Council of Elrond

This contested rules interpretation ended in a dead tie with the 2018 ARV. See results here: viewtopic.php?f=144&t=3381

As such, I am recommending this topic be considered again for inclusion on the 2019 ARV ballot. Additional discussion will likely be needed outlining the pros and cons of each side.

The previous discussion thread can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=143&t=3346

edit: see below.

In the previous post there was discussion about whether the CRF statement ("remain on the table") was intended to replace the MELE rules. It turns out that this CRF statement was released in February 1997, predating the release of the MELE rulesbook. I don't know the date on which the MELE rulesbook was finalized.

Collected Official Rulings File Version 4 current as of 02-28-97
Choosing a New Site

-=- Any company may declare as its new site a site already on the table.
That site will remain on the table at least until the end of that company's
movement/hazard phase.

Upon reviewing this again it seems that there is an approach that is consistent with all of the rules, which was not one of the voting options. Under this approach: (A) You may specify a particular face-up site during the organization phase in order to have the site remain on the table for that company per the CRF. Or you may (B) "tell your opponent the company is moving to a face up site," in which case the face-up sites on the table during the organization phase do NOT remain on the table for that company.

This allows the player to potentially delay their movement decision for a particular company, but that company's options become more limited as the other companies remove their sites of origin. I apologize if someone else mentioned this before.


Here are the previous options:
Option A: If a company moves to a site already in play, the player must announce that the company is "moving to a face up site", without specifying which site.
Option B: If a company moves to a site already in play, the player must announce which specific face up site the company is moving to.

CDavis7M wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:15 pm This allows the player to potentially delay their movement decision for a particular company, but that company's options become more limited as the other companies remove their sites of origin. I apologize if someone else mentioned this before.

No one said it in exactly that way before. But it is a natural consequence of stating "a site" and not specifying "which site".
If the site mentioned previously as "a site" has to be kept in play it involves a deduction. Sometimes it may be only one site "already in play"; then there is no practical sense of not specifying it immediately. Sometimes it may more than one sites; and it requires an additional regulations - which of accessible sites has to be kept in play.

The problem exists because someone demands a new privilege due to receiving a new option.
Without using the option of moving to a site already in play, a company is committed to moving to immediately selected not revealed site.
With using the option of moving to a site already in play, the site is no loner not revealed. For this reason someone demands not revealing to which site a company will move. As though it would be a compensation for inconvenience.
Natural consequence of selecting as a new site a site already in play - that the site is revealed - is not to be accepted by the someone.

METW wrote: 5 · CHARACTERS & COMPANIES
There are several Standard Rules changes involving characters and companies.

Joining Two Companies at a Non-Haven Site
During the organization phase, two companies may move to the same site, but one of the following cases must apply:

• One and only one company may already be at the site. In this case the other company must state that its new site card is already in play (the current site card for the non-moving company).
• One company moves to the site using the site path on that site card (i.e., the company starts at the site's nearest Haven), and the other company moves to the site using region cards for its site path. In this case both companies must state that the same face down site card is their new site card.

CRF wrote:Organization Phase -- Choosing a New Site
Any company may declare as its new site a site already on the table. That site will remain on the table at least until the end of that company's movement/hazard phase.

MELE wrote:6 · MOVEMENT
MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE (vs "joining two companies" in METW)
During the organization phase, two or more companies may move to the same non-Darkhaven site, but one of the following cases must apply:

• One company may already be at the site. In this case the other companies moving to the site must state that their new site card is already in play (the current site card for the non-moving company). This site card remains in play until at least the end of the turn.
• Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same face down site card is their new site card.

MEBA wrote:PLAYING A NEW SITE CARD
You must choose where each company is moving during the organization phase, by placing a new site card
with each company. A company does not have to move. If you want to move a company, place the new site card representing their destination face down next to the site card representing their current site. You may look through your location deck and pick this card, you do not have to draw it randomly.

If you wish to move a company to a site that is face down on the table (for another company), tell your opponent which site the company is moving to. If you wish to move a company to a site that is face up on the table (because another company is also moving there), tell your opponent the company is moving to a face up site.

The new site you choose must meet certain criteria. You may reach a site by either starter movement, or by region movement. Ringwraiths may not use region movement.

Upon reviewing the variations of the new site movement rules again, it is clear that the METW Standard Rules do NOT allow moving a company to a face up site that another company is leaving. The moving company must JOIN a non-moving company. The MELE rules are a bit different and are no longer in the section for "joining two companies" but the wording is mostly the same. Are the changes in the MELE rules intended to allow a company to move to a site that another company is leaving? That is my impression despite the MELE rules still stating that the face up site is "the current site card for the non-moving company." I've done this and seen others do the same. How are you all playing?


Anyway, it seems clear enough to me that the CRF statement was intended to bring the METW rules in line with the changed MELE rules that were released a few months later. I don't think it is a separate rule.

As for whether/when you need to specify the face up site being moved to, I think the "statement that their new site card is already in play" when moving to a face up site is just a "commitment to moving", same when "a company commits to moving by playing a new site card (face down) during its organization phase." In both cases, the company's new site card is not known to the opponent.

My impression is that the rules expect simple company movement where the face up site actually IS KNOWN to the players. Still, I don't see any requirement to specifically name the new face up site. So, I am OK with an "experienced" player changing which face up site a company would move to based on game play. But I am not OK with holding a face up site on the table if it was not specified during the Organzation phase. I just don't see how it would be possible for "this site card remains in play until at least the end of the turn" (MELE) or "That site will remain on the table at least until the end of that company's movement/hazard phase" (CRF) unless the particular face up site card is specified during the Organization Phase.

All this to say I still think it is possible to combine both aspects as discussed in the post above.