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: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

RIVER on-guard

Post by the JabberwocK »

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: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by Bandobras Took »

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: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by the JabberwocK »

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: 78
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by Sam.Gamdschie »

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: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by Bandobras Took »

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: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by the JabberwocK »

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: 1495
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by CDavis7M »

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: 3268
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by Konrad Klar »

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.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by the JabberwocK »

This submission will be included in this year's ARV.

If anyone objects to the suggested wording below, please speak up. Thank you.

{clarification}
River -
May not be revealed on-guard.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1495
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by CDavis7M »

Jabber! Jabber! What did we decide for A-O River?! Wait!


Dear Jabber,

We never decided, at least I think, what A-O River means. Forgive me, but, you know, you've forgiven me before for not getting it right. At least we had a good time.

- "King River" https://youtu.be/FtLbndaobhw?t=83

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by the JabberwocK »

Lol Chris.... that's ridiculous! Haha

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1495
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by CDavis7M »

By the way, there is an ICE statement that River cannot be revealed on-guard.
In article <33e45e9c...@news.execpc.com>, t...@t.com (Tony T.) wrote:
>title says it all; can you play River on Guard?


From the CRF on-guard section, "a card cannot be revealed that forces a company to do nothing during the site phase." So you could place the card on-guard, but you could never reveal it.

------- "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" -------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
Besides that ruling, River forces a company to "do nothing" instead of the Site Phase procedure ("follow this procedure" on MELE p. 94). However, per the On-Guard rules, River could only be revealed at Step 3) which is after the company has already decided not to "do nothing" in the site phase.
Site Phase
In the order you decide (i.e., you decide which of your companies goes first, second, etc.), each of your companies may:
• do nothing or
• follow this procedure:
1) Enter its site.
2) If the site has an automatic-attack, it attacks the company...
3) If the site is untapped, a character in the company may attempt to play an item, ally, or faction that is "playable" at that site...
4) Standard Rules Only: One of your characters or your Ringwraith may attempt to influence away one of your opponent's characters, followers, allies, factions, or items...
This was also mentioned in the linked thread by Brandobras.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1495
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: RIVER on-guard

Post by CDavis7M »

ICE Netrep wrote: >I have a question about on guard cards, not too unlike New Moon, I have
>a party of 4 and we are going to Withered Heath. I make it to the site
>with all chars untapped so I tap Beorn to face the strike, I also tap
>Gildor and Beretar to Assist. They beat the strike, and my only
>untapped character is Galadriel, can my opponent choose now to reveal a
>"River" as an on guard, and if so must he do it in response to me
>beating the strikes or in response to me playing an item?


First of all, River cannot be revealed on-guard. Second, events that
are revealed on-guard that do not affect the automatic attacks, must
be revealed in response to the company playing a card keyed to that
site, like an item or faction.

------ "The Crossing-guard of Mordor" ------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net Me:CCG Official Netrep
Founder "Team Ichabod" Undefeated on the Pro-Tour
-----Self Proclaimed Most Mediocre Player in the World-----

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”