RIVER on-guard

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1130
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

RIVER on-guard

Post by the Jabberwock » Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:39 pm

I propose the following clarification be issued for River:
River -
May not be revealed on-guard.
Full discussion and reasoning can be found here: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... =16&t=3237

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2838
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:53 pm

If there's any confusion, sure. However, you can't reveal a card that forces a company to do nothing during the site phase, anyway.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1130
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by the Jabberwock » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:55 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:If there's any confusion, sure. However, you can't reveal a card that forces a company to do nothing during the site phase, anyway.
The argument made in the reference topic is that River only “potentially” forces a company to do nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Sam.Gamdschie
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by Sam.Gamdschie » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:38 pm

the Jabberwock wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:55 pm
The argument made in the reference topic is that River only “potentially” forces a company to do nothing.
So you could play that on-guard if the company contains an untapped ranger (because then - and only then - it would be possible to tap a ranger to prevent the effect of doing nothing in the site phase)?
-> Please let us issue the clarification!
Co-founder of the Hamburg Scenarios and Former Slave of Lure's Price Ceremonies

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2838
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:26 pm

With the idea that since only one of the conditions says "potentially," the others get a free pass? :)

In that case, reveal it all you want: as soon as it actually forces a company to do nothing in the site phase, it was illegal to have revealed it. :)

(And, as I mentioned in the other thread, too late, besides.)

There's likely enough people that would argue to make the clarification a good idea.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1130
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:51 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:26 pm
There's likely enough people that would argue to make the clarification a good idea.
Exactly my thoughts.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:07 pm

What does "potentially" mean?

I would say that River DOES (not "potentially") force a company to do nothing during its site phase. The only "potential" is that the resource-player may potentially cancel this effect by tapping a ranger.

The word "potentially" comes from the language in the CRF: you cannot play on-guard effects that "potentially removes a character from a company, besides combat or corruption checks." I would say that "potentially" here means "potentially based on dice rolling" as in the cases of Call of Home and Call of the Sea.

Also, there is no reason to assume that use of "potentially" for one cases requires the other cases to "actually" vs "potentially" have effect. Still as I said above, I think that River actually has an effect and there is only potential to cancel it.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2572
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:23 pm

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:07 pm
I would say that River DOES (not "potentially") force a company to do nothing during its site phase. The only "potential" is that the resource-player may potentially cancel this effect by tapping a ranger.
River's potential is reduced by "potential" that the resource-player may cancel this effect by tapping a ranger.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”