Council of Elrond

CRF, Sites wrote:A permanent-event played on a site affects only the copy of the site it is played on, unless otherwise specified. A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions of affected sites.

Obviously, then, Wizard's Trove+White Tree would protect all copies of Isengard, but what about Fortress?

Fortress of Isen wrote:Unique. May not be a starting stage card. Playable if you are Alatar, Pallando, or Saruman. Playable on Isengard. Isengard is protected. Other Fallen-wizards may not use the Wizardhaven card for Isengard. Cards that give marshalling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases.

Does this constitute an "otherwise specified?" Clearly the last phrase affects all copies of Isengard, but what about the phrase, "Isengard is protected"? I ask because:

Saruman's Machinery wrote:Saruman specific. Playable, if you are Saruman, on your protected Isengard or your protected The White Towers. One Technology item is playable at the site during your site phase whether the site is tapped or untapped. Discard when this site is discarded or returned to your location deck. Cannot be duplicated on a given site.

It is clear that Saruman's Machinery only affects the copy of the site it is played on. But is the same the case with Fortress of Isen?

I'm under impression that it was discussed somwhere else...

I would say:
If ICE wrote what they exactly want to wrote, then phrase "Isengard is protected." affects all copies of Isengard. Isengard is referred in the same way as Bag End is referred by News of the Shire (i.e. by name, not by "the site", or "this site").

However phrase "Cards that give marshalling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases." is example of opposite situation (ICE don't wrote what they exactly want to wrote).
Cards are just playable, or just not playable, they cannot be playable by one and not playable by other. At the best cards can be played by one and cannot be played by other.

CRF, Rulings by Term, Wizardhaven wrote:If you are influencing against your opponent, and he is at a Wizardhaven where you
can not play cards that give MPs, you can reveal the card you are influencing against to reduce the number you roll against to 0, but you may not play that card afterwards (if it gives MPs).

As I understand this texts refers to the Fortress of Towers or The Fortress of Isen. May characters be considered as "playable at site"?

On the other hand, News of the Shire is not played on Bag End.

Regarding "playable at":

BRINGING CHARACTERS INTO PLAY

· If the character is not an agent, you may only play him at his home site or at any Darkhaven site. If the character is an agent, you may only play him at his home site.
· If your Ringwraith is in play, your Ringwraith (or a character with enough direct influence to control the character to be played) must be at the site at which the character is to be played.

Clearly characters are playable at sites, and a certain card may be playable by one player and not the other (e.g. Grimburgoth is playable at a Minas Morgul if you have a company with Open to the Summons, not playable if you don't), but this should not be confused with the "Playable" list used on site cards.

Cards are just playable, or just not playable, they cannot be playable by one and not playable by other. At the best cards can be played by one and cannot be played by other.

There seems to be absolutely no justification whatsoever for that statement.

At any rate, I'm inclined to agree that Fortress of Isen protects all copies of Isengard, but it's by no means a clear thing.

There seems to be absolutely no justification whatsoever for that statement.

Take Come at Need as example. It may be played with Gollum.
Gollum is playced off to the side, so it counts as being in play for purpose of uniquess.
So neither Gollum nor Stinker may be played at Moria, Goblin-Gate, or Mount Doom by any player. Does it mean that Gollum is not playable at Moria, Goblin-Gate, or Mount Doom?
If so when and where the attack from Come at Need takes place?

Is there no difference between "(not) playable" and "may (not) be played"?

I'm not contesting that distinction.

I'm contesting the statement that cards cannot be playable by one and not another.

Playable at one of your protected Wizardhavens (if tapped or untapped) if you have A Strident Spawn in play and if the influence check is greater than 9.

Depending on who has Strident Spawn in play, Half-Orcs will be playable for one and not for the other.

To return to the original question, I'm now thinking no. There are several cards in the Balrog set which state "all versions of the site" etc.

Fortress lacks this phrase, so it's safe to assume that the protected phrase only applies to the site card it's played on.

Depending on who has Strident Spawn in play, Half-Orcs will be playable for one and not for the other.

This interpretation is result of this assumption:

I'm not contesting that distinction.

I'm contesting the statement that cards cannot be playable by one and not another.

How about Beornings?
"Playable at Beorn's House if the influence check is greater than 7."
Does it mean that before roll is made Beornings are not playable (and how to make influence attempt against them if they are not playable at this moment)?

How to explain phrase "Playable by a non-Ringwraith character at The Under-Gates" (The Balrog - ally)?
Ringwraith cannot move to The Under-Gates. Ok, he may be imprisoned in The Under-Gates, during movement to adjecent site (and "rescued" by Voices of Malice). Was phrase "by a non-Ringwraith character" added for such occasion?

My assumption is different. Phrases "playable" and "may be played" have identical common sense, similarly "remove from play" and "remove from game". For this reason sometimes they are used interchangeably.
And it is problem, because technically they are different terms.

Strider is removed from game (by its correct text), not from play, because otherwise we will have two manifestation of Strider - one in active play, second in Out-Of-Play pile.
However according to the Balrog Rules a manifestation of Balrog owned by Balrog player's opponent may be removed from play, not from game. Effectivelly preventing Balrog player from playing its avatar (if it would be correct).
For some reasons Dragon Rules says:
"If you defeat a Dragon manifestation that you played, it is
removed from the game and no one receives its marshalling points."
and
"• All existing manifestations in play of the same Dragon are removed from the game."

Sorry for this divagation about "from play"/"from play" problem. It was to illustrate of wider problem of wording. Where two terms that have identical common sense but different technical meaning are used interchangeably.

According to the assumption I'm taken "even if it may be played only by one, it is still playable generally":
Beorning are playable at Beorn's House and are successfully played if the influence check is greater than 7.
Half-Orcs are playable at protected Wizardhaven. May be played at tapped or untapped site if player has A Strident Spawn in play (please note "tapped or untapped" - you can influence an opponent's faction at the site where the faction is playable. Tapped status of site does not make the faction not playable even if it has not "if tapped or untapped" phrase in its text).
The Balrog is playable at The Under-Gates. May not be played by Rigwraith (please note that allies may also be played by Ringwraith oustside site where they are playable - as result of successful influence attempt).

Konrad Klar wrote:

Depending on who has Strident Spawn in play, Half-Orcs will be playable for one and not for the other.

This interpretation is result of this assumption:

I'm not contesting that distinction.

I'm contesting the statement that cards cannot be playable by one and not another.

How about Beornings?
"Playable at Beorn's House if the influence check is greater than 7."
Does it mean that before roll is made Beornings are not playable (and how to make influence attempt against them if they are not playable at this moment)?

Correct. The faction is not playable unless the conditions to make them playable are met. Thus Long Grievous Siege.

Return any faction playable at the Border-hold to its owner's hand. -5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the Border-hold. All versions of the Border-hold gain an additional automatic-attack: same type as your target faction 5 strikes with 9 prowess (detainment against your companies). Cannot be duplicated on your faction.

The faction only became playable when somebody at the site tapped to make an influence attempt and the influence attempt was successful. Nowhere do the rules say that the faction is played before the influence attempt. Upon failure to successfully influence the faction, it is discarded -- but from your hand, not from play.

How to explain phrase "Playable by a non-Ringwraith character at The Under-Gates" (The Balrog - ally)?

You summed it up very well.

Strider is removed from game (by its correct text), not from play, because otherwise we will have two manifestation of Strider - one in active play, second in Out-Of-Play pile.

However according to the Balrog Rules a manifestation of Balrog owned by Balrog player's opponent may be removed from play, not from game. Effectivelly preventing Balrog player from playing its avatar (if it would be correct).

Not noticeably accurate:

MELE wrote:Out-of-play Pile - Your cards that are removed from play after being used and that do not award marshalling points are placed in your out-of-play pile.

Cards that are removed from play without being used do not necessarily go the out-of-play pile.

Beornings are playable at Beorn's House and are successfully played if the influence check is greater than 7.

No, Beornings are playable at Beorn's House only if the influence check is greater than 7. Otherwise, they are not playable yet.

Half-Orcs are playable at protected Wizardhaven. May be played at tapped or untapped site if player has A Strident Spawn in play (please note "tapped or untapped" - you can influence an opponent's faction at the site where the faction is playable. Tapped status of site does not make the faction not playable even if it has not "if tapped or untapped" phrase in its text).

No, they are playable if you have a Strident Spawn in play and not playable if you do not.

MELE Influencing A Faction wrote:Revealing an identical faction card reduces the value usually required to bring the faction into play to zero and allows you to play that card if the influence check is successful.
You may only influence an opponent's factions if the influencing character is at the site where the faction was played.

Rules for influencing an opponent's faction follow their own rules and cannot be taken as a general case any more than rules for influencing your opponent's character can be taken as general rules for playing a character.

The Balrog is playable at The Under-Gates. May not be played by Ringwraith (please note that allies may also be played by Ringwraith outside site where they are playable - as result of successful influence attempt).

No, the Balrog ally is only playable by a non-RW character at the Under-gates.

Influencing an opponent's resources follow their own special rules. A Ringwraith could successfully influence the Balrog ally away from an opponent and play it because influence rules ignore playability clauses on the resource in question in every single instance.

Influencing an opponent's resources follow their own special rules. A Ringwraith could successfully influence the Balrog ally away from an opponent and play it because influence rules ignore playability clauses on the resource in question in every single instance.

I was wondering long time about meaning of "Playable by a non-Ringwraith character at The Under-Gates" in The Balrog text. So according to you it is included only for that special case when is Ringwraith imprisoned at The Under-Gates and later imprisoning host card is discarded by e.g. Voices of Malices? Right?
(my conclusion was that it is only to prevent situation where Ringwraith has influenced The Balrog under control and is immune to dangerous roll in organization phase due to lack of mind parameter).

Correct. The faction is not playable unless the conditions to make them playable are met.

If high enough result of influence check is one of these conditions how Hour of Need works? HoN refers to the site where faction is normally playable. Must be this faction already played by opponent? Or HoN follow their own special rules too?

MELE Influencing A Faction wrote:
Revealing an identical faction card reduces the value usually required to bring the faction into play to zero and allows you to play that card if the influence check is successful.
You may only influence an opponent's factions if the influencing character is at the site where the faction was played.

It seems that I have different version of MELE rulebook (checked both printed and HTML versions)!

Influencing an Opponent's Faction

To influence an opponent's faction, you must make an influence check as outlined above. However, the following exceptions apply:

* Instead of a mind attribute, the influence check uses the value required to bring the faction into play (as given on the faction's card).
* The influence check is modified by any of the faction's applicable modifications (as given on the faction's card).
* Revealing an identical faction card reduces the value required to bring the faction into play to zero and allows you to play that card if the influence check is successful.

You may only influence an opponent's faction if the influencing character is at one of the sites where the faction is playable.

Underline mine.

I completelly forgot Strider and Mistress Lobelia.
The same question as for Hour of Need: which factions in playdeck/discard pile are playable at Strider's Mistress Lobelia current site?

The site where a faction/ally is playable is listed on the card. When an effect makes reference to the site where the faction/ally is playable, it makes reference to just that phrase. However, the site is not necessarily the only condition to make something playable as listed on the card.

It seems that I have different version of MELE rulebook (checked both printed and HTML versions)!

Indeed. Check the PDFs of the official rules on the CoE website. Specifically, page 38 of the MELE Rules PDF.

So according to you it is included only for that special case when is Ringwraith imprisoned at The Under-Gates and later imprisoning host card is discarded by e.g. Voices of Malices? Right?

Or ICE might have intended to add RW under-deeps movement, but the idea was scrapped.

Again, there's no indication anywhere that cards must be unilaterally playable. Cards can be playable for one player and not for another, depending on the rules and play of other cards.

Indeed. Check the PDFs of the official rules on the CoE website. Specifically, page 38 of the MELE Rules PDF.

Indeed. It contains text quoted by you.
It is curious, because it would mean that Snaga-hai played at Moria cannot be influenced at Goblin-gate and vice-versa. Strange - what happens if Snaga-hai was played at Cameth Brin changed to (Nature's Revange + Chocking Shadows) and in next turn Nature's Revange is discarded. Must be Cameth Brin again converted to to influence this faction?

The site where a faction/ally is playable is listed on the card. When an effect makes reference to the site where the faction/ally is playable, it makes reference to just that phrase. However, the site is not necessarily the only condition to make something playable as listed on the card.

So again fact that faction is playable at site does not mean necessarily that it is playable at all? E.g. Strider may tap at Bree to retrieve Rangers of North (the faction card text says it is playable at Bree if the influence check is greater than 9), but it does not mean that Rangers of North are playable at Bree before roll is made?

You are somehow flexible in this case:
"When an effect makes reference to the site where the faction/ally is playable, it makes reference to just that phrase.".
You are however not so flexible in case The Balrog, or Half-Orcs, or Beorings (if it is written "is playable" it must be read "playable" and cannot be read "played" in any case).
This is good that you are matching theory to facts (not vice versa).
(But it usualy happens only if theory cannot longer to bear burden of facts ).
Maybe after some polishing of theory we were at the same side.

At least in question of practical implications of word "playable" for purpose Strider or similar effects we are accordant (we are currently not accordant in question of justification).

My main concern are just practical implications of some interpretation.
Examples of Strider, Long Grievous Siege, Sentinels of Numenor etc. shows the meaning of "playable" is not limited to the act of playing of card.

There are two different conditions:

Site where faction was played -- site type/playability of faction does not matter. This is for use in your character influencing opponent's resources.

Site where faction is playable -- this is for use by agents. Site type/playable at clauses apply here.

So one of your companies could influence the Snaga-Hai played in the example if they moved to Cameth Brin, or your agent could influence them at Goblin-Gate. But the reverse is not true -- the Agent could not influence them at Cameth Brin nor could one of your companies influence them at Goblin-Gate.

So again fact that faction is playable at site does not mean necessarily that it is playable at all? E.g. Strider may tap at Bree to retrieve Rangers of North (the faction card text says it is playable at Bree if the influence check is greater than 9), but it does not mean that Rangers of North are playable at Bree before roll is made?

Yes. Multiple conditions can make a card playable.

Unique. Only playable if The One Ring and Gollum are both at Mount Doom during the site phase.

In this case, both the One Ring and Gollum must both be at Mount Doom for the card to be playable.

You are somehow flexible in this case:
"When an effect makes reference to the site where the faction/ally is playable, it makes reference to just that phrase.".
You are however not so flexible in case The Balrog, or Half-Orcs, or Beorings (if it is written "is playable" it must be read "playable" and cannot be read "played" in any case).
This is good that you are matching theory to facts (not vice versa).
(But it usualy happens only if theory cannot longer to bear burden of facts Sad ).
Maybe after some polishing of theory we were at the same side.

"The site where the faction is playable" asks which site the card references -- it does not ask whether the faction is actually playable. It is a more compressed version of "BRINGING A FACTION INTO PLAY
In order to play a faction card, you must tap one of your characters that is at the "site" indicated on the faction's card." But is more prone to misinterpretation for that reason.

It is a more compressed version of "BRINGING A FACTION INTO PLAY

In order to play a faction card, you must tap one of your characters that is at the "site" indicated on the faction's card." But is more prone to misinterpretation for that reason.

I may agree with one thing. Most of the texts discussed here are just COMPRESSED.

Further is my opinion (you probably may disagree here).
ICE archiver compresses "playable" with "may be played" together. But it is more prone to misinterpretation for that reason (during decompression) - to paraphrase you.

Unique. Only playable if The One Ring and Gollum are both at Mount Doom during the site phase.

If to would happen only in case of events or creatures it would not be any problem. No effect in game refer to the events playability. For creatures only for determining that creature may be immediatelly played or not.

Some other things that may be interesting for your interpretation:

Minion Bag End. Greater items are playable there, but only in hero version. Fallen Wizard's companies cannot play hero resourses that normally would tap a site at minion site. Are that items not playable for Fallen Wizard? Cannot Mistress Lobelia retrieve hero greater items if at this site?

Bounty of The Hoard. It allows for playing minor or major item for company at tapped site that contains hoard. Is that item considered playable after playing of Bounty? Can (again) Lobelia (under control of Fallen Radagast) retrieve such item at Wizardhaven in Framsburg?
No? Then we have another example that "playable" and "may be played" are separate things (of course you may say that item is playable at the short moment - only at resolution of Bounty, but practically it is no difference).

Of course playable and may be played are separate things.

I'm just saying that a given card can be prevented from being playable for a specific person and/or may not be able to be played.

Site cards make things playable as written on them.

White Hand rules disallow play of item with conflicting Alignment.

Therefore, Mistress Lobelia could search for a Hero Greater Item at Minion Bag End. However, it could not be played there. WH rules reference only playing the item, not the playability of the item.