Agents and Havens

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:12 pm

I would change "Elven agents" to "Agents that have a special ability allowing them to".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by CDavis7M » Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:21 pm

the Jabberwock wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:56 pm
Second, change this CRF:
Agents may not move to any version of a hero Haven, unless they have a special ability allowing them to.
To This:
Unless they have a special ability allowing them to, agents may not move to the following sites:
- Rivendell, Lorien, Grey Havens, Edhellond.
- The White Towers, Isengard if any player is a Fallen-wizard.
- Rhosgobel if any player is Fallen Radagast.
- Any version of any site in play which is currently a haven for any Wizard.
Shouldn't a non-elven agent be allowed to move to regular [-me_rl-] Isengard? The issue of wizardhavens would arise when the agent is revealed and the site path is checked. If any of the sites in the agent's path are currently in play as wizardhavens, then the movement would be improper and the agent would be discarded. Agent movement is described in ICE Digest 110 and 114:
ICE Digest 110 wrote: From: Sean Sandborgh <sand...@orpheus.nascom.nasa.gov>
>>>
>From: Sean Sandborgh <sand...@orpheus.nascom.nasa.gov>
>
>>What happens if I have Wormtongue revealed at non-Wizardhaven
>Isengard
>>and my opponent moves to the Wizardhaven Isengard?? Can I now take
>>actions with Wormtongue???

>
>By the rules, yes.
><<
>
>So the main point is that an agent which is at a non-Wizardhaven before the
>wizardhaven site comes into play is OK, but an agent (non-elf) who wants
>to move to the non-wizardhaven site when the wizardhaven is IN play
>can't??


No, the point is that an agent who is *revealed* at the site before
it becomes a Wizardhaven is okay. It's an odd quirk in the rules,
because we never expected Havens to be created, when we wrote the
Dark Minions rules. The legality of an agent's site/movement is
only checked when he is revealed. If it later becomes illegal, the
agent doesn't care.


>If this is true, than why can't my agents (while I am playing minion) go to
>the minion version of a hero haven before the hero version is occupied??
>(This is a exactly similar situation as above...)


It's not exactly similar. The minion versions of hero Havens always
count as Havens for agents. They don't become Havens when the hero
version is occupied.
ICE Digest 114 wrote:>If playing against a FW can a non-elf agent legally move through a site, a
>version of which is a Wizardhaven, (without being revealed there) enroute
>to another site?

No. (CRF, Agents)
While not directly addressed, it seems like a non-elven agent can move through (and be revealed at) a site that could potentially be a Wizardhaven. However, if the site is in play as a wizardhaven, then it actually IS a wizardhaven, and the movement becomes improper (and the agent is discarded). I thought I read that it is also allowed for an agent to return to their homesite, even if it is currently in play as a wizardhaven, since it would not be considered movement. I'll have to look though.

This ruling on having/not having a protected wizard haven may be relevant. A FW Radagast player only has a protected wizard haven when it is in play. By similar reasoning, would a site might only be a wizardhaven when the wizardhaven site is in play?
ICE Digest 46 wrote:From: "Djoke van der Meulen" <D.vande...@nivel.nl>
>In the organisation-phase before I went to Rhosgobel I revealed the
>Stage-resource An Untimely Brood, which requires a Protected Wizard-haven.
>My fellow-players told me I could not do this, because I didn't have (i.e.
>revealed) one yet. In my opinion everybody knew from the start that Radagast
>has a protected Wizard-haven, so I could slap down cards needing this any
>time I liked.

I would say that if the Fallen-wizard Rhosgobel site is in play, then
Radagast could play An Untimely Brood. It says right on Rhosgobel that
it is a protected Wizardhaven. If Rhosgobel is not in play, it does
not count for Radagast having a protected Wizardhaven
.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Theo » Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:59 am

Unless they have a special ability allowing them to, agents may not move to a site, one of its versions is currently in play as a hero Haven or Wizardhaven. If there is no version of the site currently in play, agents may not move to a site that is a hero Haven or Wizard haven in any player's site deck. Elven agents can move to a site that is a Wizardhaven, whether in play or in any player's site deck.
Should underline portions be: "site if one", "Wizardhaven" (one word)?

Checking player's site decks when the site is not in play does not seem to be part of the original proposal.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Council Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:12 am

Theo wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:59 am
Unless they have a special ability allowing them to, agents may not move to a site, one of its versions is currently in play as a hero Haven or Wizardhaven. If there is no version of the site currently in play, agents may not move to a site that is a hero Haven or Wizard haven in any player's site deck. Elven agents can move to a site that is a Wizardhaven, whether in play or in any player's site deck.
Should underline portions be: "site if one", "Wizardhaven" (one word)?

Checking player's site decks when the site is not in play does not seem to be part of the original proposal.
Thank you! I've revised the proposal, would you be ok with this version?
Unless they have a special ability allowing them to, agents may not move to a site, if one of its versions is currently in play as a hero Haven or Wizardhaven. If there is no version of the site currently in play, agents may not move to a site that is a hero Haven in any player's site deck. Agents that have a special ability allowing them to move to a (hero) Haven can move to a Wizardhaven, whether in play or in any player's site deck.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:33 am

For me - perfect.
(It would be grumbling to ask: why "site deck" and not just "location deck"?)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Council Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Sun Sep 01, 2019 8:57 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:33 am
For me - perfect.
(It would be grumbling to ask: why "site deck" and not just "location deck"?)
That was an error in terminology of mine, will change "site" to "location" as suggested. Thanks otherwise!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Theo » Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:18 pm

Khamul the Easterling wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:12 am
site, if one
There should not be a comma.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Council Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:10 pm

Theo wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:18 pm
Khamul the Easterling wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:12 am
site, if one
There should not be a comma.
Thanks, corrected!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Theo » Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:41 am

Khamul the Easterling wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:12 am
Unless they have a special ability allowing them to, agents may not move to a site, if one of its versions is currently in play as a hero Haven or Wizardhaven. If there is no version of the site currently in play, agents may not move to a site that is a hero Haven in any player's site deck. Agents that have a special ability allowing them to move to a (hero) Haven can move to a Wizardhaven, whether in play or in any player's site deck.
I would prefer sites not in play to be considered per player not having that site in play, as well as sites in that player's discard. For that matter, why penalize players that had that card stolen out of their site deck?

I.e. replace: "If there is no version of the site currently in play, agents may not move to a site that is a hero Haven in any player's site deck."
with "If a player does not have a version of the site currently in play, agents may not move to a site that is a Hero Haven or Wizardhaven that could be in that player's site deck or discard."

Regardless, the sentence should include Wizardhaven.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:06 am

Theo wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:41 am
I would prefer sites not in play to be considered per player not having that site in play, as well as sites in that player's discard. For that matter, why penalize players that had that card stolen out of their site deck?
Non-Wizardhaven site in play may become Wizardhaven, making agent's travel illegal.
So why not vice-versa?
If all copies in play of some site are non-Wizardhaven, why to consider them as versions of Wizardhaven?
Khamul the Easterling wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:12 am
Unless they have a special ability allowing them to, agents may not move to a site, if one of its versions is currently in play as a hero Haven or Wizardhaven. If there is no version of the site currently in play, agents may not move to a site that is a hero Haven in any player's site deck. Agents that have a special ability allowing them to move to a (hero) Haven can move to a Wizardhaven, whether in play or in any player's site deck.
"Unless they have a special ability allowing them to, agents may not move to a site, if one of its versions is currently in play as a hero Haven or Wizardhaven. If there is no version of the site currently in play, agents may not move to a site that is a hero Haven in any player's site deck. Agents that have a special ability allowing them to move to a (hero) Haven can move to a site that is a version of Wizardhaven, whether in play or in any player's site deck."

To achieve consistency with first sentence. Agents never move to Wizardhaven, only to a site that is a version of Wizardhaven.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

dirhaval
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by dirhaval » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:10 am

I think it is wise to use the resource player's site type. Now I feel using Shadows Out of the Dark and New Moon is no longer valid on its own for hazard player cannot target the agent's site to change a free-hold into a border-hold. Note one of my reasons to add power to agents is the power of Thief and Pick-Pocket as opposed of an agent using An Article Missing.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:59 am

dirhaval wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:10 am
I think it is wise to use the resource player's site type. Now I feel using Shadows Out of the Dark and New Moon is no longer valid on its own for hazard player cannot target the agent's site to change a free-hold into a border-hold. Note one of my reasons to add power to agents is the power of Thief and Pick-Pocket as opposed of an agent using An Article Missing.
Should not be it posted in https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... =16&t=4020 ?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Theo » Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:37 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:06 am
can move to a site that is a version of Wizardhaven,
Phrase is misleading. Agents move to sites and track which sites using site cards. Agents do not move to site cards.

Better phrasing might be "move to a site for which there is a Wizardhaven version"
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Agents and Havens

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:25 am

It is compliant with texts of some cards that affect other version of a site, e.g. Nature's Revenge says "All versions of the site become [-me_rl-]".
Obviously it does not affect the site cards. Type of site cards is always their normal type.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”