FW Non-Haven Site

[Bandobras Took]

playable at a non-haven site

When rules and non-site cards refer to Havens and Darkhavens, they apply instead to your Wizardhavens.

Such cards for Fallen Wizards should instead be read as "at a non-Wizardhaven" site and would be playable at Hero Rivendell, Lorien, Edhellond, etc. correct?

[Konrad Klar]

Corruption. Playable on a Wizard or a Fallen-wizard. He receives 2 corruption points and makes a corruption check at the end of his untap phase if not at a Haven [ ] (or Wizardhaven). Cannot be duplicated on a given character. During his organization phase, target may tap to attempt to remove this card. Make a roll—if this result is greater than 6, discard this card.

Underline mine.

Either a mentioning of Wizardhaven is redundant or is not redundant.

(Normally) a type of site of hero Rivendell, Lórien, Edhellond, Grey Havens is .
Maybe for FW player answer for question "is hero Rivendell a Haven" is "no" and answer for question "is hero Rivendell a non-haven site" is "no" too.
And Bill the Pony may not be discarded for effect if in company at hero Rivendell.

[Bandobras Took]

That seems like an example of redundancy to remind people of the rules to me.

The question "is (x) a haven" is, I think, meaningless for Fallen Wizards. Such questions must be phrased as "is (x) a Wizardhaven."

On further consideration, I think Cast From the Order makes it clear (also Heart Grown Cold).

The Fallen‐wizardʹs player must use minion sites for Border‐holds, Free‐holds, and hero Havens

A card that specifically mentions "hero Havens" will not be understood as referring to Wizardhavens. A card that mentions just "haven" should be read as "Wizardhaven."

[Konrad Klar]

OK.
If nothing else matters then for the same reason for which Wizard's Ring may not be played by FW player at hero Rivendell* A Panoply of Wings may be played by him at hero Rivendell.

*) Unless he has Wizardhaven at hero Rivendell.

[Gamling the Old]

White Hand booklet definition.

Wizardhavens — When rules and non-site cards refer to Havens and Darkhavens, they apply instead to your Wizardhavens. The special effects of METW Havens (i.e healing, bringing characters into play, etc.) now apply to your companies at your Wizardhavens. These same effects do not apply to your companies at MELE Darkhavens and METW Havens.

So hero Rivendell is still a 'Haven' for purpose of keying creatures, etc or playing items (so No Panolopy of Wings as it can only be played at a non-haven). Only the special effects are not allowed.

[Konrad Klar]

So hero Rivendell is still a 'Haven' for purpose of keying creatures, etc or playing items (so No Panolopy of Wings as it can only be played at a non-haven). Only the special effects are not allowed.

So FW player may play Wizard's Ring at hero Rivendell?

[Gamling the Old]

was wondering about that too

Thematically if the ring is RIvendell for a normal hero to pick-up why should that change for a fallen wizard. Mind he needs to be able to go to the hero version. So overt-companies, or some cards may prevent you as you cant play at a minion-version Rivendell.

but in :

When rules and non-site cards refer to Havens and Darkhavens, they apply instead to your Wizardhavens.

and the wizard ring is a non-site card.

[Bandobras Took]

was wondering about that too

Thematically if the ring is RIvendell for a normal hero to pick-up why should that change for a fallen wizard. Mind he needs to be able to go to the hero version. So overt-companies, or some cards may prevent you as you cant play at a minion-version Rivendell.

but in :

When rules and non-site cards refer to Havens and Darkhavens, they apply instead to your Wizardhavens.

and the wizard ring is a non-site card.

So is Panoply of Wings. When Panoply of Wings says non-haven, a FW must instead read that as non-Wizardhaven.

The reason for the change is strictly mechanical -- ICE was very careful about what they wanted to be playable at a site that counted as a haven for a given alignment. That was why they issued Errata to make Palantir of Elostirion/Palantir of Orthanc worth no MPs to a FW in all cases -- they were not intended to be able to be played from the safety of a default haven.

Note that this also applies to hazards; Galadhrim, for example, can be played keyed to Lorien against a FW player, where they could not normally be so keyed against a Wizard player. Plague also would be usable against a FW company at Rivendell.

[Gamling the Old]

Hmmm or is this semantics.

a fallen wizard must read 'haven' as wizardhaven. But in panoply it says 'non-haven'. You could argue that that isnt a 'haven' under the fallen-wizard change rule.

What is more fun in this game. playing or rules...

[Bandobras Took]

Semantically, "Non-haven" by its very nature refers to a Haven, else there would be nothing to non-. Non- cannot exist in a vacuum, it requires a reference.

To labor the point, since it seems to be necessary:

When the rules and cards refer to a Wizard, they apply to your Fallen-wizard.

If we accept the above logic of non-, then

Playable on an untapped non‐Ringwraith, non‐Wizard character.

You could play such cards on a Fallen Wizard because they refer to non-Wizards, not Wizards. It's untenable. There is no realm of possibility that ICE ever intended Malady to be playable on your Fallen Wizard. Or for Abductor to discard Fallen Wizards. Or Call of Home. Even Never Refuse would suddenly start applying to Fallen Wizard cards.

It doesn't wash. Panoply can be played at Hero Rivendell by FWs because it's a non-site card that refers to a Haven. Such a reference becomes to a Wizardhaven. Just as references to Wizards become references to Fallen Wizards where necessary.