Deep Mines

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sun May 27, 2018 9:05 am

Antonio has a mean One Ring characterless deck, just dumping resources on the table (Armories etc), while waiting for characters to appear at Lórien, then Lucky Search for a ring at Mount Doom with an almost empty playdeck. He's been making lots of friends with this deck :-)
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon May 28, 2018 2:48 am

I wonder what he does with it after Lucky Searching, since none of the dunk cards would be legally playable . . . :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 906
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu May 31, 2018 6:07 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:03 am
If you want to make possible a moving to Deep Mines from site connected via Gnawed Ways, then remove first "only". :)
Wouldn't the text of Gnawed Ways over-ride the Deep Mines text which states "may move to this site only from one of your...."?

After all, Gnawed Ways specifically states it is played on a Deep Mines site and that it creates an adjacent under-deeps site.

Or is your opinion that Gnawed Ways only creates a one-way adjacent site given the way Deep Mines is worded (meaning you can only leave the Deep Mines site, but cannot enter it using Gnawed Ways)?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu May 31, 2018 8:53 am

the Jabberwock wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 6:07 am
Or is your opinion that Gnawed Ways only creates a one-way adjacent site given the way Deep Mines is worded (meaning you can only leave the Deep Mines site, but cannot enter it using Gnawed Ways)?
Yes.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

dirhaval
Posts: 602
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by dirhaval » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:39 pm

I like to look at the intent of Deep Mines for fallen-wizards through the lens of the canon.
Saruman first needed the confidence of security before any mining. Thus, Saruman was not a wandering
wizard anymore and likely stayed at Isengard or nearby annoying Treebeard with walks in the forest.

I need the Deep Mines card to keep the protected wizardhaven requirement to give fallen-wizards access to the richness of the Under-deeps.
However, moving "up" to a replay surface site after the surface site has been discarded (e.g. Call of Home discarding lone character, Hidden Haven, and Guarded Haven) is acceptable to me.

However, I like to note that movement (by the card owner) to the Deep Mines requires a protected Wizardhaven AND from that protected Wizardhaven. Thus, shuttling between Deep Mines and a replay non-protected Wizardhaven is not possible.

Gnawed Ways though allows moving away from a non-surface sited Deeps Mines, but not returning to that non-Wizardhaven protected surface site Deep Mines. Gnawed Ways nullifies this requirement for an opponent moving to an opponent's Deep Mines.

gkg
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: Prague, CZ

Re: Deep Mines

Post by gkg » Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:01 pm

The proposed wording "this site" is ambiguous and points to the actual Deep Mines card at first glance rather than the site that is a protected Wizardhaven.
I hope this change will not go through with this wording. Please, try to come up with better wording if you want me (& possibly other likeminded voters) to consider the suggested rule change.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:02 pm

What wording would be better?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 906
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:39 am

gkg wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:01 pm
The proposed wording "this site" is ambiguous and points to the actual Deep Mines card at first glance rather than the site that is a protected Wizardhaven.
I hope this change will not go through with this wording. Please, try to come up with better wording if you want me (& possibly other likeminded voters) to consider the suggested rule change.
Thanks for your input. I did not think it was confusing because Deep Mines can't be its own surface site, so it appears obvious "this site" is referring to the Wizardhaven site. Even so, perhaps the wording could be better... maybe "The site moved from is the surface site for Deep Mines..."?

gkg
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: Prague, CZ

Re: Deep Mines

Post by gkg » Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:36 pm

"The site moved from is the surface site for Deep Mines..." is much clearer.
But we probably cannot change that for this vote :(

Exactly, being its own surface site, or being a representative of the surface site while there is a hypothetical Deep Mines not represented by a physical card are some of the weirdness the "This site" can lead to. I agree that logical discussion would lead to the right outcome, but hate issuing an imperfect Errata...

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:26 pm

gkg wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:36 pm
"The site moved from is the surface site for Deep Mines..." is much clearer.
If "This site is the surface site for Deep Mines" may be read by someone that the Deep Mines is its own surface site, then "The site moved from is the surface site for Deep Mines" may be read by someone that a site connected by Gnawed Ways is the Deep Mines surface site (if the Deep Mines is moved from so connected site).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

gkg
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: Prague, CZ

Re: Deep Mines

Post by gkg » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:43 am

Good point ;)

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 906
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:03 am

gkg wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:36 pm
"The site moved from is the surface site for Deep Mines..." is much clearer.
But we probably cannot change that for this vote :(
Indeed, definitely too late to change it for this year's vote.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:26 pm
If "This site is the surface site for Deep Mines" may be read by someone that the Deep Mines is its own surface site, then "The site moved from is the surface site for Deep Mines" may be read by someone that a site connected by Gnawed Ways is the Deep Mines surface site (if the Deep Mines is moved from so connected site).
Yes, good point. Getting the language just right on this one is tricky.

User avatar
rezwits
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by rezwits » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:57 am

IDK

I read the card in a different light after all this, and some other discussion.

The only restriction I see is this (in bold):

A company may MOVE TO THIS SITE ONLY from one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] and only if you have more than 6 stage points. The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines (i.e., the SITES are adjacent and the movement roll required to move between them is 0). You receive the three stage points if any of your companies are at the site. May be duplicated in a location deck. "'The lodes lead away north towards Carahadras, and down into darkness.'"-LotRII

Meaning you need to have:
A protected Wizardhaven
and 6 stage points.
TO MOVE TO DEEP MINES.

What happens if you go below 6 stage pts? This clause doesn't seem to care
What happens if you don't leave someone behind? It's just saying at the "time" it NEEDS to be Protected, and says it's the Surface Site.

So to me I pretend the Deep Mines card, gets "Isengard (0)" imprinted on that deep mines card.
It won't say "Protected Wizardhaven Isengard" or any of that.

Just like when you are at say The Under-leas, that doesnt say:

Minion The Under-grottos (7), or Hero The Under-grottos (7), it just says The Under-grottos (7) ? 🤷‍♂️

The Under-grottos (7), is a R&L...

just an example...

i.e. it won't say IMPRINTED on the card in imaginary understanding: Protected Wizardhaven Isengard (0), on your Deep Mines card, it'll just say Isengard (0), i.e. the surface site...

oh and BTW, The Way is Shut, clearly make the distiction between "A company moving to or from an Under-deeps"

So this card needs a NetRep, Clarification or something.
Because if Radagast's Haven, get's all the perks, and some kind of imaginary LINK to Rhosgobel and doesn't NEED the actual SITE to stay in play with someone, I don't see why there isn't a LINK/BOND created with this sentence: (i.e., the SITES are adjacent...)
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:29 am

rezwits wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:57 am
I don't see why there isn't a LINK/BOND created with this sentence: (i.e., the SITES are adjacent...)
Because (intentionally or not) ICE decided to say that a company may move to this site only from one of your protected Wizardhavens and stated that The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines. So for surface site a requirement of being protected Wizardhaven has been repeated.

There is an errata, that removes the requirement of being protected Wizardhaven for surface site.
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 144&t=3376
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 906
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:16 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:29 am
rezwits wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:57 am
I don't see why there isn't a LINK/BOND created with this sentence: (i.e., the SITES are adjacent...)
Because (intentionally or not) ICE decided to say that a company may move to this site only from one of your protected Wizardhavens and stated that The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines. So for surface site a requirement of being protected Wizardhaven has been repeated.

There is an errata, that removes the requirement of being protected Wizardhaven for surface site.
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 144&t=3376
Correction - This erratum did not pass and is not effective. Thus you will not see it on the Master List of CoE issued errata:
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 103&t=3541

While the proposed erratum did easily pass the popular vote, it had 3 acting Council Members vote against the measure, which is more than 1/3 of the Council (3 of 8 members). This ballot item was one of three in the 2018 ARV deemed as "Status Quo" items. Per the Charter, any Status Quo item may not have more than 1/3 of Council Members voting against in order to pass. The failure of this measure to pass was announced here:
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 144&t=3444

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”