Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:48 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:26 am
When these cards are played on Returned Exiles, it is more likely that the number of sites would decrease (if reading the card).
Hard to not believe.

Image

A picture is worth a thousand words. The one above is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-eleme ... an_algebra
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:48 am

TOAB, NEFMM do not increase/decrease playability of target faction. Their effects may be increased/decreased if target faction is considered playable at more/less sites (located in different regions).

Tower Raided's effect shows explicitly that a presence of a site in play cannot be ignored when determining a presence of in game a site where some faction is playable. If to ignore a type of sites in play in Forochel or in Withered Heath when determining a playability of Ice-Orcs, then Tower Raided's effect may be considered as irrelevant for the purposes as well.
Other issues discussed in the tread (determining a presence of Wizardhaven for agent's travel, determining whether unique Orc/Troll faction is playable at [-me_dh-] for purposes of Great Army of the North as permanent-event) may be treated consistently, or not consistently.

The proposal is aimed to the former; treating all issues consistently.
Type of sites in play are taken into account in first place. Only if the sites are not in play, sites (or normal types of them) that may be used by players participating in game are taken into account.

EDIT:
"/nor decrease" -> "/decrease"
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:42 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:48 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:26 am
When these cards are played on Returned Exiles, it is more likely that the number of sites would decrease (if reading the card).
Hard to not believe.

A picture is worth a thousand words. The one above is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-eleme ... an_algebra
Guess you didn't read the card?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:16 pm

Returned Exiles wrote:Unique. Playable at a tapped or untapped site where an at home Dragon manifestation was defeated if the influence is greater than 12. Standard modifications: King under the Mountain Dwarf (+5), other Dwarves (+2). "'Don't call my place a nasty hole! You wait till it has been cleaned and redecorated!'"-Hob
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:26 am
When these cards are played on Returned Exiles, it is more likely that the number of sites would decrease (if reading the card).
Which are "these cards"? TOAB, NEFMM ?
Which is "the number of sites [that] would decrease"? The number of sites where an at home Dragon manifestation was defeated? The number of sites where Returned Exiles is playable?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:31 pm

. . . Too many cards to read? Just read Returned Exiles.

Also, the proposal is inconsistent with ICE's previous rulings / statements on this topic.
"No Escape From My Magic Card Erratum: Change "Playable on any faction in play" to "Playable on any unique faction in play."

The only purpose of playing these hazards on the faction is to determine the regions are affected by the hazard. ICE's ruling sought to avoid the player having the determine the playability of the faction by limiting the cards to Unique factions. Given this, why is the proposal trying to perpetuate the problem of determining playability instead of removing it as ICE tried to do?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:51 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:31 pm
The only purpose of playing these hazards on the faction is to determine the regions are affected by the hazard.
Nonsense.
Rather a determining where the faction is playable is needed to determine the regions affected by the hazard.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:31 pm
ICE's ruling sought to avoid the player having the determine the playability of the faction by limiting the cards to Unique factions.
Errata to No Escape From My Magic prevents NEFMM from being played on A Panoply of Wings.
This would affect most regions in game.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:31 pm
Given this, why is the proposal trying to perpetuate the problem of determining playability instead of removing it as ICE tried to do?
Solving is not perpetuating.
Perpetually explaining the same does not necessarily solve anything.
Perpetual reading the text of Returned Exiles did not enlighten me as well.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:28 pm

There is an easy solution that would be helpful to players. And then there is yours.

And, you still didn't bother to read the card. Hm.

Also:
ICE wrote:Also if a site card taps but is returned to your location deck is it considered untaped?

They are neither tapped nor untapped, that only applies to cards in play.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:05 am

If I understand the joke, a faction playable at a tapped or untapped site, is never considered playable if the site card for the site is not in play.
Anyway even if all at home Dragon manifestation was defeated, then the site cards for sites where they was defeated may still be all in play (or at least some).
Another funny consequence of the joke is that Hour of Need cannot be used with Returned Exiles if no such site card is in play.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:28 pm
Also:
ICE wrote:
Also if a site card taps but is returned to your location deck is it considered untaped?

They are neither tapped nor untapped, that only applies to cards in play.
Thanks for hint.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:23 pm

if the influence check is greater than 12
is not a playability condition.
A faction is/is not playable regardless of a result of influence check.
Otherwise an influence attempt against the faction could not be initiated.
Actually it is a result of an influence check required to play the faction successfully.

at a tapped or untapped site
is not a playability condition. does not say where a faction is playable.
An influence attempt against an opponent's faction can be made regardless of tapped/untapped state of a site card for the site where the faction is playable.
Actually it is a permission to make an influence attempt against the faction regardless of tapped/untapped state of a site card for the site where the faction is playable.

Text of Returned Exiles at is incorrect. At time of writing of the post it is:
Unique. Playable at a tapped or untapped site where an at home Dragon manifestation was defeated if the influence is greater than 12. Standard modifications: King under the Mountain Dwarf (+5), other Dwarves (+2). "'Don't call my place a nasty hole! You wait till it has been cleaned and redecorated!'"-Hob
Actually it is:
Unique. Playable at a tapped or untapped site where an at home Dragon manifestation was defeated if the influence check is greater than 12. Standard modifications: King under the Mountain Dwarf (+5), other Dwarves (+2). "'Don't call my place a nasty hole! You wait till it has been cleaned and redecorated!'"-Hob
Underline mine.

EDIT:
is not a playability condition. does not say where a faction is playable.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Theo » Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:17 am

I just realized that the proposal could contradict:
CRF Inner Cunning clarification wrote: The site type for the agent's home site is the one you would use if you went to visit the site.
If an opponent was at the agent's home site and the site had a different type, the proposal would change the site type considered for Inner Cunning.

I'm updating my preferences back in this post to reflect the precedent set by this CRF entry.
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: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:12 am

Theo wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:17 am
just realized that the proposal could contradict:
Maybe.
CRF entry for So You've Come Back also contradicts with:
Lidless Eye wrote:Note: Sometimes two or more companies combine and the resulting company has two or more of the same cards that
say: "cannot be duplicated on a given company." When this happens, immediately discard all but one of those cards
(your choice).
Something to correct or to treat it as exception.
I prefer first.

According to the current regulation for Inner Cunning, The Grimburgoth played as hazard agent by ringwraith player in game against hero/fallen wizard player is out of luck.
The player (company controlled by him) cannot visit Do Guldur as [-me_dh-] or as [-me_sh-].

EDIT: "minion player" -> "ringwraith player"
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:07 am

Another situation where determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game is necessary is determining a playability of creatures like Beorning Toll.
The Lidless Eye: Beorning Toll
Hazard: Creature

Men. Each character in the company faces one strike (detainment against covert and hero companies). May be played keyed to Anduin Vales, Wold & Foothills, High Pass, and Redhorn Gate; and may also be played at non-haven sites in these regions. May not be played against a company containing a character with Beorn's House as a home site.
Some characters (e.g. Fallen Gandalf) have their home sites described as sites of given type.

So (according to my proposal) if all copies of Beorn's House in play are not [-me_fh-] *, then Beorn's House is not Fallen Gandalf's home site.
Beorning Toll may be potentially played against Fallen Gandalf's own company.

*) and no other effect make them Fallen Gandalf's home site.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by CDavis7M » Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:10 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:07 am
So (according to my proposal) if all copies of Beorn's House in play are not [-me_fh-] *, then Beorn's House is not Fallen Gandalf's home site.
Beorning Toll may be potentially played against Fallen Gandalf's own company.
*) and no other effect make them Fallen Gandalf's home site.
Beorning Toll and Fallen Gandalf do not require "Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game" because even if Beorn's House was not a Free-hold, it would still be Fallen Gandalf's home site by virtue of a lack of options -- there is no effect to make Beorn's House not a Free-hold but not also Fallen Gandalf's home site.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:43 am

How about 2nd effect of New Moon?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Post by CDavis7M » Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:17 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:43 am
How about 2nd effect of New Moon?
Should I admit that Konrad got me or should I being up another card irrelevant to the situation? 🤔

Anyway, I still don't see the need for the proposal. I don't see any issue with determining Gandalf's homesite or Trouble on all Borders.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”