When a Company is at a Site

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

You can see all of the ICE Digests above where Marvels Told was discussed. The bottom line is: "No, you can't play Marvels Told before facing the automatic-attack BUT you can play it during Step (4) the strike sequence if it affects the strike." Also, the Sage doesn't need to be in the same company. Also see Annotation 18, you can't play Marvels just because tapping would give you -1 prowess.

Regardless, the "Marvels Told Issue" has long been a pain in the players side and so CoE Erratum #1 specifically laid out these ICE rulings and the CoE members decided to overturn these ICE rulings.

CoE Erratum 1
CoE Erratum 1 wrote:Resources playable when facing automatic-attack:
When facing an automatic-attack, you may play resources that directly affect the attack or would otherwise be playable during the strike sequence.
The same applies for facing attacks created by cards with multiple actions.
From the examples, this means that you can play resources affecting the attack before assigning and resolving strikes of the automatic-attack. Meaning that you can play Marvels Told to cancel Minion Stir or you can play Ruse or More Sense Than You to prevent a character from being assigned a strike from the automatic-attack (under the ICE rulings you couldn't because these effects cannot be done during the strike sequence).
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Yeah but the reason I made the video was I am sick of going in circles.

4 choices choose one (Vote!) done...

Vote on which one you like
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

The rules are clear from the ICE rulings. These rulings were not presented in the 2018 discussion. No one mentioned that ICE specifically changed the rules to prevent abuse. The vote was presented as "Which option is right?" If this were to be voted on, it's misleading to just present 4 options. The vote would really needs to be presented as "This is the ICE ruling and it was designed to do this, this, and that. Would you like to overturn the ruling?" This is a question of game balance, not a question of which rule is correct. I would appreciate hearing from any Veteran players that direct MECCG tournaments over the past years to give their opinion on the balance issue.

The problem with just voting on things is that there are hundreds of players still playing by the original ICE rules who don't vote on the CoE ARV. These votes fragment the dwindling player community further into people who remember and play by the original rulings and the 50 other people that voted. Maybe some people didn't bother to vote because the 2018 ARV was completely full of non-issues and rulings already decided by ICE 23 years ago. Out of the 42 votes there are barely a handful of actual issues that were decided: Ringwraith Followers, Deep Mines movement, and Akhôrahil's RW ability.

And look at the 2019 ARV: there are 104 posts presenting over 130 questions. I just looked through all of the posts again viewtopic.php?f=68&t=4077. There are 5 at most that maybe worth voting on. Many of the proposal simply want to rewrite the rules for less benefit than the confusion they cause. Basically none of the proposals mention the ICE rulings already covering the situation. And the others fail to describe the example situation in terms of the rules.

Of course, it's just my opinion that the ARV proposals are non-issues. But I'm not sitting here asking 50-100 people to spend 70 hours reading and deciding all of these proposals, especially when the person proposing the vote hasn't even bothered to spend 5 minutes using Ctrl+F to see how ICE decided the game should be played.
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Yeah, but when you play by the rules, and people still complain about things over and over and they want to cry out to someone, let the CoE vote do some good for them. I am ok with letting them lett a voting system sway things, and if they want to live with CoE rulings that's fine, just make sure they know what they are voting for, because some people don't use CTRL-F to find things. I play with PDFs in my PDF reader all day while I play LOL. But when I make a post it's about the 1 or 2 repetitive things that ALLWAYS come up, everything else is CTRL-F, found done... ;)

Sometimes there is no CTRL-F because the rulebook was read or interpreted wrong, I have done that a few times myself, so whichever...

but I know one thing in the Short Attention Span World we live in there's a saying TL;DR...
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

rezwits wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 7:22 am Yeah, but when you play by the rules, and people still complain about things over and over and they want to cry out to someone... But when I make a post it's about the 1 or 2 repetitive things that ALLWAYS come up
Yeah but this is because people are confused because they didn't realize that rules on when a company is at a site changed. It's in the CRF and it's in the most recent rulesbook. Why vote to bring back old abuses and potential new abuses on it when education would suffice?
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I will speak only for myself.

While I am aware of the CRF literal words that claim to resolve the question of when a company is at a site, I see problems it causes with other existing rules that I have not seen adequately addressed. For example, the implications of the new rules on companies not being at a site until the site phase would literally mean that two companies that moved to the same (non-Haven) site do not combine until the second company started its site phase, because up until then the two companies are not "at" the same site. If company composition rules were violated, the hazard player could choose to send the company that already took its site phase back to its site of origin. Etc. Not to mention that combining is doing something, which isn't allowed in the site phase until the automatic attack has been faced.

I suspect that the proposal was motivated by there being multiple ways of resolving the discrepancies so why not throw it up for a vote. This isn't the approach I would promote for rules votes, but the current charter is more about appealing to the current player base than preserving ICE's legacy.

I would also like to understand from where in the rules to derive immunity to return-to-origin effects of moving companies that have finished their movement/hazard phase. In conjunction with the notion that a company is either at a site or moving, the new rules seem to say that a moving company is still a moving company once its movement/hazard phase ends (in fact, still moving until their site phase). So I'm still not sure that the current rule wording actually supports such companies being immune to, e.g., Snowstorm effects. I believe there are numerous examples of, e.g., Long Winter tapping affecting all qualifying sites when it is played, not just the resolving company (so there doesn't seem to be a way to argue that the passive condition can only trigger for the resolving company). Here's one:
ICE NetRep 1997/7/12 wrote:Any site that meets the requirements of Long Winter will tap when it is revealed, or when Long Winter is played.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

I don't get why it's so confusing. The mechanics happen in the phase named after those mechanics.
  • "Movement" game mechanics happen during the Movement Phase.
  • "Site" game mechanics happen during the Site phase.
Companies join after all M/H phases. This company is not separated when it becomes "at the site". Neither the original rules nor the changed rules suggest that a company is still "moving" after the M/H phase. Instead, with the changes, there is a gap between "not moving" and "at the site". The company is not "moving" if they have 1 site card. This gap doesn't matter since there are no gameplay complications. Obviously considering a company to still be moving after they only have 1 site raises the complications mentioned.


I think you would be interested in the Challenge Deck rules. Check it out.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 4:37 pm Neither the original rules nor the changed rules suggest that a company is still "moving" after the M/H phase.
MELE Glossary wrote:New Site Card: The site where a moving company is going.
Deduction: if there is a new site card, then there must be a company moving to it.

---

In my opinion (and, as far as I'm aware, CoE's opinion), even officially published rules summaries do not have authority to overrule rule books for competitive play (unless explicitly mentioning they are overruling a specific rule). They can be a nice simplification, though.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 5:11 pm In my opinion (and, as far as I'm aware, CoE's opinion), even officially published rules summaries do not have authority to overrule rule books for competitive play (unless explicitly mentioning they are overruling a specific rule). They can be a nice simplification, though.
ICE has stated that the Challenge Deck summary is 100% accurate but not 100% complete. It contains updates to certain rules based on ICE rulings. The Challenge Deck summary did not create these rulings, it just included them.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Another great demonstration of how to fail to cite references.
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Somehow this hasn't been brought up yet:
CoE #89 wrote:When is a company AT a site?

*** At the beginning of the site phase up through the end of the next organization phase. The only exception is for companies that aren't moving. They are at their site during the movement/hazard phase as well.
As far as I know, this is the last standing CoE ruling, and is stronger than anything I've seen elsewhere, since hand size bonuses would be lost regardless of M/H resolution order, before the oft-forgotten long-event phase. :?

A terrible ruling.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Wait until you see the ruling on Under His Blow :lol:
dirhaval
Posts: 791
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

First, I did not read anything previously in this thread.
Second, I just want to mention want Ichabod said 20+ years ago in a newsletter now found at meccg.net

Ichabad talks about meccg 2.0 with putting automatic-attacks out from the site phase. Does that help with anything with the current rules?
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”