A Chance Meeting

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

A Chance Meeting wrote:A character (even a Hobbit) may be brought into play with direct influence at any Free-hold [-me_fh-] , Border-hold [-me_bh-] , or Ruins & Lairs [-me_rl-] . But at last there came about by chance a meeting between Gandalf and Thorin that changed all the fortunes of the House of Durin, and led to other and greater ends beside.-LotR
The phrase "(even a Hobbit)" does not have any meaning in realm of rules. There are no rules that would prevent a bringing a Hobbit into play at certain sites. All currently released Hobbit character cards have restriction in their texts that does not allow to bring them into play outside their home sites (unless they are one of starting characters). Fram Framson card has similar restriction if its text.

A Chance Meeting does not address this restrictions.

I propose the following erratum:
A Chance Meeting wrote:A character (even a character that is restricted by its text from bringing into play outside his home site) may be brought into play with direct influence at any Free-hold [-me_fh-] , Border-hold [-me_bh-] , or Ruins & Lairs [-me_rl-] . But at last there came about by chance a meeting between Gandalf and Thorin that changed all the fortunes of the House of Durin, and led to other and greater ends beside.-LotR
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

I disagree with the premise: that the phrase "(even a Hobbit)" does not override the homesite play-restriction card text on every one of the Hobbits. I believe that the existing wording allows a Hobbit to be played. We agree that this is the intention.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CCG Collector
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:55 pm
Contact:

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:41 am I disagree with the premise: that the phrase "(even a Hobbit)" does not override the homesite play-restriction card text on every one of the Hobbits. I believe that the existing wording allows a Hobbit to be played. We agree that this is the intention.

Is there a rule concerning card text overriding other card text?

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk
Are you saying that A Chance Meeting does not, by default, override "may only be played at home site" text except on hobbits?

Incidentally, why is this card a common, but We Have Come to Kill is a rare? Is it that there are generally more restrictions on minion characters, or did ICE just realize the ability was too powerful for it to be common?
Middle Earth and other CCG unboxings, booster openings, and guides: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCCGCollector
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:41 am Is there a rule concerning card text overriding other card text?
I do not know a such written rule.

I know that Bad Company does allow for FW player a playing Troll characters and including them in starting company, but it is unable to override the restriction of Bûrat, or Tûma, or Wûluag.
Particular Troll character may be so restricted by his text that an affect that merely allows to play (and including in starting company) a Troll character is not sufficient to play him in starting company.
CCG Collector wrote: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:42 am Incidentally, why is this card a common, but We Have Come to Kill is a rare? Is it that there are generally more restrictions on minion characters, or did ICE just realize the ability was too powerful for it to be common?
Or why Wizard's Fire is rare, while Wizard's Flame is uncommon?
Is +5 to prowess of Wizard against one attack so powerful that it justifies cc -4 and making the card rare?
Especially in comparison to -2 to prowess of all attacks against Wizard's company for the rest of turn (cc -3)?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

ICE often had no idea how powerful cards were. That is one of the explanations for rarity changes of cards that are essentially the same.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Bandobras Took wrote: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:24 pm ICE often had no idea how powerful cards were. That is one of the explanations for rarity changes of cards that are essentially the same.
I agree. Muster needing a nerf erratum is another good example. Then the minion version later, Threats, was made a rare.

As Konrad points out, Wizard's Flame and Wizard's Fire also makes little sense. Flame seems like a much better card to me. I think ICE didn't get the balance quite right when looking at the devastating affects of corruption checks, especially on one's wizard.
Wizard's Fire is borderline unplayable. So is Narya, sadly.
A -4 or a -5 to a corruption check on your wizard is brutal (considering you lose the game when they are lost, or even using the tournament convention where you lose the wizard and suffer -5 MPs).

I know, I know.... maybe the ICE play-testing team just had very decent results with their dice! I'm sure they weren't constantly looking down at that damn Lidless Eye on their dice like I am! :lol:
Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

combine Wizard's Fire with Wizard's Staff and and Many Foes he fought and you can take down a lot of at home dragons without SoF

just saying, just becuase they see less play does not mean they are useless ;)
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

A three-card combo should probably have its uses. ;)
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Wizard's Staff is not essential, so Radagast bearing an Emerald of the Mariner, can make good use of Wizard's Fire + Many Foes
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

CCG Collector wrote: Are you saying that A Chance Meeting does not, by default, override "may only be played at home site" text except on hobbits?
The card text clearly states "Hobbits". Though Ichabod ruled (see below) that Fram could be played with A Chance Meeting. There's no basis for this unless there was some other clarification. And I have some memory of a ruling on Fram but I'd have to go looking for it.

By the way, Ichabod ruled in Digest 116:
>Can Fram be played with A Chance Meeting?
Yes.
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”