When a company is at a site

[Jose-san]

I propose to correct the CRF...

Clarification: To summarize the movement process:
· Except for a moving company during its movement/hazard phase, each company is always at a specific site, called its current site.
· A company wanting to move to a new site plays a new site card face down beside its current site card by the end of its organization phase. A company can only move: from a non-Darkhaven site to its "Nearest Darkhaven," from a Darkhaven site to one of its two "adjacent Darkhavens," or from a Darkhaven site to a non-Darkhaven site that lists that Darkhaven as its "Nearest Darkhaven."
· At the beginning of its movement/hazard phase, a moving company's new site card is revealed and its current site card becomes its site of origin.
· At the end of its movement/hazard phase, the site of origin is removed and the moving company's new site card becomes the company's current site card (unless the company is forced to return to its site of origin).

Annotation 25: A company is considered to be at the site given by its site card at all times except from the moment their new site card is revealed during their movement/hazard phase until their old site card is discarded during the same movement/hazard phase. During this period a company is considered to be en route between sites and not at any site.
Removing the site of origin and resetting to hand size are simultaneous actions, and they are the last actions in any movement/hazard phase. This means a moving company is not at a site until the site phase

I can't help but feel that there's an error in that last phrase, it contradicts all the other references to when a company is considered moving or at a site. It makes no sense that a company that has already completed its m/h phase is not at a site.

It only makes sense in the context of the last (or the only) moving company, to make clear that there's no window to do actions between the end of the last (or only) moving company's m/h and the site phase. But there's no window between two m/h phases either.

So the correction I propose is just to remove that last phrase. It's a big change on how the game is played.

It was discussed here too:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2955

[Jose-san]

I'm not sure whether retire this submission after reading this:

Once all of your companies have resolved their movement/hazard phases, any two of your companies at the same non-Haven/non-Darkhaven site combine (companies at Havens/Darkhavens may combine if they wish). Your companies are now considered to be at their new site (that is, the new site becomes its current site).

[the JabberwocK]

These 2 rules are in conflict with each other:

Once all of your companies have resolved their movement/hazard phases, any two of your companies at the same non-Haven/non-Darkhaven site combine (companies at Havens/Darkhavens may combine if they wish). Your companies are now considered to be at their new site (that is, the new site becomes its current site).

Clarification: To summarize the movement process:
· At the end of its movement/hazard phase, the site of origin is removed and the moving company's new site card becomes the company's current site card (unless the company is forced to return to its site of origin).

If a moving company is not at their new site until all company's M/H phases have ended and the site phase begins, then where exactly are they at while other companies are conducting their M/H phases? Their site of origin has been discarded. Are they still moving? This makes no sense.

I believe a clarification needs to be issued which states:

Each moving company is at their new site as soon as their M/H phase has ended.

One other thought....

Is it possible that this MEBA rule is just very poorly worded....

Once all of your companies have resolved their movement/hazard phases, any two of your companies at the same non-Haven/non-Darkhaven site combine (companies at Havens/Darkhavens may combine if they wish). Your companies are now considered to be at their new site (that is, the new site becomes its current site).

.... and it actually is trying to say this....

Once each of your companies have resolved their movement/hazard phase, any two of your companies at the same non-Haven/non-Darkhaven site combine (companies at Havens/Darkhavens may combine if they wish). Each company is now considered to be at their new site (that is, the new site becomes its current site).

[Konrad Klar]

Or even remove "two" from the last quote. Why combining would be reserved only for two companies at the same site?
(or do not remove "two", if three companies will end at the same site, two of them will combine, and there will be in result a two companies to combine )

[the JabberwocK]

Another odd scenario as a result of this being interpreted as "no companies are at a site until all M/H phases are over"....

I move company A through a wilderness. Their M/H phase ends and hand sizes are reconciled.

I then move company B through a wilderness. Opponent plays Snowstorm with Doors of Night in play and forces Company B to return to its site of origin. Must company A also now return to its site of origin, which has already been discarded? I would say NO because they are no longer moving. However, if they also are not yet at the destination site, then where are they and what are they doing? Are they suspended is some kind of limbo universe?

[Frodo]

It’s true that the arrival at a site during the site phase, rather than when one’s site disappears, is very unintuitive. And I'm glad to see this being studied.

However, as the voting page fairly points out, changing this rule to make it more intuitive would have many effects upon game play (Hall of Fire, when you get hand bonus from Galadriel, etc.). I’ve been away from the nuances of the game for a while, but a brief search through my computer revealed a lot of issues/questions, and notes where the NetRep (such as Chad, quoted below) consistently ruled.

I would like to see a thorough study posted of what most of these changes would be and their effects on the game. Until that happens, I’d have to vote against such a change. There are more old players than new players and such a change, I think, would be more disruptive than helpful.

Some notes from Chad:
***Hall of Fire states that its effect occurs "immediately following [the  company's] movement/hazard phase."  This means that its effect is the first thing that occurs during that company's site phase.  Since the companies have already joined, per the CRF, the ruling is correct.   See Digest # 67 for the ruling in question. [COE 69]

[…]it is no longer true that a moving company is at its new site at the end of all m/h phases?
***  Correct.  No company is at a site until the site phase. [COE 69]

[Bandobras Took]

There may be more old players than new players (and I'm getting older by the second, these days ), but since there's contradictory material from ICE itself, either way of playing was a disruptive change. It's just easier not to notice if it's not your interpretation being disrupted.

[the JabberwocK]

There are more old players than new players and such a change, I think, would be more disruptive than helpful.

If indeed there are more old players than new players, then the vote results should reflect the old player's preferences.
Unless of course they are apathetic, in which case a change wouldn't be a big deal to them.
Being unaware that the vote is taking place is no excuse, as it has been broadcast via every reasonable channel.

The above said, I do thank you for your nice post, and you bring up some good points. It would be nice to have an in-depth analysis of every card and situation this change would affect.

When I read the rules on this topic, I feel that ICE's intentions are clear, namely: A company is at the new site as soon as their M/H phase ends. Not only is this logical, but it is exactly what the rules say. The last line of the CRF entry, IMO, was very poorly worded. I believe the intent here is still to stay consistent with the previous rules on the matter, but whoever wrote that line had tunnel vision and was thinking only of a single company moving (not the effect of other companies moving). I'm somewhat surprised that later NetRep rulings and tournament convention didn't interpret this language in a similar fashion, but rather got fixated on the last line of the CRF - reading it concretely (despite the fact it contradicts not only the other rules on the matter, but its own Annotation 25 as well!)

I agree with Bandobras... clarity is better than confusion.

[Theo]

When I read the rules on this topic, I feel that ICE's intentions are clear, namely: A company is at the new site as soon as their M/H phase ends. Not only is this logical, but it is exactly what the rules say.

To seed chaos into this perspective, there are numerous instances in the rules of the wording seeming to assume one company per player, which could also resolve the apparent contradiction in this case.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

The Jabberwock: It makes no sense that a company that has already completed its m/h phase is not at a site.
Frodo: It’s true that the arrival at a site during the site phase, rather than when one’s site disappears, is very unintuitive.

Haven given this some thought, I do not agree, on the issue of theme. The M/H phase indicates a state in which the company is or is not moving, and in which your opponent can play hazards. The fact that they only have their new site card at the end of the M/H phase does not therefore mean the company have arrived, merely that the phase of playing hazards is over. Thus their new site will not be subject to change. They might still, thematically speaking, be en route.

If this troubles you, just think of it as a state in which Sam is unpacking Bill the pony. They have arrived but are not ready yet to start cooking

[the JabberwocK]

They might still, thematically speaking, be en route.

Then you would agree with this under your interpretation?:

You move company #1 through a wilderness, their M/H phase ends, hand size is resolved.

You move company # 2 through a wilderness, their M/H phase ends, hand size is resolved.

You move company # 3 through a wilderness, a Snowstorm is declared and resolves.

Now all 3 of your companies must return to their sites of origin (because they are all technically still moving if they have not yet arrived at their sites at the end of each of their own M/H phases).

[dirhaval]

I very much like the previous two posts in this thread.

I think that myself has for a long time thought that removing the site of origin of a moving company
means the company is AT the new site at the end of its own m/h phase. Now, I think that the moved company is not at ANY site.
Yes, Annotation 25 has its quarks. I say that the company that moved is not at any site by effects of rules. Limbo you can say.
Hall of Fire though is a card and cards are quirks themselves to the rules. Here is my logic with Hall of Fire.

1. Company moves to a Haven in m/h phase, first of two moving companies. company not at any site.
1a. Hall of Fire is played (assuming you can play it on a new site)
2. site of origin is removed and hand reconciled, company not at any site.
3. Hall of Fire passive condition is invoked placing moved company at the Haven.
4. Hall of Fire effects are applied. Company returns to not being at any site.

Has anyone played the card for only being useful on a company staying at a Haven?
A site becoming a current site does not mean the company is "at" the site. It is like the game now is blind to the moved company's new site.
Why would the game need to be blind to the site? For that company only unless otherwise stated by a card like Hall of Fire?
If that is the case, then a sentence or two may need to be removed from official statements as others have written.

THE MEBA Rule for me means that all your companies that moved, still in site limbo, are now visible to the game for this purpose only and thus join.
The game may be blind then to only hazards like Siege. The attack of Siege happens during the site phase after companies are joined.

Consider that the idea of a company at a site after removing the site of origin is blind to hazards specific to that company only (e.g. Siege).

A quick search for the phrase 'at the site' reveals 36 MECCG cards. But the cards obvious not only for site phase (e.g. Greed, Burglary) include
Old Forest, Rhosgobel only. A Chance Meeting mentions specific site types thus were not in the filter list of 36.

It seems to me that "at the site" is for resources already in play during the mini-window after site of origin is removed but before the site phase.
Thus, discarding Forgotten Scrolls before the site phase is not possible. If one could "play" a special ring during this mini-window at the site before the site phase then hazards like Troll-purse would activate. That does not make sense to me. River is different stating "moved to" which I know makes no sense. Did you moved from Italy to England? Yes, I am now in Paris so I moved to England, but have yet to be at England.

In summary, companies that moved are not at any site during its entire m/h phase unless a rule mentions it like joining companies, but then only for the rules. One cannot then say "now the company is at the site after joining this means I can play cards at the site." Maybe all we need is to remove that last sentence in MEBA, since it was meant to clarify, but the clarification went amiss.

[Konrad Klar]

Except discarding itself (when target site is returned to location deck*) Hall of Fire does not cause any action activated by passive condition.
An actions that player may take under some conditions are not an actions activated by passive condition. An actions activated by passive conditions are mandatory.

Maybe a company is at site immediately after its M/H phase.
And if not, and for this reason Hall of Fire has limited use, it is easier to change Hall of Fire's text than to make equilibristics with rules to make the single card working as expected.

*) but the last sentence of Hall of Fire is meaningless. After all, if host card is removed from active play all card on it are discarded, by general rules.

[dirhaval]

I like what you said Konrad Klar. I need to be just as educated with passive conditions.

About Hall of Fire, what about the situation when multiple havens are in play as with bringing a character into play with an untap haven copy
and the other company has a tapped haven with Hall of Fire? Seems that if the copy with the resource is discarded then does not the resource also get discarded?

It is smarter to change one card than all the rules, but tell that to JRR Tolkien about all his revisions dealing with the moon phases. I warrant the Book of Mazarbul had the perfect MECCG rules in it somewhere.

[Jose-san]

When I read the rules on this topic, I feel that ICE's intentions are clear, namely: A company is at the new site as soon as their M/H phase ends. Not only is this logical, but it is exactly what the rules say.

To seed chaos into this perspective, there are numerous instances in the rules of the wording seeming to assume one company per player, which could also resolve the apparent contradiction in this case.

Indeed, I think this is one of those instances.