An Untimely Brood

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

An Untimely Brood

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:02 pm

An Untimely Brood wrote:Playable if you are Radagast or Alatar and have 6 or more stage points and a protected Wizardhaven. One non-unique ally with a mind of 1 is playable at one of your tapped or untapped protected Wizardhavens each of your site phases. Cannot be duplicated by a given player. Thousands could dwell there, workers, servants, slaves, and warriors...-LotRIII
What will happen if one non-unique ally with a mind of 1 will be played at one of your tapped or untapped protected Wizardhavens?
Will a one non-unique ally with a mind of 1 cease to be playable at one of your tapped or untapped protected Wizardhavens?

No.
After all, if Goldberry will be played at Old Forest, it still will be playable at Old Forest (and an opponent who controls Mistress Lobelia may take an advantage of the fact).
"One non-unique ally with a mind of 1 is playable..." that presumably would have be limiter, is not any limiter.

I propose the following erratum:
An Untimely Brood wrote:Playable if you are Radagast or Alatar and have 6 or more stage points and a protected Wizardhaven. One non-unique ally with a mind of 1 may be played at one of your tapped or untapped protected Wizardhavens each of your site phases. Cannot be duplicated by a given player. Thousands could dwell there, workers, servants, slaves, and warriors...-LotRIII
This erratum also means that an ally in question is no longer considered playable at Wizardhaven in question (at least not due to the effect of An Untimely Brood).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: An Untimely Brood

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:57 pm

I agree that there is a difference in "is playable" vs "may be played" because some other cards reference playability. But I don't think that "one ally is playable" can be seen as a limitation on the number of allies played without the word "only" which would introduce the limitation. Of An Untimely Brood said "One, and only one, non-unique ally with a mind of 1 is playable at..." then there would be a limitation.

However, the current wording seems to only be limiting non-playable allies. Meaning, "One otherwise unplayable non-unique ally ... is playable."

It seems like Reluctant Final Parting would have different results based on this proposed errata. It would be essential for voters to know other ramifications. So if anyone finds some, please post.
Reluctant Final Parting wrote:Discard any ally if its current site is an Under-deeps site or if its current site's nearest Haven is not the same as the nearest Haven for the site at which the ally can be played. Discard this card when any play deck is exhausted. Cannot be duplicated.
Example:
Noble Steed ("Playable at any tapped or untapped non-Haven site in Rohan, Southern Rhovanion, Khand, Dorwinion, Horse Plains, or Harondor") is played at The White Towers via An Untimely Brood. If it were "playable" as in the original text of the card, then Reluctant Final Parting would not discard the Noble Steed. With this proposed errata, the Noble Steed would be discarded by Reluctant Final Parting.

Perhaps Reluctant Final Parting is the offender and should say "... a site at which the ally can normally be played."

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: An Untimely Brood

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:07 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:57 pm
Perhaps Reluctant Final Parting is the offender [...]
Good point.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:57 pm
[...] and should say "... a site at which the ally can normally be played."
should say "... a site at which the ally is playable." or "... a site at which the ally is normally playable."
I would prefer the first variant.

I maintain my opinion that "[some amount of] X is playable" does not make a sense.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: An Untimely Brood

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:18 pm

I agree that it's unclear, and does not make sense. But given the wording, I would not consider it limiting without other phrasing to indicate so.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: An Untimely Brood

Post by CDavis7M » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:45 pm

Playability for Reluctant Final Parting could be addressed separately.

Also, as brought up elsewhere, there may be confusion regarding the term "each of your site phases." Does this mean "each turn of a player during the site phase" or does it mean "each company's site phase."

I have interpreted it as "each turn during the site phase."

But there is the ICE interpretation that each company has a site phase. So, would 1 ally be playable at every wizard haven? Presumably not because the card says "one of your tapped or untapped protected Wizardhavens." But this is worth clarifying.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: An Untimely Brood

Post by CDavis7M » Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:01 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:02 pm
An Untimely Brood wrote:Playable if you are Radagast or Alatar and have 6 or more stage points and a protected Wizardhaven. One non-unique ally with a mind of 1 is playable at one of your tapped or untapped protected Wizardhavens each of your site phases. Cannot be duplicated by a given player. Thousands could dwell there, workers, servants, slaves, and warriors...-LotRIII
What will happen if one non-unique ally with a mind of 1 will be played at one of your tapped or untapped protected Wizardhavens?
Will a one non-unique ally with a mind of 1 cease to be playable at one of your tapped or untapped protected Wizardhavens?

No.
Maybe it's YES (not No) if we acknowledge:
  • ICE's ruling that there is no "player's site phase" and instead there are only separate site phases for each company.
  • None of the non-unique allies are normally playable at a wizardhaven
The 1 mind ally doesn't cease to be playable. They never were playable. They were only playable by the effect of Untimely Brood, which only enables one to be played.

But you can still play another "one" at another site during another company's site phase because you can do this for "each of your site phases."

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: An Untimely Brood

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:03 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:02 pm
After all, if Goldberry will be played at Old Forest, it still will be playable at Old Forest (and an opponent who controls Mistress Lobelia may take an advantage of the fact).
"One non-unique ally with a mind of 1 is playable..." that presumably would have be limiter, is not any limiter.
It is independent from:
ICE's ruling that there is no "player's site phase" and instead there are only separate site phases for each company.
None of the non-unique allies are normally playable at a wizardhaven
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: An Untimely Brood

Post by CDavis7M » Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:40 am

Is this proposal hypothetical?

If a limit of 1 non-unique ally being playable at a wizardhaven was somehow implemented - Would the player ever actually be limited? How would they play the 2nd non unique ally?


User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: An Untimely Brood

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:50 am

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:40 am
Is this proposal hypothetical?
Is real.
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:40 am
If a limit of 1 non-unique ally being playable at a wizardhaven was somehow implemented - Would the player ever actually be limited?
Was never properly implemented.
CDavis7M wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:40 am
How would they play the 2nd non unique ally?
Because playing a resource playable at site does not make it not playable, 2nd, 3rd and so on ally can be played just as first. If player has untapped characters at site available.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”