To get you too far away

[jaded]

I repeat this question, because we didn't manage to solve this on meccg.net

TO GET YOU AWAY -Permanent-event (R)
Tap an agent at target company's new site. Agent may attack (not counting
against hazard limit) during the movement/hazard phase. Attacker chooses
defending characters. A successful strike doesn't wound the defending character,instead the character is taken prisoner at one of the agent's home sites of the attacker's choice (regardless of site's location) and the agent returns to the same site. Rescue-attack: Same race as agent - 3 strikes with 8 prowess.

How can an agent return to that site , when the site is put off to the site with the hazard host?

Second (concerning this card):
Let's say I attack with two agents at Minas Tirith. Surion attacks, so he is revealed, and I put the site card under him. Now Elwen attacks with "To get you away" - I cannot give her a site and the rules say: "If you do not have such a site in your location deck, discard the agent at the end of the current turn". I looks like it doesn't matter whether she succeedes with "TGYA" - she is discarded anyway.

[zarathustra]

I think I can handle the second question. Going to have to do a lot of pondering about the first....

1) Any restrictions listed on the hazard host must be observed (e.g., it must be a Ruins & Lairs, must have an Orc automatic-attack, etc.).
2) If the hazard host is played on a character moving with region movement, the rescue site must be a site located in a region in which the character was moving or in a region adjacent to a region in which the character was moving.
3) If the hazard host is played on a character moving with starter movement, the rescue site must be located in the region containing the site of origin or the new site.
4) If the hazard host is played on a character not moving, the rescue site must be located in the same region as the character’s site.
5) If the hazard host is played on a character moving to a new site that is an adjacent site of an Under-deeps site, the rescue site can be that Under-deeps site.
6) If a rescue site is not available within these rules, the hazard host cannot be played!
7) When removed from the play surface, rescue sites always return to the location deck.

Presumably Elwen can go to her other home site in the scenario you envision -- unless of course it's discarded or in use.

The first question is very troublesome, however. I wouldn't like to see a ruling that says you simply can never play TGYA because ICE bungled the mechanics of the card.

[jaded]

In second question I meant something else - she can take them prisoner at Dol Amroth, but at the moment of revealing I cannot give her a site, so -according to the rule I mentioned- she have to be discarded even if she finds home with the prisoners

[zarathustra]

Let me see if I understand.... Because Elwen did not have a site card when revealed, she will be discarded at the end of the current turn, even if she teleports to another of her home sites (for which you do have the card) through the use of To Get You Away. Is that the issue?

Puzzling....

Even if this is right, it still is damaging to your opponent, of course. The captured character(s) lose(s) all items/allies/perm events and ends up at an unexpected site....

[jaded]

Yes, that's the second problem I mentioned

[zarathustra]

We're discussing this problem on the NetRep board right now. I think this board is visible to all registered users.

By the way, if anyone wants to join the NetRep advisory team, there's little to no resistance. We just ask that you be (moderately to totally) competent with the rules. Getting certified as a judge is a good way to show that

Anyone?

[Jambo]

Mark,

The NetRep forum isn't visible. It was at one point, but not to me anymore.

[zarathustra]

I think it's visible now.

[Jambo]

Yep, visible now.

Interestingly, I can't see anywhere in the rules where it says that one of your face up agents can't use the same site as one of your companies whether this occurs through:

a) one of your agents moving to the same site that one of your companies is already at. Can't it also be considered as just moving to a "site in play"?

b) one of your companies moving to one of your agent's sites (rescue site included). Similarly, can't your company just be seen as moving to a "site in play"?

In otherwords the main question is why can't one of your agents share a site with one of your companies (or vice versa)? An agent isn't a character after all; it's a hazard.

[Bandobras Took]

Interesting. What would be the reason for not letting an agent use one of your sites already on the table?

[Jambo]

Interesting. What would be the reason for not letting an agent use one of your sites already on the table?

The only one I can think of is if your agent is hidden, i.e. face down.

[Bandobras Took]

The rules only mention needing a new site to move an agent -- not where the site has to come from. Perhaps they assumed a "from the location deck" was implied.

On the other hand, we can't work with implied rules.

[jaded]

Interesting. What would be the reason for not letting an agent use one of your sites already on the table?

First you have to put it on the agent, second - you have to put it back to location deck,if he moves or leaves the playing surface. What's with company in the meantime?

[Konrad Klar]

During organization phase you split company at non-haven site. Company A moves to new site, company B stays at site. At the end of A company's M/H phase you should discard/return to LD site of origin. What happens to the company B? Is it explicitly stated in rules that site of origin is not removed in such case?

[zarathustra]

I don't quite see how that question is relevant to the question at hand.... Should we split it off into a different thread?