Desire All for Thy Belly (clarification)

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Desire All for Thy Belly (clarification)

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:31 pm

Proposed regulation:

"Player cannot opt to remove from game a card that represents a previously discarded in the same turn a site of origin of one of its companies."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Desire All for Thy Belly (clarification)

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:44 am

I don't understand.

The cards are taken from the top of opponent's play deck. So how is a site of origin previously discarded in same turn on the top of the play deck?

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Desire All for Thy Belly (clarification)

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:08 am

Okay, I just read your other topic (Aware of Their Ways) and see your intent....

Player A exhausts his play deck and reshuffles, after which Player B plays Desire All for Thy Belly and chooses same site of origin (Wondrous Maps, etc.), after which Player A must return same company to site of origin. I wonder if this has ever happened in an actual game, haha!

My reply here would be the same as stated in the Aware of Their Ways topic... the necessity is dependent on interpretation of another rule and it should first be determined the result of that ballot item.

(Aside, assuming Option #2 of When a Company is At a Site were adopted, I still personally think I would rather not see this proposal pass. Why not let the hazard player decide the merits of playing Aware of Their Ways/Desire All for Thy Belly when it could potentially have such an effect, and if hazard player chooses to play one of these cards and chooses an available Wondrous Maps, etc. that was a company site of origin, then that company may not legally be returned to site of origin that turn and any such effect would fizzle.)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Desire All for Thy Belly (clarification)

Post by Theo » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:26 am

the Jabberwock wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:08 am
...then that company may not legally be returned to site of origin that turn and any such effect would fizzle.
Who says? Sometimes it is bad company composition that forces a return to site of origin. Which disallowed state takes precedence?
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 family of busy dwarves with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make---or one online community. Cautious skill!

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Desire All for Thy Belly (clarification)

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:28 am

Theo wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:26 am
Who says? Sometimes it is bad company composition that forces a return to site of origin. Which disallowed state takes precedence?
Fair enough. Nonetheless, my thoughts are the same as posted in the Aware of Their Ways topic. The odds of this happening are so slim that I have a hard time thinking it is worth asking the community to vote on.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”