Army and Paths of the Dead

[Bandobras Took]

Is that ruling specific to Paths of the Dead, or does it apply to such cards as Eagle-Mounts, Great Road, etc.?

[miguel]

Specific to Paths of the Dead.

[Bandobras Took]

Cool, thanks.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Using Special Movement as a catch-all term for all forms of movement deviating from the normal, it's all very nice but rather pointless if it is not defined what Special Movement amounts to. In the URD you do this, but that is not necessarily in accord with rulings. So each card has been/must be ruled separately. That's bad for clarity, but good for thematic variation perhaps. After all, Eagle-mounts is not the same movement as Paths of the Dead.

Even so the ruling is not clear. It simply states that the assumptions from the question are correct, but not to which extend these assumptions can be taken. So again I ask, if Paths does not state there is no site path, why not assume the regular site path from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech? Not logical if you've read the book, but let's play devil's advocate.

@Army of the Dead. Interesting point, there is no influence check, so no influence attempt, seems reasonable. But then, Aragorn might simply play Army the Dead perhaps and opponent must discard his copy? (yes I know it leaves us with a myriad of other troubles).

[Bandobras Took]

So again I ask, if Paths does not state there is no site path, why not assume the regular site path from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech?

Because there is no such thing as a regular site path.

Region movement does not equal regular.

Region movement is the most common form of movement among experienced players, but that does not mean it is the default form of movement in the game.

I point out again that it is perfectly legal to use Paths of the Dead with the Starter Rules, where region movement is impossible -- and thus region movement cannot be the regular site path.

Actually, the ruling on Paths of the Dead is more consistent with treating the movement as Starter movement, but using Dunharrow instead of a Haven.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

ok, point taken, starter-movement, worst thing ever invented (along with region cards).

Anyway, still doesn't solve the problem. If it would be like starter movement, in this case, would Alone and Unadvised trigger for 2 regions? the ruling says correct to this. The problem is that for each card deviating from the normal the extends must be defined, that's a bummer.

Apparently you missed the one for Paths in the big fog that is netrep digests, so what about Eagle-mounts? no site path, or like starter-movement (first and last region)?

[Bandobras Took]

Personally, I disagree with the ruling; I subscribe to the "if it isn't there, it isn't there" philosophy.

Apparently you missed the one for Paths in the big fog that is netrep digests, so what about Eagle-mounts? no site path, or like starter-movement (first and last region)?

Better tell Mikko.

I presume the logic behind this ruling is that each card of this type is, by definition, a special case. Therefore, rulings which apply to Paths of the Dead only apply to the specific movement created by Paths of the Dead, and would not apply to the specific movement created by, say, Eagle-Mounts.

[miguel]

@Eric: The ruling seems clear enough to me, it says the things presented in the question are correct. If some were and others not, they would have been specified.

Could the matter have been ruled on differently? Certainly, but that is the ruling we currently have.