Page 2 of 2
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:01 pm
by miguel
So is it written somewhere that opponent must provide the site from his location deck? Manuel seemed to think so (
http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... f=12&t=553), but I'd rather see the actual source
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:55 pm
by Konrad Klar
If a site card that is required to replace its version in play does need come from LD than it must come from out of game. Player may not legally have a one version in play and opposite version in discard pile.
If so a player that owns affected site is not limited by lack of site cards that he have in game and rule:
If you play a hazard forcing a Fallen-wizard to change site alignments, and he does
not have the other version of the site he is moving to, you must provide it for him.
After that it is his responsibility to provide sites
is nothing more than regulation of logistic aspect of game (like who is responsible for providing tables, chairs etc).
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:21 pm
by Konrad Klar
Opppss..
Correction.
Now I see other possibility.
Owner of affected site card must have opposite version in LD, else his opponent must provide site card from his LD or discard pile.
Ok.
But what if player does not have required site card in LD and opponent has it in play, and company changes involuntary its status to overt or non-overt?
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 10:48 am
by miguel
The quote that you must provide the (first) site to change the alignment applies only when you play a hazard causing the situation (does this include creatures that end up changing company status via combat?). And IF you need to provide the site without taking it from out of play, IMO it needs to come from LD, and LD only (not discard, not from play).
What about when FW overt company, say with Regiment, goes to minion version Rivendell, faces AA and loses Regiment. The company loses its overt status and Rivendell should be changed into the hero version, but FW player doesn't have it in his location deck..? Opponent shouldn't have to provide the site here. Company gets discarded?
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:03 am
by Konrad Klar
Wounded site?
Of course it would require an errata.
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:05 am
by miguel
Yeah I think we need to come up with something within the current rules. I see Legenday Hoard's card text as just a special case (and perhaps should have been dealt with as "off to the side" instead of all the inverting, but those rules came later).
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:33 am
by miguel
This thread is starting to become a bit messy, so I'll try to recap my thoughts below. I think this looks like a pretty solid way to handle it, let me know if something seems out of place.
miguel's head wrote:If a company must return to its site of origin that is no longer in play, that site card (or the resource card that acted as the site) must be returned into play in the same orientation it left. It does not matter whether at the time of returning the card is in the discard pile, location deck, play deck, hand, or out of play.
If a company simply loses its site card, like Wondrous Maps with Crown of Flowers getting Twilighted, or a FW player not being able to replace a company's site card with the necessary alignment (when the alignment change is not forced by a hazard), the whole company is discarded.
Regarding characters popping up due to cards like No Better Use and Sack Over the Head, the characters' player must either be able to provide the site from his location deck, or the characters must be able to join a company already at the site. Otherwise the 'released' characters are discarded.
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:37 am
by Konrad Klar
Sounds good.
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:47 pm
by marcos
agree
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:46 pm
by Konrad Klar
Yet another detail:
Non-Balrog players may include for purposes of playing hazards in LD Balrog site cards representing exclusive Balrog's sites.
Possible* is using them as rescue sites, that will be later used by rescuing companies and/or rescued companies to indicate their route/position (that is not strictly use for purposes of playing hazard).
Could be that site cards used if character must form a company at one of Balrog's sites?
*) I do not know other hazards that would require under-deep site card.
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:27 pm
by miguel
I don't think you could use them in this case. They may be included in a non-Balrog player's location deck for the purposes of playing certain hazards only. They can't be used by your characters.
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 8:33 am
by miguel
Proposed ruling wrote:If a company must return to its site of origin and that site card is no longer in play, it (or the resource card that acted as the site) must be returned back into play in the same orientation that it left. It does not matter where that site card is, it is returned even from out of play.
If a company simply loses its site card, all the characters are discarded. For example, this happens to a company using Wondrous Maps played with a Crown of Flowers if someone Twilights that Crown of Flowers.
Characters getting released from cards like Sack Over the Head need to be able to either join a company already at the site, or their player must be able to provide a site card for them from his location deck. Otherwise the released characters are discarded.
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:57 pm
by marcos
sounds good
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:09 pm
by Konrad Klar
Sounds good.
Re: No Better Use and No Site
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:56 am
by miguel
Published in digest #125. Locked.