Page 1 of 1

Ballot Item # 29 - Guarded Haven {erratum}

Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:24 pm
by Shapeshifter
INFORMATION
CRF Rulings by Term wrote: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.
The phrase "are not playable at the site" in the card text of Guarded Haven has two problems:
- it affects only the copy of the site on which it is played, breaking a sense of restriction imposed on opponents,
- it introduces a strange concept of "playability per player" (usually resources remain playable at a site even if they cannot be played at the site by anyone).
The original intent of the card without doubt is to prevent opponent from playing cards that give marshalling points at his version of such a protected Wizardhaven. As it stands Guarded Haven only affects the playability of cards that give marshalling points and does not prevent opponent from playing cards that give marshalling points at his copy of the site.

BALLOT ITEM # 29:
Are you in favor of issuing the following erratum?

GUARDED HAVEN
Change This:
Guarded Haven wrote:Playable on one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ] other than Isengard, The White Towers, or Rhosgobel. The site is protected. Cards that give marshalling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases. A company moving to or from this site is not considered moving through the region containing the site (including one less of its region type in their site path). Cannot be duplicated on a given site.
CRF, Errata (Cards), Guarded Haven wrote:You may not use this card as a starting stage resource. [Effective 8/27/98]
Card Erratum: Remove "A company moving to or from this site is not considered to be moving through the region containing the site (including one less region in their site path."
To This (CRF errata are also applied):
May not be used as a starting stage resource. Playable on one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ] other than Isengard, The White Towers, or Rhosgobel. The site is protected. Cards that give marshalling points may not be played at any version of the site by your opponent in all cases. Cannot be duplicated on a given site.

CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR VOTE:
If you vote YES, then you think that Guarded Haven's effect should prevent opponent from playing cards that give marshalling points at his copy/version of the site.

If you vote NO, then Guarded Haven will remain unchanged. It will be up to each playgroup and tournament judge to decide whether or not this card's effect will prevent opponent from playing cards that give marshalling points at his copy/version of the site.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
It addresses the same issues as in cases of The Fortress of Isen and Fortress of the Towers.
Besides the consequences described above the proposed erratum applies the current CRF entry on Guarded Haven.

REFERENCE TOPICS: viewtopic.php?f=143&t=3334

Re: Ballot Item # 29 - Guarded Haven {erratum}

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:12 pm
by CDavis7M
Shapeshifter wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:24 pm
GUARDED HAVEN
To This (CRF errata are also applied):
May not be used as a starting stage resource. Playable on one of your Wizardhavens [ [-me_ha-] ] other than Isengard, The White Towers, or Rhosgobel. The site is protected. Cards that give marshalling points may not be played at any version of the site by your opponent in all cases. Cannot be duplicated on a given site.
Why did everyone vote on this without mentioning ICE's numerous rulings on this same point?
From: ich...@spamblock.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: [MECCG] Hidden & Guarded Haven Question
Date: 1998/01/08

>Can Guarded Haven be used as one of the starting stage cards?

Yes.

----------

From: ich...@spamblock.cstone.net (Ichabod)
Subject: [MECCG] Rules Digest 35
Date: 1998/01/27

> 13) At the tournament character draft: I can play Hidden Haven to
> my starting site. Can i play Guarded Haven after that because i
> have target to it?

Yes.
---------
Shapeshifter wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:24 pm
The phrase "are not playable at the site" in the card text of Guarded Haven has two problems:
- it affects only the copy of the site on which it is played, breaking a sense of restriction imposed on opponents,
- it introduces a strange concept of "playability per player" (usually resources remain playable at a site even if they cannot be played at the site by anyone).
Not mentioned in the discussion, but these "problems" are rectified by understanding the difference between "are not playable at the site" (a restriction on playing resources) and "Nothing is considered playable as written on the site card" (modifying what is written on the site).

Re: Ballot Item # 29 - Guarded Haven {erratum}

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:22 pm
by Theo
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:12 pm
Why did everyone vote on this without mentioning ICE's numerous rulings on this same point?
I can't speak for "everyone", but many community members may have been aware of this CRF 13, 14, 15 entry overturning the previous rulings:
CRF 13 wrote:Guarded Haven
You may not use this card as a starting stage resource. [Effective 8/27/98]

Re: Ballot Item # 29 - Guarded Haven {erratum}

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:50 pm
by CDavis7M
Theo wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:22 pm
I can't speak for "everyone", but many community members may have been aware of this CRF 13, 14, 15 entry overturning the previous rulings:
CRF 13 wrote:Guarded Haven
You may not use this card as a starting stage resource. [Effective 8/27/98]
Right, the CRF is in the original post. My point is, there was no discussion at all. Not on that issue or the issue of "playability per player", which was also the basis for the Fortress vote. Presumably any discussion would have uncovered the incorrect premise. But now that incorrect premise is apparently validated, causing further confusion about the rules -- which is where I take issue. Especially considering every single CoE errata was either based on an incorrect premise, fixing a non-issue, or changing something to be the way that it already was.

viewtopic.php?f=143&t=3291