I can't be blamed for the CRF. :) During play, you may organize your characters into groups called ‘companies’. A company’s size is equal to the number of characters in it. A company is limited to a size of seven. This is simply under the character and company rules. However, under the actual headin...

That's also a different question.

Company size rules (maximum number of characters) have nothing to do with company composition rules (what kind of characters).

Playable on a minion company. One agent minion may be played with target company at a Darkhaven - place this card with the agent. Open to the summons lets an agent minion be played . This is entirely different from Orders which says: This company may contain a Troll leader in addition to another le...

It does go out of its way to specify Troll leader, though. It doesn't just say the company may contain an extra leader. It says a company with a leader may also contain a Troll leader. That's what started me thinking. The way it's worded has at least the possibility of cutting through every company ...

Is the Balrog prevented from getting any bonus points for storing the Palantiri of Amon Sul/Osgiliath?

Playable on a company. May be played with a starting company in lieu of a minor item. This company may contain a Troll leader in addition to another leader. +1 to all corruption checks by followers of Troll leaders in this company. Discard if Ren is your Ringwraith or when a leader leaves the compa...

I always thought if they were moving to a site already in play on the table and there were more than one site on the table, I had to indicate during the Org Phase which site I was moving to in order to avoid just such confusion. One and only one company may already be at the site. In this case the o...

I think Konrad Klar's making a parallel example in order to respond to Jaded's objection -- if one company stays at a site and the other moves, then the original site is not returned to the location deck, but remains with the company that has not moved. If there's no rule prohibiting your own agents...

The rules only mention needing a new site to move an agent -- not where the site has to come from. Perhaps they assumed a "from the location deck" was implied.

On the other hand, we can't work with implied rules.

Interesting. What would be the reason for not letting an agent use one of your sites already on the table?

It may be redundant, but I do see the necessity of having a rules discussion forum for the CoE site, given that the NetRep team exists to fulfil a funtion of the CoE under their charter. It would also be weird to have meccg.net not have a rules discussion forum. The only problem I foresee would be t...

Though had I been around then, I probably would have voted no. There are already ways to make a Barrow-Wight playable at the Barrow Downs (changing the site type, Sleepless Malice, etc.). On the other hand, most of the UEPs I'm fully in favor of; those of which I disapprove were ones wherein I was o...

The question's one of speed. Being delayed even one turn is tough on a New Ringlord deck. Besides, a FW can only have two of any copy of a ring test, while the hazard player can have three in his FW sideboard. Three to two is not great odds.

There are some things I miss, but at the rate you're adding content, I don't mind.

Though one I would name is that there doesn't seem to be a place for suggesting Virtual Cards -- should that go under the "Explanation of Virtual Cards" Forum?

Well, that flushes any FW dunk deck down the toilet. Thanks.