I will be honest, I don't really see to much problem with Radagast, Tender of Beasts and Radagast's Staff on a companion. It is nothing that Troll Swarm can't handle (that is me being sarcastic--I dislike Standard, as many people know).
-wtk

[TelTura]

At any rate, the issue wasn't possessions/artifacts being played on followers, it was conditions, which have considerable flexibility already in this game.  We have conditions that add vitality, conditions that add to (or take away from) the archery total, conditions that change how the ring-bearer gets corrupted, heck, conditions that act as minions (here and here).  It seems to me much less radical for a condition to say "bearer must be a follower" than "make this condition a fierce strength 10 minion".   I think the rule of "followers may not bear cards" is just fine, since that will block possessions and artifacts, but the ever-fickle condition will simply scoot by it when it needs to. 

Where does the authority lie?  I say the most recent, be it a rule or a card.  If a card were to be printed today that said "exert five companion, add three threats, three burdens and discard three cards at random from hand to cancel the Ring-bearer's skirmish" I would roll with it...simply because, by design, knowing that canceling the ring-bearer's skirmish is illegal, it added such a heavy cost to match its effect.  It would take into account that that would be very hard to do on site nine (assuming the shadow player has been awake all game).  At any rate, I like less to look at O Elbereth as a ruling, and more an errata.  Cards that change sites were errata'd to say that they only work in Fellowship block, or Tower block, or the block they belong to...how is this any different from a "ruling"?