Untapping of site

[Konrad Klar]

To untap a site the character doing so must be at that site.

I propose the following erratum:

"To untap a site the character doing so must be at that site.
Unless stated otherwise an effect that untaps a site only affects the site card at which a company containing such character is located."

This for example would prevent a using of Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe from untapping a multiple Haven cards (including the opponent's ones).

P.S.
Thanks to rezwits for putting attention on this issue
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 608#p29112

[Bandobras Took]

Perhaps "If a resource requires a character for its ability to untap a site, that character must be at the site" would be more clear.

[Konrad Klar]

This would rule out a hypothetical situation where an enacting character has an untapping ability that does not come from a resource.

[Bandobras Took]

Such a hypothetical effect would presumably detail its own restrictions. The only non-resource/character sources of such an effect would be hazards or site cards, so far as I know.

Still, it could be "effect" or "generator of untapping action" or whatnot.

[Konrad Klar]

Such a hypothetical effect would presumably detail its own restrictions.

Not necessarily. Even hypothetical effects may rely on rules defaults.
I would wish the rules defaults as precise as possible.

[Theo]

Hero The Worthy Hills is not hypothetical.

I have a strategy for which I would very much like it to be untappable by characters that are not at the site. I even think I elsewhere (jokingly) argued that the CRF rule shouldn't apply because multiple characters rather than only a single character are required for the untapping mechanism.

[Theo]

This for example would prevent a using of Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe from untapping a multiple Haven cards (including the opponent's ones).

If the proposal to prevent resources from targeting an opponent's site goes through, targeting an opponent's site would already be solved.

For the multiplicity, would there be any undesired consequences of naturally expanding

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.

to something like:
"An effect that targets a site affects only the copy of the site it targets, unless otherwise specified. An effect that affects sites without targeting them affects all versions of the affected sites."

[Konrad Klar]

If the proposal to prevent resources from targeting an opponent's site goes through, targeting an opponent's site would already be solved.

An action may (by its text) target a site, but because there may be multiple site cards of the site in play, at resolution it may extend to the multiple site cards of the site. Unless it is stopped by something from doing so (e.g. by a general rules).

For the multiplicity, would there be any undesired consequences of naturally expanding

CRF 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.

to something like:
"An effect that targets a site affects only the copy of the site it targets, unless otherwise specified. An effect that affects sites without targeting them affects all versions of the affected sites.

I would prefer:
"An effect that targets a site affects only the copy of the site it targets, unless otherwise specified. An effect that affects sites without targeting them affects all copies of the affected sites."

Unlike "all copies", the "all versions" is able to beat the restriction:

Hero events cannot target or affect minion sites, and vice versa. News of the Shire is
an exception.

And this is a problem in both original CRF statement and in your extended version (that otherwise is better solution than a that proposed by me in first post).

[Theo]

Unlike "all copies", the "all versions" is able to beat the restriction:

Hero events cannot target or affect minion sites, and vice versa. News of the Shire is
an exception.

And this is a problem in both original CRF statement and in your extended version (that otherwise is better solution than a that proposed by me in first post).

Yes, totally. Good distinction.

[Konrad Klar]

Revised proposal:
"An effect that targets a site affects only the copy of the site it targets, unless otherwise specified. An effect that affects sites without targeting them affects all copies of the affected sites. A card placed on a site affects only the copy of the site it is placed on."

Previous version (and original too) excludes a hypothetical cards that are not played on, but placed on site.

[CDavis7M]

(A) Targeting multiple sites to be untapped

This for example would prevent a using of Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe from untapping a multiple Haven cards (including the opponent's ones).

This proposal seems to ignore other statements in the CRF Rulings by Term - Targets. Isn't it true that Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe can only untap a single site because it states "untap the site" and statements of "the foo" counts as specifying one "foo," according to CRF Rulings by Term - Targets:

A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Enitities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type. Note that "the foo" counts as specifying one "foo."

I don't see how DW of Durin's Tribe it can be interpreted to untap multiple copies of the same site.

(A)Targeting Opponents Sites to be untapped

Do we need a clarification for targeting of opponent's sites using your resources? Is there any abuse that can be performed by untapping your opponent's site? I can't imagine a player untapping their opponent's site. If there is no reason why a player would no such a thing, and there is no abuse, then I don't think it's worth clarifying.

[Konrad Klar]

I don't see how DW of Durin's Tribe it can be interpreted to untap multiple copies of the same site.

Companies that use separate site cards of the same site are considered to be at the same site.
As long something refers to a site it is not unambiguous whether the reference translates to single copy of the site card, or applies to all copies.
Unless some other rules/effects regulate it.

[CDavis7M]

But why doesn't this rule regulate it?

A target is an entity that an action is played out through. Enitities are only targets of an action if the action specifies those entities by number and type. Note that "the foo" counts as specifying one"foo."

"The site" means "one site." Not "all other copies" of a particular haven. Plus, there is nothing in the rules about targeting to suggest that targeting a site can target multiple sites (vs effects that don't target).

Also, this ruling on Greed seems like it would apply to the untapping situation discussed here by similar reasoning.

From: Florian Kugler <flor...@usa.net>
>Craig O'brien wrote:
[company A and B at a Wizardhaven]
>> >a) *Greed* only effects characters in B, and not A, right?
>>
>> No, Greed affects all characters at the site.
>
>Huh?!? But how does this work with the rule that cards "playable on a
>site" only affect the actual copy they're played on?
Hmm, hadn't thought about that. I guess you're right, it would only
affect B.

A similar ruling was given for River. Of course, these are hazards played on a site and not a resource targeting a site. But this is just a side topic to the CRF rules on targets.

[Konrad Klar]

One site is "one foo" and one site card is "one foo".

Greed affects only a copy of a site on which it has been played. However characters in companies using other site cards of the the same site are considered to be at the same site
So ccs from Greed will not be activated when an item is played at other copy, but if an item is played at copy targeted by Greed, then characters in all companies at any version of the site will make cc.

[CDavis7M]

I think the multiple copy interpretation for Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe is a huge stretch given that untapping is a mechanic of site cards and not "the site" generally. Still,

If this proposal were to be implemented, it seems like it would fit better as a statement made to Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe rather than the Rulings by Term. Or at least it add a reference to the updated Rulings by Term to Dwarven Ring of Durin's Tribe so that a player can easily find it.

Would you consider Look More Closely Later to have the same multiple copies issue? (untap a site at which "Information" is playable)