Annotation 25a

[Konrad Klar]

Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving
company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down
to/draw up to) their hand sizes. No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be
played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both
players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company.

I am sure that no one respects the rule because it is one big nonsense.

"A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving
company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down
to/draw up to) their hand sizes."

This literally means that if the site of origin cannot be removed for any reasons, the M/H phase does not end.
There are no conditions of ending a M/H for non-moving company.

"No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be
played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both
players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company."

So if the following company is non-moving company, nothing may be played until site phase.

I propose the following erratum:

Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a players decide to not declare any other actions, all started chains of effects are finished and all chains of effects started by actions declared according end of phase are finished.
Then a site of origin of moving company is removed (if possible) and both players reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes.
No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until beginning next a company's movement/hazard phase; for moving company this is at point when players have drawn cards for the movement.

[Bandobras Took]

Out of curiosity, are there any rules that already deal with non-moving companies?

[Konrad Klar]

There are.
For instance:

A non-moving company's current site is considered its new site for card play.

If a company does not move, it still has a movement/hazard phase. No cards are
drawn based on the company's movement, and the only hazards that can be played on
the company are creatures that can be keyed to the company's site and events.

[CDavis7M]

I don't think this annotation is to be considered a complete rule. It has context, which is missing, that would make clear that this is not the full picture.

[Konrad Klar]

I think that there is some limit of capacity of human's short-term memory. And therefore there is limit of context in which given text should be read. If some fragment of text has its title, like Annotation 25a I assume that it is meant to be self-contained. Base terms, like company, or site, necessary to understand the text are assumed to be memorized in reader's long-term memory.

Regardless of above there is no excuse for simplifications that makes a sense of text malformed.

[Theo]

My concern is that origin removal and hand reconciliation are defined to be part of a company's movement/hazard phase procedure, not after a company's movement/hazard phase has concluded as suggested by the proposal.

Annotation 25a is defining what it means to be a square, which is not to say that it is defining everything it means to be a rectangle. An alternative structure that can be parsed the same way (with less ambiguity) might be something like: "When a moving company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes, that company's movement/hazard phase is then concluded." Additionally, obviously, the resource player is allowed to play resources during the site phase even though no cards have been drawn for a following company.

In general, perhaps it would be more useful to have the definition of a rectangle? For me, the relevant reinforcement of the CRF is:
"During a company's movement/hazard phase, resources or hazards can be played (or resource effects activated) only after cards have been drawn and before players agree to remove the site of origin (for moving companies) and reconcile their hand sizes. During a player's movement/hazard phase, no resources or hazards can be played (or resource effects activated) outside of a company's movement/hazard phase."

[CDavis7M]

The annotation is annotating a particular section of the rules, which is the context.

[Konrad Klar]

I propose the following erratum:

"Annotation 25a: When during company's movement/hazard phase players decide to not declare any other actions, all started chains of effects are finished and all chains of effects started by actions declared according end of phase are finished, then a site of origin of moving company is removed (if possible) and both players reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes.
A company's movement/hazard phase is then considered concluded.
No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until beginning next a company's movement/hazard phase; for moving company this is at point when players have to draw cards for the movement."


Better?

[CDavis7M]

I think the original language is better. And also, everyone is used to it.

The new language would have to be much better and actually solve a problem to overcome this.

[Theo]

I think it is improved from the original proposal. I suggest revising the wording at the end. Something like:

until the site phase or until proceeding past when cards would be drawn if a company is moving in a movement/hazard phase, whichever occurs first.

That is, actively declaring actions during the movement/hazard phase (normally) requires being in step 3 in that phase in the MELE player turn summary.

[Konrad Klar]

"Annotation 25a: When during company's movement/hazard phase players decide to not declare any other actions, all started chains of effects are finished and all chains of effects started by actions declared according end of phase are finished, then a site of origin of moving company is removed (if possible) and both players reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes.
A company's movement/hazard phase is then considered concluded.
No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until beginning next a company's movement/hazard phase, whichever occurs first; for company that attempts to move it is the moment when revealing a new site and drawing cards for movement are completed."

Is it sufficient?

[CDavis7M]

"Annotation 25a: When during company's movement/hazard phase players decide to not declare any other actions, all started chains of effects are finished and all chains of effects started by actions declared according end of phase are finished, then a site of origin of moving company is removed (if possible) and both players reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes.
A company's movement/hazard phase is then considered concluded.
No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until beginning next a company's movement/hazard phase, whichever occurs first; for company that attempts to move it is the moment when revealing a new site and drawing cards for movement are completed."

Is it sufficient?

Doesn't that last part conflict with CoE issue errata #24 from 2018?

Anyway, I think the current wording is fine and I see no reason to change it. I'll explain below.

-------

Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving
company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down
to/draw up to) their hand sizes. No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be
played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both
players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company.

I am sure that no one respects the rule because it is one big nonsense.

I respect this rule and I don't think it's nonsense. Annotation 25a makes sense when you read the rest of Annotation 25. Reading Annotation 26 on the Movement/Hazard phase helps as well. And obviously you need to read the rules that these annotations are annotations of.

But when a rule taken out of context then I can see how confusion could happen.

• Annotation 25: A company is considered to be at the site given by its site card at all times except from the moment their new site card is revealed during their movement/hazard phase until their old site card is discarded during the same movement/hazard phase. During this period a company is considered to be en route between sites and not at any site.
• Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes. No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company.
• Annotation 25b: Players drawing cards when a new site is revealed is synonymous with the resolution of the new site being revealed. It happens immediately, not in the following chain of effects.
• Annotation 26: If at the start of a player's movement/hazard phase, there are multiple effects in play such that their net effect depends on the order they are applied, the player who is currently not taking his turn (i.e., the hazard player) decides the order in which they are to be applied. Once this interpretation is established, all further actions are applied in the order they are resolved for the rest of the turn.

See also Section 6 - MOVEMENT in the MELE rules.

--------

"A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving
company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down
to/draw up to) their hand sizes."

This literally means that if the site of origin cannot be removed for any reasons, the M/H phase does not end.
There are no conditions of ending a M/H for non-moving company.

No, it doesn't mean that. Here are the rules that this Annotation is annotating:

• At the beginning of its movement/hazard phase, a moving company's current site card becomes its site of origin-the company is considered to be en route to its new site card (i.e., the company is moving).
• At the end of a moving company's movement/hazard phase (before players return to their hand sizes), its site of origin is removed (discard if tapped; otherwise, return it to your location deck) and the new site card becomes the company's current site card.

Annotations 25 and 26 address these statements in the rules. It's clear when reading the rules that a non-moving company does not have a "site of origin." Annotation 25a does not change this.

Annotation 25a is just stating that resolution of the actions constituting reconciliation of hand size and the action of moving the site of origin to the discard pile or site deck are synonymous with the action of concluding a company's movement/hazard phase. As with any action in this game -- if there is no site of origin to move, then resolution of that action doesn't happen.

There is nothing in the 6-MOVEMENT rules or the movement/hazard Annotations to suggest that failure to remove a site of origin presents the movement/hazard phase from ending.

--------

"No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be
played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both
players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company."

So if the following company is non-moving company, nothing may be played until site phase.

That's not what it means. The MOVEMENT rules are clear: "Note: If a company is not moving. no cards are drawn." The Annotations do not change this.

This statement is a restriction on playing resources between the ending and the beginning of movement hazard phases. In context, it does not suggest that cards MUST be drawn to start the M/H phase.

--------

"Annotation 25a: When during company's movement/hazard phase players decide to not declare any other actions, all started chains of effects are finished and all chains of effects started by actions declared according end of phase are finished, then a site of origin of moving company is removed (if possible) and both players reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes.
A company's movement/hazard phase is then considered concluded.
No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until beginning next a company's movement/hazard phase, whichever occurs first; for company that attempts to move it is the moment when revealing a new site and drawing cards for movement are completed."

Is it sufficient?

This is not representative of the existing rules. The moving of the site of origin and hand reconciliation are synonymous with the ending of the movement hazard phase, which can be a passive condition triggering actions to happen in the following chain of effects. The proposal indicates that such actions happen before the site of origin is removed.


Even if the proposal was accurate, I don't think it makes sense to just rewrite the rules for fun. Especially the Annotations due to their complexity.

[Theo]

But when a rule taken out of context then I can see how confusion could happen.

This is the context:

Movement/Hazard Phase
General

---

Here are the rules that this Annotation is annotating:

• At the beginning of its movement/hazard phase, a moving company's current site card becomes its site of origin-the company is considered to be en route to its new site card (i.e., the company is moving).
• At the end of a moving company's movement/hazard phase (before players return to their hand sizes), its site of origin is removed (discard if tapped; otherwise, return it to your location deck) and the new site card becomes the company's current site card.

If Annotation 25 were annotating these rules only then there would be fewer problems (more below!). But Movement/Hazard + General does not imply annotation of only these rules, at least to me!

---

This statement is a restriction on playing resources between the ending and the beginning of movement hazard phases. In context, it does not suggest that cards MUST be drawn to start the M/H phase.

It does in fact say "until the site phase or until both players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company." If "no cards are drawn"(MELE), neither player can have drawn cards; players must wait until another moving company or the site phase.

---

This is not representative of the existing rules. The moving of the site of origin and hand reconciliation are synonymous with the ending of the movement hazard phase, which can be a passive condition triggering actions to happen in the following chain of effects. The proposal indicates that such actions happen before the site of origin is removed.

I do not see this claim. The proposal indicates that all existing chain of effects must be resolved. It says nothing to stop new chains of effect from being caused by passive conditions. It does stop players from actively declaring new effects.

[CDavis7M]

But when a rule taken out of context then I can see how confusion could happen.

This is the context:

Movement/Hazard Phase
General

...
If Annotation 25 were annotating these rules only then there would be fewer problems (more below!). But Movement/Hazard + General does not imply annotation of only these rules, at least to me!

Right. I never said "only." And I also said:

Annotation 25a makes sense when you read the rest of Annotation 25. Reading Annotation 26 on the Movement/Hazard phase helps as well.And obviously you need to read the rules that these annotations are annotations of.
...
See also Section 6 - MOVEMENT in the MELE rules.

----

Annotation 25a it's not a universal truth applying to every situation. It is not a restriction on non-moving companies.

Look, it's called Annotation 25"a." It was added later in the MELE companion. And even Annotation 25 original was retrofit to the rules. They all were. The Annotations were written to explain how the later-developed mechanics and solutions can be applied to the rules to let the game function mostly how it would be expected to function given the plain language of the original rules and cards.

Annotation 25a does not apply to non-moving companies. But by understanding the developers solution to the problem addressed by Annotation 25a, a similar and consistent solution to non-moving companies can be determined. Just understand the base mechanics provided by the designers in the Annotations.

[Konrad Klar]

This is not representative of the existing rules. The moving of the site of origin and hand reconciliation are synonymous with the ending of the movement hazard phase, which can be a passive condition triggering actions to happen in the following chain of effects. The proposal indicates that such actions happen before the site of origin is removed.

Original Annotation 25a says:

Annotation 25a: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving
company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down
to/draw up to) their hand sizes.

It says when company's movement/hazard phase is concluded. It does not say that "company's movement/hazard phase is concluded" is synonymous of "end of company's movement/hazard phase".
See also CRF entry for Lure of Nature and what it says about end of m/h phase.

Even if the proposal was accurate, I don't think it makes sense to just rewrite the rules for fun. Especially the Annotations due to their complexity.

It may not be best possible motivation to do anything with the game, but I'm not doing it commercially, nor for greater good.
Some part of rules due to their complexity are especially prone to errors if sloppy worded.
"The rule is Ok as it is" is meritorical assessment (especially if backed with arguments).
"Do not touch it because it is complex" is not.