Bridge

[dirhaval]

Dumb question. I searched for this card's name to find an answer; no luck.
I did read about the topic of Let it DQ, World Gnawed...

BRIDGE - Short-event (U)
Playable at the end of the movement/hazard phase on a company that moved to a Haven. That company may move to an additional site on the same turn. Another site card may be played and a movement/hazard phase immediately follows for that company.

When you play a resource that allows a second movement phase, do you have to move?
Bridge, to me, is specific unless you can move to a different copy of the same haven.
But for other cards like Master of Esgaroth.

Can you take such a movement/hazard phase without "moving" to a different site?
Sorry if already in a ruling.

[Bandobras Took]

As I read it, moving is optional, but the addition m/h phase is it not. Playing bridge will allow the hazard player another chance at playing hazards with a full hazard limit whether you move or not.

[dirhaval]

Thank you.

[Konrad Klar]

As I read it, moving is optional, but the addition m/h phase is it not. Playing bridge will allow the hazard player another chance at playing hazards with a full hazard limit whether you move or not.

If I understand you, you read:
"That company may move to an additional site on the same turn."
and
"Another site card may be played and a movement/hazard phase immediately follows for that company. "

as two independent actions.
Right?

But even if it could be read in such way, the second phrase says about playing another site card, that does not happen for non-moving company.

P.S.
To complicate things more a playing of a new site card does not happen for company moving to site already on table, too.

[Bandobras Took]

Close. Moving and playing a site card are stated as things a company "may" do, which suggest to me they are optional. The phrase ". . . and a movement/hazard phase immediately follows for that company." lacks the "may," so I read it as a separate effect which takes place regardless of whether a player has exercised the options of moving his company and/or playing a new site card.

[Konrad Klar]

What is your opinion about/reading method of cards like Belegaer, Forod, Harad, Eagle-Moutnts, Gwaihir, Paths of Dead?

Texts of three first starts with phrase "Playable during organization phase on a company moving without region cards.".
May a company opt to move with starter movement, under-deep movement, or with method described on these cards and regardles of choice have a hazard limit decreased and path altered?

I was always reading that "may" as only possible options that company may take if use these cards. (Yes, I do not believe that company that starts at Dunharrow may move to other site than Vale of Erech, or do not move, and do not have Aragorn II if it use Paths of Dead)).

I must admit that your method of reading a text of the Bridge is consistent with official interpretation of Paths of Dead.
So thanks for calling attention to that nonsense.

Playable during organization phase on a company moving without region cards. Company may move from a site of origin in one of the following regions: Lindon, Elven Shores, Eriadoran Coast, Andrast Coast, Bay of Belfalas, Mouths of the Anduin, Enedhwaith, Old Pûkel-land, Andrast, Anfalas, Belfalas, Lebennin, and Harondor. The site path is [c] [c] [c] and the hazard limit is decreased by two to a minimum of two.

[Bandobras Took]

I believe the intent of Belegaer was that the site path/HL sentence was intended to be conditional on the company using the special movement in question. Of course, it's not written that way, which I find just as ridiculous, but there it is. Nice find.

[Konrad Klar]

(Almost) all cards/effects that allows a company for special movement or additional M/H phase leave the same room for interpretation.

Possibilities they create may be read as:
- only options that company may take if it use that card/effect,
- additional options that company may take, or may not take. Correct method for all (most?) other cards.

Second method leads to some thematical nonsenses (and technical phenomenons, like company's site path in under-deep movement).

I think that problem is not invention of players, who want effects of a card for something different than it for which the card was created.
Problem is that ICE authors was writing texts of cards in context of their (authors, not cards) thoughts. With silent (so not written) assumption that other options than that presented on card will not be considered.

Because there is single pattern used by whole group of card the problem could be solved by single errata/ruling. But it is not necessary. on route between Grey Havens and Blue Mountain Dwarf-Hold does not hurt.

EDIT:
Replaced "minds" with "thoughts".