Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

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

Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game. But not necessarily in play.

Some effects check for presence of a given site (or a site of given type) in game. But it is irrelevant for them whether the (such) site is in play or not.
Example is Trouble on All Borders.
Trouble on All Borders wrote:Playable on a unique faction in play. Any company moving through the region containing a site where the faction is playable, or through any region adjacent to this one, faces an attack. The attack is the same type as the faction and has 4 strikes with 8 prowess. The attack is detainment if the company and the faction are both minion or both hero. Cannot be duplicated on a given faction. Discard when any play deck is exhausted.
It must be known in which region a site where target faction is playable is located. No problem if a site is specified by name; Bree is always located in Arthedain, Moria is always located in Redhorn Gate.

But if a site is specified as "any Ruins & Lairs [-me_rl-] in Forochel or Withered Heath", as in case of Ice-orcs, the answer is not so obvious.
There is only one site in Forochel that is normally [-me_rl-] - Lossadan Cairn. But if in play, its site type may be different (due to Chocking Shadows, or Hidden Haven, or Rebuild the Town etc.). Or even there may be multiple copies of Lossadan Cairn in play, each may have a different site type.

Proposed regulation:

"In order of determining a presence in game of a site of given type, the type(s) of copy (copies) of the site in play is (are) taken into account. Only if no copy of the site is in play, the normal type(s) of a site card for the site that players participating in given game may use is (are) taken into account.

In order of determining a presence in game of a given site, a site cards that players participating in given game may use are taken into account.

Non-site cards that may be played as a site or site card, are not considered as sites (site cards) for above purposes, until played as site or site card."

Second paragraph requires some comment.
It may be never applicable in current card set. Example hypothetical scenario where it may be applicable is the situation where a new [-me_rl-] site card for a site located in Forochel has been released, but only in hero version. If only minion players are participating in given game, the site is not considered as present in game. In turn it does not affect a playability of Ice-orcs, and this in turn does not affect an effects of Trouble on All Borders, or No Escape from My Magic played on Ice-orcs.

First paragraph affects a movement of agents played as hazards. If no FW player participates in game, all agents may freely move to Isengard, The White Towers, or Rhosgobel. If Fallen Radagast player does not participate in game, all agents may freely move to Rhosgobel, unless a copy of Rhosgobel in play is Wizardhaven (in result of Chambers in the Royal Court, or Mischief in Men Way).

That is nothing wrong if a result of above check indicates that a given site in game has more than one site type. For example, if Isengard is not in play, but FW player participates in game, it is considered that both [-me_rl-] Isengard and Wizardhaven Isengard are in game.

As part of the proposal, the CRF entry for Inner Cunning is changed to containing only:
The "playable on ..." conditions of the first paragraph do not apply to the second
paragraph.
EDIT: Added complementary change for the CRF entry for Inner Cunning.
Last edited by Konrad Klar on Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I don't like the addition of an "only" restriction. If my opponent has a Lossadan Cairn in play with Rebuild the Town and I move to Lossadan Camp, I think Trouble on All Borders should still trigger.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:09 pm I don't like the addition of an "only" restriction. If my opponent has a Lossadan Cairn in play with Rebuild the Town and I move to Lossadan Camp, I think Trouble on All Borders should still trigger.
I understand. But it is just against my idea.
My idea is to make a site type change having an impact on presence of the site of given type in play.
My idea is not to extend a number of possible site types of given given site in game ( [-me_bh-] in addition to [-me_rl-] in example with Lossadan Cairn in play with Rebuild the Town).

In short a changing a site type(s) in play should be additional factor to consider by players.

In case of Ice-orcs with Trouble on All Borders, a resource player should be able to fizzle the attack from ToAB by playing Deeper Shadow on Lossadan Cairn in response to declaration of the attack. Or to play a Hidden Haven on Lossadan Cairn to get rid an only site that is normally [-me_rl-] in Forochel and remove the danger for good (almost).
Hazard player should take into account that a playing Chocking Shadow on Lossadan Cairn and then ToAB on Ice-orcs will be less effective.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:10 pm My idea is to make a site type change having an impact on presence of the site of given type in play.
...
In short a changing a site type(s) in play should be additional factor to consider by players.
For what underlying motive?

Rules make it very clear that cards targeting sites only effect the copy of the site they are played on unless explicitly otherwise. Changing the type of one of the sites in play is absolutely an additional factor to consider by players, but just not for Trouble on All Borders.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:10 pm In case of Ice-orcs with Trouble on All Borders, a resource player should be able to fizzle the attack from ToAB by playing Deeper Shadow on Lossadan Cairn in response to declaration of the attack. Or to play a Hidden Haven on Lossadan Cairn to get rid an only site that is normally [-me_rl-] in Forochel and remove the danger for good (almost).
Hazard player should take into account that a playing Chocking Shadow on Lossadan Cairn and then ToAB on Ice-orcs will be less effective.
I simply disagree. A hazard player should not be encouraged to move one of their resource companies to their own copy of Lossadan Cairn to have the right version of the site out to get around the resource opponent using a Hidden Haven or ToAB, nor to leave their own version of Lossadan Cairn because their opponent had previously played some (hypothetical) permanent event version of Choking Shadows on it. I'm normally all for depth in strategy, but these twist the hazard/resource duality too much for me.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:10 am Konrad Klar wrote: ↑
24 Dec 2018, 00:10
My idea is to make a site type change having an impact on presence of the site of given type in play.
...
In short a changing a site type(s) in play should be additional factor to consider by players.

For what underlying motive?
Root motive is a consistency.
Trouble on All Borders on Ice-orcs is just example of situation where the problem is exposed*.

Agents without special ability cannot move to a site that is (or rather that is a version of) a Wizardhaven.
So if Bree will become Wizardhaven, such agents could not move to Bree.
But what if The White Towers (of FW player) in play will become [-me_rl-]? Should be such agents still not able to move to The White Towers because The White Towers is normally Wizardhaven?

If the answer is: no, they are now able to move to The White Towers,
it is because no copy of The White Towers in play is Wizardhaven and type(s) of site in play is taken into account. Normal type(s) is (are) taken into account only if no copy of the site is in play.

Of course you can consistently use other approach - normal type(s) is (are) always taken into account.
Then attack from Trouble on All Borders on Ice-orcs will always be triggered by company moving through Forohel, because there is always one site that is normally [-me_rl-] in Forohel.
And agents without special ability can never move to The White Towers (if FW player participates in play), because FW version of The White Towers is always normally a Wizardhaven.

*) Great Army of the North (as permanent-event) is another example.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Yes, I favor the second approach. But note that Nature's Revenge changes all versions of the site, even those out of play, so an agent could move there.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:59 pm But note that Nature's Revenge changes all versions of the site, even those out of play, so an agent could move there.
That breaks game conventions.

Consistently if imprisoning attack requires a playing [-me_rl-] as rescue site, the hero site card for a site that according to King under the Mountain becomes [-me_bh-], could not be played.

Convention is that until card is not in play, it is not affected by effects in play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:22 pm Consistently if imprisoning attack requires a playing [-me_rl-] as rescue site, the hero site card for a site that according to King under the Mountain becomes [-me_bh-], could not be played.
Make sure I'm following.
1) PlayerA plays King Under the Mountain affecting The Lonely Mountain (hero).
2) PlayerB plays an imprison card and chooses their The Lonely Mountain (minion), which is not affected by King Under the Mountain under CRF rules.

The rescue can happen at any version of the site, though, so I foresee no problems.

Or,
2) PlayerB wants to imprison at their The Lonely Mountain (hero), but cannot because it is no longer a Ruins & Lairs.

As it should be; they have to deal with it.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:22 pm Convention is that until card is not [sic] in play, it is not affected by effects in play.
Not sure what convention this refers to. Obviously cards in your deck/hand/sideboard can be searched for or revealed by effects in play.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

In my opinion both hero and minion versions of the Lonely Mountain are not affected by King Under the Mountain until in play.
Hero version is affected by King Under the Mountain once in play

However if someone states that Nature's Revenge affects a copies of target site (in all versions) not in play, then a consistency would require to treat a hero version of Lonely Mountain not in play as affected by King Under the Mountain. That in turn means that it cannot be played as a rescue site, if imprisoning attack requires [-me_rl-] site.
The same consistency would allow to use FW version of The White Towers as rescue site, if imprisoning attack requires [-me_rl-] site and if Nature's Revenge is on The White Towers.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Yes. As it should be, in my opinion.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:14 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:22 pm Convention is that until card is not [sic] in play, it is not affected by effects in play.
Not sure what convention this refers to. Obviously cards in your deck/hand/sideboard can be searched for or revealed by effects in play.
Thanks for "sic" (in Polish there are so many double negations in common use, so I'm sorry).
"Convention is that until card is in play, it is not affected by effects in play." is correct version.

A card may be manipulated (drawn, searched for, revealed etc.) but no element of the card is affected by effects in play until the card is in play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

The convention means, among others, that you can play under GI a character that has normally a mind 5 in company of FW player with So You've Come Back, or Palm to Palm.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I would have thought the reason those are fine is that the character cannot be in the company to be affected until after they are played.

The only other card I could think of that might be affected is Long Dark Reach. Say Doors of Night is in play and Smaug is revealed. I think Smaug should be able to be chosen for Long Dark Reach.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:32 pm The only other card I could think of that might be affected is Long Dark Reach. Say Doors of Night is in play and Smaug is revealed. I think Smaug should be able to be chosen for Long Dark Reach.
Regardless of Doors of Night. Not regardless of whether manifestation of Smaug is eliminated, or not.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”