Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3282
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Post by Konrad Klar »

CRF, Rulings by Term, Under-deeps wrote:With the addition of the sites in Balrog, The Wind Throne is now always the surface site of an Underdeeps site.
The use of word "always" here seems to be unfortunate. The word is otherwise meaningful, likewise the word "never".
Respecting it here can lead to conflict if The Wind Throne is not protected Wizardhaven or [-me_fh-] (due to hypothetical effect).
CRF, Rulings by Term, Wizardhaven wrote:A Wizardhaven is not considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site unless Deep
Mines has been played on it.
Balrog, The Under-deeps wrote:For the purposes of playing hazards, a Free-hold is never considered to be the
surface site of an Under-deeps site.
I propose the following changes:

"With the addition of the sites in Balrog, The Wind Throne is now the surface site of an Under-deeps site."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1010
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Post by Theo »

But if the Wind Throne was a Wizardhaven, I think it should still be considered adjacent to an Under-deeps site.

Similarly, if ANY adjacent site (say Goblin-gate) became a Wizardhaven, I think it should still be considered an adjacent site. The Under-deeps card adjacency specification is the only definition we have for adjacency.

I think the CRF Wizardhaven ruling should be interpreted as a clarification that the potential to become an adjacent surface site from Deep Mines does not by itself constitute that the site is adjacent to an Under-deeps site.

To that end, I alternatively propose the Wizardhaven ruling amended to a Deep Mine clarification:
"No sites are made adjacent to an Under-deeps site by a Deep Mines not currently in play."
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!

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3282
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Post by Konrad Klar »

CRF, Rulings by Term, Wizardhaven wrote: A Wizardhaven is not considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site unless Deep
Mines has been played on it.
does not care about whether a some Wizardhaven would be adjacent to an Under-deeps site for other reason than being adjacent to Deep Mines.
If this is wrong it requires a separate errata.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Post by Bandobras Took »

Wow. That rule means that if I Wizardhaven Glittering Caves, my companies *can't* move to the Gem-Deeps from there, as it will no longer be adjacent.

Yeah, I'm in favor of modifying the rule along the lines of what Theo's saying. A lot of creative strategies are flushed down the toilet if you can't move to the (for want of a better term) "natural" under-deeps site associated with a surface site.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Post by the JabberwocK »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:05 pm
I propose the following changes:

"With the addition of the sites in Balrog, The Wind Throne is now the surface site of an Under-deeps site."
I don't feel this is really necessary.

Theo wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:37 pm
But if the Wind Throne was a Wizardhaven, I think it should still be considered adjacent to an Under-deeps site.

Similarly, if ANY adjacent site (say Goblin-gate) became a Wizardhaven, I think it should still be considered an adjacent site. The Under-deeps card adjacency specification is the only definition we have for adjacency.

I think the CRF Wizardhaven ruling should be interpreted as a clarification that the potential to become an adjacent surface site from Deep Mines does not by itself constitute that the site is adjacent to an Under-deeps site.

To that end, I alternatively propose the Wizardhaven ruling amended to a Deep Mine clarification:
"No sites are made adjacent to an Under-deeps site by a Deep Mines not currently in play."
I agree, and think this is a worthwhile ballot item.


How about this (which I feel is a little more clear to your casual reader):

Change This:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Wizardhaven wrote:A Wizardhaven is not considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site unless Deep Mines has been played on it.
To This:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Wizardhaven wrote:A Wizardhaven is not considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site unless Deep Mines has been played on it or an Under-deeps site exists which lists the Wizardhaven as an adjacent site.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3282
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Post by Konrad Klar »

You could achieve the same by changing:
A Wizardhaven is not considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site unless Deep Mines has been played on it.
to:
A Wizardhaven becomes considered to be adjacent to Deep Mines, when Deep Mines has been played on it, not before.
Additional effect of considering a Wizardhaven adjacent to an Under-deeps when its host site is listed as adjacent to an Under-deeps would be that Wizardhavens founded on Blue Mountain Dwarf-hold, and on Iron Hill Dwarf-hold would be adjacent too (more possibilities of playing hazards against companies at/moving to such sites).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Post by the JabberwocK »

This submission will be included in this year's ARV.

Thanks for the input guys.

I like Konrad's latest suggestion, but I would slightly amend it. Here is my updated proposal, please let me know what you guys think:

{Rules Erratum}
Change This:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Wizardhaven wrote:A Wizardhaven is not considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site unless Deep Mines has been played on it.
To This:
Deep Mines does not cause a Wizardhaven to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site until Deep Mines is played on that Wizardhaven.
This, by default, allows scenarios where the Glittering Caves is converted to a Wizardhaven and is still adjacent to The Gem-deeps. It also solves the problem of Wizardhavens always being adjacent to Under-deeps sites, which the original CRF attempted to correct.

I also like Theo's proposal, but I feel to a casual player reading the rules, it might cause some confusion. Also note, this submission will no longer be about/specific to The Wind Throne.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1010
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Under-deeps (The Wind Throne)

Post by Theo »

I cannot speak to the confusion of others.

I like this version almost as much as mine.

There is a mild issue of the Deep Mine leaving play; I don't think the Wizardhaven should still be considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site.
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!

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”