Fortress of the Towers

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Fortress of the Towers

Post by Konrad Klar »

I propose the following erratum:

Unique. May not be a starting stage card. Playable if you are Alatar, Pallando, or Saruman. Playable on the White Towers. The White Towers is protected. Other Fallen-wizards may not use the Wizardhaven card for The White Towers. Cards that give marshalling points cannot be played at any version of the site by your opponent in all cases. Discard this card when the site is discarded or returned to its location deck.

Original phrase "are not playable at the site" replaced by bold text has two problems:
- it introduces strange concept of "playability per player",
- it affects only the copy of the White Towers on which it is played, breaking a sense of restriction imposed on opponents.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fortress of the Towers

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:43 am
Original phrase "are not playable at the site" replaced by bold text has two problems:
- it introduces strange concept of "playability per player",
This is not as strange a concept as Fallen-wizards. Not sure what the issue is here? There is an effect and its not difficult to understand. Being "strange" is not a basis for errata.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:43 am
- it affects only the copy of the White Towers on which it is played, breaking a sense of restriction imposed on opponents.
... no it doesn't. Where are you getting that? The card says "Cards that give Marshaling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases." Your opponent cannot play MPs at their version of the site.

I don't know if the confusion is based on this CRF entry:
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.
But first of all, Fortress of the Towers would override this CRF entry even if it did restrict Fortress. Second, the effect of Fortress being discussed does not affect the site -- the effect does not modify the playability listed on the site. Instead, it modifies your opponent's conditions for playing "cards that give Marshaling points."

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fortress of the Towers

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:00 pm
Being "strange" is not a basis for errata.
Right. "Strange" just behaves strangely.

War-wolf not only cannot be played at White Towers by opponent, but also Come at Need with War-wolf does not affect the opponent's company moving to [-me_rl-] White Towers, because War-wolf is not playable here by opponent. Mistress Lobelia controlled by opponent cannot tap to retrieve Palantir of Elostirion.

Leave it as is if you think that it is intended and satisfying state.

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:00 pm
... no it doesn't. Where are you getting that?
From CRF. Good intuition.
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:00 pm
Second, the effect of Fortress being discussed does not affect the site -- the effect does not modify the playability listed on the site. Instead, it modifies your opponent's conditions for playing "cards that give Marshaling points."
Can you decide on something?
Should Fortress of the Towers modify playability for opponent or only your opponent's conditions for playing "cards that give Marshaling points." ?

The latter is my choice, the former is "strange" idea mentioned above. And this is one of reasons for errata.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fortress of the Towers

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:39 am
War-wolf not only cannot be played at White Towers by opponent, but also Come at Need with War-wolf does not affect the opponent's company moving to [-me_rl-] White Towers, because War-wolf is not playable here by opponent. Mistress Lobelia controlled by opponent cannot tap to retrieve Palantir of Elostirion.
The existing card covers both situations without the CoE errata.
  • War-wolf states: "Playable at any tapped or untapped Ruins & Lairs with a Wolf automatic-attack."
  • War-wolf is a card that gives a marshalling point.
  • Fortress states: "Cards that give Marshaling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases"
  • With opponent's Fortress of Isen in play, War-wolf is "Playable at any tapped or untapped Ruins & Lairs with a Wolf automatic-attack besides the site with The Fortress of Isengard."
  • Come at Need states: "If an opponent's company moves to a site where the ally is playable"
  • War-wolf is not playable at the site with The Fortress of Isen. So Come at Need would not affect Isengard.
Leave it as is if you think that it is intended and satisfying state.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:39 am
Should Fortress of the Towers modify playability for opponent or only your opponent's conditions for playing "cards that give Marshaling points." ?

The latter is my choice, the former is "strange" idea mentioned above. And this is one of reasons for errata.
I don't see a difference between "playability for opponent's cards that give marshalling points" and "opponent's conditions for playing cards that give Marshaling points."

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fortress of the Towers

Post by Konrad Klar »

Ugh..

Sometimes resources can be played at a site even if they are not playable at the site.
E.g. minor item may be played at hero Bree after playing of faction or ally at the site (if it taps the site).

Sometimes resources cannot be played at a site even if they are playable at the site.
E.g. Bill the Pony cannot be played at Bree if its copy is in play. Still the Bill the Pony card may be retrieved by Mistress Lobelia at Bree; if Bill the Pony is associated with Come at Need then opponent's company moving to Bree is attacked.

I do not see any virtue in blurring the distinction between "may be played" and "playable".
At the same time I think that texts that use the terms are prone to error (i.e. the terms are mistaken).
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 4:30 pm
The existing card covers both situations without the CoE errata.

War-wolf states: "Playable at any tapped or untapped Ruins & Lairs with a Wolf automatic-attack."
War-wolf is a card that gives a marshalling point.
Fortress states: "Cards that give Marshaling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases"
With opponent's Fortress of Isen in play, War-wolf is "Playable at any tapped or untapped Ruins & Lairs with a Wolf automatic-attack besides the site with The Fortress of Isengard."
Come at Need states: "If an opponent's company moves to a site where the ally is playable"
War-wolf is not playable at the site with The Fortress of Isen. So Come at Need would not affect Isengard.

Leave it as is if you think that it is intended and satisfying state.
Yes.
It would work exactly as you described.
(if not errata)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fortress of the Towers

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:15 pm
Still the Bill the Pony card may be retrieved by Mistress Lobelia at Bree.
May it? Mistress Lobelia doesn't say "normally playable," it says "one item, ally, or faction playable at her current site." For Bill, if "only one such card (or its effects) may be in play at a time" then Bill is not able to be played ("playable") in all cases.

...Great blah, blah, Army of the blah.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Fortress of the Towers

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:47 pm
For Bill, if "only one such card (or its effects) may be in play at a time" then Bill is not able to be played ("playable") in all cases.
Then Come at Need with Bill the Pony has no effect at all.
And so on.

Good bye for good CDavis7M.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Fortress of the Towers

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:54 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:47 pm
For Bill, if "only one such card (or its effects) may be in play at a time" then Bill is not able to be played ("playable") in all cases.
Then Come at Need with Bill the Pony has no effect at all.
And so on.
The Bill the Pony card placed with Come At Need would be "playable" at opponent's Bree where the opponent has Lobelia, but Bill the Pony would never be "playable" at Bree for Lobelia's effect since there is already a Bill the Pony currently placed with Come at Need.

This is because there is a difference between Come at Need's "If an opponent's company moves to a site (opponent's site) where the ally (that is off to the side) is playable" and Lobelia's "search your discard pile or play deck for any one (of your own) item, ally, or faction playable at her (ie your) current site."

Come at Need says "the ally is playable." The ally is the one that is placed off to the side with Come at Need. "The ally" in Come at Need is the ally that is off to the side. One card on its own does not violate the Uniqueness requirements. But an opponent's copy of that card could not be played if it would violate Uniqueness. Of course, "The ally" for Come at Need would never technically be playable by the hazard player since they cannot play their resources at their opponent's company's site. But that is not the question being asked. Come at Need asks for the playability of the hazard player's resource at their opponent's site. So "playable" for Come at Need asks "would the hazard player's resource card, if it were in their opponent's hand, be playable by the opponent at the opponent's company's site?" And so the card with Come at Need does not count for Uniqueness against itself in determining playability.

"The ally" in Lobelia is the ally in the player's deck/discard. "The ally" for Lobelia would be playable at the site based on the conditions of that ally and conditions set by other rules and cards in play. For Lobelia, "playable" asks "would the ally in your deck/discard be playable at Lobelia's company's site if it were in your hand?" If your opponent has another copy of the ally is in play, your ally is not playable and may not be retrieved.


Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:54 pm
Good bye for good CDavis7M.
Image

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”