Paths of the Dead

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I would prefer:
" ... The company may move from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech ... "

All other "special movement" cards I know say "company may move".
In my opinion (expressed in 2nd post of this thread) they do not give an option to not to move or moving using other methods.
Rather they restrict a possible new sites to listed (to only Vale of Erech in case of Paths of the Dead).

It is better to use uniform wording for all "special movement" cards and to interpret the wording uniformly that to state "company must move" in one case, which may suggest that in all cases except this one "may move" is an option.

Of course you may not share the opinion expressed in 2nd post of this thread. For this reason I have asked whether "If it does" is intentional.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Ex Council Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 8:47 pm I would prefer:
" ... The company may move from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech ... "
I am happy with this, too! :D
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 8:47 pm In my opinion (expressed in 2nd post of this thread) they do not give an option to not to move or moving using other methods.
In my opinion, the word "may" allows an option.

Some humorous outcomes if may is mandatory:
CRF wrote:Wizard specific Stage Resources may(must) be played with the starting company.
CRF wrote:If an attack can not be cancelled, strikes from the attack may(must) still be cancelled.
CRF wrote:Two or more skill cards may(must) be played by a single character outside of the strike sequence."
And pain to those that can't fulfill this!
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 2:41 am In my opinion, the word "may" allows an option.
In my opinion, the word "may" allows for something. And it precedes a list of possibilities.
A Lie in Your Eyes does not give not lucrative proposals that may be all rejected by opponent.
If something allows for moving to one of listed sites, the something does not necessarily allows for not moving.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 9:05 am
Theo wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 2:41 am In my opinion, the word "may" allows an option.
In my opinion, the word "may" allows for something. And it precedes a list of possibilities.
A Lie in Your Eyes does not give not lucrative proposals that may be all rejected by opponent.
If something allows for moving to one of listed sites, the something does not necessarily allows for not moving.
I have to agree with Theo on this. The common use of the word "may" in the English language suggests that something is optional but not mandatory.

Definition by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
A - have the ability to
B - have permission to (used interchangeably with can)
C - used to indicate possibility or probability; sometimes used where might would be expected
I think using the word "must" is a much better option if we want the movement to be mandatory. I also don't think other poorly worded MECCG cards are a good excuse to not use optimal wording on an erratum.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

That is simple:
If a decision is already taken that a company will move, then "may move here or there"
does not give the company the option "it may move", it gives a choice where to move.
"May" does not become "must", but range of possibilities is narrowed due the earlier decision.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I don't see an earlier decision though. Are you getting that from "For its movement"? I see this as modifying the movement option, without mandating movement. Another English example:
The statement: "For your graduation, you may have any sandwich on the menu for free." doesn't guarantee/force you to graduate.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:45 am I don't see an earlier decision though.
I assume that playing any "special movement" card is synonymous with taking decision that a company will move.
Theo wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:45 am Are you getting that from "For its movement"?
No. I was and I am for removing the phrase.
Theo wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:45 am I see this as modifying the movement option, without mandating movement.
I too.
Theo wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:45 am Another English example:
The statement: "For your graduation, you may have any sandwich on the menu for free." doesn't guarantee/force you to graduate.
Especially if you are already graduate.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
gkg
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: Prague, CZ

I dislike turning down the possibility to get to Dunharrow and have another M/H phase as hinted at the official rulings. I would appreciate only half-errata for Aragorn's presence.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I like turning down the possibility of playing Paths of the Dead only to play later Army of Dead (without moving company with Aragorn II from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech).
To avoid such possibility and at the same time to give the company a chance to move from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech in next M/H phase, the card need to be reconstructed. It should be alternatively played at the end of M/H phase on company with Aragorn II that moved to Dunharrow.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

From: sfr...@comet.net (Scott Frazer)
Subject: Re: [METW] - Paths of the Dead question
Date: 1995/12/28
> The block text of the Paths of the Dead reads: "Playable only at the
>end of the organization phase"; and then the text reads "For its movement,
>a company that starts at the Dunharrow site and contains Aragorn II may
>move to the Vale of Erech site..." ^^^

> The block text doesn't read "Playable only at the end of the
>organization phase on a company at Dunharrow", and the word "may" in the
>text indicates that you might just be able to play out the Paths and let
>them sit there and not use them, but still have them in play. The cards
>that can only be played at certain places are pretty clear about it by
>putting their restriction in the block text at the beginning of the card.
>I think this one is a bit ambiguous.


Talked to Coleman last night... the card will be errata'd to be more in
line with the designer's orignial intent. While the exact wording has yet
to be determined, it will look something like this:

Change the word "may" to "must." Indicate that the card can only be played
on a company at Dunharrow.
Interestingly, the card did not receive errata. Presumably too much other errata that actually affected mechanics.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

:)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”